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

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others

Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below." (Referencing this by Legacypac), "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it.") Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source" I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much. I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since. Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content. Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations. This is becoming extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [1] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[2][3][4] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ... I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.

One example alternate term: "Wilson-Raybould scandal", 75,800 hits

"LavScam", 71,500 hits

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", "PMO scandal", "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots). Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun—in fact, two thirds of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ("Lavscam": 4940 hits, '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits). To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source. I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

"I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin. Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [5] [6][7][8][9]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[10][11][12] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [13], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the {{Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)

We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).

Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[14][15][16] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.

So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.

Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:

DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."

CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."

DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."

CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that"

DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)

CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."

DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)

Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":

CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader."

Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose against its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan has continued today with the exact some behaviour on the exact same subject:

DK: "Curly Turkey, has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above."

Continuing to make this claim even after I've highlighted it here suggests strongly it is a deliberate provocation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? You said and I quote LavScam should appear in the lede "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair — per WP:WEIGHT... The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally - or more - used terms". You are clearly referring to the possible use of other terms (admittedly you then dismiss your own suggestion). BUT saying you never proposed it now is nothing but an outright lie. You are being dishonest and disruptive and need to be put down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Call them lies all you want—the diffs and quotes are right here for everyone to see. You've also quoted me out of context (and without a diff)—here's the diff and the parts of the quote you left out: "Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out." As I stated above, I later ammended this to "No—after doing further research and discovering "LAvScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of available sources—and that two thirds of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT." At no point did I ever "propose" including such a list, and you've provided no evidence to suggest I have. You have provided your own evidence of how you misrepresent my statements, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What part of this do you not get? You "proposed" as in "suggested" as in "said" other terms should be used in the article to balance weight. Then you said, you thought there would be too many terms, so you didn't want to try. Then we argued about what terms you even ever suggested. You are always talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have a problem man.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have "proposed", "suggested", and "said" explicitly that no such list should be included in the lead, from my first comment on the subject to the last; I've demonstrated so with diffs here, and you've provided none to contradict them. Thank you for demonstrating more WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mehr WP:IDHT and now clear attempts to wikilawyer your way out of this. Do you deny that you originally said that you opposed the inclusion of the term LavScam unless other terms were used? Do you deny that you were attempting to create the inclusion of "other" terms as a precondition? Do you deny that you then said your preference was for no additional terms (despite trying to create that as a precondition)? And then do you deny refusing to spell out exactly which terms you thought ought to be included to satisfy your precondition? Do you deny refusing to offer any reliable sources on that question (google screen shots don't count)? I get it; you later changed your story to object because based on no evidence you think the term is used in few articles. You take this position ignoring the numerous reliable souces (from a diverse mix of news agencies) listed on the talk page which refer to the scandal as LavScam. Do you really not see why I (and others) have formed the view you are not acting in good faith and are attempting to disrupt the article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

"based on no evidence"—I've provided the evidence multiple times on this very page: first in my initial statement, and here again today. You've seen these figures more than once at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, too. I've responded to all of the rest of your comment repeatedly, and have provided diffs to back up my statements. Are you trying to build a case against yourself with this WP:IDHT? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should have responded to this before but frankly I was feeling a little unheard. SWL36 explained to you why google searches are not evidence here. I explained that we were looking for reliable sources here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When the ratio is greater than 100:1, comparisons of google hits are taken very seriously—we even have this at WP:COMMONNAME: "generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". And of course I provided News results, not web results.

You very carefully avoid responding to the question of how a term that appears in less than 1% of newssources is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and what would a violation of WP:WEIGHT be if that's not already the threshold? I fully expect you will not hear the question—or will respond with "but CNN!". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My response is that 1) Using Google Searches in this way is problematic for the reasons SWL36 explained. 2) I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term. This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun and using terms like "SNC-Lavalin controversy" or "Lavalin scandal" which will catch other scandals SNC-Lavalin is involved in besides this one. There have been many others besides this one affair; none of those are known as LavScam. Others have pointed out to you before the problems caused by comparing the unique term "LavScam" and less unique terms. 3) The results have changed since you did this tally. It looks more like 8% on my math now (not that that is the defining issue). 4) While we rely on reliable sources, news articles are not the only form of reliable sources. Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public. While we need to avoid WP:OR, we should not ignore the fact that use of a term in other spheres is relevant to whether it is a WP:COMMONNAME. You were provided this WP:RS concerning the prevalence of the term on Twitter. 5) MOS:LEADALT 6) CNN! 7) Washington Post 8) The many other sources listed on the talk page here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term."—the onus is on you to provide counterevidence.

"This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun"—no, the results include the Toronto Sun. Are you saying you haven't actually clicked through the links?

"It looks more like 8% on my math now"—No search I do returns anything like it. The links above certainly don't. Where's the evidence? And how would 8% satisfy WEIGHT regardless?

"Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public."—neither do your "gut feelings".

"6) CNN!"—the same WP:IDHT as predicted. WP:WEIGHT makes no exception for CNN, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"The many other sources listed"—the same IDHT. List as many sources as you like, it doesn't change the fact that it's a fringe term used by a very small minority of sources, thus highlighting it is in violation of WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to dignify much of that with any response because you are not hearing any part of what I have said except for what you have chosen to quote, while ignoring the rest. Others can read the rest for themselves. I will say, I certainly clicked on the links and I note that you provided this link while noting "only 1,650 for "Lavscam" -torontosun.com" concerning this 1% calculation of yours.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Those were not the links provided to support the "fraction of 1%" stat; they were to support the "2/3 of sources that use 'LavScam'" stat. Please demonstrate good faith now by acknowledging your error. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, if I am mistaken on that I apologize BUT I don't think I am. You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers, BUT you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for "LavScam". You have cited so many Google searches it is hard to keep track. I assume you mean to say this comment is where your "one percent" number comes from. There you use similar search terms which catch unrelated materials, specifically trudeau lavalin vs. trudeau lavalin -lavscam. These search terms again create a false narrative because they will get numerous hits unrelated to the 2019 scandal. SNC-Lavalin is a company which has been around for more than 100 years. It was around when Trudeau Sr. was PM and then leader of the opposition and then PM again (leading to many possible erroneous hits). A quick review of SNC-Lavalin shows that they have been in many legal disputes and bribery scandals (some of which occurred while Trudeau Jr. was an opposition leader. A lot has been written about those which would lead to false positives. But I digress, you have been told about problems with your choice of search terms before.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers"---that's right.

"you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for 'LavScam'"—not "few"—I gave numbers in the thousands. The evidence shows that there are thousands of sources that use the term "LavScam" (primarily the Toronto Sun), but that there are hundreds of thousands that don't. There are undoubtedly "false positives", but we'd need evidence they are statistically significant. "'pierre trudeau' lavalin -justin" gets us 376 hits—a rounding error. Even with your "CNN" example, "LavScam" appears in a single article out of the six CNN has published on the affair; with the WaPo it appears in 6 out of 148. What about these "false positives"? We have strong evidence that "Lavscam" appears in a small minority of sources, and no evidence that it appears in a significant percentage. In fact, look at this: "Lavscam" set to pre-February 2019. Look at how many pages of "false positives" we get for "LavScam" before the controversy was even born! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This part of the thread is simply becoming a discussion of content and doesn't belong here. I am mindful of The Blade of the Northern Lights complaint about length of this ANI below. If you want to continue to belabour the point, I invite you to raise it on the talk page so we can disagree there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI -- I have restored this matter as Safrolic did previously, as this matter is not yet resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Curly turkey still not listening and still agenda pushing. The RFC on LavScam strongly supports inclusion which shows how Curly is out to lunch on this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've demonstrated Legacypac's right-wing agenda (with diffs) above—Legacypac can't even name whatever agenda it is I'm supposed to be pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More evidence of Legacypac POV-pushing and denying evidence—denying the very existence of evidence: "The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence." I've already provided the evidence both here and multiple times on that talk page, but here it is again: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. Two-thirds of hits for "LavScam" are from torontosun.com 4940 "Lavscam" vs only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

How many times is Legacypac going to accuse me of having an "agenda" in one day?: "Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted."

Again—what "agenda"? Why can't Legacypac name it, or provide diffs to support it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for (some sort of) closure

This thread seems to have been "live" for quite some time, with little or no admin input (apologies if I've missed it). Please can someone review in the next 24-48 hrs and close/action as needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that Curly's piece about LegacyPac may be irrelevant now that he's been indef'd for unrelated personal attacks. My piece is still active though, and I'd really appreciate someone else stepping in. Safrolic (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac may have been the worst and most blatant offender, but a heaping helping of the rest of the evidence I've provided relates to other users' disruptive behaviour and sourcing policy violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Safrolic. Things have not improved. Curly is disruptive and action is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, what I see is two editors at the top of this thread making rather hand-wavy, generalized accusations of "disruption" with very little diff support (which mostly shows irritation, and I think we're all clear that CT is toward the curmudgeonly side – I am too, so that's not much of a criticism). On the other hand, CT has laid out an extensively diffed case that a bunch of rather recent arrivals are skirting WP:CCPOL to engage in a WP:CIVILPOV pattern, a view supported by other editors with similar concerns. Those demanding a formal close instead of letting this archive away without one should "be careful what they wish for" as the saying goes. With one of the key participants indeffed, it seems likely that the dynamic will change. For his part, CT could try to be a bit less testy and more responsive at the article's talk page (i.e., take advantage of the altered playing field).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "responsive" in what way? I haven't been ignoring anyone there—I've been responding with diffs, quotes & links from our sourcing policies. Here's my last response (nearly two weeks ago) to Safrolic, who opened this report—hardly "unresponsive", or even curmudgeonly, and Safrolic has refused to engage with it. The article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I just see that the complaints allege failure to address other's points/concerns/sources/rationales/etc., and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns. What I've seen doesn't really look that way, but if people don't feel heard then they don't feel heard, so one can try harder to make them feel heard. At any rate, I agree with you on the substance of the matter; there's a PoV issue going on at that article, and you're right to stick to a CCPOL-based position (without any "inventive" reinterpretation of what the core content policies mean and how they apply, which seems to be what the other side is doing). I think this ANI got opened because some of your responses were a little brusque. I doubt there's really anything more to it, and it's weird to me that this thread is still open, much less open with any doubt as to what the closure should be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns"—uh-huh, and accusations of having an "agenda", both accusations of which are backed up with precisely no diffs, nothing. Here's a for-instance: I've demonstrated that the disputed alt-term appears in a small fraction than 1% of newssource hits, and 2/3 of that from a single newssource; the response is that CNN has used it (a single time); my rebuttle is that even including such sources still results in a small fraction of 1% of newssource hits, 2/3 of which come from a single newssource—WP:WEIGHT doesn't make exceptions for CNN. The response is that Curly Turkey is pluggin his ears: obviously I'm not—I've responded directly to the claims and demonstrated how the claims violate policy. Response: "Yeah, but CNN!" ad nauseam ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aye. I definitely noticed that "alternative term" analysis, and it's pretty obvious that including that barely-attested opposition slang in the lead would be patently WP:UNDUE (maybe even including it in the article at all would be).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a concern, as none of the named editors seems to have expressed the slightest interest in putting it in the body—notice how many times I brought that up in the course of these "discussions". They're not interested in noting the term—their single-minded obsession is with highlighting it in the lead sentence. This would ensure maximum exposure and maximum spread in usage via Citogenesis. Putting it in the body would simply bury it—not worth the effort. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: from today—here's more of that WP:IDHT WP:CIVILPOV game I've been talking about—as if linking to every single source that uses the term somehow changes that fact that it's used by a small fraction of 1% of available sources. This is the same Darryl Kerrigan I quoted extensively for IDHT behaviour above. "Reasoning" is not a reasonable strategy against this type of persistent behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bumped thread. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Please note I have linked to this thread from Administrators' noticeboard. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  The problem is not so so much lack of responsiveness – indeed, it seems to me CT tends to be over-responsive — as that he responds without listening. And he responds abusively. E.g., his first comment at the top of this discussion (at 07:47, 12 April): "So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ...", his suspiscion of "an astroturfing campaign", and his accusations that others are edit-warring. And that's without drawing on examples from any other pages. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  To the extent this may pertain to my own post higher up, what I mean by "responsive" is the narrow sense (i.e., logically and substantively responsive to what it's responding to, which I think is how this term is generally used in discourse and debate circles). I don't mean "simply making any response at all, just to make one". I.e., I wasn't suggesting CT should post more frequently or longer. I've suggested (albeit vaguely) that the opposing side don't seem to feel heard by him, so he can try to address their material in more detail or something; I dunno, really. I'm not a mind reader, and cannot intuit what exactly anyone wants out of him in any particular thread or subthread. More to the point, though, when multiple editors feel there's a PoV problem at the page ("whitewashing" or not), and as CT indicated there were several others until basically pushed out of the discussion, an ANI like this looks very much like an unclean-hands attempt at WP:WINNING. I'm rather surprised it hasn't boomeranged already. Probably the only reason it hasn't is that CT's tone tends to over-excite the "civility is more important than reliability" crowd, who hang out in ANI like this is some kind of nightclub.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: why did you revert (diff), without explanation, my response (diff)? to SMcC? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I have no idea! (And that applies both to the revert and to the content of this discussion.) It has resulted, I surmise, from some Wikipedia incarnation of butt dialing. Many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I will attempt to restore my response, as follows. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mac: a certain level of civility is essential for reliability. This incident arises from a page where there are issues regarding (in part) the veracity of certain content, the reliability of certain sources, and even of verifiability (i.e,, whether content is supported by the source). These are not uncommon issues, and they usually are resolved (or perhaps not) without reaching ANI. What brings the matter here is an inability to resolve these issues at the article's Talk page. Whether there is a POV problem there is immaterial here; the issue here is why. And from what can be seen here the biggest factor running through all of this is the battleground approach taken by one editor: Curly Turkey. Is this not sufficiently evident from pretty much every comment he has made here? Or is it necessary to list and argue every point and response?

To be clear, what I would like out of him is: no more personal attacks, no more accusations of edit-warring, no more railing against everyone else, etc. In short, some civility. And then perhaps the discussion could get down to some actual issues. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have diffs that the "battleground" was well underway before I showed up (Littleolive oil was chased right off the page, and Legacypac's even been indeffed for his personal attacks). So much for your "approach taken by one editor"—and yet again no attempt on your part to back up your assertion—just attack, attack, attack—and accusations that a formal complaint against Legacypac's POV-pushing (backed with diffs) is a "personal attack". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

My statement (above, at 23:58 30 April) that your first comment in this discussion was an accusation of a personal attack I backed up by providing the timestamp (07:47, 12 April) of your actual comment. If you can't find it by eye use your browser's search function. If you really, pedantically insist on a diff, fine, here it is: diff. Is that good enough? I note that your comment was not a "formal complaint". Also, just because "someone else does it" is no excuse for you doing it. But if you insist on getting just as much as LegacyPac got, sure, let's do it: is indef good enough for you, too? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ): So open yourself an ANI. You're obviously WP:NOTHERE for anything but the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was suspecting something similar—there's a pile of people who'd love to pile on me for my language, but it's hard when I've sworn only once on the page. They can't "get" me, and it's a pain to have to engage with the actual evidence, especially when there's so much to sort through ... on a boring Canadian politics page. My concern now is the POV-push will win through attrition, which seems to have been the modus operandi before I showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @J. Johnson: I've provided diff evidence to back up my assertions. You've provided hand-waving WP:IDHT refusals to engage with evidence and policies. Examples of your own IDHT: "problems that exist in only one editor's mind" and "problems that don't exist"—a sampling of the long list of problems appears on this page from both before and after you showed up, as well as links to editors who have also identified problems. We can see Safrolic and Harris Seldon acknowledging sourcing issues I fixed at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Continued sourcing issues—they've both even thanked me![17][18][19]. It's hard to see these repetitions of yours as anything other than disruptive WP:IDHT, particularly as you have done precisely nothing to improve the article in any way.

  You also throw this Catch-22 at me: "If you find a problem, and do not fix it, then you should tag it. ... By the way, if you are even for one moment tempted to add such tags: don't"

  You've nowhere demonstrated an interest in improving the article and appear to be bent on preventing me from doing so. Your one edit to the article has been to join in a tag-team editwar to remove the {{Cite check}} template to hide the continued sourcing problems from the readers with the specious reasoning that "its presence violates WP:NPOV". Again, no evidence to back that "unique" interpretation of our policies up—just the IDHT I linked to above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my delayed response- I've been moving my apartment all of yesterday and will be all of today as well. So, there's two separate issues I have here; firstly, the uncivil behaviour (which I also hope will decrease now that lpac isn't exacerbating it), and the sourcing policy issues. With regard to Lavscam, I don't really care that much, but I was going with existing consensus and my reading of how we're supposed to interpret alternative names. I can see looking at the RfC that despite a lot of replies, only a few editors with more than 1k edits have chosen to weigh in, and among those editors it's about 50/50. I note that CT is wrong that none of the editors have suggested putting alternative names in the body- from my vote, I quote: Both [WP:LEADCREATE] and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. I would like to see a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "Wilson-Raybould controversy", "Philpott episode" and whatever other names it's actually been called. I think Lavscam is the altname of the pack which should then go in the lead, because it's the only one which isn't the same basic form as the article name,.. This paragraph is still in my plans for this article- if you check the stats for the page, I've written about a fifth of the total copy, and I plan to keep going now that my exams are done.

Now, for sourcing; CT has made some fairly non-controversial edits. Things like fixing formatting, fixing wording[20], that's helpful. He's also made edits which I think are less helpful. Notably, he refused to accept this source, which you can read more about here (the whole section, but I've linked to my most relevant diff). There was also this dispute on my talk page and the article talk page. I originally made the ANI report after that talk page discussion. What I really want (what I really really want) is outside eyeballs on these policy applications, because I haven't seen anyone else 'agree with his interpretations of sourcing policies. J.Johnson was actually some outside eyeballs; someone who came in from his post on a notice page for sourcing in Canadian articles[21], and who was immediately accused by CT of 'joining in the edit warring' [22] when he removed an article-wide citation check template CT kept adding to the article. Basically the mirror image of lpac's treatment of Bradv above. As mentioned above, I won't be able to read/reply to this again until later tonight or tomorrow morning (pacific time), so thanks in advance for your patience. [Safrolic @ 13:58]

"Notably, he refused to accept this source, "—I didn't "refuse to accept this source"—the source remained in the article. You've WP:3RRed to keep that source placed after a quotation that does not appear in the source,[23][24][25] and the article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. You had this explained regarding other sources and again on the talk page:

• "If it's meant to source earlier portions of the text, then it belongs following the portions (and only the portions) that it supports—under no circumstances can it imply that it supports any of the material it doesn't."
• "There are two options: remove it as redundant, or move it so that it cites only the text it supports (even if redundantly)."

Along with detailed explanations of our sourcing policies. But rather than implement either solution, you've gone the WP:IDHT route (you still haven't replied nearly two weeks later) and have 3RRed to keep the article in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state (where it still is). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say anything in your last reply to that discussion which wasn't addressed earlier, or which was supported by anybody else looking at the discussion/the edits themselves. I don't feel the need to get The Last Word in, generally, so I decided to let it stand until/unless someone else came along and agreed with you on it. So far, no one has. Safrolic (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is about the most exasperating IDHT I've seen from you yet, Safrolic. You clearly have no intention of engaging in good faith, nor in upholding our core content policies. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of "you're being the problem", "no, you're being the problem" in this thread, which is pretty typical for drawn-out ANIs. I've seen JJ's comment that the most important thing is civility (a paraphrase; I don't mean to straw man). But it's not. WP:ENC is. Civility is an important conduit by which we get there, but we also have the WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK principles, and the "WP is not a suicide pact" one; we are not bound to be sweet-toned and fawningly courteous and perpetually good-faith-assuming after evidence of protracted non-encyclopedic editing. Where there is evidence of an UNDUE problem and a tag-teaming to stonewall against fixing it, it's generally a guarantee that civility is going to erode; the community knows this and doesn't shit its own pants about it. One thing going on here, too, is a bogus reinterpretation of "civility" on the fly to just mean "everything about CT that made me unhappy". Using swear-words isn't by itself a civility breach; we just had a site-wide RfC about that last year, followed by ArbCom using that community decision in their own case reasoning. Being critical isn't a civility breach or personal attack, or we couldn't ever deal with any controversy. Pointing out edit-warring problems and an ICANTHEARYOU pattern isn't a civility or NPA breach (how could ANI exist?), especially when the other side are pointing the exact same fingers at the other party. What matters here is the substance of the matter that has caused the dispute, which is a content dispute. Neither side in the dispute needs censure, though neither is exhibiting perfect comportment. The dispute needs to be actually resolved.

Recommend closure without action at ANI, and an RfC at the article's talk page or at WP:NPOVN, to actually resolve the real dispute..
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but are engaging in strawman argument. (E.g.: swear-words? No, I that is not why we are here. Nor is there any tag-teaming here: that is solely CT's bogus accusation against me.) And you do a disservice in suggesting that the civility issue here is simply a lack of "sweet-toned and fawningly courteous" behavior. Civility is the core issue here.

Nor is the issue here (ANI) any matter of encyclopedic content, POV, RS, etc. Those should be dealt with on the article's talk page. This page is for (per the statement at the top of this page) discussion about "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." And that is exactly what is evident at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, and here: pervasive behavior, mainly by one editor, that confounds all attempts sort out the issues. (Do you need an annotated list of diffs?)

As a counter proposal I recommend this: TBAN for Curly Turkey, and see if the remaining editors can then sort out matters; post a request for more eyes if there is any concern about the article or its remaining editors. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Do you need an annotated list of diffs?"—yes, that's a basic requirement at ANI.

Discussion has returned to the talk page, and happily Littleolive oil has returned to the discussion since Legacypac's indef, and we've enlisted Blade of the Northern Lights to monitor. J. Johnson, who has contriubuted nothing but belligerence to the discussions and nothing to the article, can thus continue his drahmah here without interference.

I do agree that the issue here at ANI was never a "content dispute", though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles

TBAN from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic for persistent POV-pushing, sourcing-policy violations, and WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer per copious evidence in the sections above. None of these editors will give up on contaminating the article or preventing it from being cleaned up, and have already driven others from the page via attrition and personal attacks. At least four editors have noted POV issues with the article. Our WP:Core content policies are at stake—we cannot allow it to spread by turning a blind eye here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Won't even dignify this with a vote. This is an embarrassing and vindictive way to try to win a content dispute when you haven't provided solid diffs of these editors doing any of the things you have accused them of, additionally you didn't user link a single one of them and I'm sure they would like to defend themselves against these charges: Legacypac (talk · contribs), Darryl Kerrigan (talk · contribs), Safrolic (talk · contribs).

The only instance of blatant sourcing violations was the "illegal political interference" statement added by PavelShk [26], this was rightly fixed by Curly and no one objected. This [27] appears to be Curly misunderstanding citations, the first sentence in the paragraph is a paraphrase from the CBC citation, while the quote is from the National Post citation and no violations of souring policies occurred here, except removing citations for well-sourced content. SWL36 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The source was never removed—it was moved only to content it supported (your diff even shows that)—but this keeps being framed as "removing sources". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Agree with SWL36. This is not way to try to win a content dispute when solid diffs have not been provided. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unsurprisingly, I agree with SWL36. This is an attempt to win a content dispute which has been discussed at length on the talk page. My dispute with CT relates to that issue. I think I have stated solid reasons for forming the opinion I have, namely MOS:LEADALT, WP:POVNAMING and the consensus on the talk page. I have also taken issue with CT's disruptive behaviour toward others here and on the talk page. From where I am sitting Safrolic has done nothing but attempt to discuss edits and improvements with CT in good faith. PavelShk, a new editor, made the inappropriate (but I assume good faith) edit adding the term "illegal". This was reverted and there does not appear to be any continuing debate about it from him or anyone else (CT excluded).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Kommentar Good morning to you too! My diff from two weeks ago should provide some additional context to SWL36's reply. Note that there is significant overlap between the Natpo cite and the CBC cite, and the CBC cite is fine for everything but the exact wording of the quote (CBC paraphrases it). I still await someone else supporting your interpretations of sourcing policy. Safrolic (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  So again you admit the quote does not appear in the citation, but 3RRed to keep it where it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm still puzzled as to what the perceived problem is with this paragraph, both citations cover the content and a quote is used from the NP citation. There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph. SWL36 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  SWL36: "There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph."—under the condition that both citations support the whole paragraph. When they don't, we place the citations after only that content it supports. Look at the first paragraph of the first section of Today's Featured Article. There are two citations. The first supports the first half, the second supports the second. Putting them both at the end would imply they both support the whole paragraph, which is an WP:INTEGRITY violation. I've given more details here. Keep in mind that I've been involved in scores of WP:FAC and WP:GAN assessments (both giving and receiving)—this isn't my interpretation of sourcing requirements, but what the community has required for many years. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Even if I accept your narrow reading of WP:INTEGRITY, the two sources support the paragraph as a whole because the CBC source closely paraphrases Dion's quoted words: "Dion said he would investigate the prime minister personally for a possible contravention of Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act." (from cited CBC source) "Dion said he has 'reason to believe that a possible contravention of section 9 (of the act) may have occurred.'” (from NP source; the text in single quotes is what is quoted by the wiki article). This non-violation of a very-narrow and atextual reading of WP:INTEGRITY is not sufficient for a Tban, a trout, or even just a revert. SWL36 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  So—you admit, and provide evidence, that the quotation is not in the source cited. No policy allows the sourcing of a quotation to a paraphrasing of a quotation, which the community would never support. This is but a symptom, though, of wider behaviour patterns throughout the various disputes on the page—the TBAN proposal is for those behaviours.
  I'm curious, though, SWL36—what problem could either of my proposed fixes cause? Neither removes the source. Nobody has engaged with the question, or seems concerned that Safrolic would WP:3RR over it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I appreciate Safrolic's view that this proposal should not be dignified, there needs to be a clear and definite rejection of this one-sided, disruptive, and even frivolous proposal. It is also quite inappropriate. There is a rather entangled dispute about content, sources, and POV, but all that belongs on the article's Talk page. What is pertinent here (as I have said above) is why these issues have (so far) not been resolvable. That is due mostly to CT churning the discussion so much (such as with this inane proposal) that there is very little chance for anyone to grapple with the issues and sort them out. I explicitly reject his various contentions (such as "copious evidence", "WP:Core content policies are at stake", and the rest). But as CT has raised the issue of a TBAN, I think we should consider a boomerang. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, unsurprisingly, I agree this should boomerang towards CT. I see more WP:IDHT behaviour above and to SWL36 immediately above concerning citations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• TL;DR, on behalf of basically everyone who hasn't already commented here. I'm not sorry to say, the sheer length and hydra-esque quality of this thread basically kills any attempt to get any definitive resolution. At this point, I think the verbiage is enough to bore a judge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely understand this. (how) Can we fix this, so that some kind of resolution can be found? Safrolic (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'd like to ask a favour. I've opened a discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Prevalence of "LavScam"—out of the numerous disputes, this is the most contentious. I've headed it with a note to keep on topic and refrain from personal remarks. Could you monitor it to ensure it does indeed keep on topic, and that participants refrain from dragging in other (or past) disputes, WP:NPAs, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDHT, etc.? I'm not asking you to so much as peak at any other part of the page. Or if you're not up to, do you think you could recommend another admin? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can watch over that discussion. I don't have any strong views on the subject, so it shouldn't be a problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks enormously! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My single edit has been mentioned here multiple times. Let me explain. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I created an account specifically to edit SNC-Lavalin Affair page. I've done a lot of research for that page when it was just starting. I did make that edit where "illegal" political interference was mentioned. I had my reasons for it because that was my understanding of the source after reading it, but when it was reversed, I agreed with the reversal and never tried to edit it back. So it should be a non-issue. Also, it looks like I correctly tried to remove citecheck from that page. Mr Turkey never explained to me what specific sources must still be checked. However, Mr. Turkey immediately accused me of being a sock puppet, astroturfing, being a single-purpose account, violating a million wikipedia policies I have no idea about, and all other imaginable sins in figurative language! So, by now I pretty much lost any desire to contribute my time and edit anything more here. I though experienced editors like Mr. Turkey would be supportive and help new editors instead of trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents. PavelShk (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@PavelShk: I hope you won't be disheartened by one uncivil editor. It is because of his continuing "trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents" that we are here at the Administrator's noticeboard, hoping that some administrator will step in. If you have any questions or would like some help please feel free to ask on my Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Bookmarking yet another in a long series of WP:NPAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify: Pavelshk removed the {{Citecheck}} twice in one day, once as an IP and once under their username. This appeared to me an aggressive way to game the system, especially given the amount of editwarring that has been going on at the page since before I even showed up—including by IPs, and including removal of maintenance tags—and the continual aggression and editwarring from several of the other editors. I jumped to conclusions about PavelShk's motivations. I thought we had cleared this up weeks ago. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you shouldn't have to be told to not bite the newbies. It is a further indication of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that at no point did you attempt to advise the new user (neither on his talk page, nor the article's talk page) on his missteps, but you immediately accused him of sockpuppetry and of ulterior motives. If you no longer hold those views you should retract them. And even apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I already retracted them. Now it's time for you to "apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior". Not expecting anything, given your comment above above "one editor" that has been refuted multiple times now. Here's your chance to prove you're not here just for the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Retracted? That looks like false statement. Which being made knowingly sure looks like nothing short of a lie. But show me wrong: give us some diffs (you like diffs, right?) where you have retracted the several comments where you accused PavelShk of sockpuppetry, ulterior motives, etc. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian

• Lithopsian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rigel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arianewiki1 is being subjected to continued personal attacks and ignoring policy (even when pointed out to them) by Lithiopsian, whose current post here[28] is problematic.

These current issues stem from these two reverts on the star Rigel here[29], which I reverted again here[30] and discussed why on the talkpage here[31] and on their talkpage here.[32][33]

They again reverted these edits under an IP[34], justifying this is the edit summary because they were "uncommented reverts" (which are no required, as I advised them under H:FIES and H:ES.) Under this same revert, they state "Lithopsian here before anyone goes mental about sockpuppets." LightandDark2000 again revert Lithopsian's edit here[35], which was restored by Lithopsian here[36], admitting they were the IP "not a troll, just me not logged in, re-instate."

This is blatant omission of using multiple account to enforce a POV is against policy, specifically, logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. (Stated as badsock in Sock) There were previously warned about this here.[37] Worse, they previously likely used again an IP before (151.230.13.97) as badsocking.

Also Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1[38] saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish."[39] is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack. I've explained my uncontroversial reasoning here[40], which has not be refuted (hence consensus.) Lithopsian making unfounded statements that Arianewiki1 "...abuse, and threats to individuals"[41] without evidence is clearly vilification. I feel this isn't true. I've never threaten or abused anyone in these current disputes.

Frankly, this behaviour looks like avoiding scrutiny and degrading/dismissing/undermine others who dare to question them.

Two examples are:

1. In the discussion on their talkpage here[42] Where they said "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation.", but when I modified the text to "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni (ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori.", they reverted it, removed my correction, then claimed the whole sentence was then not needed. When given the reference showing it does have a variable star designation, they say instead of admitting the initial statement was wrong, their response becomes: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1."

1. Another discussion on the Rigel talkpage here[43], which do not have significant differences except more cite sand the statement "Depending on the stellar mass mass and composition of this initial red supergiant, Rigel may execute a number of so-called blue loops, caused by variations in energy production occurring in the shells.[74]" According to Lithopsian this is all 'fantasy' as justification for reverting it, but bizarrely when you read Blue supergiant star it says "Depending on the exact mass and composition of a red supergiant, it can execute a number of blue loops before either exploding as a type II supernova or finally dumping enough of its outer layers to become a blue supergiant again, less luminous than the first time but more unstable.[6]" Extraordinarily, Lithopsian cites this same text here.[44] so they are reverting my material based on "revert the whole fantasy explanation of supergiant evolution, based on a book about red giants."[45] when they've already endorsed and cited the exact same Maeder (2001) themselves on the Blue supergiant star (Rigel is a blue suergiant star) article. [46]. Perhaps some of this could be reworded, but Lithopsian repeatable using various tactics to remove everything and point blank refuses to discuss it.

Their edits, apparently, seems to superior to others regardless of the facts in front of them - even if they've already been shown to have made incorrect edits or endorsed legitimate cites.

I do feel they have now show a pattern of gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior, and which they have been previously repeatably warned about disruptive behaviour here[47][48][49] Regardless of the PA, it is plainly evidence of disruptive editing. Furthermore, the back-up response by Attic Salt here[50] is clearly grave dancing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK unless they were evading a block. I'm not sure why they were editing logged out but it doesn't seem to have been a clear attempt to evade scrutiny, perhaps they were using a different device or don't trust the device they are editing so always log out after editing. (To put it a different way, there's little difference between a clearly declared edit from an IP, and an edit from a Lithopsian-alt account.) Of course, the edits from the IP will be treated the same as the edits from the account, so 3RR violations etc could be a problem. That said I'm not seeing a bright line violation either, 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert and it's also been about 2 days too. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I consider it very bad practice to refer to yourself in the third person in these sort of complaint, it seriously harms your complaint suggesting it shouldn't be taken seriously. It makes it sound like you're pretending you're only a third person interested observer when you aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also HTF is this [51] gravedancing? No one has been blocked or decided to leave wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I hate to pile on more but.... I have some agreement with your view that a lot of the stuff in the Rigel talk page raised by Lithiopsian in the thread were you complained about gravedancing, concerns user conduct rather than ways to improve the article, and so should be dealt with on user talk pages and not the article talk page. But while I still agree with that, having looked at the talk page it doesn't seem that Lithiopsian is the only one. I'm seeing a lot of comments from you which also concern user conduct and not ways to improve the article. I.E. pot, kettle, black much? The more I look at this, the more it seems to me to be not something for ANI. All of you need to cut out on the personal chatter, put aside the animosity and whatever differences and disagreements you've had and instead concentrate on how you can improve the article. Use whatever form of WP:dispute resolution you need if you can't resolve this by yourselves. None of you should want this at ANI, since don't be surprised if you are the one who ends up blocked because of it. (And to be clear, this is directed at everyone in the dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: "If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK ", but how do you know if they are the editor or different sock? LightandDark2000 Illegit explains that.

The gravedancing was by Attic Salt not Lithopsian

As for pot, kettle, black, Well the full statement is "The only thing that is right is this statement: "…because we'd be imposing our own interpretation of "right" on the world." Pot . Kettle. Black." but Lithopsian is also imposing the same interpretation of "right". Pointed out above.

The reason why there is a problem here is Lithopsian refuses BRD. When they say: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." How do you get consensus then? I've attempted to change the text again to avoid edit warring, and I have followed such changes with extensive info on the article's talk page. If they knowingly don't respond after a while (a few days), then it should be OK to reinsert the text. Expecting the edit summary to "explain" the change is not engaging in consensus building. (I mat have this wrong, but that is how I interpret policy. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Um I never said that the gravedancing was by Lithopsian. I was fully aware when replying that it was by Attic Salt. WTF does that have to do with anything? The point is that there is no way this can be considered grave dancing. They are simply agreeing with what someone else said in an ongoing discussion which in part is on article content.

And I still fundamentally disagree with you about socking. If Lithopsian says the IP is not them it should be blocked for impersonation not for socking. If they say it is them and it is them, then it's not a problem since they've already said is them and so they're not try to evade scrutiny or otherwise use logged out editing as a way to get around restrictions. To be clear, this means they're not "suggests they are multiple people" nor are they "give the impression of more support for a position" nor "editing while logged out in order to mislead". Those can't apply when the edit was clearly disclosed as coming from the same editor, just like with an alternative account. If you disagree, please explain clearly how a clearly disclosed edit as an IP violates some aspect of our socking policy. You still haven't and nor has LightandDark2000.

Remember that while the general suggestion is that people should edit from both accounts to confirm it is them before starting editing with an alternative account, and we may sometimes block an account if it's uncertain, this is done to protect other editors not for socking reasons. If I start an account "Nil Einne (public devices)" and don't do so it doesn't make my alternative account illegitimate. Heck in this case, even if I fail to specifically mention on my talk page the existence of the alternative account, I question whether this is any significant violation of our WP:SOCK policy. At most, what should happen would be someone would mention on my talk page "hey you should mention it on your userpage" and I will say "you're right" and do so. I don't think it's worth getting into details on what would happen if I refuse to do so in a case like this.

Also I think you're missing my point about the pot kettle black thing. I don't really care about your arguments over right or wrong since you haven't given me a reason to care. I do care that editors are misusing article talk pages to engage in petty squabbles between themselves over user conduct. So you have a point where you said "The rest of this response is quite unacceptable, and really should be made on User talkpages but not here." (Well I'm not saying the rest of the response bit is accurate, but some of that content definitely seems better suited for a user talk page, or no where.) The problem is a quick read of the article talk page shows they're not the only one of doing so. You seem to be well guilty of it as well.

The key issues that you still seem to be missing is that ultimately we deal with user conduct issues here on ANI and our willingness to spend time analysing a complaint is going to depend on a lot of things including our perception it's worth it. In this case you're not giving the impression that your complaint is worth a cent since you start off with foolish referring to yourself in the third person, you then complain about socking for a clearly disclosed edit from an IP (to be fair the previous one was not but the time between edits was so short it's not really an issue) and you top that off with the silly grave dancing comment. If we then actually have a quick look at what's going on in the talk page, it becomes clear that you are right, there is way too much personal commentary that belongs either on user talk pages or nowhere. Except you are guilty of it as much as any other editor.

And I now find from the comment below that you are refusing to use edit summaries. While you're right there is no clear requirement to do so, and in fact it's far better to open a discussion on the talk page then to try to discuss via edit summaries, it's still often helpful to do so. Especially when making major edits. I mean heck even leaving a edit summary like "see talk" will tell editors there is a discussion on the talk page they may not be aware of. Completely refusing to do so does you no favours. It gives me even less reason to think any one editor is at fault here. Instead a bunch of them are causing problems. It's possible that these problems are severe enough to suggest multiple editors should be blocked (i.e. including you) but frankly I can't be bothered looking into it in detail.

To be it a different way, the best way you can ensure any complaint is taken seriously is to be on your best behaviour. If another editor is really a significant problem, you countering by also behaving poorly rarely helps. Instead try to be an exemplar of perfect behaviour. Yes I understand it can be hard when another editor's behaviour is very poor, and in fact I'm very often guilty of behaving poorly in response to behaviour I perceive as poor, I do understand that I should try and avoid it. Since to an outsider, it just means it's easy to miss the other editor's poor behaviour.

This means discuss, use edit summaries, don't misuse article talk pages, think carefully about whether your complaint is dealing with actual issues etc etc. If you are having problems coming to consensus, even if the other editor is only engaging in limited discussion, remember that ultimately if you have consensus they're going to fail so do consider using forms of dispute resolution if necessary, even if you feel the other editor hasn't given an adequate explanation for the problems, but it is clear they still disagree with your changes. Over time, if an editor keeps rejecting your changes, but consensus is always against them, and they keep refusing to engage in any real discussion you should be able to build up evidence to open a good case. (But please for the love of everything, don't refer to yourself in the third person!)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A few final comments. Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [52] so any impersonation issue is not an issue. Note that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with LightandDark2000 thinking the IP was someone trolling/impersonating rather than Lithopsian. As I indicated before this is a risk people take when they don't properly declare. Any doubt was cleared up by Lithopsian. Yes it is slightly more confusing than it should be, but it isn't a socking problem since that's to do with editing in a way where you are trying to hide you are the same editor in circumstances where it isn't allowed.

Also while looking at the talk page, I uncovered that Arianewiki1 had a 1RR and further was unblocked with the proviso they should walk away if an IP starts editing disruptively. I've read the details briefly but frankly they don't matter much. If Arianewiki1 is worried that Lithopsian editing from an IP would require them to "walk away" they should clarify this with Ritchie333 since I'm certain it was not the intention that it would apply here.

As for the 1RR, while appreciate Arianewiki1 may feel this places them at a disadvantage, ultimately as I indicated before, the best way you can ensure your edits survive is by ensuring they have consensus. Also since there being no justification to revert simply because of a lack of edit summary came up in relation to the block, I'd implore Arianewiki1 to ensure they aren't violating WP:POINT by refusing to use edit summaries.

Earlier when I said that if you keep finding consensus, the obvious flipside if you frequently find your proposal lacks consensus. And especially if there is consensus against your proposal. In that case, it appears that you've misunderstood what the community expects and you need to learn what it is. Remember that we are volunteers and no one should be expected to teach you. It's understandable if someone keeps proposing stuff which doesn't improve the article, that other editors may get frustrated and bored of explaining why. I'm not saying this is happening here, I have no idea. I'm simply reminding that you should always be prepared to accept that perhaps you're the one in the wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow. This is a nightmare. This recent response about are all about me and not the issue in the ANI. What is are saying that it is OK for an editor to refuse to engage on talkpage, and revert anything they disagree with, but if I do not write an edit summary, which I am not required to provide via both H:FIES and H:ES. (A lesson that was used to enforce the 1RR.)

Saying that "Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [53] so any impersonation issue is not an issue." is plainly wrong. They must of used the IP address to declare that, and plainly it was done for other reasons. I clearly cannot revert again under 1RR, so they are either doing it to either entrap me or look like they are reenforcing consensus. My only choice was to go back to the talkpage, which I did, and explained my position.

Again, regardless of my rights or wrongs, is it acceptable that: " Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1 saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack." I you require consensus, how do you actually achieve that then? Where have I attacked an editor to such a degree that I have to "get use to it."? Is this normal editing policy? Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't have an opinion on this at the moment, but it doesn't look good. First off, socking (including the use of IPs in this manner) is never a good thing when content disputes are involved. Secondly, editors need to respond/engage in discussion when there is a clear disagreement on edits, and consensus needs to be taken into account. Ignoring said consensus or continuing to restore the same disputed version(s) of an article is counterproductive, and even disruptive. Now, I'm not all that familiar with the current content dispute, but if Lithopsian continues to avoid the discussion (at the article's talk page), this could easily escalate into full-scale edit-warring. (I made one revert on the article, assuming that the IP was a troll or an LTA sock, but apparently, that wasn't the case.) My point is, all involved editors need to engage in discussion instead of blindly reverting or attacking each other. Circumventing the discussion process is harmful, and is definitely grounds for sanctions if this kind of activity continues. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of discussion, I'd like to point out User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. To me, that raises questions about WP:NOTHERE, since it precludes a major avenue of communication. I briefly participated in the discussion on Rigel, but left once Arianewiki made it clear they were going to be involved in a big way. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: there has been alot of discussion on the talk page - walls of text even. Trying to negotiate with Arianewiki1 is very difficult. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I will just note that I have interacted with User:Lithopsian on a number of occasions and never had an issue with policy, civility, or content decisions. The editor has been and continues to be a most useful and helpful contributor to Wikipedia. OTOH, I am going to avoid posting my opinion on Arianewiki1 due to WP:CIVIL and the desire to avoid a massive time sink. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of posters have noted WP:NOTHERE issues and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [54] and the attitude displayed at User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. Is there a general feeling that community action (such as a requirement to always use edit summaries and a 0RR restriction) is warranted at this point, if the user's 1RR restriction isn't adequately preventing the disruption? Neither option really directly addresses the editor's behavior towards other editors (which is, I think, the core of the issue), but it'd be a start. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation: Sorry VQuakr. I stopped writing edit summaries after reading from an admin Tigraan who said "As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary."[55] Aother was Nick-D "As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this."

I felt I got into trouble for one edit here: [56], saying "No explanation in revert. Discuss talkpage please." and said: "I've have made a big mistake making that single revert, which was simply momentary lapse of judgement. I thought I was protecting the IP, who had no explanation to why their edit was reverted within the edit summary. (They may have necessarily not have been needed to be advised, but that might have helped avoid this.)" I stopped edit summaries so I didn't do this again.

Silk Tork advised me "Most editors who are not vandal fighting can get by quite productively without ever (or rarely) making a single revert, so asking someone not to revert good faith edits, but to engage in a discussion instead, doesn't seem that onerous, especially when that person has a history of problematic reverts. A quick glance at Arianewiki1's contribution history will show a particularly high number of single reverts, often accompanied by an edit summary such as "Use talk page", "Please get consensus", "Nothing wrong with this cited text. You'll need consensus to remove it. Sorry.", " Not a valid reason for revert here.", etc - all of which are indicative of a situation in which discussion would be helpful. Not all of Arianewiki1's reverts are inappropriate - there are times when Ariane's edit is the preferred one; it is the editing model of "revert first, discuss later" that is the problem." To correct this, like on the Rigel article, I now properly discuss or explain the problems on the talkpage before reverting. (This explains "Future comments and discussions will only be placed on article talkpages or on my or other talkpages."[57] I've stated this in User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries

If it is required to write edit summaries again, please advise, as recent experience and policy says I don't have to do that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:FIES H:FIES that you just cited states right at the beginning, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit". Your conclusion from that that you will never write an edit summary again shows, at best, a severe lack of judgement on your part. To be clear, for editors with the judgement and/or good faith to be able to tell when edit summaries are warranted, they are optional. I believe they should be mandatory for you in particular, because you have exhibited a severe lack of at least one of those two essential ingredients. VQuakr (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, but how does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? When they say: "This is getting tiresome. When I attempt to discuss content with you, then I get accused of violating any and every policy going, acting in bad faith, am met with walls of words that are almost impossible to follow, and you maintain your bizarre interpretation of the subject in the face of any editor who dares to disagree. When I don't engage then I'm accused of violating any and every policy going and being "vindictive". Whenever it looks like you can't batter every other editor into submission on an article, you try to pick them off with threats and warnings n personal talk pages. Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it. But just one final time: I'm not modifying your edits because I'm being vindictive, or because I'm trying to game the system, or because you forgot to dot some imaginary i or cross some obscure policy t; it is because you write a lot of rubbish."[58] and choose to ignore me. Is this acceptable response or WP:PA? Forcing me to write edit summaries will not solve this, and they'll revert anything, regardless if there is an edit summary or not. An editor on 1RR will be trumped to those on 3RR. If I slip up, I'm dead.

Also even if H:FIES is true, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: budding consensus is that to "fix the ANI on Lithopsian", we look at you. If you are uninterested in common sense or suggestions, relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries are WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, but there must be balance too. If Lithopsian is happy to make reverts but intends not to discuss it, we have a problem. Also WP:EPTALK says " If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." I'm doing exactly that. WP:CAUTIOUS says: "If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. On 1RR, I have too. Again, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. I am following the "...relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am worried about this recent statement of "…and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [59] . How is this disruptive exactly? I explained how the User could avoid issues (they were not explained), I said "... I'll respect your wishes." and advised a solution "to avoid all my edits." The response: "I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page."[60] I don't think I implied (and certainly didn't mean) to bargain anything, and was only a way to reduce the angst. I had no knowledge for the reason for this request.

It is also interesting to mention this User. An example of edits with the star Deneb. They made this edit here[61], saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor.". I responded on their talk page 18 minutes late here[62], explaining 'dredging' was a technical astronomical term (they archived the discussion without response) , and I modified to text correctly here[63] outside the 24 hour required if 1RR was applicable (it was 34 hours). They made another minor modification here[64]. This is surely a model example of HERE.

Yet 10 days later, they want to ban me from their talkpage? (There are other examples of overwriting context with their interpretation for the sake of grammar. (e,g. Western world versus western world, discussion here[65] other context problems are discussed here[66] or here.[67] This suggests extensive use of talkpages to solve editing issues. If there is any attitude here it is from frustration is the dismissive tone. Reading their response here[68])

Another is getting accused of "Revert errors introduced. Arianewiki1, it is probably a good idea not to revise other's comments." [69] I replied that this was "... petty and trivial. Really, when I modified it I said "I've fixed your reference(s) above for clarity."[70] What harm did it do? If anything it strengthens your own argument." Is this another example of "general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only does Arianewiki1 not use edit summaries, he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable. Furthermore, Arianewiki1 rather regularly harasses other editors -- see my talk page (which is about 50% aggressive contributions from Arianewiki1 [71]. And to top it off, when I banned him from my talk page, he quickly felt the need to continue with his provocation: [72]. Attic Salt (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what this means: "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit." ? How is this done? Please present evidence of this behaviour with links. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

See edit history: [73]. No Section indication, no undo indication. Attic Salt (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information…" I haven't removed nor deliberately removed anything at all. Clearly, an omission doesn't mean removal. If I "undo of a previous edit" it is tagged 'Tag: Undo' by the system.[74] (I've made 16 undos in 468 edits, the majority were for vandalism, since 30 January 2019.) According your edit summary[75] "Complete blanking of edit summaries" So how is this done? Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how you are doing it. I'm just saying that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary, along with your own description of your edit. That's what most of us do. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt? What policy is being violated by removing the "default" info from edit summaries? John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is an ANI, where the accusations have to be backed up with difs and facts. Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." is false statement, and worse there not provided any proof that I'm doing that. Further saying: "... that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary... That's what most of us do." is also false. The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us." You've also said "no undo indication", but your own earlier given link here[76] does have all the tag:undo e.g. here[77]. Consider kindly striking (out) these wrong accusations. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @John from Idegon: Not the person you're asking, but I'll observe it's not a question of a strict violation of policy, just obnoxious behaviour making life difficult for other editors. The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, I'll suspect Arianewiki of being disingenuous (my AGF burned out a while ago). Starting with their second edit in 2008, their edits had those markers. Maybe they have indeed changed to making all edits as raw edits to the article and never touching the undo or section header edit links, but I suspect it's more likely a strategy to keep reverts from showing up in their edit history as such (and generally, make an analysis of their edit history excruciatingly difficult). The question is not whether they have made a specific rule violation at this time, as much as are they here to collaborate on an encyclopedia? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

In saying "The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. " Editors of course matter, and I see any declaration that they don't matter - an inference not fact. (I've explained my reasoning above.)

Then saying that "As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, ", but I said "The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us."", which says the exact opposite. I am unsure what Attic Salt is saying, but they claim that I am somehow "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." Does Attic Salt misunderstand that I cannot actual remove this information because it is generated by the operation system that I have no control over?

If there is any strategy here, it is for me to avoid edit warring at all costs, because if I do, I won't be editing here. With individuals applying other pressures by refusing to discuss issue on talkpages and claim: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." or now want to "ban" users from their talkpages, appears as alternative strategies to make my demise certain. Two examples here[78] to make even the simplest edits survive take this to a new level difficult. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

While I think concise and informative edit summaries are essential, people should realize that Arianewiki1 is not necessarily removing *any* automatically generated text. The text generated depends on how you got there. If you just "edit the page", almost nothing is generated. -- Elphion (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt. You've made a false accusation, which you should retract. You should consider the principles under etiquette Principles of Wikipedia etiquette, especially "Do not intentionally make misrepresentations. Apologise if you inadvertently do so." "Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we had not. Say so." Edit summaries, especially, are not the place to do so. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I have already restated the "Edit summaries" 'problem' here[79] to remove the angst. As explained above, I now use the talkpages, and won't revert edits, but do try and reword them if necessary. Concern is why. Attic Salt has ignored any reasoning, but still won't back down using any lack of edit summaries. e.g. Here[80] saying "Note: Arianewiki1 is still not using edit summaries" or "As I explained in my edit summaries (see, I use edit summaries)" to me here.[81] They have been advised: "WP:PARTR, and know: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." They also have been advised about WP:EDITSUMCITE recently here. (This appear under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section, and highlights the level of effort to 'discuss' even simple changes, finally admitted by them against the simple evidence[82].) I will consider their advise in due course, but they are seemingly using a lack of edit summaries as a kind of weapon to justify reverts, when policy is specifically against such actions. How a false accusation is not redacted by them, especially in an ANI, is shows more about issues with reverting of articles than missing edit summaries. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Policy recommends the use of edit summaries; systematic disuse of them is disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No. By your own omission. It is recommended NOT mandatory. e.g. Policy you point too says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring." I've said above. PARTR says: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." This is avoid edit warring. This is following policy. It is not disruptive if edits are being discussed on talkpages. Regardless, some etiquette is clearly needed to be followed.

Again. How does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? They have categorically stated they will not engage with one user on talkpages, and now Attic Salt thinks it fine to somehow "ban" Users from their own talkpage.[83] Do they have legitimate complaints or is it a tactic of avoiding scrutiny? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction: Article edit summaries mandatory for Arianewiki1

User:Arianewiki1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Proposal: Arianewiki1, in addition to editing restrictions in place as of September 2018, is required to use a reasonably descriptive edit summary for all article-space edits. Administrators are encouraged to use discretion when enforcing this restriction with regard to occasional omissions of edit summaries.

This user quit using edit summaries in January 2019. Systematically avoiding edit summaries entirely is inherently disruptive. As evidenced by [84], they have no intention of voluntarily following normal editing practice regarding edit summaries. This refusal to voluntarily follow best practice is, in my opinion, a symptom of a broader WP:NOTHERE problem that others have mentioned in the section above. But. Sometimes treating the symptoms can address the root cause, and it is my hope that a consensus here will make clear to Arianewiki1 that this is a collaborative environment and they are expected to work with, not battle with other editors. If nothing else, this proposal will help editors understand what Arianewiki1 is trying to do in article space and facilitate both communication and review of their contributions, without placing any additional undue restriction on Arianewiki1's ability to edit. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I've explained multiple times in my reasoning (above) and I had already modified my User page here[85]. I've honestly answered every claim made against me on this, and have followed the guidance of admins and the policy on edit summaries. It cannot disruptive if edits are being discussed on talkpages. e,g. In recent edits on Crux, Horsehead Nebula or Rigel shows that although I don't have edit summaries but have properly explained and used edits on the talkpage (like) here, [86] and here[87] and here Rigel example, respectively, are all surely satisfactory. Surely this show working in a collaborative environment?

Another example of edits with the star Deneb. They made this edit here[88], saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor.". I responded on their talk page 18 minutes late here[89], explaining 'dredging' was a technical astronomical term (they archived the discussion without response) , and I modified to text correctly here[90] outside the 24 hour required if 1RR was applicable (it was 34 hours). They made another minor modification here[91]. This is surely a model example of HERE.

Policy and admin advice is clear:

• WP:NOTHERE says "Be bold in these cases, revert these edits, provide edit summary and for complex cases request administrator attention. Alternatively, if you are confident and have good dispute resolution and collaborative skills, attempt to solve minor conflicts at the article’s talk page."
• H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
• WP:EPTALK says " If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)."
• CAUTIOUS says: "If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war."
• WP:PARTR says:"Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." (I have experienced several issues SUMMARYNO )
• Policy says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely and encourage discussion rather than edit warring."
• Tigraan who said "As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary."[92]
• Nick-D "As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this."

I'm starting to feel HA by them. I cannot recall when VQuakr had any issues with edit summaries with me before this. By saying to me: "...help editors understand what Arianewiki1 is trying to do" means what exactly? I am mostly using talkpages to avoid accusations of edit warring. I have a good knowledge of astronomy, all the involved editors here interacted with me, and my edits being reverted can be resolved on my or the article's talkpage.

It comes down to this. Edit summaries are recommended but NOT mandatory. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Tigraan (especially) STATEMENT : This open wording "Arianewiki1, in addition to editing restrictions in place as of September 2018, is required to use a reasonably descriptive edit summary for all article-space edits. Administrators are encouraged to use discretion when enforcing this restriction with regard to occasional omissions of edit summaries." is plainly casting aspersions. The Summary[93] says: "Edits with summaries 3,765 · (81.3%)" and between March 2013 to November 2018 have exceeded this average.

Regardless of my 'current editing restrictions' , which has no such limitations, how is this relevant? Furthermore, I have also 45 watchers[94], who have so far not seen it necessary to curtailed or remove any of my editing privileges. There are no excuses for this behaviour expressed about my block restrictions, which seems more to me about the allocation of misbehaviour (looking for some fatal flaw) than towards edit summaries.

On the 1RR restriction I don't feel safe (get it.) This is especially with their upfront advertising of my current restrictions by VQuakr. This current situation plainly defies: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." WP:PA Advertising my circumstances is being used as a weapon here. VQuakr's actions IMO is an overstretch and contrary to policy. My greatest fear, actual, is waking up one morning and just finding my privileges here are removed from a simple unknowing mistake, I'm ancient history. If VQuakr 'complaint becomes validated and affirmed, then good faith means nothing.

Note: I'm currently using Safari 7, which enlightened editors might understand why edit summaries don't work and are prevented. To discloses the reasons any further is outing, which is against policy. Embarassed. You bet ya. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please. You are not a victim here, and your attempts to play one from your OP onward in this thread haven't helped you. VQuakr (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• As little as I appreciate interactions with Arianewiki1, I guess pinging editors you quote is a decent thing to do. I will comment for what I hope is the only time.

Regarding my quote: That diff says that lacking an edit summary is not sufficient as a reason to revert an edit. It does not say not having an edit summary is fine. It certainly does not say that not leaving edit summaries, ever, is fine. I am not entirely sure Arianewiki1 is aware that going from "X is not encouraged" to "you should do anything in your power to counter X whenever it happens" is a logical error.

Arianewiki1 went from "edit summaries are mandatory and lacking one justifies revert on-sight" (see what the diff above replies to) to "I will not use edit summaries since they are not mandatory". While both attitudes are misguided (but fixable), going from one to the other with no intermediary step is quite inconsistent. My interpretation of that attitude is that they care about the guidelines only insofar as it prevents them from doing what they intended from the get-go, and will (try to) respect the bare minimum letter of the rules but completely ignore the spirit.

I highly doubt out-of-the-box Safari 7 prevents the use of edit summaries. If it actually does, it's a problem for the technical WMF guys; if it does not, and Arianewiki1 tweaked their browser in ways that prevent using edit summaries, it's a problem for Arianewiki1; in either case, it is not a problem for the community to deal with. (Also, maybe WP:Outing prevents other people from giving the details of your browser configuration (since arguably it's personal information), but it does not prevent you from disclosing your configuration.)

Furthermore, bringing up the 1RR restriction is not a personal attack. If you believe it is, point to which of WP:WIAPA it matches, or how it is an "insult" or "disparaging".

Finally, one could argue that the proposed restriction ("must add edit summaries") is too vague, lacks a clear bright line, etc.; however, the community can impose pretty much any editing restriction it sees fit, and that one has a clear purpose (as opposed to, say, requiring to not use the letter "e" in edits to the mainspace). I agree with VQuackr that the lack of edit summaries is a mere symptom of Arianewiki1's inability to discuss and collaborate with others on Wikipedia; I disagree with the idea that forcing their use will change much. (Except as a WP:ROPE tactic, or a stepping stone to an indef, but I guess that's the part you're not supposed to say out loud.)

I believe we are firmly in WP:CIR (or WP:THERAPY maybe) territory, but lack the time and inclination to present a case since there is no clear-cut incident (that I am aware of) but instead a lot of time-wasting squabbles. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I (Neonorange) use Safari under iOS 12.2 (and previous versions snce iOS 7) for the majority of my edits here. A slot for an edit summary is provided. The latest version of text editor/MediaWiki/PHP7 can display, while composing, the entire edit summary at the same time. Earlier versions had restricted display space while composing, requiring horizontal scrolling, especially when changing an IPv6 edit. Perhaps the behavior of Safari on Apple OS differs. Neonorange (Phil) 20:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Socks or students?

After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/39age2 resulted in blocks of multiple accounts, an uninvolved user User:Yassie claimed that the blocked accounts and IP are all User:さえぼー's students and are not sockpuppets (diff, diff, diff). In her unblock request (or IP block exemption request, I guess), さえぼー said, "You are blocking the [w]hole editathon in Japanese Wikipedia" (diff). Subsequently, the accounts got all unblocked by User:Bbb23 and User:Premeditated Chaos. As User:朝彦 mentioned (diff), User:さとみよ is indeed listed as a participant of さえぼー's edit-a-thon in the Japanese Wikipedia (diff), so unblocking さとみよ seems pretty reasonable. However, it is unlikely that the other accounts are さえぼー's students; she later admitted that only さとみよ is her student among Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/39age2/Archive, further adding that she doesn't know anything about the other accounts (diff). Except さとみよ, the accounts that were confirmed at the SPI case need to be blocked (again) from editing the English Wikipedia. 153.230.50.237 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Are any of the accounts currently vandalizing Wikipedia or editing disruptively? I'm inclined to wait until actual malice occurs before blocking any of them. Indeed, I'm uncomfortable with the initial blocks as somewhat lacking WP:AGF in the sense that none of the accounts demonstrated actual malice or disruption. None of these accounts showed any signs of being used to harm Wikipedia when they were blocked. --Jayron32 14:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32 has essentially summarized my position for me. Use of multiple accounts (if it was that) is not disallowed, even if odd, unless the behavior falls under any of the criteria at WP:BADSOCK. None of the accounts appeared to be engaged in disruptive or deceptive editing, so I unblocked them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is not the first time - and it won't be the last - that such an SPI is filed. Nor will it be the last time that a class of students is blocked because of the report. I disagree with the conclusions of Jayron32 and Premeditated Chaos that there was no abuse. The mere fact that so many users/accounts are collaborating on the same articles is sufficiently disruptive to provoke blocks. My only regret is that this happens in the first place when it could be so easily prevented by declarations on the students' userpages with a link to their instructor or coordinator. I unblocked all the editors who had contributed to en.wiki yesterday, and my understanding is that PMC completed the process with the no-edit accounts that were blocked, for which I am grateful.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Wait, what? "Collaborating on the same articles is sufficiently disruptive to provoke blocks"? I can't... I don't... I... WHAT?!?!? --Jayron32 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The mere fact that so many users/accounts are collaborating on the same articles is sufficiently disruptive to provoke blocks. This is such a shocking assumption of bad faith that I'm having trouble believing you said it. Apparent newbies collaborating and learning how to edit, while not making problematic edits, is so disruptive that the only thing to be done is block them all and be done with it, with zero communication? That's not how to assume good faith.
• Nobody ever talked to a single one of these accounts. Not one time; I checked their talk pages (bot-generated Teahouse welcome messages do not count). Nobody ever asked them what they were doing, who they were, can we help them understand how to edit here better, nothing. Nobody even warned them that their editing might be seen as disruptive! So as far as they know, they made some edits on Wikipedia and suddenly got the banhammer for no particular reason, and as far as you're concerned per your talk page they're "lucky" you bothered to unblock them. That's a really unhelpful attitude on the whole. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I believe Bbb23 meant collaborating in the tag-teaming with a motive sense, and not the usual collaboration. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• That's correct. I'll make one more comment and then let others continue their pillorying of me. First, I treated this as a socking case. My check determined that all of these accounts were socks. I don't typically then ask one or more of the sock accounts, oh, btw, what are you doing here? Hindsight is nice, but one must look at my behavior at the time. Second, the comment about "lucky" was after the the editor yelled at me for not acting quickly enough, even though, as soon as I saw that message and another by the other Japanese editor, I went as quickly as I could to unblock the users.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• If you didn't ask, how did you know the accounts were being used against policy and deserved being blocked? What in the behavior of the accounts indicated that the accounts needed to be blocked? Mere collaborative editing cannot be enough. --Jayron32 16:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" is one of the criteria for a block at WP:SOCK. This is one of the reasons why people are encouraged by WP:SHARE to label their account when it could be construed (or mistaken) as sock puppetry. Ideally, people organizing editathons should tell people about this before they're unleashed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• (EC) I can in part see things both ways here. I agree that maybe this could have been handled different e.g. speaking to the editors first although I'm not sure whether our checkusers should spent a great deal of time on that so I do wonder who would do it. But I also agree that multiple undeclared accounts editing the same article is prima facie evidence of WP:SOCK violation. Editors are allowed to have undeclared multiple accounts, but it's rarely acceptable to edit the same article around the same time with them (discounting minor accidents). "Collaborating" is the wrong word to use here. If these accounts are the same person, then there is no "collaboration". It's one editor editing the same page with multiple accounts. If these accounts are declared then that's generally fine, in fact I just spent a long time arguing amongst other things, that it's silly to complain about someone editing with an IP when they specifically declared in the edit summary that they were a named editor. But if the accounts are undeclared, even without talk page comments or reverts, there's still a strong risk of confusion about how many editors are involved or how much support there is for something. So if evidence existed that these accounts were the same editor, than that's IMO automatically a probable sock violation. And the only real defence is "despite the evidence, these accounts are all separate people" or "sorry I made a mistake, I will either restrict myself to one account or declare the connection if I use multiple accounts to edit the same article" The question of whether there was sufficient evidence to run the check in the first place as well as whether the evidence based on CU data etc was strong enough that these were the same editor I consider separate issues which I won't bother to discuss. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but we need to start from a place of "these accounts are all separate people" as our default assumption. Multiple accounts editing together is prima facie evidence of an edit-a-thon. When we have competing and reasonable explanations of an unexplained situation, it is incumbent upon us to err on the side of "not blocking" until such time as the actual situation comes clearer. In this case, there was nothing in the edits of the accounts to indicate they were doing anything wrong: they weren't introducing vandalism, they weren't edit warring, they were just editing. Blocking them was not imperative, there was no harm coming to any part of Wikipedia from the things they were doing. Prima facie evidence of disruption is disruption itself, not "I don't know what is going on here". If something looks weird, we investigate if it is just weird, but not harmful. This was clearly in the "weird but not harmful" camp. --Jayron32 19:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful. I'll make one more comment and then let others continue their pillorying of me." If you don't want your admin actions to be criticised, don't make admin actions. I attended an editathon where ten people using the same IP all created accounts and put an article in their sandbox. Andrew Davidson and RexxS have attended several. Let's have some actual details about what the accounts were doing - if it was blatant vandalism, spam, political polemic, say that, then we've actually got something to block for. But just for sharing a couple of accounts - well I'm glad my kids aren't interested in editing Wikipedia as I'd probably get checkuser blocked otherwise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• OT: I find the mention of Standford prison experiment in your essay woefully mischaracterizing, as the experiment has been proved to be definitively flawed and has barely been replicated. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Regular organisers of editing events are continually finding better ways to work so that they avoid running into problems like this. I remember having several eminent members of the Royal Society of Chemistry blocked because somebody had spotted multiple new users adding {{New user bar}} to their user pages at more or less the same time under my direction. Fortunately Harry Mitchell was present and could unblock while I carried on working with the rest. It provided an interesting talking point for the RSC anyway. People make mistakes and I'm sure Bbb23 will consider the possibility of an editathon the next time this sort of situation turns up. I sincerely hope さえぼー isn't put off by what happened and will encourage their students to write something about "taking part in an editathon" on their user page at an early stage in future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Do keep in mind that the participants in question never meant to edit anywhere outside Japanese WP, so it will not make sense to have them edit the user pages in English WP and every other major projects for that matter. (They could, however, make a user page on Meta so that it will function as a global user page. Whether that action is an easy one for a newcomer to follow is an open question for the editathon organizers. What's Meta? Why do we need to edit a different site? Wall of foreign language (English) text... Easily puts off newcomers.) (Also, I apologize for editing an archived page earlier.) 朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• IMO a meta page is well worth considering. Yes it may be slightly confusing, but surely the purpose of any edit-a-thon is to help editors with parts of editing which may be confusing to them? Given what I said below about the dominance of English and the English wikipedia is IMO for better or worse true, I would say this is especially the case for edit-a-thons for projects outside en.wikipedia. In other words, it seems quite likely a reasonable percentage (say at least 10%) of these editors are eventually going to edit some other project most likely the English wikipedia so teaching them slightly about global accounts and meta seems well worth it. Note that I'm not saying they need to post in English. It would be fine for them to post in Japanese (or whatever) on meta perhaps with a suggestion if they can write it, it it may be helpful to post in English since as I expect many of them will already appreciate, it's the language most likely to be at least partly understood by a diverse range of different people. Edit: As also mentioned below, seems to me even more imperative for any edit-a-thon which has translation as part of their goal. And yes, this does definitely include any edit-a-thon translation articles to English. And for that matter, I'm not saying general English edit-a-thons shouldn't do it either. IMO they should also. Especially when it's expected a reasonable number of their percentages speak a language besides English. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• See also my comments below dated 07:49 Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful to add a section to WP:How to run an edit-a-thon, suggesting that before the edit-a-thon organisers contact an admin who's generally online at the edit-a-thon time/day and/or post a notice somewhere appropriate (WP:AN? the Teahouse? Is there an edit-a-thon central?) that they'll be doing this. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit-a-thon organizer did post that kind of notice - on ja.wiki, because that's where their editing was intended to be. For whatever reason, a number of the participants or other people at their university edited en.wiki at similar times, prompting the SPI. It's not anyone on en.wiki's fault that we didn't know beforehand that there was a ja.wiki edit-a-thon - I don't think anyone can be expected to be aware of edit-a-thons in every language. But in my opinion it is a problem that we (as a community) didn't attempt communication with anyone from the group before moving to blocking. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the dominance of the English language and the dominance of the English wikipedia it seems to me a mistake for any edit-a-thon to assume that their editing activity if large enough, is going to be restricted to their language wikipedia unless they're absolutely sure almost no on in their edit-a-thon speaks English. Edit: I see also the organiser of this edit-a-thon is involved in the translation wikiproject. Assuming the edit-a-thon had at least some aspect of translating English language articles to Japanese, this seems even more reason why it would be a mistake to assume there would be no cross-wiki editing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

When I posted the above I was under the assumption most of these accounts came from the highlighted edit-a-thon. I now believe this is unlikely. But one additional point. Remember if someone never edits English wikipedia, then then them being blocked here is not an issue. I mean if they are visiting, sure the block notice is not the most welcoming thing but still it doesn't in any way hinder the ability to participate in the edit-a-thon. In other words, precautions to try to reduce the possibility of problems outside whatever wiki is their target are not so much to protect the edit-a-thon but because we want them to have a welcoming and productive experience elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Yes, but we need to start from a place of "these accounts are all separate people" as our default assumption." As already said, that is IMO a separate issue I'm not interested in discussing. My main point is that if Bbb23 felt there was sufficiently compelling evidence from the data it was a bunch of people operating one account then it's wrong to say there was no disruption. It almost definitely was disruption. So hence I fundamentally also disagree with "If something looks weird, we investigate if it is just weird, but not harmful. This was clearly in the "weird but not harmful" camp." since as I said before, by definition this is not just weird. In fact it is harmful if it was one editor operating multiple accounts. I consider this an important point which was and is IMO being missed by all this talk about collaboration etc. If this was indeed one editor operating multiple accounts there was no collaboration going on and it was harmful. If people feel it's not, I think they need to change our socking policy since IMO it strongly supports the view that one editor operating multiple undeclared accounts to edit the same articles at the same time is by definition harmful and well worth of a block. Now the question of whether there was enough evidence either to run a check, or to conclude that these were all the same editor based on the check and other data is a relevant and interesting one but it's not something I'm interested in discussing. If people want to discuss that they are welcome to somewhere in this discussion. But I don't consider it relevant to what I said since I only wished to comment on that one specific issue. Frankly I'm not even sure why there's any reason to suggest that it isn't harmful. It just seems to me a needless distraction when there are other things which could be discussed like the aforementioned issues of whether there was enough evidence to run a check or whether there was enough evidence to conclude it was one editor. In fact as I also said, I think more communication from someone may have been helpful, which no one seems to really be disputing although as I said, how we should go about this is also something worthy of discussion. Should CUs do it? Clerks? Someone else? So yeah, it just seems pointless to me to focus so much on something which WP:SOCK seems clear enough on, one editor operating multiple undeclared accounts to edit the same articles at around the same time is not something which is weird, it's something which is harmful and well worth of a block. Nil Einne (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• "It almost definitely was disruption" how so? Point to the diff that shows malice. Just one from this group of editors. --Jayron32 13:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time that a group of students gets blocked because no one here knew that a bunch of accounts were in fact likely run by different people. Anything would have been helpful--a note on a user page, a note on a user talk page, an edit summary (I looked at a bunch of diffs and saw none). So we have a bunch of accounts who appear to come out of nowhere, edit the same or similar articles, and in addition we have a bunch of accounts that haven't edited anything at all. All of those things can maybe be explained, could have been explained, but weren't, so if Bbb comes to the conclusion that there's a sock master here who created a bunch of accounts including a whole lot of sleepers, that is not unreasonable: many of our socks operate this way. In addition, many of our socks and masters do make edits that individually are not disruptive but add up to autoconfirmation, for instance; many of our socks and masters create a whole bunch of accounts only to use them weeks or months later from different ranges that are CU-blocked for past sock activity and are blocked from account creation, so that the master can operate sock accounts from those ranges since now they can log in. It's unfortunate and preventable, but I can't find fault with Bbb for doing what they did. I am sure that most of the folks running edit-a-thons do a great job with a. announcing what they're doing (on the relevant wiki) and b. teach new editors to announce themselves and provide edit summaries; that this didn't happen for this group on this wiki is not the CU's fault. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Short version: My conclusion is most of these accounts are indeed operated by one person. Normally in a consecutive fashion, sometimes an account is kept probably because of what they want to do. Only 1 is an unrelated student of the class, with 2 or 3 others also unrelated editors. But I'm not seeing a clear enough violation to block. Especially as I think the editor is trying to avoid overlap of articles.

Long version

Have to admit I didn't read the first post when first replying as it wasn't relevant to my main point (although it did relate to my secondary point of discussion so I should have). Looking at it now, I agree with the IP that there's something weird going on here and it doesn't look like most of the accounts are related to the specific class outlined or if they are in a very indirect way. I don't speak Japanese but from machine translations it seems they are listed on that page and also they can obtain credit for their work. So it seems fairly unlikely there are that many who's accounts haven't been identified. Further, I looked at the winter 2018 page and they also don't show up there. It seems to be a small class so also wouldn't account for the numbers here. Further quite a few of these accounts have no edits to the Japanese wikipedia or anywhere besides here. The only accounts with undeleted edits here are User:Mnsch1 User:Blbld User:Pnnst4 User:0011ns User:Jlndrws0 User:Dnshppr User:Clndrgrl as well as User:Jmsstrt User:Untr0 User:Dbrkrr The obvious thought is that these might be new Musashi University students who got interested in editing recently for some reason, perhaps in part due to the start of semester 1 [95] and communication with the students take part in the highlighted class. But there's something else strange. The accounts from Mnsch1 to Clndrgrl all have a specific pattern. The account is created then makes a bunch of edits over a day or two, and then disappears/stops editing. (I sorted them by date.) The edits are often (likely) beneficial gnomish edits like improving reference style (replacing with templates or adding more details to a template), particularly the first 4 accounts seem to be mostly this. The later two accounts are more along the lines of adding Japenese interwiki links for terms in articles, and some rewording or local links. The similarity of edits especially fixing the refs seemed a bit weird and I wondered if there could be another class with some minor component of teaching people to edit wikipedia at Musashi University but having noticed the dates, I changed my mind only reaffirmed by what I saw latter. I now believe that the accounts are one person creating multiple consecutive accounts. First thought was could it be because they forgot their password? Well the number of accounts is quite high and the lag between Blbld and Pnnst4 is very short. So for that & other reasons I think privacy or not wanting all their edits to be linked is more likely. I'd also note that the edits are all mobile web edit tagged. And after looking, I found a similar pattern at Ja wikipedia. The accounts User:39age2 User:Lbnlv User:Brebth User:Chrky0 User:Rdndwht User:客地区梧桐 User:感寺位 User:Cmmcl User:かにくん all seem to show a similar pattern of editing for a short time, generally with gnomish edits, as mobile web edits and minimal overlap. The pairs Lbnlv+Brebth and Chrky0+Rdndwht do have some overlap, but otherwise it seems similar. IMO this is another suggestion it's not someone who keeps forgetting their password but changing accounts regularly. (Not sure why the overlap, whether they wanted they kept the different accounts because of what they wanted to edit, or maybe more likely they simply forgot which one was the current account.) One difference in Ja is I think some of the accounts lasted a bit longer than the ones here did although it's still only a few days. I'm aware it's easily possible some accounts were not picked up especially on Ja since they may have never created one here. Another sign is that where I machine translated, the edits often seemed similar to what I saw here. Notably 客地区梧桐 and Cmmcl seemed to be the same changing ref into template. (39age2 seems to be mostly intrawiki links, seems to be similar but I did see at least one interwiki wikilinks [96] and ref improvement [97].) Before I looked at Ja, I identified Jmsstrt, Untr0 and Dbrkrr as different here given the length of time they edited with significant overlap. Jmsstrt and Untr0 also each created a draft which they moved to main space. I later noticed that Untr0 and Dbrkrr also had some Ja edits. Dbrkrr's edits are particularly interesting as they are gnomish mostly adding interwiki links. All 3 also edited with mobile web edit. All 3 edited Otohiko Hara article which Jmsstrt created. This seems to be the primary overlap that I noticed. While these could be another editor/s, I'm inclined to believe they are all actually the same editor as the gnomish one. The way they kept these 3 accounts is IMO more evidence they're doing this for privacy or similar reasons rather than forgetting their password or whatever. While the overlap is concerning, I'm inclined to think perhaps it was an accident, managing that many accounts can't be easy. I.E. they recognise that it's a bit dodgy to be editing the same article, especially one they created, with different accounts and are trying to avoid it where possible. For that reason, while I still strongly believe what I said above, I think we should let this editor be. Well someone can still approach them but if they don't reply, we just leave it. The lots of consecutive accounts is weird but not really a clear sock violation per se. (I mean it could be considered an attempt to avoid scrunity and I guess some may be unhappy with the interwiki wikilinks but I'm personally not feeling it. The possibility these were sleepers whether for vandalism or paid edits did occur to me, but frankly the pattern and the fact some of them don't even have 10 edits, makes me think this is unlikely. (Of course since they've been spotted we may never know.) I appreciate there's no way to be sure I'm right, theoretically, it could simply be a large number of people showing such a pattern. But I strongly believe it's something close to what's going on. (The most likely mistake I would have made would be that some of the accounts are another editor who uses the mobile web editor and only edited briefly. Especially with the Ja ones since I didn't look at edits for all accounts.) Note that User:カホコ and User:Mutou seem to be old editors on Ja (well not much editing) inadvertedly caught out. User:Snsanatorium has no undeleted edits anywhere. User:さとみよ the one identified as a student I correctly guessed was the student because their editing pattern seemed different. (I did recall the student had a non latin alphabet name, but doubt I recognised it and believe I only noticed the lack of mobile web edit later.) From all I've seen, I'm fairly sympathetic to the IP and Bbb23 and whoever opened that SPI. IMO they were right to be concerned by what they saw even if my ultimate conclusion is not to block any of them. Ultimately while it might not be a clear violation, anyone doing what this editor seems to be doing should expect they might have problems, especially when they aren't ultra careful to avoid overlap. I do also have sympathy with the 3 or 4 (depending on the what's up with the no edit) accounts who are probably unrelated and were blocked, including the student. Although it probably wouldn't have had much effect on them other than the surprise to see the block notice.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• That's a very thoughtful and detailed analysis, Nil. I appreciate what went into it. Thank you for that. --Jayron32 16:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is not the first time innocent editors are blocked and will not be the last time. I think it is pretty obvious that the blocks took place due to the lack of any local documentation, and I do not see editors disagreeing with that point. So, what are we trying to get at here? I have seen admins with worse lapses of judgement having their ANI thread closed with "ArbCom is thataway", so if that's what we are getting at here, so be it. Dragging someone through the mud because they did their task just makes no sense. If Jayron32 or PMC have major issues with Bbb23's conduct, both of them know what to do. Keeping this ANI thread for a back-and-forth justification where either party does not understand the other's standpoint is just detrimental to SPI's image and the work we do (as evidenced from Ritchie's essay) — and while, I do not mind critique, there is a fine line where that turns into disrespect of the work that volunteers do on this project. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, we know what to do. What we do is, we say "I think you made the wrong decision here". We both did that. I'm not sure what else you want us to do, saying "I disagree with what you did" is exactly how we do things at Wikipedia when someone does something we disagree with. --Jayron32 16:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  I am not saying you don't. I'm saying you know what to do next as well. If ADMINACCT has been infringed, the only one with any authority is ArbCom and the time for community admonishment/sanctions has been shown to elapse (by this now somewhat stale thread). So either it's "let it be" or "AC is thatway" — that's all I said. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  Some of us are quite capable of carrying on conversations with others without running off to mommy to demand that someone is punished even if we disagree with what they did. ArbCom is not at all appropriate here, and I don't know why you feel the need to bring it up. Simply telling someone why you disagree with what they did, and why you wish they had done something differently, is all that is needed in cases such as this. --Jayron32 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  That's great, then this thread has fulfilled (or outlived) its usefulness. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure anyone would claim that it hasn't. --Jayron32 12:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A hot potato draft "dropped" in its handoffs betwixt admins?

Having seen mention of a certain nuclear operations technician in the WaPo critical of Wikipedia (of its non-coverage of her)[98] and that Everipedia does[99]... I initiated a draft then asked an admin with know-how regarding scholarly biographies this administrator's opinion whether the subject in question had enough sourcing to warrant the encyclopedia's coverage.[100] This admin subsequently moved this draft into mainspace. Then lo and behold yet another admin countered the first admin's action through some kind of maneuver ud hafta be a wikilawyer to follow. So far so good. My query is simply this. Where TF is the draft that'd been so demonstratably prematuredly mv'd into mainspace? Hellaway to run a railroad.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Once the draft was published, it became eligible for speedy deletion. Clarice E. Phelps was deleted because the topic had been previously found non-notable by community consensus. So, your draft does not exist any more because it was published and deleted. You can request that the article be restored at deletion review. Or you could simply ask the admin who deleted it, Amakuru, to restore the draft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I just typed a long reply about this, but I’ll say a shorter version here: if anyone thinks recreating this article now would do anything other than seriously harm the reputation of a living person who is early in her career based off of an op-ed written by the article’s original author complaining about its deletion, you aren’t familiar with how the internet or career advancement work. Recreating the article this close to the moral outrage over the clear consensus in favour of deletion is in my view actually harmful to the subject, as well as unlikely to be in compliance with our inclusion policies and guidelines. Wait 6-24 months, see where this winds up. Before the recent Nobel prize issue is raised: that one involved a late career individual who was a cleat NPROF pass. This involves an early career individual who is a clear NPROF failure and where there was a consensus that she did not meet the GNG. I argued quite strongly that we made a mistake in the former, but here we have a very different situation that has different real world implications. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Topic Ban the entire community from creating an article about her, in any draft or user space, for the next 18 months. ——SerialNumber54129 06:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• What SN sez. ∯WBG^converse 07:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• It seems fairly clear that this saga has now moved on from the state when this ANI was filed, but as the named party I would just echo what NinjaRobotPirate says above. This page, as it says at the top, is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Which of those does this fall under? If I'd been asked to restore the draft I would have done so but things have moved on now so I suggest there's not much more to be done in this forum. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, methinks the real conflict of interest here are apparently no-name PhDs editing Wikipedia anonymously who troll multi-authored scholarly journal articles so as to braycomment on Wikipedia about the fact that one or another of the articles' coauthors don't have as impressive of alphabet soup by their name as [edited: these conscientious Wikipedia volunteers] do.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is the re-re-(re?)-deletion of this being discussed? Natureium (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

>>>>>: Once the draft was published, it became eligible for speedy deletion. Clarice E. Phelps was deleted because the topic had been previously found non-notable by community consensus. So, your draft does not exist any more because it was published and deleted. You can request that the article be restored at deletion review. Or you could simply ask the admin who deleted it, Amakuru, to restore the draft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)<<<<<

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate. I'll try it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As user:Amakuru may not be available at the moment, would another administrator be so kind and fulfill my request for the userfication of former content at Clarice E. Phelps namespace for me? Thanks--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

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

---

User:Netoholic appears to make serial edits (flagging notability, nominating for AfD) based on his personal interpretation that they can ignore the notability criteria set out explicitly in WP:PROF because they perceive those to be in conflict with "core principles" regarding notability.

User:Netoholic has been told repeatedly by me (here) and other users (e.g. here) that this is not the way to go about things, that if they perceive policies/guidelines to be in conflict, they should start a discussion on the appropriate pages and try to establish a consensus, in particular since WP:POINT is explicitly discouraged.

Their reaction was to call for the next AfD based on their criteria (this one), and later to single-handedly and without even mentioning the change on the relevant talk page, let alone establish a consensus, make a change to WP:PROF which supports their side of the argument (here).

There are several discussions that have been going on or are going on, as well as several tags and reverts, all based on User:Netoholic's view that they need not abide by WP:PROF, e.g.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_1#Ana_Achúcarro
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ana_Achúcarro
• Re-tagging Ursula Gibson
• Primary sources tag Ursula Gibson
• Notability Tag AnaAchúcarro

All the problematic actions, in addition to other controversial actions such as a proposal to move Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_AfD,_AfC_and_PROD out of the project's own space without prior consultation of project participants, involve Wikipedia articles about women, in particular women scientists.

Given the level of activity, the disruption caused by this is not likely to go away on its own. In the course of the discussions, the user had WP:PROF explained to them several times, and a number of users have told the user that they perceive their behaviour as Wikilawyering or bordering on harrassment (notably in this AfD). Could someone please look into this? Markus Pössel (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• All of these articles were created by Jesswade88, who Netoholic seems to be targeting with these tendentious nominations and tagging due to recent press coverage. I'd propose a one-way interaction ban with Jesswade88, including a prohibition on tagging or nominating pages created by her for deletion. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• That sounds like a reasonable course of action. It would allow User:Netoholic to continue his positive contributions to topics such as superhero movies or collectible card games, and relieve Jesswade88 of the burden of specific targeting. Markus Pössel (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Real elitist of you, but you've only made 14 edits to the main article space this year. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yup. GMG^talk 15:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed with those above that this warrants a one-way interaction ban of Netoholic with Jesswade88. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am also inclined to agree. But this and this (discussion) seem like escalation that would not be covered by an IB. --JBL (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what triggered this "campaign", but it's a timesink and should stop: poor AfD nominations appealed to DRV, attempting to change a policy page without consensus, nominating moving a WikiProject page out of the WikiProject space without even bring it up with the WikiProject first... this is all disruptive and is requiring a bunch of other editors to take time to clean up and otherwise deal with. This should stop, like, today. I was hoping this ANI thread would bring a response of "OK, sorry, I'll slow down", but it hasn't, so unless this stops immediately, I would support Joe's proposal. Leviv ich 17:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Updated !vote: I said "unless this stops immediately", and it has stopped, which is good enough for me. On-boarding community feedback is all I ever ask of my colleagues. So long as it's not a repeated problem, I see no reason for a sanction. (Plus, sanctions make more work for other editors.) Leviv ich 13:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I support such an IBAN, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN. Beyond the individual articles, the kind of behavior exhibited here by Netoholic creates a toxic editing environment that is the opposite of what we should be aiming for. We should take all necessary steps to prevent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN & endore fully David Eppstein's comment. Netoholic is very obviously causing distress to Jess Wade, who simply wants to be left in peace to write new articles. And Netoholic is creating a toxic environment for all those interested in Wikipedia's gender imbalance. Whilst acknowledging WP:NPA it is nevertheless the case that Netoholic's behaviour is pretty much indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling; and although I will extent WP:AGF to Netoholic, this toxicity needs to stop. If there are notability issues with Jess's articles, the community is large enough to address these without Netoholic's close policing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support based on Netoholic's response below, which makes it clear this is unlikely to stop otherwise; following an editor around to "clean up" after them like this requires that there be a clear problem with their edits that the community would generally agree on. Obviously, going by the response in every venue where this has been raised, that's not the case here. (Full disclosure: I have had unpleasant disagreements with Netoholic in the past.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• (Personal attack removed)
• Support one way interaction ban Per User:Netoholic/Admins : " I respect someone greatly who takes a short newbie article and improves it at least to a good stub level, or maybe even a decent redirect. Slapping {{delete}} oder {{vfd}} on an article that was made only a short time ago is an insult to the author. Encouraging improvement is a more respectable stance." Ironic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• As you can see in the above cases, AfD was a last resort when every attempt to place cleanup tags and to point out the lack of WP:INDEPENDENT sources was removed within minutes. The problematic editing environment was due to popularizing a fresh stub/C-class page. Something about that needs to change. I'm stopping my involvement, but the problem will still remain. -- Netoholic @ 23:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per David Eppstein, Tagishsimon, Aquillion, and Ritchie3333. Gamaliel (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• There are two separate, but connected, issues here. One is Netoholic's recent actions, the other is the Clarice Phelps situation and actions from Rama, Jess Wade, and others. They need to be dealt with separately. Whether intended or not, Netoholic's actions towards Jess Wade are unacceptable and must stop, and to that end I support to proposed one-way interaction ban. However, I do not think that is sufficient, judging from the AfD and recent WT:PROF posts. Netoholic can easily target other bios of academics and make the same disruptive claims such as that fellowships in learned societies aren't evidence of notability unless they are posted on the front page of the New York Times (yes, exaggeration, but you get the point). Is a Nobel Prize evidence of impact in their field if the only citation supporting it is to the Nobel Prize website? I'd say yes, but I suspect Netoholic would argue. I suspect that a broader topic ban is or will be needed here. EdChem (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Despite Netoholic's statement and partial apology (below) I still support a one-way IBAN with JessWade or content she creates. But to go further, a TBAN on editing all academia-related articles could well be on the cards if Netoholic ignores consensus and advice, and continues to push, either at AFD or elsewhere, what seems to be promotion of a unilateral interpretation of WP:NPROF which does not have support from the community. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• There seems to be a consensus for imposing a one-way IBAN, and Netoholic as accepted it below. Can somebody please close this section? This is an ongoing problem, so we should wait for the discussion below on a separate topic ban to finish. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per the Back to the subject section below - there is no consensus for an IBAN at the moment. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• What is the procedure, then? From what I can see, the three administrators involved in this discussion all support the one-way IBAN. It is true, as you say, that a number of non-administrator users have stated their opposition. So do we need consensus among the administrators themselves or among all the users who have participated in the discussion? Markus Pössel (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note the (same) discussion continues below. ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Support per David Eppstein, Tagishsimon, Aquillion, and Ritchie3333. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic's response

It goes without saying that no one expects a full-fledged article to be perfect from the start. But likewise, when a new article that lacks independent sourcing is tagged {{notability}}, {{third-party}}, or likewise, those tags should be retained as long as they reflect valid concerns. That's not exactly been happening lately in User:Jesswade88's brand-new WIR articles, which are written and posted on twitter to a sizable following immediately. If admins want to check those page histories, you'll see me tagging for non-trivial concerns, and then the tags are removed immediately, usually without addressing the concern at all. Jesswade88 removes a lot of them, but isn't the only one - her posts get a lot of attention. There are two interpretations for why the tags are being removed - I (and others) could be just wrong about the concerns.... or her following feels a sense of pride for these articles and that visible cleanup tags detract from the experience. Overall though, her most recent article at least has had a lot of the concerns taken care of, and other editors have found at least some independent sourcing. But perhaps it all points to a change which should be made in how Jesswade88 popularizes these daily articles. Maybe create them in Draft: space and do twitter posts linking there, inviting others to make improvements without the immediate pressure of them being "live" pages? Or write them and ask for help from the WikiProject WIR folks to do a quick assessment to make sure its decently "ready to go", then popularize it a few days later? The recent "media coverage" with regards Jesswade88's Clarice Phelps article is I think is strong evidence that her current method can backfire. And I wasn't even involved in that one. So yeah, I guess admins could IBAN me (after only about two days since I even learned of her existence)... I think that just encourages even more of a bubble around her daily project. Wikipedia would be better of if instead we were forced to work on articles together. I'd like to note that though I wasn't named by her, she has targetted me to her followers outside of Wikipedia. I'll be on the losing end of this no matter what. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not addressing the main problem here. You flagged and nominated for deletion articles that are considerably better than the average new WP article, and which pass a specific notability criterion defined for their class (academic biographies). Instead of abiding by WP:PROF, you followed your own personal interpretation for why they should be deleted, which interpretation runs counter to what is explicitly stated in WP:PROF. In addition, in the AfD cases, you did not perform proper WP:BEFORE, detailing your reservations on the talk pages and leaving people time to react. Do you really have no idea at all why such behaviour is seen as problematic here on Wikipedia? Markus Pössel (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not addressing the main problem here. You are an incredibly infrequent] Wikipedian who showed up on May 1 and have been stalking any of my edits that come in contact with with WIR content. I also note that your last major spree of activity was in October 2018 and revolved around JessWade/WIR content as well (Donna Strickland). You're a twitter attack dog, and this ANI thread is just part of that. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia in the day (I have a job) so didn't know you were the editor who tagged it. >> I didn't 'target' you to any followers, I simply commented on how ridiculous it is that within moments of the page being shared, you'd claimed a Professor at MIT wasn't notable, then flagged it for deletion. As for creating as drafts - I'm quite sure the biographies I write don't need help. This isn't about my 'pride', so please don't be so patronising. I remove your relentless criticisms because the the tags are inappropriate, and you only seem to put them on pages about women scientists. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comply with WP:CIV, Netoholic, and cut out the ad hominem, insinuations and insults. Markus Pössel (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This user is just wasting people's time. They are nominating c class articles for deletion and when multiple experienced editors point out the irrationality of these nominations then this is repeatedly ignored. I have no idea of the editors motives but they are making this user entirely unconstructive. The editor seems annoyed that no one is taking his/her point of view seriously. Whereas the exact opposite is true, they are not appreciating that their nominations are unanimously agreed as lacking any credible supporting evidence. Surely if you have just had a SNOW Keep then it shows poor judgement and then very very poor judgement to then demonstrate the same poor judgement on a similar article. I strongly support the idea that this user should be obliged to not edit articles relating to @JessWade (and/or even women in general). (Note the revenge-like move proposal at the Women in Red project). I think and hope that they will find that they are better appreciated in other areas of the project. Oh and I do have a COI (I support Women in Red, my mother was not a bloke) Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, having an opinion about the article's topic is not considered sufficient to qualify as a WP:COI (if it were, most articles would be wastelands, since the most dedicated editors on a topic usually have some opinion on that topic.) See WP:COINOTBIAS. A COI means something like having a personal connection to the article's subject or some direct personal stake in their success; simply wanting them to succeed (or fail, for that matter) is insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I will say sorry, I'll slow down, as Levivich suggested. In fact, I'll go further and say I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles. I have only interacted with her articles for the last 2 days, and it was not specifically targeting her, but simply being one of many she drew attention to those articles by her posts via social media like many other editors. I trust those editors to help her improve these articles. But I would suggest to her and those editors that if someone raises an issue, places a cleanup message on the article... rather than react as you have as if it is an insult, that you AGF, relax, and really focus on making articles better quality rather than attack the person raising the concern - even if you think they are wrong. And please be responsible with your comments on twitter, Jesswade88. While you may not have intended it, you have caused a dog pile against me. -- Netoholic @ 22:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

What comes to mind is that Wikipedia is in the real world. Last night, I was in a pub with 60 other people, most of whom are on Facebook, many of whom are on Twitter. I would hazard a guess that the odds that anyone except me had ever edited Wikipedia are approximately zero. The systemic bias is very real, and this is one way it manifests itself - the cross section of editors commenting on Twitter is not going to have the same demographics as that on an ANI thread. You can't really have a go at Jess for expressing an opinion that lots of people happen to agree with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I've just blocked User:Lancewiggs (here for 6 years, 7 edits) indefinitely for accusing Netoholic of being misogynist and associated with Nazism, and have removed their post. That, unfortunately, is the sort of thing that gets imported from social media. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, Jess Wade has not precipitated a pile-on on you by anything she has done on Twitter. You have brought this on yourself. We need to be very very clear about this. Jess Wade has the freedom to express her dismay at the treatment her articles have received. Wikipedians experienced enough to look through contribution and article histories have the freedom to express their views based on what they see. Your attempt here to police her twitter output is as unwelcome and as in fact more inappropriate than was your policing of her on-wiki work.

And that sentiment goes for you, too, Black Kite, to the extent that any of your post about Lancewiggs and your speculation on the connection between social media and that user's actions pertains to Jess Wade. She is the aggrieved party in this matter, and any suggestion that she should shoulder any responsibility for the actions of anyone who has involved themselves in this matter, or curtail her freedom to talk about whatever she damn well feels like talking about, is repugnant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, User:Netoholic's description that they merely placed tags and pointed out problems, and that the reaction of other users to this was because those users felt insulted by this very action, conveniently leaves out the facts that (a) they did not follow key parts of WP:BEFORE but jumped to AfD after less than 14 hours, and (b) that in their argument, they deliberately ignored that the articles met the criteria explicitly set out in WP:PROF, claiming that because in their personal opinion there was a fundamental conflict between WP:PROF and general criteria for notability that they could just ignore WP:PROF. Several users pointed this out to User:Netoholic; it played a key role both for people removing the notability tags and for the two SNOW closures of the AfDs. That User:Netoholic leaves out those key facts makes for a significantly distorted version of what really happened. Markus Pössel (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: No-one is curtailing anyone's freedom to talk about anything, other than curtailing Lancewiggs' ability to post here, given his totally unnecessary personal attack. And no-one is suggesting that Jesswade is responsible for his edits, either. However, I don't think that speculating that an editor who hadn't edited for 7 months came here to deliver that attack on the basic of the issue blowing up in social media is unreasonable. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Netoholic is seeking to do exactly that in their comment "And please be responsible with your comments on twitter, Jesswade88. While you may not have intended it, you have caused a dog pile against me". Your FWIW can be mistaken for endorsing Netoholic's policing of Jess Wade's twitter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: It certainly wasn't meant to do that. Once something appears in the social media realm, it doesn't matter how it got there. Jesswade was not responsible for Lancewiggs' edits, however Lancewiggs became aware of the issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: This primarily relates to your first message, I'm posting it here to reduce the chance it will be lost. I don't really understand your reasoning. If you believe Jesswade88 or others from Twitter are editing the article after creation inappropriately such as removing cleanup tags when the reason for the cleanup is either obvious or discussed on the talk page, and has not been resolved, or otherwise that the articles have problems that need to be resolved or should be in draft space; then there are ways these concerns could be dealt with. Most likely this would entail first talking to Jesswade88 and if the problems persist, bringing it to wider attention in an appropriate place. Perhaps even ANI. WP:AFD is clearly not the place to deal with these problems, that should only be for articles that you genuinely feel do not meet our WP:Notability requirements (GNG or subject specific) based on the available evidence and generally also some basic research if necessary. WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If you keep bringing articles to AfD and these keep being kept, this generally means you're doing something wrong. In other words, if you had been smarter about how you handled you concerns and assuming they are correct, we may now be discussing them here on ANI instead of discussing your behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I've only taken two articles to AfD, and I did a pretty thorough WP:BEFORE check ahead of time. I'm pretty diligent and resourceful, and could not find WP:INDEPENDENT sources for them. I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes. I've learned a lesson from this. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate, no, you demonstrably did not comply with WP:BEFORE e.g. in the case of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski: C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." – you nominated the article for AfD less than 14 hours after it was created. C3 "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page" – you did not address your concerns on the article's talk page, even though there was a small discussion about notability issues already there. It's great that you're learning from this; re-reading what WP:BEFORE should probably be a part of this. Markus Pössel (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Full context of WP:BEFORE C3: try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}} . Which you know I did. Why'd you misquote the line? -- 06:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed Jess's posts on Twitter and there is nothing untoward about them. Stop attempting to deflect valid criticism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Section break

Which this isn't directly related to Netoholic, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about these creations. I am very much in support of this effort to create more biographies of notable women, but from what I can tell at RSN, it's looking like the creator of the article was the first to claim that Phelps was the first black woman to help discover an element. This, combined with other misunderstandings of either Wikipedia policy (verifiability, synth, OR, notability, off-wiki canvassing) or the United States academic system (claiming that a 29-year-old postdoc is a tenured professor), have me getting worried. I don't want to start fact checking the other 300 articles started by this editor, but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary. Natureium (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your evidence-free assertions, Natureium. We'll get back to you. We've just been through a whole thread on the close policing of Jess Wade, and here you are, popping up just as the dust settles, suggesting that that's exactly what is required. smh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jess Wade has had 8 rticles deleted out of 592 created since 28-09-2017. 1.5 years is probably a long enough time period for the community to evaluate her input, and the indication is that the community does not share your 'concern'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just trying to be rude? Natureium (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Yes. Whatever community sanction is determined for Netoholic should be applied to you too. You're cut from exactly the same cloth, and seemingly incapable of seeing that your "but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary" is wildly offensive, is not supported by the statistic I constructively adduced, and per my comments lower down, might as well apply to you in a motes & beams fashion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon How would you preferred she phrase that idea so as to not be wildly offensive? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Per the instructions at the top of this page, include diffs demonstrating the problem. Don't denigrate editors by making evidence-free sweeping assertions; especially from within a glass house. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon for the reply. I was unsure if it was the phrasing, the lack of diffs, or both, which were upsetting you. Now that I know it's the lack of diffs, could I trouble you to post the diff which enumerates the 4 problems you've found with Heather Wakelee? I looked in the edit history and on the (currently non-existant) talk page and didn't see anything. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a hypocritical garbage gripe, considering you made your own assertions without providing any diffs. Grandpallama (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I take your point, Barkeep49, but no. If you have a look through you'll spot three sentences in which four assertions are made; none of the sentences are referenced. References for other sentences may cover these assertions; who knows. Much the same attaches to Jess's assertions. The article lacks defaultsort and authority control, both of which are dealt with in the MoS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What I see are two women who are attempting to bring more coverage to women in STEM fields. There's no reason that despite this shared area of interest that one, or both, can't criticize the content of the other in order to increase the quality of the encyclopedia. This is qualitatively different than nominating clearly notable people for deletion - what Netoholic did. Instead of going to deletion, he should taken to the talk page to discuss why his improvement tags should not have been removed or if it was across too many articles to hold simultaneous discussions gone to BLPN to raise the issue. I don't think he and Natureium are are at all cut from the same cloth. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have now looked at the four assertions made without citation at the article's talk page and found all of them to be compliant with requirements around sourcing, though one assertion was incorrect by a year which I've now corrected. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks, and list some examples. The synth, verifiability, and OR issues are already being discussed here. One instance of off-wiki canvassing was discussed here, and I don't have to to find diffs for others right now. This AfD is where she claims that a 29-year has a tenured professor position. With regard to notability issues, as you said there are many articles and I haven't had much time to go through them, but here are a few that I've come across so far where notability should be examined:

• Pippa Grange
• Camille Petit
• Sarah Tuttle
• Katharina Sophia Volz
• Rylie Green
• Lisa Jones (scientist)
• DeAndrea Salvador
• Nia Imara
• Joanna Bauldreay
• Oluwatoyin Asojo
• Ciara Sivels

Natureium (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I first encountered Jess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbie Hutty, cleaning up the article and improving it so it was kept. I recall the article needed improvements and additional references, and some of the claims in the article didn't seem to be backed up by sources at that point. Some of these are documented in Template:Did you know nominations/Abbie Hutty. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Kolodziejski as "snow keep" today; the article has been improved significantly from its original state by GreenMeansGo. However, it is not and has never been policy to demand that editors are perfect and should produce high-quality content from the outset, and editors should be encouraged to improve articles by collaborative means, not whacking them with a big stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

some of the claims in the article didn't seem to be backed up by sources at that point is a real problem. It's better to create a stub, than to create an article with information that can't be verified, especially if it's a BLP. I've created many stubs when I've come across people that have been determined by SNG to merit an article but for whom information and sources are lacking. We don't need perfect articles, but we need articles that are compliant with policy. Natureium (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And regarding community improvement, I have just spent the last little while trying to get some of the recent creations by this editor in line with the MOS, but going through the lot of them is going to take some time. Natureium (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There are by my count 4 claims in Heather Wakelee that don't seem to be backed up by sources, and at least a couple of MoS issues. I don't want to start fact & MoS checking the other 202 articles started by you, but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't mind. I welcome any improvements to articles I've started. Natureium (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As do I. I don’t make claims that aren’t backed up by sources - Abbie was one of the first bios I made, and since then almost every statement I write is cited. But this isn’t about ‘improving’ articles - this is about deeming them not notable/ worthy of deletion (which Netoholic has, for every recent article i’ve made. As for Clarice Phelps, the claim came from a book (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/superheavy-9781472953896/), I didn’t write a biography based on something I had imagined. Jesswade88 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This has always been my only concern. You can cite every statement but if the citations are no good for determining notability, we shouldn't have an article. I would suggest you start first by finding 2-3 truly independent biographical sources... if you can't find that many, its probably better to try a different subject. Once you have those, then you can use university/organization profiles as you've done. In these two (and only been two not "every") articles, I tried to tag them for lacking these independent sources and you kept removing the tags. I am a fairly staunch inclusionist/eventualist... but you make it really hard when you remove cleanup notices. That to me tells you think the article demonstrates notability as it is, and so AfD is the only way to determine that. I don't actually feel bad that the AfDs failed... because at least it prompted others to gather some independent sources and put them in the articles - as was always the only point of me tagging them in the first place. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are deliberately sweeping under the carpet WP:PROF and the criteria set forth there in, plus the current consensus of what constitutes a realiable and independent (of the BLP subject) source for satisfying those criteria. You are putting your personal opinion about what WP:IS means in this case above the consensus set out in WP:PROF. So no, you were not just implementing WP policies and guidelines here, you were using personal judgement to set aside the guideline WP:PROF that is most specifically applicable here. Do you really see no problem with this? In your rather lengthy answers, you do not appear to be addressing this problem at all, even though it was/is at the heart of the ANI here. Markus Pössel (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For Phelps the claim did not come, back in August 2018, from a book due to be published in June 2019 (nor does the book quite back up the claim - at least not the quote Jesswade88 provided from the unpublished back in the beginning of April). This is the version published by Jesswade88 in August 31 2018. There are a number of problems there:

1. "Phelps earned a Bachelors degree in chemistry from Tennessee State University in 2003" - cited to - [101] - doesn't support chemistry.
2. "She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014" - incorrect. Phelps claims no such thing. The cited ref - [102] only says "Clarice Phelps, a researcher/program manager for industrial use isotopes at ORNL, won the Technology, Research, Innovation Award." - and doesn't support this at all.
3. " Phelps completed a Masters degree at the University of Texas at Austin Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Program." - cited to [103] - doesn't support this. It does support she is currently enrolled as a student.
4. "She was involved with the discovery of Tennessine, and is the first African-American woman to identify an element." - cited to ORNL PR which says " Phelps was part of the team that discovered the superheavy element tennessine" - nothing about being "first" (it actually doesn't even say Phelps is African American or black - so even that bit is WP:OR in relation to the citation)

Looking at Leslie Kolodziejski (who is notable due to WP:NPROF, despite probably failing (like most wikiNotable academics) WP:GNG) - there were certainly plenty of primary sources used in this initial version which was subsequently challenged by other users. Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't really want to have a dog in this fight, but this comment where Netaholic is making WP:OWN accusations on Rosiestep - who is (in my opinion) one of the most sensible, level-headed and drama-averse editors on the entire project - is just so far out of whack I have difficulty comprehending how someone could make such a comment in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to the subject

Support, and ... (I failed to vote formally before) - I'm worried that this editor has agreed to stop annoying Jess Wade's articles but the response above does not give me any confidence that they understand that the consensus is clearly against their behaviour. Trying to undermine another person's arguments by counting their edits etc etc is just desperate. This user has been told that they do not understand PROF and that notability only applies to the existence of an article, so there is no point in restating that again here. I think some formality is required here to remind the editor that their wider actions cause concern and that the ban being proposed here can be extended. Victuallers (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; I found it quite frustrating that Netoholic framed this matter as them pointing out problems and other editors taking those pointers as an insult. As far as I can see, so far, he hasn't demonstrated any understanding that his setting aside WP:PROF due to his personal non-consensus opinion regarding a supposed conflict with other policies/guidelines was problematic. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1-way IBAN (created TBAN below) - I realise I started the TBAN, so can't vote for that, but should still support the 1-way IBAN, for the repeated issues that the editor doesn't seem to sufficiently understand (at least in some areas, others could be viewed as the errors of a newer editor). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Massive over-reaction. Conflict (and even dumb ones like this) are a part of collaboration. Unless, this becomes a patrern, I am uncomfortable with the IBan given that there have been only two AfDs and two days of crossing paths.∯WBG^converse 10:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two bad AfD noms (Passed WP:NPROF which is a very specific guideline, but not WP:GNG) is an over-reaction here. Some of the tags were correct - while we do allow academics to pass notability without independent, reliable, secondary sources - WP:BLP (and WP:BLPSOURCES), WP:V still apply to article contents in BLPs. I will also note that there is a lively discussion going on Twitter concurrent to the discussion here. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Opppse insufficient evidence of either egregious lack of judgement (per WP:CIR) or deliberate vindictiveness (per WP:HOUND); subjecting an editor's articles to closer examination—when there may be, pace JessWade, cause—is very much in the spirit of protecting the integrity of the encyclopaedia, if over-enthusiastically approached in this case. Still, I'm sure they've got the message by now. ——SerialNumber54129 11:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose These AfDs look pointy to me, but I don't think that this merits an interaction ban, especially after such a short period of time. Natureium (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: So I've been watching this for some time. I think a hearty round of trouting is necessary, quite frankly, but anything more is simply disproportionate to any delict committed here. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose while there were certainly problems with Netoholic's conduct, the rush to suggest an iBan and the hasty accumulation of supports for that suggestion is less than ideal. As Netoholic appears to have gotten the message, no sanctions are necessary. Also, Tagishsimon would be wise to review the ongoing thread about Legacypac at AN and note that battleground behavior eventually results in sanctions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this or any other sanction is an over-reaction, especially bearing in mind Netoholic's response. I regularly go through the edits of certain people and tag, revert, delete etc. I'm known for it and thanked for it. It isn't hounding to do so if there is genuine cause for concern (as there has been here, based on the Phelps palaver). The idea that in this case it is some sort of crusade against someone, based on two days' activity, seems extreme. It is also extreme to think that, for example, it is targeting women - Jesswade88's edits mostly seem to relate to women and thus it is inevitable that any sifting through those edits is going to relate to them also.
  I don't use Twitter but I do think that if people choose to use it (or any other social media platform) to promote their work on Wikipedia then they're probably opening themselves and their followers up to malign accusations, whether rightly or wrongly: the person tweeting creates the situation and it is entirely possible for them to avoid it simply by not tweeting about it in the first instance - no tweet, no twitterstorm etc. What people do off-wiki is entirely up to them but, regardless of what policies are put into place on WP, public pronouncements on public forums may result in unintended consequences. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am a regular Twitter user but occasional editor, with a life outside both. If I become aware of articles that I can help to improve via Twitter, does it devalue my efforts to improve a page simply because of how I hear about it? If so, we risk losing out on the constructive contributions of many casual editors. I've been following this discussion for hours now since the Leslie Kolodziejski AfD, and the general tenor doesn't fill me with enthusiasm to contribute more in future. I'm sure many others feel the same way. DWeir (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Like I said, it is up to you but there may be unintended consequences. In the Phelps debacle, for example, a very experienced Wikipedian suddenly began whinging became concerned because their Twitter use had come under scrutiny and they were concerned for the safety of themselves and people whom they know. YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I have run into Netoholic before in cases of requested moves. I have found they are a stickler for how policy/guidelines were written to a point that it passed what WP:NOT#BURO cautions against. Eg, there are common sense consensus decisions, times where IAR applies, etc., and that P&G are descriptive, not prescriptive of how to use them. I read pretty much the same issue here, and nothing related to any specific vindictiveness against this topic area, but mostly just their insistence that policy be followed to the letter. That needs to back off a bit, but that is something not actionable outside of TROUTs. --Masem (t) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How does this square with their behavior with respect to NPROF? --JBL (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Deletion TBAN

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

---

I think an IBAN might initially have sufficed, but judging by the conversation above, the primary issue area doesn't seem to be accepted & resolved. The editor would appear to have made some contributory edits, and the once mooted "academic TBAN" enough would sever that, and is very broad. I suggest the following:

TBAN on PROD and AfD activity

I've deliberately not made it a TBAN against deletions in general, as we don't seem to have had issues with speedies, COIN, DRV etc.

I've suggested a general PROD/AfD TBAN, but if a narrower one on submissions wants to be made, I'm also game for that. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Can I please ask for a bit of sanity check here? This is getting out of control. I have literally only AfD'd two articles in the last two days... and probably no more than 20 in my entire editing history. This whole thing is running amok. -- Netoholic @ 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic: Have a closer look at the rationale given for the sanctions. This is not only about the AfDs you have made so far, but about your deliberate setting aside of WP:PROF, based on your personal interpretation that the consensus reached at WP:PROF is in conflict with some more fundamental principles, and that you are therefore free to ignore the criteria (in particular as regards suitable sources for the specific criteria) of WP:PROF. You have conspicuously not addressed this problem so far; you have not indicated that you even understand why others see this as a problem; your summary of what you claim you did wrong, as well as this last comment of yours, give no indication that you are willing to acknowledge this key aspect of the problem. That, as far as I can see, is the key to sanctions beyond the Jesswade88-specific ones: that you have shown behaviour that is likely to lead to lots of additional time-wasting conflicts, and that so far you appear to be completely unwilling to even acknowledge that the problem in question even exists. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

More generally, please take a step back and consider, in light of the two WP:SNOW reversions as well as in light of the considerable number of experienced Wikipedians trying to get through to you here, that this is not a "consensus of idiots" as per the jwales quote on your user page, or a process that is "running amok", but that instead you are fundamentally wrong at least in some of the aspects of what you have been doing, have so far not shown indication of realizing and/or admitting that fact, and that *this* combination is what has a number of people here (all of whom would rather be spending their time on something else, I would assume) worried about your future behaviour. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Markus Pössel: Please stop WP:BADGERING me with the same thing over and over again. This is now the 7th direct comment to me in this section, largely repeating the same demands of me. You have no grounds to claim I am "deliberately" doing any such thing. I am engaged in some pretty collaborative discussions over at WT:PROF (where you have badgered my comments as well) over what appropriate level of conformity to WP:Verifiability#Notability should be communicated on the WP:PROF page. I have no problems with WP:PROF criteria at all... just that interpretation of it by editors is often forgetting that independent sources are needed for those criteria in order to base articles upon. Maybe after that discussion my mind will change or I'll understand the rationale a bit better. I don't know, but I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon. So to say I've "not addressed" the feedback from the AfDs is just flawed, at best. -- Netoholic @ 10:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Since WP:PROF was a key part of the incident report here, and had so far remained unacknowledged in your replies, politely (if repeatedly) asking about this was appropriate, I think, and certainly not WP:BADGERING at all. My description of this as being deliberate is not an unfounded claim; instead it directly follows from the discussion we had on your user page, where you are fairly explicit about not abiding by certain aspects of the WP:PROF consensus since in your view it contradicts core policy. Also, the issue is not some vague "interpretation" of WP:PROF criteria, as you claim; you are going counter to an explicit criterion and the specific guideline laid down in WP:PROF as to when that criterion is satisfied. Markus Pössel (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, having looked at Netoholic's AfD stats, it shows he has started 17 AfDs in 15 years, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Next (programming block), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Edelstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloy (rapper) which all closed as "delete" without issue. I did think Netoholic was a bit hyperactive about Edelstein, but consensus proved him right in the end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I did deem Netoholic's slapping of a notability template to be acutely dumb over my edit-sum and was shocked to see the AfD but we don't TBan folks for heat-of-the-moment lapses in judgement or temporal dumbness. Per Ritchie. ∯WBG^converse 10:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No, this would be excessive right now. A TBAN should only be something to consider in the future if issues around WP:NPROF and WP:IS were to continue against consensus. It's clear Netoholic has got the message he/she overstepped the mark, and I'm sure they'll want to take a little more care in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If there's an issue, it is not, per Ritchie333, with their general competence at XfD. ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose We're not going to ban someone for having a more stringent view of WP:N than usual. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an overreaction. Netoholic needs to understand that the community has decided that NPROF is the rule here. He is not disruptive at AfD in general, unless there's more that hasn't been brought up here. Natureium (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: No TBAN, per above arguments. Simply too excessive. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I've made way more bad AfD and DRV noms than Netoholic and I've only been here six months. If I understand the situation, Net tagged some articles, the tags were removed without (in Net's view) the underlying issues being addressed, and Net interpreted that as meaning the article creation process was "done", and since the article didn't (in Net's view) support notability, AfD was an appropriate next step. This was a mistake. First, because we're supposed to AfD based on the status of sourcing, not the status of the article (so tagging or not tagging, creation being complete or not complete, should all be irrelevant to a decision to AfD an article), and second because if you think an editor is doing something wrong at an article, nominating that article for deletion is never the right way to address it–that "takes it out on the article" instead of "taking it out on the editor". It seems that Net has taken these lessons on-board. We shouldn't TBAN each other from areas where we make mistakes. As long as it's not a repeated ongoing problem, there is no need for a sanction. Leviv ich 13:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose good grief no! This is beyond overkill. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it would be excessive at this juncture. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment in the IBAN proposal. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Netoholic - post-closure discussion

I see that there is no consensus for any kind of sanction for Netoholic, but I was still hoping that the discussion under Section break could continue so we can shed some light on the issue of cleaning up some of these articles. Natureium (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI is not for discussing content? Leviv ich 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Straight off this discussion Netoholic is back to participating in AfDs focusing on the same editor's creations and expressing the same dogmatic views counter to the consensus interpretation of WP:PROF. The lesson learned appears to be: ANI doesn't care so keep doing the same things. This is what happens when you say "oh, he isn't that bad, he only went after two articles": he continues the same focus on hounding a productive editor that caused him to be taken here in the first place. How many good editors will have to be driven away by toxic ones like this before we only have the bad ones left? (For the record: I am not expressing an opinion about the merits of the article under AfD or the decision to take it to AfD. But Netoholic needs to learn that hounding is wrong, and seems to have instead learned the opposite. Other people can and will decide the AfD appropriately; his involvement on it is unnecessary and, because of the past history involved, unhelpful.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What part of that !vote is problematic? It looks perfectly legitimate to me. It certainly doesn't warrant that kind of personal rhetoric. Lepricavark (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I rarely notice who created the articles I !vote on in AfDs. I've also been accused of being disruptive because of the views on notability I've expressed at AfDs (whether !voting keep or delete). Freeze peaches and all that. Leviv ich 04:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Above Netoholic said they would "stop paying attention to Jesswade88's articles". Several people opposed a formal IBAN on that basis. This shows that Netoholic's word is worthless. ANI has once again decided to respond to toxicity with an ineffective slap on the wrist (if that). – Joe (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The original IBAN proposal was made by you without Netoholic having been given a chance to defend himself. I'm not sure you ever gave his word a chance to be worth something. And I don't think his behavior was bad enough to justify the initial reaction. That being said, while I am not entirely convinced that we should assume Netoholic checked to see who created the Sarah Tuttle article before !voting in the AfD (I know I usually don't check that before !voting in an AfD), I can understand why his participation in that AfD looks bad. Lepricavark (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The participation in the AfD, and the trying to change NPROF while involved in disputes about the meaning of NPROF, and trying to move a WiR advice essay out of the WiR project space .... --JBL (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: Netoholic has now joined a fourth AfD on articles created by the same editor he has already been credibly accused of hounding. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I see a big difference between initiating AfDs and tagging articles and simply !voting in AfDs. Like, there is a massive difference between those two things. Furthermore, I think we all know that this thread never would have blown up like this if the articles in question had not been about women. The second comment in this thread is a sitting arb proposing a one-way IBAN without waiting to hear what Netoholic had to say for himself. Netoholic was unfairly jumped on and should not have had to agree to any restrictions, but the understandable desire to protect articles about women overrode concerns like fairness. It seems like Netoholic was identified, fairly or otherwise, as an enemy of Women in Red and therefore he needed to be stopped by all measures, reasonable or otherwise. That being said, once Netoholic gives his word, he needs to keep it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Since no one goes around systematically trying to delete new articles on male scientists, for example, we're not going to have an ANI thread about it. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone go around systematically trying to create new articles on male scientists? There has been a commendable and concerted effort to create articles about women scientists, but sometimes good intentions can go too far and result in the creation of articles on non-notable individuals. And when that happens, some editor or subset of editors are likely to tag such pages for deletion. Sometimes these editors will also take good intentions (yes, keeping Wikipedia free of articles on non-notable subjects is a good intention) too far and tag some articles that actually do have notable subjects for deletion. But in both cases, we should not jump on good-faith editors for taking good intentions too far. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Netholic crossed the line quite some time ago from quality control to hounding. Normally when scrutiny of a longtime, respected co-worker is done, it's done in the spirit of mentoring that person and showing them constructively how to improve their work. If I was subject to the kind of campaign that Netholic (and a few others) have been carrying on in the past few days, I would certainly feel as if people are not out to help me but to discredit and destroy as much of my work as possible. That's not the environment we want here. I support a one-way I-ban - it's really not too much to ask to have Netholic check who created an article he's thinking of commenting on, and do something else if the creator is Jesswade88. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: would you voluntarily agree for a while to check who created an article he's thinking of commenting on, and do something else if the creator is Jesswade88? Leviv ich 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow I didn't realize I was still so popular. No one could be bothered to ping me back here before now? I think the HOUNDING may be switching the other direction.
I said above that "I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles", and I have. Right now, I am participating in some deletion discussions related to academics only to get a feel for now WP:PROF has been working out. It seems like several editors may be independently taking recent events into consideration and nominating a couple of her articles, but I am not looking at the page's creator - only the quality of the articles as they are in the order they are nominated. I am actually spending a lot of time improving articles up for AFD, even when I still don't think they pass notability thresholds, to give them a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps as Clayoquot said above - "showing them constructively how to improve their work". If someone thinks that is disruptive or unwelcome... I dunno what to say. -- Netoholic @ 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Jesswade88: so she can opine on whether your improvements are disruptive or unwelcome. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to reconcile "I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles" and "I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon" with "I am participating in some deletion discussions related to academics only to get a feel for how WP:PROF has been working out" and "I am actually spending a lot of time improving articles up for AFD". I agree with Jayron below that there are no sanctions in place preventing Net from doing anything, but at the same time, there seem to be some mixed signals from Net. I, too, am curious whether Jesswade88 thinks there is need for community involvement here. Leviv ich 17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the OP, Netoholic nominated two articles for deletion and tagged two articles, all of them created by Jesswade88. Then this thread was opened and immediately escalated to a one-way IBAN discussion. Since that point, Netoholic has !voted (not initiated mind you, just !voted) in two AfDs of articles created by Jesswade88. And all of this has happened over the span of a few days. Not weeks or months. Days. Not only is that not a campaign, that's not even sufficient cause to informally ask Netoholic to stay away from Jesswade88's articles. This thread was rushed to banning phase far too quickly and we need to stop looking for a reason to ban Netoholic. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Netoholic has conveniently only quoted one of the statements that are of relevance here, and omitted the others, here are some reminders: Netoholic followed his statement "I will say sorry, I'll slow down, as Levivich suggested. In fact, I'll go further and say I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles." [22:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)] with "I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes. I've learned a lesson from this." [04:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC] and "I don't know, but I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon." [see above 10:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)]. Several editors opposing sanctions specifically noted that their reason for doing so was that Netoholic had learned his lessons, and appeared "to have gotten the message, no sanctions are necessary". The ANI was closed on 7:46, 2 May 2019 by @Jayron32:. Less than 24 hours after that, Netoholic, in direct contradiction to what he promised to do, went and participated in this and this AfD for articles created by Jesswade1988. He said he would not involve himself with AfD ("involve", not restricted to "initiate"), but he did. He said he would stop "interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes", and he did, by actively participating in AfDs for two of Jesswade88's articles. Does WP have any procedures for dealing with editors who flout ANI in this way? Markus Pössel (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No sanctions were imposed by the community to be "flouted". When I closed the discussion, which had been open for some time, there was significant opposition to imposing sanctions above, and that opposition was growing (not shrinking) over time. Now, if you want to start a new discussion about a specific sanction based on new evidence, feel free to do that. But to claim that Netholic is violating anything simply isn't true. There has not been any expressed community consensus for any sanctions. Please note, that does NOT mean that I am endorsing their actions here. They may (or may not, I'm also not saying they are) commiting horrifying atrocities that need to be addressed. Or maybe not. Doesn't matter here; what matters is they haven't acted in opposition to any community sanction as yet. If you want to put a community sanction into force, create a thread to enact one, give it time to develop a consensus. If one develops, you'll have something to work from. --Jayron32 17:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Flouting" did not refer to any sanctions (I am aware there were none), but to the fact that the consensus-finding process itself was influenced by Netoholic's assertions, which he then went back on directly after ANI closed. I haven't got sufficient experience in the more unsavoury side of WP conflicts to say whether or not this kind of backtracking behaviour is considered par for the course by administrators, so I for one am not going to take any further initiative here. Markus Pössel (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Start a discussion proposing that Netoholic be sanctioned. When people comment, consensus may develop to enact those sanctions. When those are enacted, administrators will enforce them. You haven't given administrators anything to enforce yet. Unless he's violating an established rule like edit warring oder personal attacks or something like that, unless we have some community imposed sanction, I'm not sure what you want admins to do. --Jayron32 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you as an admin find nothing objectionable in what is going on here, I'll certainly not presume to know better. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You should note that I said the exact opposite of what you just claimed I said. If you want help from admins like myself, you might want to start by not doing that. Usually, directly accusing someone of saying the exact opposite thing they said, especially when that thing is a few lines of text above you, will not go well for you. I've offered to help. I even explained exactly what you needed to do to get that help. I've even conceded that everything you claimed could have been true. If you'd done the thing you were told to do, this would have already been fixed. --Jayron32 22:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies; that obviously came across the wrong way, and I certainly did not mean to misrepresent you. What I wrote was short for: If you as an admin find nothing sufficiently objectionable in what is going on here to take this to the next level yourself, I'll certainly not presume to know better and demand that it be taken to the next level. Markus Pössel (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark:, the fact that Netholic's scrutiny of Jesswade's work has all taken place in just a few days makes it look more like a campaign, not less. If he had taken his time about it, he might have absorbed some community feedback that some of his criticisms were based on flaws in his own thinking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I could use the same sort of accusation - "the fact that Clayoquot's scrutiny of Netoholic's work has all taken place in just a few days makes it look more like a campaign" - see how it just makes your skin crawl to hear that? Flawed thinking, indeed. Sometimes, just sometimes, everyone gets a bug to look into something intently. 4 days ago, for me, it was jesswade88's daily article. 1 days ago, it was academic biographies in general. Two weeks ago it was an article about a reporter. A year ago, I was writing about books. Mostly, I hang out on WP:RM because it scratches all kinds of surprising research itches and I get to spaz out and tackle tons of different topics. Don't get all bent about what I've entangled my head in for any particular 2 day period and think its a "campaign". -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You're avoiding addressing the substance of our concerns about you: that your overall style of interacting with Jesswade88 does not appear to be collegial and constructive, e.g. taking the Keep closure of Ana Achúcarro to DRV[104]. If that was a 2-day thing for you, how about gracefully bowing out and moving on now that it's May 3? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: – sadly, my experience with Netoholic is similar when it comes to avoiding / leaving out the central and most problematic issues. How someone can get the kind of specific feedback Netoholic has gotten in this process, state that they will not go near the problematic area again, go back on that statement and do so anyway as soon as the ANI is closed, and then later on claim that it's all some harmless fancy like others they have had before, is beyond me. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It might also be worth pointing out (not sure which side this supports) that in the last few days the issue of female scientist on Wikipedia has attracted some outside attention, and thus will have generated some internal attention as well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While we're scrutinizing Netoholic's behavior, let me add that personally, I found the following sequence of events extremely creepy:

1. I start interacting with Netoholic both here and at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) regarding Netoholic's unusual views about academic notability.
2. Netoholic very quickly determines that there is a Wikipedia article about me (not exactly a secret, but already indicating more than the usual level of editor-specific scrutiny), threatens to change the standards for academic notability to push for its deletion, and at the same time uses that threat to attempt to push me out of the policy discussion as having a conflict of interest. (See Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Alternate wording).
3. Netoholic starts editing the article about me, adding low-quality non-academic sources about true but uninteresting and non-notable things I've done. (See recent edit history of David Eppstein).
4. When called on this misbehavior, Netoholic implausibly claims to be a white knight trying to save me from the lobotomized version of academic notability he wants to impose. (See User talk:Netoholic#Article about me.)

This is not about the existence or content of the article about me; I've long since passed the point in my career where the level of publicity it provides is in any way useful (except as a crutch for people introducing me at talks to find something to say), so I don't actually care about its existence, and my opinion is that the somewhat sketchy, haphazard, and incomplete state of the article reflects much more on other Wikipedia editors (because it's their problem and certainly not mine) than it does on me. So I do not actually feel threatened by any of this behavior. But it certainly conveys the appearance to me that Netoholic is either completely oblivious to the effects of his actions on others, or deliberately trying to simultaneously be threatening and maintain plausible deniability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

For anyone who is wondering, here are the changes that Netoholic made to Eppstein's article. He added some sourcing to the infobox and lede, included sourced information about Eppstein having won an award, and included sourced information about Eppstein being a photographer. This information came from the following low-quality non-academic sources: the Los Angeles Times, the National Science Foundation, and Daily Press. Whereas Netoholic has pointed to a lack of independent coverage in some articles, the sources added to Eppstein's article are all independent sources. Lepricavark (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

After reading that I was expecting to find weird and creepy personal information being added, but that all seemed rather normal. Natureium (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have access to Newspapers.com, a subscription service, via WP:The Wikipedia Library. I make use of it in just about every context I encounter on Wikipedia because its not something to which a lot of people have access, and I think its a shame that we tend to rely too heavily on current-day online resources rather than print sources. What people should find even more concerning than my edits is how the subject of the article has edited it, intensely participated in its talk page for many years making multiple requests for additions and removals, and is now casting aspersions about an editor of it. This is precisely why we have COI guidelines. Occasional requests by subjects are fine, but David Eppstein's desires for this article are ever-present in the article's talk page (and archive). I also do find it to be a COI for an academic with an article (or without one but likely wanting one someday) should be so strongly debating our notability guidelines for academics. Imagine if a bunch of sportspeople discovered Wikipedia and started to vigorously influence our notability guidelines for them? Or businesspeople? or actors? or politicians? Instead of trying to TBAN me for doing a likely one-time addition of some valid content to an article, perhaps its time for User:David Eppstein to stop influencing David Eppstein. -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see Netoholic be such an early commenter at the Sarah Tuttle AfD - I thought it showed poor judgement. Reading about other examples of poor judgement above suggest that at least some of the opposes for sanctions above which boiled down to "Long-term editor who doesn't need a sanction based on the body of evidence so far" (a view I largely subscribed to) needs to be re-evaluated. I would support a sanction such as a 3 or 6 month TBAN from Academic Biographies to help him nudge him back to useful areas (and with the hope that this current tempest will have died out after 3 or 6 months and he'd be ready to be a productive contributor by the time the next tempest arose). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that a topic ban is necessary. I do think that Netoholic should be more aware of how far he is pushing certain things and where the line is between improving the encyclopedia and hounding someone. Natureium (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

His actions towards David Eppstein are also of issue for me. I agree with you above that his editing isn't troublesome on the article per se but to me it's another example of Netholic becoming overly focused on a particular editor. That's what's troubling to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that the problematic focus goes both ways. I believe that some editors wrongly determined that Netoholic is a bad-faith editor at the outset of this dispute and that they are going to apply a bad motive to everything he does. Netoholic may have temporarily applied too much scrutiny to Jesswade88 articles, but that does not justify the extensive efforts that have been made to silence him. Nor does it mean he should be disqualified from participating in AfDs on Jesswade88 articles initiated by other editors. Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Wot Lepricavark sez. Netoholic isn't exactly innocent and faultily interpreted some policies with over-aggressive AfDing but now, this has now turned into a hunt to attribute every of his actions to bad-faith and shut him down. Can some sysop just shut this down? ∯WBG^converse 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Except that's the thing. If he's not exactly innocent then there is a whole world of options available to him while still absorbing the message of the previous thread - including the work he's done at WP:NPROF. Having shown that his thinking is not clear on this matter - or at least not supported by notability - jumping so quickly into AfDs started by others shows poor judgement. Making a second editor who edits here under a real name and is an academic feel uncomfortable shows questionable judgement. The combination of these two is why I suggested some short term action - and I say this as someone who wonders about the notability of several of Dr. Wade's articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49's suggestions makes sense. I would make that a topic ban from both academic and STEM biographies. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Why on earth should he be completely topic banned from those areas? Way too much ban-happiness in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I want him to stop bugging Jesswade88. If you have another idea for getting that result, please share. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to prevent him from !voting in AfDs on articles that she created. Here's my idea: let's let this thread come to an end and stop demanding unnecessary sanctions for an editor whose actions never warranted the level of scrutiny and personal criticism contained in this massive, mostly-closed thread. Lepricavark (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You are curiously unworried about the succession of events in which (a) Netoholic stated he would keep away from all that, (b) a number of editors opposed sanctions because of the impression that Netoholic had obviously learned his lessons, and (c) Netoholic then went back on what he said and less than 24 hours later went to involve himself in Jesswade88-related article deletions again. I struggle to come up with an interpretation where I'm not forced to abandon the assumption of good faith and take into consideration elements of dishonesty and deception, and if you can find one, I'd be interested in hearing it. In any case, there doesn't seem to be momentum towards sanctions here, and I see no good reason to take this particular matter further at this point. Should Netoholic exhibit similar behavior in the future (which I don't hope, but who knows), this ANI should provide at least some helpful background information. Markus Pössel (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What part of it do you find curious and what exactly are you trying to say about me personally? Lepricavark (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Just that you appear unworried about something that I think is so obviously worrying. The question was serious, though: If you can think of a good-faith explanation for what Netoholic did here, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You have a point about inconsistent statements. But here's another way to look at it: you ask a guy for 5. He says he'll give you 10. Later, he gives you 5. Do you hold it against him that he didn't give you 10 like he said, or do you say thanks for the 5 you originally asked for? Leviv ich 18:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your version doesn't capture what happened here. The admins who proposed an IBAN in effect said "We found what you did worrying, you should stay away from Jesswade88". The different statements by Netoholic in effect said "OK, learned my lesson, will stay away". At least partly in response to this, no sanctions were taken. Did Netoholic stay away, in the way he would? Nope. Your 5 vs. 10 example is misleading: Here, various admins and users ask a guy for different values between 5 and 20, and in that situation, promising 10 and delivering 5 is not an honest course of action. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Real improper behaviour

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

---

After multiple reverts and final warnings (all removed form their talk page) for adding unsourced content, user Somebody356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes —again— with this edit, re-introducing an error in article Gluon, now providing two sources, none of them supporting the added content. The second source doesn't even mention the article subject. See also the above section Wikipedia:ANI#Improper behavior. Can this person be somehow stopped? - DVdm (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've given them a week off for their persistent disruptive editing. I almost went for indef as I'm not convinced a set time block will make any difference, but one last chance and all that. Feel free to let me know if the same kind of thing continues after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, after what looks like a trolling unblock request, I have upped the block to indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyright violation

Azifjason has ignored the messages sent by HickoryOughtShirt?4 and repeated the addition of large volumes of non-neutral text at Rhode Island Republican Party copied from [105]: Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I flagged the other two times it was added for revdel. It looks like the user is gone for now. Maybe a warning with the big scary stop sign this time? Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added another warning to their talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

purely vandalistic IP needs nuking.

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

---

180.191.146.122Qwirkle (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been nuked. In the future, simple cases like this should be taken to WP:AIV. --Jayron32 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Burmese editor

this Burmese editor MyanmarBBQ (talk · contribs) always like to use BAD WORDS (such as Stupid) and not polite for his reasons when he undo or remove other editor's edits. can you checking this editor? if it's not under the wiki rules, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This editor did WP:IDONTLIKE edit wars/content removed at Haruehun Airry, without reason and citing a reliable source. And also many other Thailand related articles. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MyanmarBBQ: That is not a good reason to call someone stupid. Natureium (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No! bro! I did not call "stupid" on Haruehun Airry article, please check [106]. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

he called me as Stupid on New Thai Queen page and also called other editors is Stupid in other pages, pls. check his contributions MyanmarBBQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), thanks you.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MyanmarBBQ:it's not wars that i remove some of detail that unclear and unsoured, so i and other editors put the reasons why we remove some of deatial and ref. on Haruehun Airry already after you ask.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes bro! i called you as stupid on the queen article, because you did removed sourced personal info of the queen. I know my word that didn't seem very civil. sorry for that! I'll civilly edit on the future! And thanks for giving reasons on the article. Cheers. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@MyanmarBBQ: on that page i didnt remove without reason, i put the reasons already that it's UNSOURCED, and on Thai page didnt put this detail yet. so you saw the reason alreaday but you still undo it. anyway i didnt angry you but i just want admin. checking your.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've one-time undo at the article!!! And please see the queen's birth date source here, Channel New Asia is reliable source. Thanks

I'm used to broken English, but from both of you this is more than a bit hard to follow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

they didnt put the ref. before i remove, and on thai page no one is confrim this and put this detail yet. thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Now, some senior editor has been updated the info and added The NY Times source! MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Evrdkmkm you did not try to talk to MyanmarBBQ or even post a notice on his talk page about this dicussion. This should be your first step, not your last. You should not have brought this to WP:ANI. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

FTR, Acroterion and The Bushranger gave MyanmarBBQ some civility warnings and advice half a month ago. Samsara 20:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And Drmies did so a month before that. Samsara 20:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What User:The Blade of the Northern Lights said. If the two of you are going to be editing the English Wikipedia, both of you should be very careful before you post--lest it be misunderstood. MyanmarBBQ, do not use the word "bro" unless you are talking to your friend, for instance. That edit war on that Airry article was interesting since the article is a mess and the edit warring back and forth was even messier: both editors are at fault, not just for edit warring but also for being just absolutely lousy at communicating--I think Evrdkmkm needs to say more in their edit summaries, and Myanmar should probably say a lot less. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much...Drmies and all editor per above, I did undo or revert with Good faith please see my contributions! And proposer said "He didn't angry me". Please don’t bite me :'( , I’m a newbie! I'll careful edit in future! God bless you all MyanmarBBQ (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Check update case 1, and proposer's talk page, Now, he has warning and notice letter by senior editor! MyanmarBBQ (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding a commercial site

Anna.Tsolidou (talk · contribs) is adding a commercial website to articles as well as images from the commercial website which she says are her own work. I should have logged off already so am leaving her to others to see if it's all ok. I'll let her know now. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Calling me "bonkers" and "shitty"

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

---

SashiRolls has created an attack page about me in user space: [107]. Although I recognize that there is a valid use for preparing evidence for dispute resolution, this looks more like just a collection of personal attacks. I can see a case for taking it to WP:MfD, but this seems to me to be over-the-top, to a degree that justifies some administrator attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need another 100,000 bytes of the Sashirolls soap opera on WP:ANI, can you keep this contained in the current season? You called Sashi a crackpot and Sashi called you bonkers, lets not waste anymore electrons here. SWL36 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No. That's a false equivalence, and this is a new problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, if you wish to air your grievances, please do so elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• This does not reach the level of an attack page. By far my favoured option would be for these discussions to just die. If we can't manage that then I suggest we tweak the proposed 2-way IBAN to be between SashiRolls and Trypto. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see it as an attack, if you see it as something appropriate to be on this site, then I don't know what to tell you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm noting that an admin has speedy deleted the page, in part as an attack page. Admins can still view the page, but non-admins cannot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'd say it meets the criteria for an attack page. Deletion sounds reasonable. If their goal was to collect diffs for an RFC, ANI filing or the Arbcomm, they need to do it without all the personalised commentary. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with SWL and the bear. Not an attack page. Likely for the recent Arbcom filing. Everyone knows Sashi is creative with language. I think Tryp should unclutch their pearls and drop the stick already. Leviv ich 22:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree all you want, but one admin has deleted it as an attack page and another has confirmed that it was. I don't know what your reference to pearls means, but I take it as indicating a lack of understanding what WP:CIVIL is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with O3000's closure of this thread. Assuming the page was for Arbcom, that being over, and the page now deleted, seems to be the end of this matter. Leviv ich 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The material about me was put on the page after the ArbCom case request was closed, so it wasn't for that. And it wasn't really evidence, so much as just a series of insults. The last time I checked, this was Wikipedia, not 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The picture Tryptofish posted with the caption "I eat trout." in response to Sashi calling for Tryptofish to be trouted.

4chan is an imageboard site. You posted this picture with the edit summary "Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is just too good to pass up." and when Sashi saves it to a personal evidence page, you complain about being insulted, unclose this thread, and declare this is Wikipedia, not 4chan. OK. Leviv ich 22:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I should have explained that better, admittedly. I apologize. But it comes from User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 33#Things that have evolved beyond sci-fi movies..., where I have joked that the image was me, a joke that I have repeated multiple times. And you seem to think that my complaint here is because that image was on his now-deleted page. It isn't, and no one would have deleted it if the only thing about it were that image. And you also seem to think that #Proposal: Tryptofish & Kolya Butternut trouted & possibly banned from drama boards was something that should not have been treated as un-serious. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The page was intended for their Arbcom statement, but I did not see the page in the state described nor do I remember if it was still almost blank at the time the case was closed. My concern would be if the page contained more false accusations. But I don't want to get into it here.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The stuff I'm reporting was added after the ArbCom case request was closed, and was very different from what you would have seen at the time of the case request. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The evidence I posted: 1 (starring Calton), 2 , I did not say you were bonkers but "went bonkers" (temporarily) to make the attack in 2. I also did not call you "shitty" but provided evidence of you rating examples of mean comments in terms of shades of shittiness: 3. It is deleted. I have not lost the original. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So this is where we are now. You sound quite satisfied with what you said about me, and seem to be saying that you are prepared to re-post it. Admins can see how credible your description here is. I know that Wikipedia is not good at dealing with civility issues, and I don't know if any admin is going to touch this. But given that your previous indef block was lifted by the community with the understanding that you would be subject to scrutiny, I think this requires some administrative attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think the severity of the page is a bit overstated, but it absolutely met the CSD that it was deleted under, and no further action is needed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, less than 6 months after this we find ourselves here again. How many otherwise productive hours have been wasted on this page in the last few days due to SashiRolls..? Definition (yes, I know it's wrongly attributed and etc but...) of insanity is doing the exact same fucking thing over and over again, expecting shit to change. SashiRolls is a net negative to the project. Neil S. Walker (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1: 6-month block for User:SashiRolls

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

---

I see that User:SashiRolls has been blocked for extended periods before, and hasn't learned, but 6 months is in practice the same as indefinite, except that a 6-month block is less likely to be undone by one administrator who decides to be too nice. Some of the recent disruption occurred on my talk page, after I advised User:SashiRolls and User:Snooganssnoogans to take their quarrel to Arbitration Enforcement rather than WP:ANI, and I then collapsed it because it was Someone else's problem (and after making a mistake about which editor had been blocked for what), but I think that SashiRolls is Wikipedia's problem. A Someone else's problem field, in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, makes something almost invisible. I suggest that we make SashiRolls almost invisible for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and Robert McClenon pardon me for saying so, but do you think the recent review of Legacypac's block you posted to AN helped the situation in any way whatsoever? Do you think the portal arbcom case request you made helped that situation in any way whatsoever? Maybe consider slowing down with the threads? Each of these threads you start takes up community time and attention. Leviv ich 03:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A-fucking-men. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a 1-6-month- or longer block, as SashiRolls' explanation on 23:12, 2 May 2019 is sufficient to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Since a violation of policy was determined anyway, give SashiRolls a 24–72-hour block instead (if made effective today, would cover this entire weekend). That's just based on that one page he/she compiled. But going forward, this incident should be taken into consideration, if SashiRolls' breach of policy begins to continually repeat, or becomes more severe. -Mardus /talk 06:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and beg everyone to drop the stick and let this go. Also concur with Levivich above regarding the frequent opening of these time wasting discussions. In the last one, a simple 31 hour block has turned into a community ban pile on. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. And if I might make a respectful suggestion, Robert, perhaps you could step back a bit and consider whether you are helping to reduce drama these days or are actually contributing to it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

SleeplessNight12

I have serious concerns about editor SleeplessNight12 (talk · contribs). They firstly reverted a number of edits I made to the article on Helena (empress) with no justification or talk. They then followed me to the articles on Frederick the Great and Donatello to revert edits I had made by arguing that anything that spoke about homosexuality was "vandalism" (WP:HOUNDING). Today I have looked at the talk page on Helena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helena_(empress)#Bunch_of_changes) and I have been called an "anti-Catholic, gay apologist" along with s reference to "homosexual and immoral people". A look at the editors talkpage suggests they are involved ina whole number of antagonistic disputes. I also wonder whether they are using a separate account (IP:96.70.198.37) as the changes made by this user to Helena look remarkably similar to those pushed by SleeplessNight12 and this IP has not previously been active on this article page. Could someone please look into this please. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Mr Contaldo80 started editing Catholic articles to display his anti-Catholic bias. I corrected 3 of those. Once he told me to stop, I stopped and started a discussion. Now, this person is angry that not everyone agrees with his anti-Catholicism. I did not edit or revert after being told not to, and started a discussion. You guys can decide how to best proceed. God bless all --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Frederick the Great wasn't even Catholic so in what way did you "correct" my "anti-Catholic bias" in that article? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sir, that is the way I started out, and went to about 3 articles. Fact still remains, after you gave me a warning, I immediately stopped and went to the Talk Page. It is not my problem that other people are finding your anti-Catholicism disruptive on Wikipedia too. I always take warnings seriously. Hope that helps. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SleeplessNight12 - you can't use terminology like "anti-Catholic" to describe editors - you can comment on actions, but don't try to discern someone's underlying motivation. For starters, it's easy to get wrong - someone who may disagree with you might seem like a supporter of the opposing side, when in fact they aren't. Regardless, if you call someone "x", you need to be able to back it up with evidence that's convincing to a disinterested outsider.

What's more of a problem though is that you seem to talk "anti-Catholic" views as disqualifying. That isn't the way it works around here - there's nothing wrong with editing topics you disagree with. If only supporters got to edit articles, you'd have totally one-sided presentations. By getting both sides involved, and by expecting both sides to walk away OK with the final product Wikipedia can produce excellent articles.

It rarely helps your case to label someone by ideology anyway. Calling someone anti-Catholic is likely to elicit a shrug from many of the people here. To the non-religious person, or Muslim, Hindu, atheist, Eastern Orthodox Christian and or Buddhist, fights between Catholics and Protestants so narrowly sectarian. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And the longer schism between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is sometimes not seen by Protestants. I did once advise a Buddhist editor to read about filioque and told them that after reading it, they still wouldn't understand (but I am not sure that I understand either). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. I did not intend to be disruptive. I only wanted to make my observation known. I apologize for what I did SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Removing Yemen portal

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

---

Hi, recently a discussion to remove Portal:Yemen Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/9_automated_pseudo-portals_created_from_redirects (one week old) I was not aware of the discussion and now that I am trying to recreate the portal and improve it, the portal gets deleted by JJMC89 what should I do with this? I am definitely going to create a portal for Yemen as all other countries have portals.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Go to Deletion review and try to get consensus for it to be undeleted. El_C 05:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by HCube 1963

This person has spent the last 3 months adding their "name" to the list of producers on mostly hip-hop albums. While some of their edits have been reverted and several warnings left on their talk page, I have now gone through every single one removing the HCube from these articles. One only needs to hover over the diffs on their talk page to see their M.O. and while they were sometimes reverted on the more popular articles, they managed to let quite a few slip through on the lesser watched ones. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thank you. Robvanvee 07:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Clearly NOTHERE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And I've deleted his self-promoting subpage as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz

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

---

This looks like a threat of some kind. I am entitled to contribute to the Wikipedia without someone threatening to expose me to "scrutiny at a different forum". As far as I can see, all my contributions to the talk and article have been entirely appropriate and in-line with site policy, which I have attempted to uphold, while seeking compromise, in the face of two users repeatedly attempting to force their preferred language into the lead over the objections of several users while discussion has been ongoing on the talk page. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(Note: This This comment is the one being replied to, subsequently altered.) think the "different forum" Icewhiz was referring to was this one; and if—in your own words—you have refused to be convinced by reliable sources, then clearly other editors might see that as disruptive. FYI & YMMV of course. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have redacted the final sentence because already it has given one user the wrong impression of the dispute. The following: if—in your own words—you have refused to be convinced by reliable sources is nevertheless a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. I have not once contested any of the sources, this being a dispute over balance in the lead (I even personally wrote the version I removed to encourage User:Icewhiz to follow WP:BRD) and you might have actually reviewed the dispute first before intervening and poisoning the water of any future consideration of a complaint I am taking very seriously. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Endymion.12:

Firstly, per WP:REDACT 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. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes, by <s>striking</s> them.

Secondly, there is no point in posting substantially the same comment to my talk page as you make here: if you start an ANI, address the ANI.

Thirdly, if you expect anyone to believe that saying that you said something, when you not only said it but then redacted it, is a misrepresentation then you must expect everything else you say to be examined more closely than you may expect.

Fourthly, accusing editors of not reviewing pages before editing and poisoning the waters is verging on an aspersion, and if you are wanting to redact anything, that should probably be first on your list.

Fithly, this is wholly a content dispute, which, as you know, ANI does not soil its hands with :)

Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. In the context of the talk page discussion, I have reason to believe that another user has threatened to expose me to "scrutiny at a different forum" (the recent context in the UK press in mind), which was the subject of this WP:ANI post before you kindly derailed it. I will also not redact my suggestion that you didn't consult the article talk page before posting here, because I sincerely believe that you didn't. I believe that you based your initial post on a misreading of the final sentence of my ANI post. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:07 (edited 12:20), 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the misrepresentation: my sentence: I have refused to be convinced by "The RSes say X and therefore you must accept my preferred version of the lead" arguments, was transformed by User:Serial Number 54129 into in your own words—you have refused to be convinced by reliable sources, although I'm sure you would like to insist these mean the same thing. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry; but either you do not kow what you are talking about, or you do not possess the means to express it, or you lack the experience to understand what this board is for. Or possibly a combination of all three. In any case, I'd take on board Goldenring's point below, and it might also be worth perusing WP:BOOMERANG while you are at it. BTW, I have no idea whatsoever what your allusion to the context of the UK's press is. Talk about muddying the waters... ——SerialNumber54129 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Not being able to express myself clearly is fortunately not something I suffer from. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

On a point of curiosity, @Serial Number 54129: I assume this diff you linked above is a typo of some sort? What did you actually mean to link? GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Ohh...wrong diff, now corrected. Naturally, by striking through, rather than redacting, as it's been answered  ;) must've clicked the wrong "prev[ious]". Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 14:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• This looks a pretty clear attempt to manufacture a behavioural dispute when you're losing a content dispute to me. I'd drop it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain, based on the talk discussion, how I am "losing a content dispute". Specifically, how consistent are these[108][109][110][111] contributions with that claim? Endymion.12 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Cherrypick all you like, you've been edit-warring the content out of the lede for several days now. Do you actually expect something to come out of this complaint? GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Not anymore, no, and therefore I will drop it. For the record, I was reverting on each occasion to WP:STABLE. If anyone is concerned about the decline in participation[112] from new users, this kind of behaviour is why. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The kind of behaviour where one edits an already-replied-to post as an argument tactic? I can see why that would drive people away. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Fæ ‎

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

---

Here she accuses me of being creepy and of (in effect) being a sexist [[114]] for posting a warning about possible meat puppetry at an AFD. She is told to stop by multiple users [[115]], [[116]], and warned by me not to. She then doubles down on it [[117]], demanding I prove I am not (note AFD's are not supposed to be about user conduct). This is (apparently) a pattern she has been warned out before.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC) And it continues [[118]]Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• If Fae can't participate in the discussion without making unhinged attacks on editors who have done nothing wrong, then Fae should not be part of the discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Calling her unhinged is not helpful.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Please note the dramatic wording above. I have called nobody a sexist, ever. The action of researching and presumably watching a BLP subject's social media accounts, and checking through their discussions with others, which may include with social media accounts of Wikipedians, is not something that should be encouraged, because of undemonstrated allegations of canvassing, meatpuppetry etc. These allegations are wrong, and researching social media accounts of subjects and Wikipedians creates a hostile environment. Those doing this should back off and reconsider what is good behaviour on the internet for Wikipedians. --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  As has been stated at the AfD, Sarah Tuttle's Twitter posts are the second thing to appear when one Googles her. And it is reasonable that one would Google the subject of an AfD. Stop assuming bad faith when you have absolutely no reason to do so. And stop making careless accusations of creepiness (and yes, you implied sexism whether you mean to or not). You have no right to get on a high horse and lecture us while engaging in such behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that the BLP subject is directing meatpuppets or asking Wikipedians to canvass or manipulate Wikipedia on their behalf. A BLP subject daring to mention Wikipedia on Twitter does not give carte blanche for publishing negative allegations about them, and consequently creating a hostile environment for contributors to the article under discussion. Sticking to facts and basic civility is not being on a "high horse", it's barely standing on my own two legs. --Fæ (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven has already stated that he was concerned about one of the replies to Tuttle's tweet as opposed to her tweet itself. And there is a difference between "daring to mention Wikipedia on Twitter" and broadly accusing Wikipedians of misogyny and racism. How do you not see the difference? And, in light of your attacks on Slatersteven, it is impossible to believe that you care about the creation of a hostile environment. You have not stuck to facts or basic civility. Instead, you have made personal attacks and disregarded what other editors have attempted to say in rebuttal. Lepricavark (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Only an observation: this is a matter tied to the closed discussion above about the actions User:Netoholic had taken related to AFD. --Masem (t) 15:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Uh, how so? Not sure why I was pinged here. I commented on the same AfD these parties did, but otherwise I'm uninvolved. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have redacted the personalized and off-topic discussion from the AFD. Urge everyone to take a step back and examine how they can best make their (on-topic) points without inflaming the atmosphere even further. Use of terms like "creepy", "unhinged" etc are not helpful. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll strike that part. But let's be clear that Slatersteven is not at fault here. I geniunely don't understand why your wording suggests that everyone needs to step back when this is an issue with one user. That seems unfair. Lepricavark (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment -- Fae has been continuing with this chilling nonsense for long, as Sitush has experienced firsthand. I strongly feel that the above accusations violate NPA and are blockable. ∯WBG^converse 15:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not watch any Twitter account, I went there because of a post in this thread [119]] that link ed to this twitter post [[120]] which was part of a feed where he (not her) posted this [[121]] which took me to her feed, which contained this [[122]]. No digger, watching or reaching was need, I just followed a series of open and clear link, not even elementary. Nor have I stalked or followed any other wiki edd, and would not even know if they had replied on any of these twitter feeds.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you knew so little, and there was so little research, why did you publish direct allegations about the BLP subject canvassing Wikipedia in the AfD? --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not I linked to a twitter thread where such a call had been made.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You chose the words "a call to aRMS" to describe twitter posts diff. I have yet to read any "call to arms" which promotes canvassing off-wiki by the BLP subject or anyone else. Where is the evidence, I cannot see it in the posts you have linked here, or were you exaggerating for some reason? --Fæ (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Quoth the raven " The way to counter this is to ask among friends and colleagues familiar with Wikipeida's hermetic rules to fairly comment to keep, if they support that.", how is that not a call for people to just turn up and vote keep?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Correct, I did not read that properly. Certainly that was an opinion by someone that was not the BLP subject (which you did not make clear in your allegation), in a twitter thread that hardly anyone would read and apparently has attracted zero keep votes in the AfD. Why are you making allegations of canvassing ("a call to aRMS") in an AfD that literally was never canvassed, drawing attention to a twitter discussion that should be irrelevant and was otherwise not publicised? BLP subjects and their friends are not fair game to get roasted, just because they are aware of a Wikipedia article about them being discussed for deletion. What should be the priority is respecting the BLP subject's privacy, even if their social media accounts can be searched out on the internet, none of that should be relevant for an encyclopaedic discussion of content. --Fæ (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Might I gently suggest that neither of you is going to achieve anything positive with this conversation and that you should just let it go? Ignore my advice if you wish, but nonetheless that is my advice. GoldenRing (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• NB, from User:Fæ "If you need a pronoun to refer to my account, I prefer the courtesy of a singular they rather than she, he or anything else." It is well-known that they is not a she. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I’d chime in here with User:GoldenRing that the parties involved should drop the stick and back off. Every side here is ascribing the maximum ill intent possible to construe from every statement, and really needs to stop tilting at windmills. When literally the second thing I see when searching for a bio is the embedded tweets talking about the AfD, it’s not stalking to note someone’s social media presence. Putting the template on the AfD was all that was needed without trying to apply kremlinology to tweets. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware the template existed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ appears to be testing to see how far over the line xe can go regarding xyr topic ban and regarding civility. The statement "By the way, it's pretty obvious that the reason you made this note is that the subject is a woman" is calling that person a sexist just as surely as "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram" means "fuck off".

By the way, did anything ever come of the repeated calls for a tool to search a user's contribution history? It would be very useful If I could look up every place where Fæ or xyr previous Ash account used the terms "sexist" or "sexism" and verify the above claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to look very far back. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The right pronoun to use has been spelt out. Be nice please, you know exactly why it is upsetting to make my identity an issue. --Fæ (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Pronouns are important; not only for the obvious reasons...but also because their misuse may allow parties to muddy the waters and deflect an issue into a non-issue. And I'm sure that's something none of us wants. ——SerialNumber54129 18:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to enter these diffs by Fæ into evidence:

1. 08:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC) "Usual Suspects" (considering 4 other users commented there, 1 being Rama who undeleted... this is a very narrow net), "more interested in finding reasons to attack individuals, including creepily researching their social media profiles, ceaselessly finding reasons to make contributions here a non-stop ranty argument....
2. 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC) - "How tone deaf you are. "Professionally outraged" is how right wing extremists have marginalised and derided the opinions of feminists, integrationists and pro-LGBT thinkers for decades. "Professionally outraged" is equivalent to the dichotomy of praising men as masculine when they express anger, while any woman daring to be angry is derided as a scold.

Calling Sitush, of all people, "tone deaf" is.... Quite astounding, really.Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Cherry picking? The full context is more meaningful:

You know, I would like to spend some time thinking through the sources again and working collegiately on this article. Unfortunately it has the attention of the "Usual Suspects", who are here within minutes of this article being restored, more interested in finding reasons to attack individuals, including creepily researching their social media profiles, ceaselessly finding reasons to make contributions here a non-stop ranty argument, and will take any slim evidence to take us to dramah boards. No thanks, I don't want my off-wiki data being connected to my past 10 years of contributions to this project.

More prophetic than astounding. Here at ANI people can get away with making fun of my gender identity in an apparently deliberately nasty way with no thoughts that sanction could result, and here is a call to research every edit I have made in the last decade. My prediction may seem extreme, but it has been entirely accurate, you must agree. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Keeping on digging, I see. I would not use "prophetic" here. I will quote Sitush: "As I said, I am profoundly deaf - I can't hear anything without the most powerful hearing aids, and nothing below 110db even with them - but it does not define me, despite the daily discrimination I face;" 12 Feb 2019 Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, we cannot call anyone tone deaf in their use of language, just in case in real life they might wear hearing aids. Had this aspect of Sitush's real life been known to me I would have chosen different words, but I do not follow their user pages, I do not know anything about their life, neither do I have any reason to research them. You may like to note that calling me "professionally outraged" is not any more acceptable, it still just dismisses the person rather than dealing with the issue. If you look up this page, you will see someone using the word "spaz", which only has one offensive meaning that demeans people with conditions like cerebral palsy. It is the nature of Wikipedia that this will pass without comment. Folks like me that are not comfortable with the way things are, and dare speak out, will continue to be threatened with whatever can be dreamt up, no matter how thin these arguments are in reality.

Have a think about what "reality" is, and how Wikipedia policies and this noticeboard are in practice less civil to minority views than most public houses. --Fæ (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I would think that someone who is quite, umm, keen on pronoun use would be a tad more careful with their own language. However, even if we were to AGF the "tone deaf" bit, you still did not AGF in that conversation, and came out swinging with various accusations and even contrasted them with "right wing extremists" for their use of language not to your liking.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am keen on seeing it become a normal expectation to be civil with pronoun use, rather than it being written off as a bad joke.

The specific rhetoric is used by right wing extremists, highlighting that fact is pointing to history and conventions for acceptable discourse, explaining why it is upsetting, not a personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to make a personal comment about anyone else before I close this and we all carry on editing with a little more knowledge about other editors than we had before? I'll give it 15 minutes. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from Kansas Bear

[123] Editor Kansas Bear deleted my notification to him about DNR in a very rude form. First, such ill-explained deletion is prohibited in WP:TPG. Second, I don't care about this guy, but I will not tolerate such outrageous violations of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PA from anyone. If he or somebody else thinks that I am a sock-puppet, I will glad to hear his concern on the respective noticeboard.

I will wait for the sanctions, that community will find appropriate and I hope this editor's bad conduct and lack of manners will be assessed. John Francis Templeson (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While Kansas Bear isn't being particularly polite, they're well within their remit to remove anything they want from their own talk page. I suggest dropping the matter before you risk a Boomerang. Rivselis (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I will drop with a great pleasure, if someone will finally explain me, what the hell is going here, since I am already thinking that there is a sort of anarchy in English Wikipedia. Administrator threatens me with ban just after I asked an innocent question related to the conflict resolution procedury and very vaguely accuses me in nationalism, then he claims that I am a sock-puppet, whereas I am not and it is easy to check — you have special noticeboard, I mean. Then one of the editors delete my very polite notification in a very rude form, makes an accusation without any proof and thus violates the basic Wikipedia rules, and then you threaten me with boomerang. What the hell is going on here? Editor makes an evident violation of WP:CIV, WP:PA and that is just OK, but for some reasons, that only God would know, boomerang should hit me. Okay, I don't mind that, but only if you will find out something contradicting to Wikipedia in my very friendly notification about WP:DRN. I am not fan of conspiracy theories, but it looks like everyone wants me to leave the Wikipedia. Or just the rules don't work and are overshadowed by the influence of well-established users. Sorry, for a little harshness in my words, I just got a little nervous. I don't want to insult someone. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You returned from a two year wikibreak by almost immediately resuming the same dispute from two years ago. Your conduct at the time [124][125] was unproductive, and continuing it now is unlikely to be productive. Rivselis (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Soo, how should I understand it? I cannot add peer-reviewed sources, because two years ago my conduct not that well? Or it means that if I have returned to the same discussion, because at that time I couldn't finish it, Kansas Bear have a right to insult me? Just please explain how does it works. Because I don't think that "I think you did somewhere wrong, so he can do wrong with you" logic is OK. Don't think that I try to troll you with such questions, I just try to understand rules of this Wiki, as in Russian Wiki, where I am pretty well-established, the things don't go like this. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You also failed to properly notify Kansas Bear that you've started this discussion, which I've gone ahead and done for you. Rivselis (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I barely see a need to write him something on his talk page, since he deletes my messages. But I thought that he will be notified from the user "template" that I've used (it results in notification in Russian Wikipedia, at least), so there is just a little misunderstanding. I didn't have a wish to leave him unnotified. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment John Francis Templeson has been editing this encyclopedia for about 2,5 years, however, i checked his contribs and, to be honest, it's hard to find out how this editor has been a net positive for the project. Many of his contributions are comments on talk pages and his main space edits include some controversial changes like this, this, this or this. The common point between all the previous edits ? Removal of sourced content (often a Persian ethnicity/language/identity) replaced with some unsourced/poorly sourced pro Turkish POV. This editor has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an irredentist/Pan-turk agenda, thus, When he disagrees with an established user like Kansas Bear who is not driven by any bias and a real net positive for this project, he comes here to open such an irrelevant case. I would support WP:BOOMERANG and some strong admin action to put an end to the disruption from this editor.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I replied already on this. I was new and young and easily got involved into the conflict. What wrong you can find in my contribution of this year? See Talk:Qizilbash and Talk:Iraqi Turkman, discussions of 2019. What is wrong? You will see well-sourced arguments, polite style of conversation. And I repeat: If my conduct two years ago wasn't that well, it means that now anyone can insult me in a very rude form? Two years ago and know, feel the difference. I acknowledge my previous mistakes. Now, as you see I try to be very nice, but some editors just don't understand it. And yes, I have mentioned in my page, that my main field is Russian Wikipedia, and I come to English Wikipedia, when I see disagreement between the latter and former. And I try to discuss it, of course not just because my opinion is such, but because I have plenty of sources. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"What is wrong" : Coming here to open such an irrelevant report is wrong. "anyone can insult me in a very rude form" : I don't see any insult toward you in a very rude form. On my end, i see an editor, you, trying to WP:GAME the system while playing a straw man here. I repeat what i said above : you have been editing this encyclopedia for 2,5 years and i don't see how you helped this project. In other words, don't feel offended, but you sound like a WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS user. Think we're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't know, accusing someone in sock-puppetry without proofs is a personal attack. If it will be proved that I am sock-puppet, ban me. But I am not. I am basing only on the WP rules. If you don't mind I will wait for the opinion of administrator and I hope he will understand me why my report is irrelevant. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't edit for 2.5 years. 2.5 years ago I made a list of edits, which I admit to be disruptive to some extent and regret them. Now, month ago, I returned and want to start from a new scratch. I try to be very polite, do everything according to the Wikipedia procedures, but face only accusations in sock-puppetry. But anyway I am tending to improve this encyclopedia. I already showed good conduct in Talk:Iraqi Turkmen. My flowless edit log in Russian Wikipedia, where I am editing for 3 years [126] should assume my good faith and the fact that I never use sock puppets. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Considering he posted [[127]|this link]] with the deletion and note to stay off his talk page due to SOMEONE ELSE'S assertion that you were both disruptive and possibly a ban evading sock puppet. I think it may be necessary to break out the Australian throwing stick here. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How should I understand it. Sorry, maybe I am not that acquainted with such terminology. I should wait for boomerang? John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

So far John Francis Templeson's editorial pattern has been very disruptive. For the past few years, he has wasted much time of the community through his persistent efforts at gaming the system. Forumshopping and adminshopping has become a synonym for his editorial pattern, in addition to his tiresome efforts at pushing an irredentist pro-Azerbaijani Turkish/pan-Turkic POV. Two years ago, John Francis Templeson left the English Wiki for the Russian Wiki, as he was already hanging by a thin rope.[128] On the Russian Wiki he's pursuing the exact same pattern.[129] Now, he has returned to the English Wikipedia for "Round Two", determined to waste more time of his community. Admin JamesBWatson already left him an elaborate message a few days ago, a summary of his disruptive editorial pattern.[130]-[131] However John Francis Templeson decided to trample JamesBWatson's message right under his foot; he continued with the same disruption as soon as possible, i.e. making more attempts to venue-shop his POV into Wikipedia.[132]-[133]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is unable to edit according Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world, in addition to a 6-month ban on creating sections at WP:ANI, WP:3O and WP:RfC.

• Support As nominator. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-posting archived RSN discussion?

I would like advice whether/how to re-post or re-open the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#HuffPost_for_paid_editing_at_Axios_(website),_NBC_News,_Caryn_Marooney,_and_other_articles. It's hard to tell what happened here. At first, there was a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to have a RSN discussion since the article had already been thoroughly discussed at AN,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing Then, before a determination on that point was reached, an informal RfC !vote of sorts emerged, but without the notifications and structure of an RfC. No formal consensus was determined at the time of archiving. There is also "new" information, in the form of a review by an independent admin, User: SoWhy, on the AN closure noticeboard, of the AN discussion consensus about the HuffPo article: "The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."[134]. (But the discussion was not officially "closed" because a sub-thread evolved into extensive commenting about the subject of "paid editing." Admins said closure would imply policy could be changed on an AN sub-thread.)

• Should there be a new discussion on RSN solely on the topic as to whether it is appropriate to have a RSN determination given the matter was already discussed at AN? Arguments for an against are on the RSN archived thread.
• Or, should the existing discussion simply be brought out of archive for more discussion and/or a consensus determination by an independent admin?
• Or, should there should a formal RfC be initiated instead of the informal one that emerged in the previous discussion?

BC1278 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your insistent lobbying for your paid editing business is entering WP:NOTHERE territory. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The referenced RSN discussion was started by User: Newslinger and archived before a determination of consensus was made. I don't understand their objection to reaching a determination (or deciding one should not be reached on RSN) on a discussion they began. BC1278 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 I understand why on both a personal and professional level you'd like to have the RSN closed but not every discussion gets a formal close. One has been requested and the lack of anyone willing to do it suggests that perhaps it's not a discussion which will get a formal close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 - as an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case. As only those who think that it was legitimate to look at actually cast !votes, it's an inherently disrupted discussion. Of those who did cast !votes, it would be NC in general, with a slight tilt against usage for that particular article - but the aforementioned disruption means it wouldn't make a great cited discussion to use on a talk page for example. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Indef troll

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

---

Also, you just insulted all those living and all those dead soviet history scientists and soviet media/propaganda workers. ... So, by insulting USSR you insult Russia, [135] — that's highfalutin rubbish from a WP:TROLL. Would someone indef him? See also And yes, you can't just go an scare me with blocks and bans. I registered here only to point out to the fact that the article contained blatant anti-russian lies, not to continue being a part of the wikipedia community. So I give absolutely zero things about those bans., [136]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you say that if I claim that your words 'soviets lie like dogs' are insults, I'm a troll, or what? And yes, you were behaving very rude, and giving zero arguments, while constantly threatening me with bans. You already tried to twist WP rules, by saying that I will be banned for IRL threats, but I pointed out to you that I didn't give any threats (and you know that). Also, you ignore all my arguments, while giving statements in the likes of "all western professors always tell the truth and believe in freedom of speech", or the mentioned above statement about dogs. So, it is you who are the troll here and you should be indefed.

Shasla1

What I have said was And no, we don't consider Soviet propaganda as reliable fact-based knowledge. More like something between wishful thinking and lying like a dog. Btw, I don't know why you find this offensive: the Soviet regime is gone, it has been dethroned, therefore it no longer has any real power. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, block, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Geo_Swan A case of incivility, CIR and playing victim

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

---

Just wanted to give some context to why Geo_Swan believes they have a wikistalker. Here is a classic example of them not being civil and insulting a user who doesn't agree with them. If you review their edit history (including with admins) you will find this is the normal for them and whenever they are found to be wrong they play a victim card. Additionally, they routinely violate BLP and have openly spoken against the BLP policy. [[137]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.255.32 (talk • contribs)

You have failed to notify Geo_Swan of this ANI thread. I have done so for you.--WaltCip (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll make two points:

1. I think I bent over backwards to show good faith to my wikistalker, before they earned an indefinite block. But I think my obligation to assume good faith ended when they earned that indefinite block.
2. With regard to the accusations of BLP problems... I have been around here since 2004, and I have started many articles. While my wikistalker here has levelled recent accusations that I add material about living individuals that does not measure up to policy, they are not the only contributor to have ever done so. What I would like those accusers to remember is that the wikipedia's standards are much more stringent now than they were a decade ago. When I contributed material that measured up to our standards, at the time I contributed it, that does not make me a policy violator when those contributions don't measure up to today's standards. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Low how the diff the IP provided is not about BLP violations, but a redlink disussion where Geo Swan was upholding the guideline. Not exactly damnig evidence. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

User: KalilTheDindu45

I didn't post this on WP:AIV because it isn't obvious vandalism, until you check the refs and compare the odd changes across multiple articles related to an area in Spain. User:KalilTheDindu45:

• Changed the mayor to "Alberto Tablón Planillo" on multiple town's articles (references don't support the name change): Special:Diff/895248121 , Special:Diff/895248075 , Special:Diff/895248019 , Special:Diff/895247958 , Special:Diff/895064743

• Added "Francesc Lara" to multiple articles, claiming (without support) that "Francesc Lara" "founded those rivers": Special:Diff/894867705, Special:Diff/894863821, Special:Diff/894863711

• Added content to Sant Quirze del Vallès, to incorrectly change the mayor name to "Ahmed Al-Khelafi Mukhar" from the "PRUNE" party Special:Diff/894867151, and to add unsupported content claiming that the mayor praises islam and supports stoning women. Special:Diff/894865840

• Also on Sant Quirze del Vallès, an IP had made edits changing the town name to "Sant Kuayrz dil Falys", changed town leader to "Sultan", claimed the town's official language is arabic, added an arabic "native name" in infobox (I can't read arabic and can't tell what the inserted letters mean), and other mischief, all of which I had reverted; Kalil reverted back to restore all of those changes. Special:Diff/895368308

I notified Kalil about adding Planillo: Special:Diff/863230039; cautioned Kalil about adding Lara: Special:Diff/895364507; warned Kalil about vandalism at Sant Quirze del Vallès: Special:Diff/895367434. Kalil has since reverted some of the articles back (including Sant Quirze del Vallès), hasn't replied on their talk page to any of the warnings, and has only communicated in an edit summary "stop deleting my texts". I don't think any of Kalil's 20 edits are valid. I'm raising the issue here rather than getting pulled into edit wars across multiple articles. Schazjmd (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Scazjmd: To the contrary, it's extremely obvious that this person is a racist vandal. "Kalil" is arguably a racist reference to Arabic people, 45 is a reference to an American president who has white nationalist fellow-travelers, and "Dindu" is a racist slur used by white supremacists and neo-Nazis against Black people. In racists' fever dreams, African Americans always perpetrate bad acts then deny responsibility by saying they "didn't do nothing," rendered in their racist mocking of African-American vernacular as "dindu nuffin." For God's sake, User:Schazjmd and anyone else who doesn't know, don't google those two words. Just block this fucking idiot and be done with it. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:596C:EE45:1423:6BB1 (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious to me, coordinated vandalism of Spanish, Catalonian, etc. articles across at least two users and 34 IPs, with most in the last ~24 hours, but repeating some from 30 April. 3 of the IPs are from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. It really does belong at WP:AIV...

Multiple vandal edits spread across

User:KalilTheDindu45

User:WTCUpdate Segre (river) Sant Quirze del Vallès [138] Cantabria Ebro Cervera and Vidreres Oct 2018

User:158.109.94.211 Barcelonès Sant Quirze del Vallès Francesc Segre (river) Llobregat (blocked as school block)

User:158.109.198.43 (btw: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) Tagus Sants Segre (river) Vidreres ‎

User:158.109.198.42 Sant Quirze del Vallès [139] Vilaller El Pont de Suert Vall de Boí Hostafrancs Segre (river) River Ter

User:158.109.198.41 Segre (river) [140]

Well, User:KalilTheDindu45 is blocked. I'll go see if WP:AIV wants to do anything about the others. Shenme (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contribs/158.109.198.0/24 for vandalism apparently in concert with User:KalilTheDindu45. Not sure if it's a bunch of meatpuppets, or good-hand/bad-hand, or what. Special:Contributions/WTCUpdate is going to get indeffed as well for nothere, it's a 3 year old account with sporadic vandalism throughout that whole history. ST47 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, and for the clean-up help and blocks, 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:596C:EE45:1423:6BB1, Shenme, and ST47. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Undeleting a page Pragya Singh Thakur

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

---

• Pragya Singh Thakur · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

Can an admin take a look at this WP:REFUND request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Pragya_Singh_Thakur and do the needful before it gets archived? The page was deleted on 25 February 2013 and subsequently recreated by someone based on her recent popularity. I feel that the subject is notable and the deleted version can be used to improve the article. The admin who deleted it has been inactive for three years and is no longer an admin. The volunteers at REFUND are not taking this up, so Vanamonde suggested me to get help at ANI. Thanks in advance. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Erledigt by Graeme Bartlett. Abecedare (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Jiho Lee

can't we remove unsourced details or unclear details and all dead links from the article? can you check this article? Jiho Lee

it is made by thai fans but don't have too much details about his info. all links are dead, can't see any ref. about texts that they wrote about him in the article if it's real details and ref. links or not, they said this korean model is working in Thailand/Korea, so they dont have this page in Thai, and Korean page is also translated and use all dead links from this page too. can you check this article and this editor? Atlantic306 (talk · contribs) because he said i can't do it, and always undo all, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• • There was no need to take this to ANI, the above editor slashed the article removing all the references and nearly all the content before prodding it. I deprodded it because it had claims of notability and suggested AFD but he then slashed nearly all the content again which I reverted but probably should have discussed it instead of just sending a template warning about removing references but the main point was that there should be an attempt to fix the references before removing them and I wanted to try to fix them but he keeps removing them, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, Ive just checked and most of the refs do actually work if you press the archive links but they don't seem very reliable apart from one which may be but is a dead link. Anyway the above editor has now opened an AFD on the article which I'll leave to others to decide. Perhaps this can be closed now as the AFD seems the best solution, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

at first time i removed some of unsourced detail and unclear details that we dont know about him, who is he right? so i dont need to remove all but this article just too short with unsourced/unclear texts. anyway if you disagree with me why you dont undo some of it that you think i was wrong, but you always undo all, or you should looking for source that make you sure about the texts that they wrote in the article, not only always undo and undo all by your opinion only.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Lita (wrestler)

• Lita (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hmdwgf (talk · contribs)

This is listed as a good article, but was long ago commandeered by users who've added unsourced trivial content throughout, so it's become a fan-cruft piece. I've brought it here for that reason, and because I don't know how far back to revert. Much of the damage has been done by one registered user who's blown through multiple warnings not to add unsourced content, but several other accounts have intervened, as well. More eyes on this, please, with the short-term suggestion that the good article designation be removed for now. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

After you posted here, Hmdwgf seems to have reverted back to approximately March 18, see [141]. Not sure if there's anything actionable here for admins specifically. Use WP:GAR to request a reassessment. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably nothing actionable, aside from a block if Hmdwgf continues adding unsourced content. If the revert takes care of the problem, there's no need to reassess. I'd just never come across a well-assessed article that had gone that far south without someone taking notice. Thank you, Scott Burley. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fringe edits at Urine therapy following warnings

JGabbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been warned about discretionary sanctions.[142] The editor has staked out a position at Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased.#Protestation/Responses and Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased.#Closing salvo. I am bringing this here because we have reached the next step from the proposal on that page.[143] Topic bans were deemed inappropriate because the editor was said to have little interest in medicine/alternative medicine topics. Edits at Urine therapy suggest otherwise.

While I was not explicit and just cited WP:MEDRS to revert, this edit was not at all subtle. In the quick summary for those not versed in the subject, Premarin contains hormones purififed from (PREgnant MARes urINe), but describing it by saying "[a]nimal urine is used in some hormone-boosting prescription medications" is a broad stretch (WP:OR). Neither Urecholine (bethanechol) nor Urocit-K (potassium citrate) contains urea and the restored edit cited a list of drugs but nothing that discussed the content of the two. The last edit on the article replaces a statement about lack of support with a reference which discusses the historic purification of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone from nun's urine.

With these edits in article space, it is time to raise the question of a topic ban. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to make my position clear (from the above, BiologicalMe appears to agree); I do not think that ANI should become involved when someone uses the talk page of an essay as a soapbox when the essay itself is already a a bit of an allowed soapbox. I believe that both should be allowed. That being said this edit makes it perfectly clear what JGabbard is and what we can expect from him if he edits any articles.

In my opinion, a topic ban should be imposed, based upon these edits to articles:[144][145][146]

I would further argue that, for JGabbard, promotion of pseudoscience is a small part of a much larger body of edits concerning music, all of which seem to be constructive. A topic ban would have very little effect on him or on his work on the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon for a TBAN (Edit: see below for why). The last of those 3 edits was unwise, but the first two might have been wrong, but they weren't really promoting WP:FRINGE views. BiologicalMe, you explained why the edits about Premarin were no good here, but you didn't explain it on the article's talk page or on JGabbard's (that I noticed). Jumping right to ANI to call for a TBAN after someone just barely inches over the line is a bit draconian. Any disruption so far has been extremely minor. Let them earn their TBAN if it's really warranted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If it were just those three edits, I would not have come here. I should have provided more context. The warnings came after multiple attempts [147][148][149][150] to push a change in the lede to Amygdalin. The sum total of engagement at that talk page was to argue a cited essay.[151] I probably read this as a little more of a road map leading here than I should have. To my eyes, wildly creative edits trying to describe some pharmaceuticals in terms similar to urine therapy is promotion of a fringe theory, and it has held up on a second reading giving it a favorable light. If I pulled the trigger early, I'm sorry, but it has been pulled. If there are measures short of a topic ban that will solve the problem (including this discussion itself), excellent. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's certainly a bit more troubling. I've struck my "too soon", and I'll leave it more as an "I dunno". Not sure why, but part of me still wants to see if they'll back off on their own, but if others feel differently, I certainly wouldn't argue anymore. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would not be against closing this, waiting to see if JGabbard voluntarily steps away from fringe theories, and reopening it if he continues. Hewas crystal clear about his views...

"Mainstream science and western medicine are willingly ignorant of any therapies or remedies which are not profit-driven, regardless of how effective they may be. That is why doctors receive scant training in nutrition at Rx-driven allopathic medical schools. It also explains precisely why oncologists can be sued and have their licenses revoked for curing patients using any method other than slash/burn/poison (i.e., surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy). That is also the reason broccoli growers are threatened with litigation by pharmaceutical corporations (via the FDA) for touting the health benefits of their product. Wikipedia should operate in the interest of the betterment of humanity and not be in subjugation to and a reflection of that inequitable, self-serving and corrupt system." --posted by Gabbard on 2 May.

...but it is entirely possible that he will walk away now that this is at ANI. I am OK with a topic ban and I am OK with waiting. ---Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

2 accounts made recently.

I suspect socks. There were 2 accounts named SCVN1 and SCVN2 made recently. There is also a vandal going by “SC VNDL.”, which is very similar to SCVN. Possibly approach them?--66.153.236.105 (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• People make obviously duplicate accounts with very similar names all the time. It isn't a problem unless they start editing, in which case, report to WP:AIV for vandals or WP:SPI for other types of abusing multiple accounts. Until then, it isn't worth the effort to block them, and they aren't really doing anything wrong. ST47 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

photos not of the NRHP-listed resource

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

---

Hi, I am posting here now to try to beat User:Nyttend to it, I guess. A running issue has been their usurping the role of NRHP list-articles and individual articles in collecting photos by contributors of buildings and other historic resources listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A few other contributors have occasionally posted pics which accidentally were not of the intended subject, and there has not been any problem following from that being figured out and fixed by removal of the pic. And of course I am grateful and appreciative of new photos being collected by this editor. However non-encyclopedic photos are not helpful, and there is a lot of animosity pretty much precluding private discussion to settle any new editing issue. The last time I tried to raise an issue for discussion with them, they immediately instead opened an ANI proceeding (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive997#Doncram, 2018-11-28, calling me tendentious and seeking to have me banned or blocked I guess. The proceeding did attract some interest that way, actually, but mainly led to a RFC about the editing topic. I was not happy about the way the RFC was opened and ran but I have abided by its decision.

In a series of edits in October 2018, which I noticed only much later, Nyttend re-installed non-encyclopedic photos and, in edit summaries, complained about me. For example, "why was this user unbannerd?", restored [:File:Bayless Quarters through the trees.jpg]. Which i had previously removed to the article i created for the property, noting there that the house behind the trees was "A building on the property, not the National Register-listed quarters", which has not been disputed. I could provide more evidence of animosity in edit summaries.

Just now I noticed a few more suspect photo additions.

• About LaGrange (Harris Crossroads, North Carolina), Nyttend just added a photo, then in this edit I moved a pic of a modern house apparently mistakenly believed to be the historic house to the Talk page, and I explained there why I identify it as mistaken. I noticed it because this was an article I created long ago. In this edit i removed it from the corresponding NRHP county list-article.
• About Dr. J. A. Savage House, Nyttend just added a photo of a vacant lot to the infobox, which I just removed out of it. And in this edit I just removed it from the corresponding NRHP county list-article.

My usual practice when I have come across these is to remove the photo from the NRHP county list-article. Where the pic was added to a NRHP infobox in a separate article about the site, I have removed it from the infobox, because it is not a pic of the historic resource, but often/usually left it elsewhere in the article. Perhaps it would be better to remove the photo, obviously non-encyclopedic, to a Talk page instead, and I have a few times done that. Where there was not yet a separate article about the site, I have usually created the article and placed the photo outside the infobox.

I suppose it could be appropriate to have an RFC on this editing topic. It seems pretty obviously nonsensical to me, though, to even have a big discussion about it, because all the photos do is prove that one editor visited the site. They are suitable for a private website of their own photos, proving they visited various places. The photos provide no encyclopedic merit, and they discourage collection and submission of photos by other editors of the real things. Editors do seek to get missing photos in photo drives and all year round. Editors elsewhere do get around to finding suitable old photos and arranging for copyright exemptions where necessary (for one example, a historic photo was recently added to Marion Allsup House.) I don't exactly see how to pose an RFC question. Perhaps the community could just share, here, some views and settle the question, if it is one, of whether photos of not-the-subject-at-all should be accepted in place of the intended photos. --Doncram (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Notice of this ANI proceeding given. --Doncram (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Kommentar -- The banner at the top of the page states:- This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. ∯WBG^converse 06:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  I am closing this but (anybody other than Doncram), remains free to reopen this. ∯WBG^converse 06:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Guy Macon's personal attack against Fæ

I noticed that in a recent ANI discussion, Guy Macon demeaned Fæ by making fun of their gender identity:

Fæ appears to be testing to see how far over the line xe can go regarding xyr topic ban and regarding civility...It would be very useful If I could look up every place where Fæ or xyr previous Ash account used the terms "sexist" or "sexism" and verify the above claim. --Guy Macon

These kind of "jokes" don't just hurt their direct targets. They demean an entire minority group and hurt the encyclopedia as a whole. This should be considered as serious as one editor calling another faggot or similar. Thanks for your consideration. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ has made it quite clear that they prefer the singular they prounoun as opposed to the idiosyncratic xe and xyr usages that Guy Macon is deploying in a mocking fashion. I advise Guy Macon to refrain from this type of ugly harassment in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Demanding/expecting someone to keep track of and use every Wikipedian's pronouns is exactly as manipulative as intentionally misapplying those pronouns. I suggest any offended parties instead practice the art of projecting an aura of resilience, and that any offending particles project an aura of respect to others. I don't foresee any action coming out of this based on one comment. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

While keeping track of every users pronouns is unlikely, using gender neutral pronouns unless you know otherwise can and should be the norm. We're literally on an anonymous platform where anyone's gender is unknown unless they proclaim it. Guy could have easily not used pronouns, or used they/them for a gender neutral default (or since Guy certainly knows about Fæ's pronouns). But instead Guy intentionally mocked Fæ, and then leveled a personal attack! Guy should know better. I don't think any action should come of this, but I do think Guy needs to be more civil. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, your comment might have some validity under WP:AGF if Guy Macon had inadvertently used the historically common "he" or "she", but instead, Guy Macon consciously chose to use the highly idiosyncratic "xe" and "xyr" usages without any preference for those terms being expressed by Fæ. Your failure to see the distinction is nearly but not quite as as troubling as Guy Macon's obnoxious and harassing choice. A basic principle of human dignity is to refer to human beings by the names and pronouns that they prefer. Good faith accidents are both understandable and forgivable. Deliberate provocations are much less so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am pinging Fæ since I think that I botched earlier pings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the easiest ways of establishing human dignity is resilience. The best part is that its a gift that you can give to yourself, and enjoy all the more for it. Say to yourself "Today, I did not let that Guy get under my skin, and I feel just a little bit better than I did yesterday about myself" and recognize that you've earned a bit of self-respect. Doing so will reflect outward, causing others to respect you as well. @Fæ and WanderingWanda: don't let him ruin your day. @Guy Macon: WP:Don't be a dick and hey, maybe apply WP:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values #3. -- Netoholic @ 08:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass. Zero doubt considering that Guy Macon was writing on my talk page in March about their fear of me, playing the victim, and explaining how important using the right words are (ref multiple entries by Guy Macon at User_talk:Fæ/2019). Despite claiming to be frightened of me, this has not stopped them writing about me, writing on my talk page and making this attack against my gender identity on Wikipedia. Guy Macon has made their views about pronoun use abundantly clear, refer to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour and with a response to me of "I don't hate you, just as I don't hate any other person who attempts to force us to abandon one of our basic principles (Wikipedia is not censored). If anything, I feel sorry for you. It must be awful (apologies to any middle-English speakers reading this) to go through life being offended again and again, yet somehow being unable or unwilling to simply avoid the things that offend you. As for ridicule, I will try not to ridicule you, despite the fact that your ham-handed (apologies to any Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu contributors that I may have just triggered) attempt at censorship is completely ridiculous and deserving of ridicule." and talking about me with "Last I looked God did not appoint Fæ the arbiter of all humor. Nor does anything in this discussion have anything to do with heteronormativity; that was the first time anyone mentioned sexual-partner preferences here. I find that hilarious, since the point of Fæ's mini-rant was to browbeat someone about staying on-topic." at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour.

The joke here would be Guy Macon blatantly harassing a queer editor for their preferred pronoun, when there is zero doubt that this was a deliberate premeditated attack, and the only so-called sanction is to politely ask Guy Macon to try to refrain from deliberately abusing and demeaning queers. Sure... thanks.

By the way, it is worth highlighting that Arbcom recognized the harassment I had been targeted with around 2010. It would be humiliating and unfair to resurrect those events and make me relive it, it was damaging and made me seriously unhappy. Those digging for dirt should get real lives and find other things to research than what people wrote 10 years ago, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Response

I took a break and thought about how to respond to the above. Below you will see my conclusion about what is best for the encyclopedia.

WanderingWanda is suspiciously familiar with ANI for such a new editor. I'm just saying.

In the above comment, Fæ makes a false accusation ("This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass"). This is typical Fæ behavior; engage in vicious personal attacks while demanding that we treat Thon[152] with kid gloves. I am not the only one who has noticed this behavior. See the following 12:0 Arbcom finding of facts: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others Also see User talk:Fæ/2012#Unacceptable edits.

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

Fæ also mocks my legitimate fear that, after Fæ going off-wiki and trying to get two individuals who opposed Peh[153] removed from their positions, I would get the same treatment. At the time I assumed good faith and accepted Fæ's assurance that this would not happen, and now I am seeing that very AGF weaponized against me.

I refuse to use the singular they pronoun in cases where someone demands that I do so. I use it as the least-bad choice when I don't know the gender of the person I am addressing, but it is a bad choice. Singular and plural have specified meanings in the English language, and I strongly oppose any attempts to redefine them. Go ahead and try to force me to do use them and see what happens. I also wanted to avoid "he" and "him". I know that Fæ is in the habit of making a show of being outraged, and I predicted a false accusation if I used "him". I am also unwilling to carefully rewrite every sentence to avoid any pronouns. Go ahead and try to force me to do that and see what happens. Yes, what I just wrote was aggressive and confrontational. Perhaps 10% as aggressive and confrontational as "This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass".

So, outside of my own personal outrage at being treated unfairly and my conclusion that any choice I make will result in further personal attacks, what is best for the encyclopedia? In my considered opinion, Fæ should be topic banned from all comments about anyone else's choice of what personal pronouns to use as part of the existing topic ban. Nothing good has come from these complaints. If someone is really demeaning an entire minority group there will be plenty of other editors who will report it. Fæ obviously can not or will not understand the difference between some bigot making a personal attack and me doing my best to not offend zhim[154] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of term Hoax and vandalism

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

---

Hi

since I joined wikipedia there is a person who is stalking me and vandalised what I write; he started to delete entire sections without even warning me. Today again as included in the talk page a term hoax which is not appropriate and in bad faith. I cannot delete it. I have uploaded all possible proofs that what I write is true and he is still insist that it is a hoax. I start to be very depressed for this I am unable to stop the bullying; if he was in a real world I would have sued him for defamation and let the judge decide but I cannot do this so I ask wikipedia to help me. /a person can disagree with what I write but can title this disagreement such as Fons Honorum dispute or controversies ; this person use the term hoax when it is blatantly evident that everything I mentioned is true and proved please check also gallery.

Please help me

Araldico69 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Try discussing the relevant issues on the article talk page. Avoid using terms like defamation, exactly the reason for which you were previously blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. Also, messages go on user talk pages not user pages. El_C 06:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, rather than block you for edit warring, legal threats and general disruption, I reverted your edit and fully protected the page for three days. Please take this opportunity to discuss the issues at hand without invective or innuendo. But if another admin feels that a block is warranted here, I have no objections. El_C 07:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, its a content dispute. May I point out the relevant article: House of Este Orioles, a page which has been previously tagged as a hoax. The hoaxy stuff was mostly removed, but its back, and thus the tag is back. Clearly the article is of great importance to Araldico69 (perhaps to the point of COI), so hopefully they can work to find reliable sources and fix the article up. In terms of a person stalking them (I believe they are referring to User:FactStraight), I find that quite unlikely. I suspect that FactStraight has just had the Este Orioles page on their watchlist for a while (like I have, ever since the last hoax tag was put on), and thus just keeps running into Araldico69. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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