Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Bear with me here: Anyone encountering this ANI stands to benefit from reading this NBC News article from August 2019 ("Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times"), this New Yorker article from March 2019 ("Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun"), and this 2019 article from Radio France Internationale ("Shen Yun: Fighting Communism - and making a stack on the side").

    Other useful coverage can be found in a September 2019 article from The New Republic ("The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe"), a July 2020 ABC News (Australia) article ("The Power of Falun Gong"), and a June 2020 Axios roundup of recent coverage of Falun Gong attempts to influence US government policy via the Trump administration ("In media agency shakeup, conservative groups push for Falun Gong-backed internet tools").

    So, while visiting a city in the US earlier this year (back when we could still do this), I found myself bombarded with ads from Shen Yun, a performance arts group who claim to have revived ancient tradition. As editors who have worked with me here know, I write quite a lot about folklore studies topics on Wikipedia. So I decided to dig a little deeper into the group's background and claims. After reading some of the above pieces, I was shocked to see that Wikipedia had no coverage of what reliable media sources have been reporting about Falun Gong and its extensions like Shen Yun since around 2016. Upon turning to English Wikipedia's article on Falun Gong, the new religious movement behind Shen Yun, I was particularly surprised by how much it read as a promotional piece, totally ignoring any of the increasing media coverage surrounding the topic around the group's far-right pivot and accompanying political involvement. As a regular over at Wikipedia's fringe noticeboard, and since I found that Falun Gong leader and founder Li Hongzhi has made all sorts of deeply fringe statements about aliens, homosexuality, and any other number of topics, I decided to go ahead and begin looking for and adding missing coverage. Surely an oversight, I thought.

    Well, soon I learned that the absence of this coverage was quite intentional: Single-purpose account editors camped out at the page would quickly revert any mention of these topics. In the article body in particular there appears to have been a general attempt to obfuscate or downplay the central, hierarchal role of leader Li Hongzhi. The article didn't even mention Dragon Springs, a large Falun Gong compound—its de facto headquarters—in Deerpark, New York, or the two Falun Gong schools. There was certainly no discussion about any of the topics raised by the above media sources.

    For example, while The Epoch Times and Shen Yun claim otherwise, media sources make it clear that these groups and numerous others operate as Falun Gong extensions, or, as reliable news sources put it: As "Falun Gong media" ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]), "Falun Gong outreach efforts" ("The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong") or, more straightforwardly, "religious-political propaganda" or "commercials" ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), just as a few examples. (And, of course, as of fairly recently, The Epoch Times has been altogether deprecated as a source here on English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources).

    Instead, English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article portrayed Falun Gong as something of an ancient, decentralized tradition persecuted by the Chinese government—just as Falun Gong presents itself—and little else. Not a word about supporting far-right movements over here in Germany, nothing whatsoever about Dragon Springs and Falun Gong schools, and not a whisper about massive monetary support for the Trump campaign in 2016 and since (take a look at the May 14, 2020 revision). While it is no doubt true that adherents in China are persecuted there (the Chinese government is, of course, well known for persecution), the religious group is indeed quite new, as a large amount of academic sources have made perfectly clear: Like Scientology, it's a new religious movement, and scholars don't mince words about this: "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). Controversial New Religions, p. 241. Oxford University Press.)

    And like when Scientology was revealed to have meddled with Wikipedia's coverage (Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia), the article swarms with single-purpose accounts ready to lawyer, scrub, and revert away that which does not echo Falun Gong's claims.

    Perhaps the most visible editor camped out at the article is User:TheBlueCanoe. Consider this timeline of diffs, wherein myself and others add to the article, and TheBlueCanoe repeatedly removes all 'negative' media coverage of Falun Gong, only giving an inch here or there when a position no longer appears sustainable. Diffs:

    This would have undoubtedly continued indefinitely until either myself or other editors just gave up on adding to the article or an administrator intervened. Fortunately, an adminstrator did step in, @Guerillero:, and indefinitely locked the article to non-administrators on July 27, 2020. ([1]) Unfortunately, no further action has been taken about the repeated scrubbing, so it's hard to expect much else when the protection is eventually lifted.

    It's very difficult to view the above diffs as anything more than scrubbing. It's obvous that the NBC News sources above are quality reliable sources. These events and connections are important and require coverage. However, it's easy to picture that, sooner or later, maybe even as soon as the article is no longer protected, TheBlueCanoe will simply swoop in again and strip the media sources out once more.

    I later learned that TheBlueCanoe had aggressively removed similar material from the article before I came along. Compare this August 30, 2019 revert by TheBlueCanoe, wherein TheBlueCanoe stripped the NBC News piece from the article before the above diffs, and this May 15, 2020 revert by TheBlueCanoe, which dared to mention Falun Gong's connection to, for example, the Q Anon conspiracy theory promoted by The Epoch Times) (@Nathan868:. This approach has been the case since at least 2013, over time the user snowballed to remove all 'negative' coverage of Falun Gong (see the thread to which this June 14 2013 diff is attached, and here's another from June 29, 2013 — there are plenty more). Sure, these old edits have their issues, but while we're not likely to refer to Falun Gong as a "cult" in Wikivoice (and shouldn't)—cult is a term scholars generally don't use in that colloquial context—we do need coverage of why and how this appelation is so commonly applied to the new religious movement, and by who, for example.

    Anyway, taken as a whole, it seems to me that there's a clear, long-term pattern here for what is essentially a single purpose account. TheBlueCanoe has been a long-term disruptive presence on Wikipedia's Falun Gong page, yet while I have edited, the account contributes next to nothing to the article itself. There's not a lot of contribution happening here, but a lot of disruption.

    TheBlueCanoe is not alone. Notably, in the background are the other entrenched editors who step in to echo TheBlueCanoe. When I came around on May 19 to introduce the media sources, @Cleopatran Apocalypse: unsuccessfully sought to have me topic banned ([2]). This yielded various admin comments noting that there appeared to be some level of off-wiki collusion occuring to shape the Falun Gong article. This editor also has a history of, for example, defending The Epoch Times. ([3]) Other editors have also mysteriously appeared out of the woodwork to either revert to TheBlueCanoe's preferred version or to echo him on the talk page: Take @Bstephens393: as an example. This account's first edit since 2013 was on May 19, 2020—as you'll note, the very day I added the media sources—at which time he popped in to agree with TheBlueCanoe ([4]) and weigh in Cleopatran's attempt to have yours truly topic banned ([5]). There's no shortage of stuff like this around this and related articles.

    I think it's important to emphasize that, despite the drive-by media source stripping and wall-of-text attempts at somehow lawyering away or hiding the above media sources, myself and others have continued building the article out with quality sources. Some of the editors who have endured the onslaught of revisions—and involved in some of the diffs above—include @Horse Eye Jack: and @Binksternet:, both of whom built English Wikipedia's new Dragon Springs from material introduced in the Falun Gong article.

    In short, Falun Gong and related articles would greatly benefit from administrators willing to step in and take action when an account comes along and attempts to scrub the article of media sources or anything else that might seem 'critical' or 'unfair' to the article's subjects: After all, Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be quite possible — even fairly straightforward — to present a diametrically opposite story of events over the last couple of months. Indeed, my complaint about User:Bloodofox's abusive tone, personal attacks, aggressive style, and bullying did so, to a certain degree.
    It would also be fairly straightforward to present a completely different narrative of the topic in question. In general, I think that Wikipedia should favor high quality scholarship over media reporting, and WP:RECENT is to be avoided. High quality scholarship is distinguished from media reporting because (in this case) it is typically ethnographic work, or detailed textual analysis, by scholars with relevant, established expertise, including linguistic expertise and cultural knowledge. Such scholars have often spent years embedded in Falun Gong communities, or have a background in Chinese religions, and they portray a rather different state of affairs to that Bloodofox depicts. No one has said that media sources should not be used. These are disputes about emphasis and due weight. For example, is it appropriate to have several longish blockquotes from media reports on some recondite question of FLG practice...? That sort of thing.
    The main problem with this complaint, if that is what it is, is that it seeks to preempt a resolution on the question of how Falun Gong should be handled on Wikipedia by biasing readers with Bloodofox's preferred emphases and interests in the topic. Imagine the opposite complaint that started with how a poor innocent faith community that only believes in truth and tolerance is being persecuted by a big bad communist state who harvest their organs, and there are some editors here who are trying to persecute them even more by perpetuating that propaganda. I would hope such an effort would be looked upon rather dimly.
    As for the edits Bloodofox highlights: each was preceded and followed by extensive debate on the talk page. Some editors engaged in that debate by focusing on the content, issues of due weight, and sourcing; others called names, made personal attacks, and went into long FORUMing about how their views on the article subject are the only legitimate views to have.
    As for my "history" of "defending the Epoch Times," people can read my comment for themselves (I had forgotten about it and don't think I contributed much after that). I have become quite familiar with the literature on this topic since getting into these disputes, but I kind of hate touching the pages because of how nasty and personal it gets. If you do not subscribe to a certain narrative, you get called an apologist. I so strongly object to this. The bullying, name-calling, aggressive edit warring are the actual major problems here. It's natural that people are going to have divergent views on a phenomenon like this. The whole point is to hash out such differences in good faith. Bloodofox seems to think that is becoming increasingly difficult, and I would fully agree.
    In fact, the incident that apparently triggered this complaint perfectly illustrates why. The other day, user:Binksternet removed [6] from the article the three main beliefs of Falun Gong, and inserted a conference paper by a scholar who argues that those beliefs are in fact a "tactic for evading deeper inquiry" and that members of Falun Gong are instructed to lie about their practice. This was a dubious representation of the original source anyway, it turned out.
    Note that the central beliefs of Falun Gong being "truth, benevolence, tolerance" appears in almost every scholarly work on that group. This is not some fringe fact. Note also that there are a number of major academic books and papers by established scholars about the beliefs of Falun Gong, which convey opposite ideas to those of this scholar, in her conference paper (i.e. not a peer reviewed document, but something presented to other scholars for comment prior to publication). Note also that there are certain disputes in the study of Falun Gong, where people with area expertise (Chinese language, background in Chinese religion etc.) look somewhat askance at folks like Heather Kavan, who does not speak Chinese, has no relevant background, and teaches speechwriting. She also gives interviews to Chinese agencies connected with the anti-Falun Gong security campaign in China, etc. I am not saying here that she can't be used, but I'm trying to convey some of the context at play. I wrote on the talk that I believe having some discussion of how FLG seeks to represent its beliefs would also be valid. I was reading through Noah Porter's celebrated ethnography the other day and he has a whole section on FLG discursive strategies. They have a whole lot of weird beliefs, but say that they are not central, and try to represent them in a manner that makes them most understandable to outsiders. All that, including the evasions, is worth being represented somewhere. But to use one dubious source in order to remove info about the central beliefs, reported in all the major scholarship, and instead say that they're just evasive tactics and members are taught to lie... well. That is the dispute about these pages in a nutshell.
    It's indeed very difficult to have productive discussions when editors have such vastly different understandings of our shared enterprise here. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For newbies like me, there were two arbitration cases: WP:AFLG (2007) + WP:ARBFG2 (2012). The log of 2020 discretionary sanctions is here where JzG and Guerillero have recorded sanctions. I see that I commented at Cleopatran Apocalypse's talk regarding a very bad aspersions issue where Bloodofox was said to have "repeatedly misrepresented sources". I guess we need to draw up a list of editors to topic ban and articles to watch. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Johnuniq, Cleopatran Apocalypse has <700 edits, so is not wise in our ways despite xyr long history here. As admins I think we being by setting expectations about neutrality and brevity of reports, and correct use of WP:BRD, de-escalation, consensus-forming and dispute resolution. This seems to me to be escalating beyond the objective merits of the complaints. Guy (help!) 08:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to "scrubbing", I found it important that the contentious reverts dealt with the 2nd paragraph in the lead and a full section at the top of the article. While policy does not say in which order the sections should be, I think it's odd that the first section of the article would be about political involvement and include long quotes from the LA Times and NBC News. Are the political positions of the The Epoch Times newspaper and the Shen Yun dance company such an important aspect of the FLG that they warrant a full 2nd paragraph in the lead? While this content should be in the article in some form, the diffs cited here mostly detail a disagreement about WP:DUEWEIGHT. --Pudeo (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Were placement the issue here, moving the material around would be no problem—that'd be a typical response on Wikipedia, of course. However, as the diffs display, what I and others experienced above was repeated, wholesale removal of any and all 'critical' media sources. Editors before me also experienced this in the sample diffs above (but simply moved on, rather than contest the matter further). :bloodofox: (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am willing to answer questions from the community about my interactions within the topic area and attempts to control the disruption through sanctions. Please ping me if you require me.

      I think my actions speak for just how contentious this topic area is. Placing most everyone involved in the article under a 0RR sanction and indef full protecting the article was not something I did lightly. As you can see at WP:AC/DS/Log#Falun Gong 2 various attempts have been made to keep the article from becoming a mud fight. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This subject is frustrating as Hell. I think it needs a full ArbCom to sift and sort, and decide who needs TBANS and who needs CBANS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      What Binksternet said. We need to exclude the pro and anti POVers. They are WP:NOTHERE anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I agree with bloodofox, that this is going to require Scientology-level sanctions & enforcement to get an actual, factual set of articles established. I've been wary of even dipping my toes into this area because I've seen how fervent believers descend on any attempt to provide factual information they deem critical of the group. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Deepfriedokra and The Hand That Feeds You. We need to exclude the pro and anti POVers, and it will require Scientology-level sanctions & enforcement. I tried for years to improve these articles, but it was impossible in the crossfire between a large number of Falun Gong devotees and a less conspicuous group of pro-Party propagandists. It is high time to do something about this. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Falun Gong topic area has seen major content battles over the years. The three major groups of involved editors are 1) pro-Falun Gong activists, 2) anti-Falun Gong activists, and 3) veteran editors who happen upon the conflict and try to sort out the problems. Bloodofox and myself are in the latter category, while BlueCanoe and Cleopatran Apocalypse are in group 1. Group 2 would have included PatCheng until he was recently blocked for socking. STSC would also have been counted in the group 3, having started the username 14 years ago, and getting extensively involved in other articles before making Falun Gong edits, but they were hounded off the Falun Gong topic by users from group 1 including Blue Canoe and Marvin 2009 (who is now topic banned for pro-Falun Gong activism.) If group 1 and group 2 were allowed to edit freely, the article would be a constant war of reversions and non-neutral additions. What is needed is for the article to be developed by veteran editors from group 3, who are impartial and will attempt to frame the topic neutrally. Bloodofox should develop a version of the article in userspace, and we can have a Request for Comment to see whether that version should replace the current contentious one. And all editors in the groups 1 and 2 should have 0RR restrictions placed as soon as they are identified by their behavior. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this has gathered some admin attention and results in admin action by Guerillero already, I just wanted to mention that I did plan to eventually file AE reports and ask a topic ban for some editors who appear to have a conflict of interest about the topic. —PaleoNeonate – 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I would also be interested in an AE report --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the mistake of getting involved in the FG space within the last year, I say mistake because its by far the most acrimonious space I’ve ever come across and I’m familiar with the Taiwan-China and Israeli-Arab conflict spaces so I thought I had seen acrimony, disruption, IPs, and SPAs but it was nothing like the FG space. There is a clique of long term editors/gatekeepers who appear to have COI issues with FG, as far as I can tell they’ve never been successfully challenged and most editors will simply leave the FG space after encountering them rather than endure their assault. This discussion is a step in the right direction but dealing solely with TheBlueCanoe won’t solve the problem. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have to agree that TheBlueCanoe is disruptive. My edit mentioned by the OP merely expanded a ref with a cite template and Google books URL, and removed content from the lead that was already mentioned further up in the lead. Yet it was reverted by TheBlueCanoe. This editor is seemingly the poster child for WP:CPUSH – ticking most of the boxes there and exhibiting apparent civility in conversations on the talk page while editing tendentiously. As mentioned, TBC is not the only problem, as there are many SPAs that appear out of nowhere when there's contention at the articles involved. I agree with Binksternet about the three major groups of involved editors, and echoing what Horse Eye Jack says just above, as a member of group 3, I'm disinclined to make the same mistake and wade into the morass of Falun Gong related articles – at least pending the conclusion of the promised AE (or Arbcom case). Mojoworker (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that User:Bloodofox is (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting my diffs above, so I want to clarify: I never supported any motion to get him topic banned. This is proven by the same diff that he provided. [7] It was a brief statement that I gave after a) encountering the extraordinary hubbub on this page after my long PhD hiatus, b) intended as a neutral, uninvolved observation, where I both sided with Bloodofox's suggestion to include the NRM label and expressed my concerns as follows: "Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements. There are legitimate questions to be resolved here, and patience is undoubtedly a virtue when the articles in question have a frustratingly complicated history." It should also be self-evident that just because all editors have not spent tens of thousands of hours on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, anyone who has devoted a considerable part of their life to editing cannot be automatically considered neutral just because of their accrued social capital. Ostensibly some people are on Wikipedia to wield definitional power, and while many of their contributions can be laudable, their edit patterns may reveal occasional elements of struggling for/against pseudoscience, secular materialism, militant atheism, conservatism, liberalism, or wherever their first principles are anchored. I shouldn't even need to state this explicitly, since in their heart of hearts everyone who's followed Wikipedia over the years knows this to be true.
    I've also acquainted myself (cursorily) with the previous ArbCom cases related to this topic, and I've noticed that merits and accomplishments in other areas have never been understood as a free pass to cast aspersions and engage in ideological battles, irrespective of Wikipedia "seniority." Overall, the only way around confirmation biases and echo chambers is open discussion about things like structure, due weight, NPOV, and other Wikipedia policies -- even if these have recently been framed as irrelevant nitpicking or hindrances to getting things done. Furthermore, if Wikipedians want to assess any transcendentalist religion primarily from its most recent critics' perspective (and rewrite the lede based on that) all the while showing contempt for peer-reviewed academic research if it doesn't fit the narrative, we've already turned into RationalWiki and should openly admit that.
    I happen to be specialized in related topics as an academic professional, and the only reason I got engaged after my hiatus was to ensure that the various perspectives of Religious Studies, Sociology, and East Asian studies would not be scrubbed now that China is clearly on the offensive on various fronts. We also need to acknowledge the elements of culture war here; doing otherwise is just intellectually dishonest. That said, rational debate is what I have always stood for. It all boils down to this one thing that I've repeated over and over: we're here to fairly describe the (sometimes competing and diverse) narratives prominently present in reliable sources and not to establish a single hegemonic master narrative. I have nothing against anyone's POV; the root cause of what we're currently seeing is the broken process of good-faith discussion, including the aforementioned push toward a cohesive, unambiguous, straightforward master narrative, which I see as blatantly reductive corner-cutting. From an uninvolved, objective standpoint, I believe it would be apparent that this process has been equally undermined by those involved "veterans" who're now strutting as purveyors of discernment and truth. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above editor, Bstephens393, would be in Group 1 of Blinksternet’s three group breakdown of the involved editors. They are highly involved so take their statement that they are capable of seeing this from an "uninvolved, objective standpoint” with a grain of salt. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all you have to respond? Personal attack, no diffs to back up your ad hoc categorization, and zero contribution to the substance of the discussion? How persuasive. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been editing FLG related articles since 2011. Not counting edits to administrative pages, at least 75 of your 522 (so about 14% of your edits) relate to Falun Gong. It's downright dishonest to claim to be saying things From an uninvolved, objective standpoint with that kind of history, so it's not a personal attack to point out your involvement. Your claim of being uninvolved makes quite telling the way you go on about how you are the one who wants rational discussion and how other people are (granted, perhaps without realizing it) biased is also quite telling (nevermind the way you go on about your PhD). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    After counting administrative pages, at least 95 of your edits (18%) relate to Falun Gong. So, almost one-fifth of your editing activity. Now, imagine that one-fifth of someone else's activity was in a contentious topic, and it was pretty easy to find them taking sides in arguments between editors (even if they paid lipservice to the idea that the other side isn't perfect). How hard would it be for you to not see them as dishonest (either intellectually or willfully) if they claimed to be uninvolved? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by TheBlueCanoe

    [Not sure if I should comment here or in the thread above? Here's my read on the situation, anyway].

    TL;DR: I believe this should go to ArbCom.

    • I've been editing this topic for several years. I'm very familiar with the scholarly literature, and my interest has been in trying to ensure that the page is not overtaken by ideological agendas, and that the content conforms to Wikipedia's content policies.
    • Bloodofox, Horse Eye Jack, Binksternet, and others began editing this article since April or May of this year. Since then, the Falun Gong pages have been the site of endless and apparently intractable edit wars involving at least a dozen editors.
    • These users do not appear to have even an elementary level of understanding of Falun Gong. In the case of Bloodofox, his view of this topic seems to be based almost entirely on relatively news coverage in left-liberal news publications (since the Trump election, really). While the perspective offered in these news stories is important, it is also just one perspective within an expansive and varied body of academic literature.
    • These editors treat the page as an ideological battleground. Binksternet, for instance, removes references to Falun Gong's core moral teachings, making some remarkable claims and misrepresenting sources along the way.[8][9][10][11][12] Bloodofox and others have inserting lengthy block quotes from recent news articles haphazardly on the page, with no regard for coherent narrative structure, due weight, or balance, and a tendency to stretch the sources to support claims that are not directly made. They have edited the lede to highlight apparent controversies that would appear extremely marginal in relation to the broader topic Falun Gong. For instance, the lede section they prefer does not include any mention of Falun Gong's core religious tenets, but it does tell us what a Falun Gong-affiliated dance troupe thinks about the theory of evolution. Etc.
    • In other words, there are legitimate questions of Neutrality and Due Weight in how these news sources are presented on the page, as User:Pudeo noted. My edits, cited above by Bloodofox, were never aimed at "scrubbing" or "censoring" the article, but about ensuring a neutral and proportional representation, particularly in the lede section. I always explained my rationale on the talk page. However....
    • The conflict is intractable because talk page discussions are impossible: every attempt to discuss content questions is quickly derailed by personal attacks, soapboxing, strawmaning opponents' arguments, and demands to stop discussing content (e.g. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

    [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]

    • For an example of how this dynamic plays out, read this recent talk page discussion[58], which is sadly typical. I describe in detail why I edited the lede section as I did, and invite other editors to discuss the content. Both Binksternet and Bloodofox state their intention not to discuss the issues, personalize the dispute, and edit war back to their preferred version.
    • Some of the editors here have, in addition to the foregoing, also engaged in conduct that might reasonably be interpreted as harassment and hounding. This seems like an attempt to drive their perceived ideological opponents off the page. But I will save my evidence of that for ArbCom or AE.

    So, again, the issues here are significant and intractable. It's a massive pain, but I believe this needs to go to ArbCom. When this case was filed I was preparing a request for Arbitration, but a recommendation from uninvolved editors here might make the case stronger. TheBlueCanoe 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're aware, I'm sure, regarding your comment about "left-liberal news publications", that "Reality has a well known liberal bias". It's almost as if the liberal media wish to reveal the truth. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I liked the way a documentary called this: "the gospel of the liberal media". —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t believe I just clicked through all of those diffs (you’re attributing some of Fox’s work to me BTW, might want to check those diffs again), not one was problematic or supported your arguments about harassment, hounding, etc. The only mildly questionable thing is a lack of understanding on my part about how to use SPA tags back in the day which was quickly addressed, that not one of your complaints here though its just something I noticed about my old work. BTW you’re multiple days into not providing diffs per WP:ASPERSIONS on your talk page so its interesting that you have the time to compile diffs for this page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sockpuppeting?

    Some of TBC's edits are worth examining, he shares a similar editing pattern to the editor User:Homunculus who is was topic banned back in 2012[59]:

    1) TBC first created his account in Oct 2012, while Homunculus was topic banned in July 2012 per WP:ARBFLG2.

    2) Both TBC and Homuculous has an affinity for the expression "Yea", which is quite a coincidence between two people with similar POVs editing the same FLG articles: [60][61][62][63]

    3) Both editors shared a similar style front page, scenery + poetry [64], [65].

    4) Both editors try to promote David Ownby, a scholar on Chinese religions, as some sort of authority on FLG, and use the same excuse to dismiss certain claims ie Ownby doesn't mention them in his book [66][67]

    5) This edit is rather suspicious [68][69]. Homuculous quickly reverted an edit by Quigley to a previous version by TBC, before quickly reverting himself due to realizing that he violated his topic ban.

    6) Both editors argued for the exclusion of certain sources critical of FLG, using the excuse "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of sources. [70][71][72]

    7) Both editors argued that Chinese state media can be used to a limited extent: [73][74]

    8) Both editors use the term "illuminating" as a describing term: [75][76][77]

    9) Several deletions using copyright violation argument: [78][79][80]

    10) In the article 610 Office, compare Homunculus's last edits (inserting Tong and Jamestown), with TBC's first edits in reverting to the old version inserting the same sources: [81][82]

    11) The way both editors conversed here indicate some form of familiarity, perhaps in real life: [83][84]

    12) Both editors nominated pet articles for Do You Know [85][86]

    13) Both editors signed up for Wikiproject Free Speech [87][88]

    14) Both editors requested semi-page protection at the FLG main article, citing IP vandalism. [89][90]. Both editors also requested anti-vandalism functions from admins: [91][92]

    15) Both editors are involved with BLP dispute discussions in the Li Hongzhi article, curiously involving the subject's US citizenship status. [93][94]--LucasGeorge (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if it turns out they're just two different people, behaving like a sockpuppet of a topic banned user is justification for a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened a case here [95]--LucasGeorge (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    197.83.246.23 trying to impose poorly sourced fan theory (i.e. fringe) and making disruptive edits questioning widely held views from reliable sources

    197.83.246.23 (or 197.86.143.179, 197.86.143.126, 197.86.143.140, etc.) has been trying to impose a fan theory at The Master (Doctor Who) diff and The Monk (Doctor Who) diff plus some other articles (diff and diff). When the differences between primary sources and secondary sources as well as the idea of due weight in regards to neutral point of view are explained, they respond with indifference diff or point-y edits diff. Also, unwilling to understand due weight diff and fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not it at all, and DonQuixote knows that. Actually, there are multiple issues here.
    First, the "fan theory" is reliably sourced. It was inserted to try and give some NPOV to the articles.
    More importantly, the The Monk *Doctor Who) article is a complete mess. The problem with this particular article is that there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character. And each one has some sort of RS to back it up. DonQuixote(and another editor who appears as if on demand) are trying to forcibly push ONE of these latter-day interpretations as the "one correct version". The irony is that DonQuixote has repeatedly stated that "all viewpoints must be shown", and accusing me of being the one trying to push one POV version. DonQuixote is now upset because I moved a sourced sentence written in an unofficial guidebook approximately thirty years after the character appeared on tv from out of the introductory paragraph to further down the page.
    In short, I had thought that everyone involved had agreed that only the information relating to the actual character, the creation of said character, and the relevant reliable sources relating to the television appearances should be in the introduction. And then all other information from subsequent dates be placed on the article, but not in the introduction. And none of these subsequent, contradictory, accounts should be given precedence over any of the others. Yet DonQuixote is pushing for ONE account to be made out to be "correct", even blanking valid sourced information. I did not remove anything. In fact, I added information, and clarified certain things to try and attempt to keep the NPOV status of the article intact.
    Yet DonQuixote seems to be heavily invested in pushing ONE latter-day version of the character as the "correct" one, to the detriment of ALL other interpretations, all of which are reliably sourced, even attempting to make deceptive edits to the article. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't want to start a discussion here, as it's not going to be constructive, but two points
    It was inserted to try and give some NPOV to the articles.
    see WP:false balance
    there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character.
    The character has appeared in multiple media written by multiple authors--so that explains that.
    DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you want to start a discussion? After all, you were the one who reported another editor for 'disruptive behaviour'. yet, when the other editor tries to explain the situation, you now have no interest in commenting on the "incident" that you yourself reported?
    In a nutshell, there is a fictitious character who appeared in Doctor Who on television in the 1960's. And, ever since different people in different media, over more than 40 years, have defined and written about that character in a variety of different ways. To the point where there are now multiple contradictory, and utterly irreconcilable, versions of the character in different narratives. And, each mutually distinct version has reliable sources stating that that version is the "one real version". What DonQuixote wants is for his preferred version to be the focus of the article, even ONLY using one type of "reliable source" in the introduction. And then for EVERYTHING ELSE to be buried in the article, sometimes being no more than a link here or there. He has also blanked reliably sourced information from the article if it contradicts with his preferred interpretation. And, he has phrased certain sections in an unsourced, deceptive manner, which would make a reader of said article get a very different understanding of issues from what the reality is.
    All I have attempted to do is make the article neutral, and not to give preference to one conflicting version of said fictitious character of another. And that is the issue. To be blunt, DonQuixote has stated his preference for Big Finish Audios and their ONE adaptation over all else. And DonQuixote wishes to make the "Big Finish version" the "one true version" to the exclusion of all else. Well, he has no problem with everything else being there, just not in the lead the way the Big Finish information is. And maybe a sentence or two, as opposed to the rambling summaries of in-universe Big Finish storylines. If my objecting to that is a mistake, then I apologise. If note, then I suggest other editors look at this article, and try to clean it up, and remove some of the fanboy nonsense from it. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has now reverted me to reinsert a copyrighted image into one of the articles. CMD (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have mentioned this at the beginning, but the IP also dismisses sources (secondary sources and adaptations in other media) that don't support or contradict his POV, as can be seen in this discussion, amongst many. The IP thinks that I'm biased towards Big Finish because I dare to defend something that he dislikes diff. DonQuixote (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaps, take a step back. You're going back-and-forth over a fictional character's article on Wikipedia. Is this the best use of your time? Is this the best use of your effort and determination? As stated above, correctly, the Monk exists amongst scores of different books, comics, and other sources; there is no one true fixed version. The article here should reflect that. Wikipedia can't host one article for each and every different version of the character, so one article covering everything will have to do. But remember not to spend so much time, and so much effort, desperate to have the final say. Editors will follow you. The article will change by hands other than yours. That's how it works around here. Do your best, do what you can, but also remember to take a step back if it's getting too much. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment, but my main concern at this point is that the IP is flagging sources as unreliable (nine specific ones) simply because they displease him (a few of those sources are cited in other completely unrelated articles) and it seems that he'll make the same point-y edits because he's not getting his way in other areas. DonQuixote (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Fringe" typically applies to areas where there is a scientific consensus of some sort and various theories held by a minority of scholars or outsiders to the field. Disagreements over the nature of a fictional character hardly apply. There is no reason for the article to ignore different versions and interpretations of the character, so far as there are available sources for them. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, I meant "fringe" as in "due weight". The problem is that the IP isn't happy with those primary sources being "only" mentioned and summarised (as I told him multiple times, his preferred version of the character is already mentioned in the article). See this discussion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DonQuixote can't possibly claim to speak for me. However, I made my point very clear.So, to reiterate..
    First, this character was never even referred to as "the Monk"(upper case) for a start. I provided RS on the discussion page.
    Second, what the character was created as, and what Big Finish turned (what they claim is the same character) into are two totally different things. Now, I am fine stating that in the article. However, DonQuixote wants the article to state that that the character was originally created in Big Finish's image. Which is just plain wrong. Yes, Big Finish have made a major retcon in their own fictional stories, but that doesn't mean that the original creation was for the character to exist in the Big Finish vision of the character.
    And not only are there these two contradictory versions, but between them, were a host of others. No two of which truly "fit". I attempted to put that in the article, and DonQuixote repeatedly blanked sections, because he/she didn't like that.
    Really, it's s hopelessly tangled, contradictory mess, which built up over decades of different writers each trying to put their own touch on what was never even the original character to begin with. And, to be frank, the original character that appeared on television probably isn't even notable enough for its own Wikipedia page to begin with. However, because DonQuixote clearly prefers ONE' singular retcon version of this character, he/she is trying to force ALL versions of the character(s?) over the years into one mould. And, yes, there are some RS which back up DonQuixote's preferred Big Finish Monk, but there are also RS which back up other versions of the character(s?). How is wanting to keep neutral and accurate being "disruptive"? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, even DonQuixote's wording in the thread topic, with "poorly sourced fan theory (ie. fringe)" and "widely held views" speaks volumes in itself. DonQuixote wants to push his/her POV to the detriment of ALL other versions of the character(s). And he/she considers anything other than his/her preferred interpret as a "fringe fan theory". 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You know everything is archived, right? Nothing you've described in these three comments is even remotely true. See the above link in my previous comment, to which I'll provided another link here. Also, the comments of other editors (including a 3O) here
    And what I meant by "poorly sourced" is that in the few months that you've been active you brought to the table one game (a primary source) and two comments from critics. By contrast, what I meant by "widely held views" is that I was able to come up with eight additional secondary sources in a couple of hours, which you summarily dismissed as "unreliable". "Due weight" means reflecting what the sources have to say. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't even spent "A couple of hours" thinking about this. All I needed to do was post at least one RS for each position, which I did. Thus, every version has at least one RS. And your preferred version has multiple sources? I'm sure they ALL do. Difference is I am doing other things with my time besides scratching through old books and websites to try and find something that nobody disputes is ONE version of a character. But the problem is you want ot push it as the definitive version of that character, and THAT'S what is at odds with Reality. By the way, here's a video someone(not me) made... [96]. And here's that Radio Times article on The Web Planet [97]. The Doctor is explicitly described as "visitor from Earth". And unlike your 21st century fanfiction, THAT is from the radio Times, and is contemporaneous with the issue in question. Here's another link from the time [98]. And we see it's "the monk", NOT "the Monk". And now your "widely held view" is exposed as being anything but. And then at least one officially authorised guidebook says that he is the exact same character as The Master. (couldn't find the relevant page online, but then I never really spent that much time looking for it.) So he's both a human time traveller who disguised himself as a monk(and it NOT "the Monk") AND he's the Time lord known as the Master. And then, there's also RS stating that's a Time lord who is actually called 'The Time Meddler'. And then there's also RS stating that he's a Time Lord who is actually called 'Mortimus'. And then there's the RS that you claim is the "widely held view". Simply because it's YOUR view. And, yes, you spent days trawling through the nether regions to find sources that back up your view. Nobody ever disputed that you would. But it's NOT the "widely held view". It's YOUR view. And just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have a "fringe fan theory". They just have RS that contradicts yours. Get it? Got it? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, seriously, everything is archived here. You're the one trying to push your "ONE" version of a character. When you tried to push the POV that the Master, the Monk and the War Chief were all just one character and that that was the primary version, you did so without any secondary sources and with one game (i.e. poorly sourced). When I tried to tell you that the articles document every version of the characters ever published (which included the one you were trying to push), you whined about later adaptations and how the only one that matter was the FASA game. I asked you repeatedly for other sources, particularly secondary sources. And then when you started making disruptive point-y edits, I responded by doing exactly what I asked you to do--which was to cite additional secondary sources (diff and thread). To be honest, this attitude of yours right here in this comment you just made is the reason why I brought this to ANI. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And who is the one trying to force ONE version into the introductory paragraph? That would be you. You only started this thread, complaining about "disruptive edits" because I moved a statement that is NOT universal, and is 100% at odds with the character as created, out of the introduction and down the article. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, after I found eight additional secondary sources (spanning four decades,

    mind you) supporting the sentence in question, which you summarily dismissed (and which I mentioned and linked to at least twice). That clearly shows that you're the one with the bias. Diff and thread linked in my previous comment. DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To be brutally frank, so? Again, nobody disputes you found links that state your preferred version. But a) there are ALSO RS for other, different versions. And just because YOU prefer on version, doesn't mean that should take preference. Plus b) YOUR preferred version is a MAJOR retcon. Notably, NONE of you RS are within twenty years of the character actually appearing on television. By all means include your preferred retcon of the character. But you can't claim that that was what the character was originally. Which is what you're trying to do. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You refuse to get the point--and that's the problem. The point is that wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what the sources have to say. If virtually no source says that the Master, the Monk and the War Chief are the same character, then it shouldn't be plastered everywhere as if it were important (it can be mentioned as one of the versions). If many sources on the topic say that the Monk is the first of the Doctor's race that appeared on the programme, then you shouldn't be going around dismissing them or flagging them as unreliable. The point is that we're not dealing with a single static character (which is what you obviously have in your mind). We're dealing with the entire history of the character both in each medium that he has appeared in and in popular culture. Look, I'm sorry that your preferred version isn't popular as you would like it to be, and that's actually at the root of the issue here. Because we're not putting your preferred version on a pedestal (editor1 and editor2), you're now making these disruptive point-y edits, dismissing the consensus of reliable secondary sources, and making false straw-man accusations. DonQuixote (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Look, you have sources that say something. But there are also sources that say something completely contradictory. And stop trying to pretend the issue is now something else. You only started this thread after I kept one of your sources on the page, just not in the lead. Because, while you did have RS, there are also RS which state other completely different things. So wgy should your preferred source take precedence? Did I ever try and put certain sources into the introduction? No. Did you? Yes, and that's why you're whining and complaining now, because I tried to keep the article neutral and balanced.
    To sum up..NOT all sources refer to the character as "the Monk". NOT all sources even say he was a Time Lord. In fact, as originally created, the character was NEITHER of those things. And yes, there are RS for that. And there are also RS stating that he is the same character as the "War Chief"/Master.
    YOU want him to have been a Time Lord actually called "the Monk" from the start. But Wikipedia is about NPOV, not what you want. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Reinthal: 3RR breach and persistent harassment

    3RR BLOCKED
    Reinthal for 72 hours for violations of WP:3RR by Ponyo (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Sadly I have to report the unacceptable editing of user:Reinthal today.

    S/he has a view that a citation published in the Mail on Sunday and mailonline, concerning the TV series World on Fire (TV series) is acceptable, whereas I do not, the Daily Mail and Mailonline both having been identified as unreliable sources by multiple RFCs.

    S/he is in breach of WP:3RR by having reverted this[99] edit to the article four times within seven hours[100][101][102][103]

    I reverted three times, on the basis that WP policy on the reliability of the Mail and mailonline is perfectly clear, but stopped after three in line with 3RR. Such that his version of the article is currently live.

    Given the similarity of the previous edit, it is possible that user:122.150.83.215 is a sock puppet of this user.

    Despite having ended the edit war myself, he (or she) posted warnings on my talk page both about warring and that I was in breach of 3RR[104]. I have pointed out that 3RR prohibits more than three reversions[105] and also that s/he shouldn’t be trying to force edits as to what appears on my own talk page[106] but he has now SEVEN TIMES tried to bully me by reposting his/her factually inaccurate warnings onto my talk page, in clear breach of policy that gives users the right to decide the content of their own talk pages. Here are the seven edits[107][108][109][110][111][112][113] Edit warring another user’s talk page so persistently is clear bullying and harassment, contrary to WP policy. (Update, now TEN identical edits to my talk page warning me of a policy I haven’t broken in the first place)

    It isn’t acceptable that another editor should try to force content onto my own talk page, but I have given up removing his inaccurate statements as he is clearly trying to intimidate me my immediately restoring his warnings each time I try to remove them from my page. I would ask for intervention to bring his unnecessarily aggressive and false accusations to an end. MapReader (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-admin comment) WP:RSPDM provides up-to-date links to discussions and conclusions as to the usability of The Daily Mail and related sites as sources. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw Ponyo has blocked them for 72 hours for the repeated posting on your talk page (including after I explained to them that WP:BLANKING allows you to remove the warning). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that needed to stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you kindly. Why he didn’t go check 3RR and see that I only reverted him the three times and then left his edit live, I don’t know. MapReader (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Special:Contributions/81.101.15.25

    CU BLOCKED
    82.132.244.0/22 and 81.101.15.25 for 1 months by Berean Hunter (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user has only just come off a two-week block and has already resumed disruptive editing – mainly going from one BLP to the next changing "English" to "British" (example). Please could someone uninvolved re-block? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Without wishing to defend the editing behaviour, having taken a look at this page and seeing that the infobox describes him as a British citizen, isn’t the underlying edit actually reasonable? MapReader (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Question, since he wasn't born in England, how is he English? And British is a nationality technically, not English. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was also my thought. British citizenship is a verifiable fact. Englishness is rather more tricky - whilst most people born in England might be considered English, there is cross-border traffic (easy for someone living in North Wales to be born in Chester, for example), and of course plenty of Brits have parents from different of the constituent nations. I have no problem with someone of obviously Scottish heritage being described as Scottish rather than British, but as a general rule British is the nationality, not English. MapReader (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant to link to this edit (I got the two "R. Grants" mixed up ...), which I think provides a clearer example. On their talk page, the user was pointed to this guidance but doesn't seem to have taken it on board, and rapid-fire editing to enforce a particular label is disruptive. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal to topic ban Bastun

    Bastun needs to be topic banned from J. K. Rowling and from other BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. This is because of a persistent, ongoing issue involving WP:BLP violations because of Bastun's extremely negative feelings about Rowling, and their advocacy on the subject of transgender resulting in tendentious editing, which involves rejection of WP:NPOV, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (IDHT) behavior, and personal attacks.

    Note that on 4 July 2019, they were given a DS (discretionary sanctions) alert for BLP: [114]

    • Here they added material claiming some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it. None of the given sources support this BLP violation. I removed it. Bastun re-added it with another source that does not verify it. I took it to the talk page (my 17:34, 27 July 2020 comment). Five editors including myself agreed that criticism not specifically about Rowling should be removed. I later re-remove it on these grounds and am reverted by Bastun, who falsely claims that it's referenced material and No consensus on removal - clear IDHT. They then adjusted the statement to refer only to Boylan. This is again a BLP violation, since she never said she 'would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing'. [115] Bastun claimed on the talk page that they were Restoring per several editors including myself. [116] This is false. No other editors supported their material.
    • The addition about Rowling's signing of the Harper's Letter was proposed by someone else at this discussion on the talk page. Bastun responds, Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her? Czello rightly points out, Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH. Then Bastun turns on a dime to instead argue, Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE? Guy Macon replies, Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR... We clearly see in this exchange Bastun's anti-Rowling bias and willingness to tendentiously argue whatever it takes for the sake of a POV.
    • I then added the material about the open letter. Even though Bastun adds sourced material about people disagreeing with Rowling, they removed the sourced material about Rowling signing the Harper's Letter about open debate with 150 others, claiming "undue", even though this latter incident got more coverage in sources and even has its own Wikipedia article. This is a tendentious double standard. They claimed on the talk page, Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc. [117] This is a case of WP:POINTiness. I discussed it on the talk page and again, consensus was to include.
    • Because I used Reuters in the RfC as an example and said elsewhere it was a better source to show significance than the entertainment/gossip press per WP:NOTNEWS, Bastun mocks me repeatedly about it: Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: [118] Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! [119] it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine! [120]
    • Making the same attack on me on two different pages. [121][122] They say, you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. That goes to show they never actually read WP:NOTNEWS despite me linking to it several times. They then go on to attack, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. I responded, warning them not to attack me and not accusing them back of serious POV issues - although I certainly am now, in the proper forum for that.
    • Bastun using the talk page as a soapbox/forum to complain about Rowling, again revealing their strong bias: It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.) [123] Yes. She's a self-admitted TERF. [124] (She did not say that, and the label TERF is not to be thrown around casually for BLPs. [125])
    • Autumnking2012 stated on the talk page, I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible. Why is the talk page toxic? I submit - and Autumnking2012 may be willing to comment - that it is mainly because of Bastun's tendentious behavior, some of which is detailed above. I certainly consider it toxic for that reason.
    • At their talk page, regarding another BLP in June, Girth Summit had to admonish Bastun about not engaging in personal comments. Bastun repeatedly and falsely called Lilipo25 a WP:SPA, as well as falsely claiming Lilipo25 said anything about SJWs/social justice warriors.
    • They claimed that voting in my own RfC was scandalous: where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... They added notifications to the two pages about the RfC that were non-neutral, while ironically and baselessly claiming with a weaselly some editors have expressed concern that the RfC was non-neutral. [126][127]

    There is no shortage of helpful editors who seek to follow NPOV on these pages, adding positive and negative material. Bastun is acting as an obstacle and actively drives good editors away. I have therefore come here to seek a topic ban from BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads -talk- 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds a bit hard to enforce, perhaps broaden the scope to BLPs in general? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • information Note: DS alerts are only good for a year. I've notified them of the gender-related and BLP sanctions. ---22:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: I support this proposal. Bastun has a long history of posting negatively-biased material on BLP pages about those who have expressed gender critical views and reverting all attempts to make the pages WP:NPOV. Attempts to discuss edits on the Talk page are futile; even when an RFC has just begun, Bastun will simply refuse to wait for discussion and continue reverting to the biased changes they want in the article and declare it consensus. In addition, they routinely revert edits that remove unsourced, defamatory claims in BLP articles of subjects who have criticised transgender activism, often with sarcastic edit notes [128]. They also make sarcastic and hostile comments to other editors on the Talk Page itself [129]. This is very unhelpful in fostering an environment of cooperation and civility among editors.Lilipo25 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An example of Bastun reverting attempts to remove negatively-biased content is on the Graham Linehan page. The RFC that can be found on the Linehan Talk Page followed numerous attempts by other editors to change Bastun's biased section heading "Antitransgender activism", only to be immediately reverted by Bastun. Some of the times this occurred include (but are not limited to):
    1. April 2019, changed to "Transgender Issues" by Onetwothreeip, reverted by Bastun [130]
    2. April 2019, Bring back Daz Sampson removed the section altogether and summarized and integrated the information into an existing section, reverted by Bastun [131]
    3. August 2019, changed to "Pro-feminist ally activism by Planted Kiss, reverted by Bastun [132]
    4. August 2019, changed to "Activism" by Forty 4, reverted by Bastun [133]
    5. October 2019 changed to "Gender critical activism" by an IP, reverted by Bastun [134]
    6. April 2020 changed to "Transgender Controversy" by me, reverted by Bastun [135]
    While the RFC on the subject heading was still underway in June 2020, Bastun once again reverted it to "Antitransgender activism" [136] and although no consensus approving that was reached, it remains in the article as everyone eventually just gave up trying to improve it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I support the proposal. I noted before (in a recent BLP noticeboard discussion about Rowling) that I have purposely been keeping out of the Rowling stuff. But having taken the time to look over all of this (that's a lot of diffs to analyze), I must agree that Bastun is a serious problem in this area. A topic ban appears to be needed. If not that, then some sort of other sanction. This can't be allowed to continue. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    • Support. After viewing the diffs provided by Crossroads and User:Lilipo25, it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedia community and its readers if User:Bastun was topic banned. Some people don't pay attention to WP:BLP, and other Wikipedia policies, until their arrogance pushes the envelope off a cliff. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am withdrawing my analysis. It was intended for respondents to say things like "edit N was out of line." Instead it has become one more battleground. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just put together a couple of timelines. Sorry for this being long.

    The only substantive change between the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision and the latest revision as of 09:01, 28 July 2020 is the addition of a "Open letter on justice and open debate" section.[137]

    During this period there was a lot of talk page discussion here:

    I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise:

    1. 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section.[138]
    2. 17:34, 24 July 2020 Bastun reverts.[139]
    3. 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version.[140] ("Re-add Harper's Letter, with adjustments, per agreement on talk page.")
    4. 11:32, 26 July 2020 Bastun adds to the section.[141]
    5. 18:39, 26 July: Crossroads removes a smaller portion.[142]
    6. 05:32, 28 July 2020 Crossroads removes a section[143] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.")
    7. 08:51, 28 July 2020 Bastun reverts[144] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.")

    Bastun's talk page comment as of 08:50, 28 July[145] included these words:

    "And I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning.

    (By my count it was 10 hours)

    Looks like I need to create another timeline:

    1. 13:30, 26 July: IP 2a02...6582 opens section "‎Bias in section 'A Letter on Justice and Open Debate' "[146]
    2. 14:23, 26 July: Bilorv says keep.[147]
    3. 14:25, 26 July: Bastun says keep.[148]
    4. 15:00, 26 July: 2a02...6582 says remove.[149]
    5. 17:21 26 July: Ward20 says modify and expand.[150]
    6. 18:37, 26 July: Bastun agrees with expansion.[151]
    7. 18:53, 26 July 2020: Crossroads mentions his 18:39, 26 July[152] edit that removed a smaller portion, then writes "Lastly, as a reminder to all, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, inconsistent application of policy to promote a POV, antipathy-motivated WP:BLP violations on any Wikipedia page, and/or toxicity are all actionable at ANI."[153]
    8. 20:20, 26 July: (I am going to disregard this one. Nothing that is in The Daily Mail can be trusted for any purpose. The poster later retracted the comment for the same reason.)
    9. 21:23, 26 July: Ward20 comments. Can't tell it it supports keeping or removing.[154]
    10. 09:59, 27 July: Bastun continues arguing his position. [155]
    11. 17:34, 27 July: Crossroads continues arguing his position, pings Bilorv, Czello. Guy Macon, Autumnking2012, Bodney, and Ward20.[156]
    12. 17:44, 27 July: Guy Macon says remove any criticism of the letter that does not mention Rowling by name.[157]
    13. 17:49, 27 July: Crossroads agrees.[158]
    14. 18:44, 27 July: Czello agrees.[159]
    15. 18:56, 27 July: Ward20 agrees. [160]
    16. 19:33, 27 July: Autumnking2012 agrees.[161]
    17. 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes. See timeline above.
    18. 08:50, 28 July: Bastun posts his "I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning." comment, says he is "Restoring per several editors including myself. Not least because some of the removal is directly related to Rowling."[162]
    19. 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts. See timeline above.
    20. 08:58, 28 July: Ward20 makes thoughtful comments too hard to summarize. Please read the diff.[163]
    21. 09:14, 28 July: Bastun agrees with Ward20.[164]
    22. 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes a section[165] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.")
    23. 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts[166] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.")

    Questions:

    • Is the claim "some of the removal is directly related to Rowling" true of edit [167]?
    • Was ten hours after several editors agreed too soon to make the edit?

    My conclusions:

    • No evidence of wrongdoing that would justify a topic ban for Bastun alone.
    • A one month topic ban for Bastun and Crossroads might be worth considering.
    • Restoring the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision, rolling back in the 50,000 to 60,000 correction, and fully protecting the article for a month is also worth considering.

    --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Struck out last paragraph. Best to let the reader look at the timeline and come to their own conclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)>[reply]
    Seriously? Acting like I am equally at fault? As for "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring", that was right after an/maybe more than one (I don't remember) SPA had turned up, added a bunch of stuff, edit warred, and (one of them) got blocked. I never thought that strict formality we had been doing was meant to be permanent (indeed, it really isn't standard Wikipedia procedure) and I thought maybe you had stopped watching. And you ignored all the problems I pointed to above in favor of focusing on the "when" of edits. Crossroads -talk- 05:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And your first timeline is extremely misleading. You begin, I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise, and then state, 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section. But I did not do that out of the blue; it was based on the 2 comments that already existed in support of doing so (and no comments rejecting it) in this section of the talk page: Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Freedom of speech. Further down that timeline, you say, 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version. But this again was after further discussion on Talk in that section I just linked to. I was making every effort to engage on Talk and follow WP:BRD. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if I implied that you were equally at fault. I thought that the timeline spoke for itself. I think it is fair to say that
    [A] the first edit I put in the timeline was the first edit in the dispute (which in itself says nothing about whether it was good or bad, for or against consensus), Being first is simply a fact. It doesn't imply anything. There is no implication that the first edit in the dispute was in any way wrong. Many times it is the second edit where you start to see a problem. occasionally it is the seventh.
    [B] When I say "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise", I am saying the you made an edit when you knew that someone would disagree and most likely revert. No matter how tendentious the revert, that's how edit wars start. What you should have done is post something like this on the talk page: "Bastun, by my count X number of editors agree with A, and Y number of editors agree with B. Can we agree to change it to A without edit warring?" Just going ahead and making what looks like a good edit to you is usually fine, but when a topic is generating a lot of strong feelings and the page has recently been protected because of edit warring, you really need to at least try to get everyone to agree before making the edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You implied I was equally at fault by proposing equal sanctions for me and for Bastun. And I didn't think that Bastun or anyone would necessarily be tendentious enough to revert. The order people normally follow is WP:BRD. Discussion does not have to come first, although there had been discussion. And there is no need to go to extreme lengths on Talk to try to get unanimity of some kind first. Consensus is not unanimity. And lone editors do not have infinite veto power over the larger group. Crossroads -talk- 06:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've thoroughly analyzed the matter, and that includes Lilipo25's analysis above, and I really can't see that Crossroads has done anything wrong here. He's an editor who staunchly follows the rules, including in this case. I see that he's had to put up with a lot regarding Bastun, who has been significantly disruptive in this area. Crossroads has been one of the voices of reason at these difficult articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say that Crossroads did anything wrong here? Did I say that Bastun did anything wrong here? Or did I just post a timeline? I have my opinions about who is mostly at fault here, but I was careful not to express those opinions. As for my advice, Wikipedia administrators only have a few options t deal with a page where edit wars keep breaking out. They can stop one or more editors from editing Wikipedia (blocking). They can stop one or mare editors from editing a certain page or on a certain topic (topic ban) or they can stop everybody from editing the age (full protection). They can identify when a policy or guideline is being violated and use warnings and blocks to stop that behavior. What Adminisrators are not allowed to do is to decide who is right and who is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in getting into some tit for tat with you. You implied that Crossroads did wrong, which is why Crossroads took offense. I'm sure he can clarify his feelings on that. And, yes, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My report has little to do with edit warring. The issue is POV-motivated tendentious editing. Crossroads -talk- 06:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators decide that editors are in the wrong all the time. As in "the editors conduct was wrong." They are not allowed to decide that editors are wrong. As in "issuing decisions on content disputes". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantics. I can ping multiple admins right now who would state, "Yep, Flyer is correct. As seen on ANI and elsewhere on Wikipedia, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time." But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One can only hope that in moving on you will eventually learn that the difference between "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" is a matter of lexicology and not semantics. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm humored by this. Our past interactions have shown times over that I am one editor you cannot school, and yet you pull this. I don't even think you've read the articles you linked to. No matter what you want to call it, the fact remains that admins have stated "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" times over. And will continue to do so. And they are not wrong for using either wording. They, like me, would see you distinguishing the two as some silly word game. But I suppose you have to seek your wins where you can, even when you fail to win anything. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I really regret to say that I'd support the topic ban as OP suggested. I wish it wouldn't have come to this but I fear bias has crept through to the point of tendentious editing. — Czello 08:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've been pinged above, so just wanted to make a quick comment to say that I've seen this thread, but will be on mobile until tomorrow at the earliest - I would need to be at a computer to read through these diffs properly. I have been aware of some issues in this subject area in recent months, but will reserve judgment on this particular report until I've had chance to investigate properly. GirthSummit (blether) 08:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment re Crossroads. Personal agendas have been a persistent problem in the editing of all LGBT-related articles. Editor Bastun has been brought to ANI after the whack-a-moling of their edits have exhausted those who are here for the promotion of encyclopedic values, and not for the manipulation of information, censorship of information, and POV belligerence. Crossroads' history as an editor is a completely different universe than that of this problematic editor. There is no comparison. To conclude that topic-banning him should also be considered is to say that Crossroads is on the same level as Bastun. That is utter rubbish ... and a back-handed intimidation tactic. An attempt to punish Crossroads for possessing the boldness and fearlessness to tackle a problematic editor and to call them out, is simply an attack against any editor who has the brass to do what is best for Wikipedia and the general public that it serves. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Bastun T-ban. As for Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary immediately above me says all I would have, more concisely; Crossroads is clearly not the problem here or part of the problem. The amount of "this person is transphobic no matter what!" PoV pushing at articles like this is just running off the rails, and it needs to stop. When numerous TG/NB people (note the difference between that and "cis-gender, hetereo, privileged 'allies' speaking in loco parentis on behalf of TG/NB people, who are telling them to STFU because they're being terrible allies") very publicly leap to the defense of Rowling (as not transphobic for simply observing that her biological womanhood has played a formative role in her life and is a different experience from that of transwomen) – yet our "encyclopedic" coverage is very WP:UNDULY dwelling on labeling her transphobic, with cherry-picked sources that support that extreme, echo-chamber, activist viewpoint, and suppressioin of material that does not support that narrative – then we clearly have a problem and need to act to resolve it. If this were confined to a single page, that might be a momentary blip, but Bastun's PoV-pushing crosses multiple related articles, and can be found in others like the Linehan one. As someone below put it, "BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics" seem to be the flashpoint for Bastun, among others who'll likely end up here eventually. (About two weeks ago, I felt compelled to leave four {{Ds/alert|gg}} templates the same day, due to the frequency with which I was running into highly personalized attacky behavior surrounding TG/NB topics and the sourcing for them. And all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle). I take the same position about this as I do about everything: WP is not the place for your activism, on anything. If you can't act as a neutral-minded encyclopedist in a topic area, only a biased advocate, then you simply have to be removed from that topic area, no matter the subjective nobility of your intentions, or your ability to be constructive in other topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      With all due respect, SMcCandlish, the claim that all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle seems EXTRAORDINARY, or at least hyperbolic. For your intervention to be relevant, I think the expectation at ANI is to provide diffs. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SMcCandlish - I echo Newimpartial that you need to provide diffs here, I think. (Or better, strike comments that are not related to this editor) Darren-M talk 16:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a silly trap. You're declaring my concerns about Bastun's behavior being part of a broader activism/PoV problem to be supposedly off-topic, then asking me to add actually off-topic diffs regarding other editors exhibiting related patterns, to an ANI that isn't about them. I decline that bait. If the other editors cross the lines again, it'll be a WP:AE or WP:RFARB/WP:ARCA matter, since they have received Ds/alerts; ANI is not the appropriate venue for them any longer. Whether they have individually done anything ANI would take action about is not pertinent. My very point was that the overall pattern of TG/NB-related PoV pushing against various BLP subjects is being generated by more than one editor; one of them is before ANI right now, while the others (if they keep it up) are destined for another venue's examination.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, yeah - most of what you've written about there? To quote Shaggy: "It wasn't me." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, I am agreed with SMcCandlish that articles related to this topic suffer from a lot of POV pushing, especially from the advocacy side. Opposite-side POV pushing happens occasionally too, but is quickly shut down. This ANI report was meant to focus on a particular case that became so severe I considered it reportable. But it isn't the only activism that occurs. Crossroads -talk- 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      From an empirical standpoint, I question your assertion that the POV pushing happens especially from the advocacy side, and that Opposite-side POV pushing happens but is quickly shut down. For example, on Talk:Graham Linehan you made one particular POV assertion here that you subsequently repeated precisely the same assertion here, here, here, and here with no more support than an illicit appeal to the colour of the sky, in spite of polite requests for some kind of justification in policy or precedent from several editors. If that is what your POV-pushing is like when it is "quickly shut down", Crossroads, I would hate to see it fully unleashed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm glad you posted those because they show me rebutting your implausible POV assertion that "anti-transgender" is not value-laden such that WP:LABEL does not apply, you pushing to apply that label to a WP:BLP, and you baselessly equating me to white supremacists and the alt-right. Crossroads -talk- 03:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, they show you repeatedly asserting, without evidence or the agreement of most participants in the discussion, that "anti-transgender" is value-laden such that WP:LABEL applies. A previous RfC had affirmed that the section using "anti-transgender" in both the title and the body was appropriate for the article, and no noticeboard discussion has ever applied LABEL to "anti-transgender" or any other "anti-" label as far as I know. However, you did not even deign to rebut the previous discussion or address your novel interpretation of LABEL, but only made a BLUESKY argument while most participants in the discussion were not in agreement with you about the colour of the sky. I did not "equate you to white supremacists and the alt-right", I addressed the form of evidence-free argumentation you were using in that discussion and continue to use. Which rather illustrates my point that here at ANI you are engaged in continuing a content dispute by other means, although you do not see it this way because the arguments of those who disagree with you, no matter how well-sourced and policy-compliant they may be, simply do not fit your worldview so you dismiss them out of hand. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody needs your characterization of the previous RfC. And anyway, my comments were at a new and much bigger RfC at which consensus can change. As for your last sentence, back at ya. Crossroads -talk- 04:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course WP:LABEL applies. The entire purpose of the guideline is addressing such labels. Newimpartial appears to be engaging in the fallacy that the example terms listed there are an exhaustive list of those that qualify. It simply is not true, as even a few minutes on the guideline's talk page will show you. Proposals to add additional terms are almost always rejected, specifically because the examples are not an exhaustive list (which would just grow indefinitely), and the extant samples are already broad enough to get the point across (to everyone except Newimpartial and a few others, I guess). However, if someone wants to propose adding an example like "anti-transgender" (since the list doesn't include any "anti-foo" illustrations), I would support adding a new example for the first time in a long time. If a misinterpretation of guideline wording becomes recurrent, the solution is to write around the misinterpretation so that it stops recurring.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SMcCandlish, this isn't the place to re-litigate the RfC, either, but I never made the straw man argument you just attributed to me, that the list in LABEL is somehow exhaustive. The argument I actually made is that "anti-x" labels are used in Wikivoice all the time, and that I didn't see any policy-relevant difference between "anti-transgender activism" and say "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish rhetoric". That was the argument made by myself and others at the RfC. Now it is fine for you to disagree, but it is not fine IMO for you to strawman the actual argument and then insist that there is some "silent majority" consensus about "anti-transgender activism" without providing evidence.
      But really, my point here is that SMcCandlish has not shown good judgement in this subject area since The Signpost fiasco, and that in spite of their superficially measured words, their perception of the actions of other editors in this subject area is deeply affected by what seems obvious to them based on their POV, a POV previously expressed in the current Graham Linehan RFC, as I recall. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Please do not ping me about this comment. Strong oppose: "BLPs who have commented on transgender topics" is not clear enough to enforce (does Bastun have to research whether a BLP has ever spoken publicly about transness every time they edit a BLP on any topic?) and "all BLPs" is certainly unwarranted. Rather than suggesting a topic that would fit better, I will say that I do not see evidence that Bastun has behaved in a consistently reckless manner worthy of a topic ban. I do seem some protracted disputes, in which Bastun does engage in discussion. A number of the users participating in this discussion have engaged in similar ways but with opposite points of view, so it is not the conduct they are objecting to but the beliefs. Lilipo25 presents the situation of Graham Linehan incorrectly in that the section heading was not "Bastun's biased section heading" but a long-standing heading which has received support from many users. — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The section heading was originally "Controversies". It was created by OCuin on January 20, 2019 [168]. You changed it to "Transgender Issues" two days later [169]. It then went through a series of different headings ("Transgender Rights", "Transphobia", etc.) before Peter the Fourth first inserted the "Anti-Transgender Activism" heading [170]. It was changed again numerous times after that by different editors ("Gender critical activism", "Anti-transgender activity", "POV", etc.) and on April 19, 2019, the heading was back to the one you put in: Transgender Issues. At that point, Bastun changed it back to "Anti-transgender activism" with an edit note declaring that to be "accurate and neutral" [171]. Since then, as demonstrated above, Bastun has held control over the heading and reverted every change. While there are certainly those who support their wording, there are many who have not, and the RFC was unable to come to any kind of consensus. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So your contention is that Bastun should be banned from an area because their contribution is the one that, after much discussion and debate, remains? The way you discuss this makes it clear you view the situation as a game of capture the flag. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Additionally, you have the facts wrong. I did not change the subject header. What I did was to insert a full stop in prose. Please do not say untruths about me again. I suggest you check your other comments for factual accuracy because the diff about me was literally the only one I opened and it does not say what you claim it does. — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is most definitely not my contention; I was trying to demonstrate that Bastun's edits on the example I used are not to an agreed-upon heading. But you are correct that I misread your edit and for that I apologise and will strike it through once I look up how to do that again, as I've forgotten. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Oppose t-ban: Bastun's edits and interactions with other editors on the JK Rowling page specifically appear to have been part of a completely ordinary content dispute. Crossroads' characterization of that dispute as sanctionable seems pretty dubious based on the timeline provided by Guy Macon above. However, it does seem, at least based on the evidence provided above, that Bastun has been pretty unreasonably combative on other pages. For this reason I'd support a warning and maybe an interaction ban, but a topic ban seems very poorly tailored to what actual misbehavior there is. Loki (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Support - I was mentioned above and I well remember the dumpster fire that Bastun (and some others, to be fair) presided over at Graham Linehan. I haven't been active at JK Rowling although I'm sure it's more of the same WP:NOTHERE, WP:UNCIVIL carry on. SMcCandlish summarises this unfortunate situation better than I can. I'd only add that I think part of the problem is that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us - they respond with incredulity and disproportionate hostility at those of us who are only looking to try and keep things encyclopedic. Unchecked it sometimes boils over into edit-warring, POV-pushing, coat-racking and so on, like it sadly has in Bastun's case. In fact unless Bastun can point to some sort of worthwhile contribution in other areas I wouldn't be averse to supporting a block rather than a topic ban. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      With regard to the preceding intervention, please see this remarkably self-aware comment by the same editor. Based on their own experience on this same issue at ANI, this looks to me like a pot::kettle situation, and the allegation that the allegation that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us must be regarded as unproven (without evidence) and set aside. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I see. Cancel culture is when you express your opinion on a topic, whereas opposition to cancel culture is when you forcibly prevent someone from expressing their opinion on a particular platform. Given your self-admission of not having done due diligence in research before making this comment, I trust the closer will give this as little weight as it warrants. — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: topic ban from J. K. Rowling. I'm discussing that article because I am familiar with the TG topic editing there. J. K. Rowling has increasingly made politically controversial comments about TG topics. It has now branched out into "cancel culture" vs. the rights of disenfranchised or oppressed groups to exercise their political power. Her fame has brought widespread coverage of the issues, and cherrypicking sources can badly distort the neutral view. It's a difficult topic. Editors bring opposing views, but when the editors have worked together there the article benefited. There are so many sources to sort through[172], the more editors doing good research the better. I would rather see a sanction on the article using zero reverts for a period, cautioning editors to achive consensus and WP:AGF rather than banning editors from the article. Ward20 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban, support a 1RR restriction for all editors on Rowling-related and Linehan-related articles (Non-administrator comment) (At least not yet 😛) This discussion seems to be a proxy fight about how Wikipedia should cover JK Rowling. That fight is best conducted on article talk pages. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, based on the totality of diffs provided in the thread above (which took half an hour to read through; I would like my time back >.> ), I don't think a topic ban would be appropriate at this time, though I do think the editor in question (and editors in general) should be reminded to avoid being confrontational or becoming heated in discussions of these topics. (I am troubled by the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics, and in general, as another commenter touched on, by the amount of battleground-ing that goes on in multiple directions in this topic area.) -sche (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose: As per Bilorv, Loki, Ward20 and others. This is rushed as I am packing and travelling the next few days. Everyone knows that JK Rowling has made a number of highly controversial political statements about Trans People. All Wikipedia Editors including Crossroads and Bastun have a political view points: when the are strong opposing views, things can get a little heated, both sides have been equally combative. I have not seen any clear evidence of consistent poor behaviour by Bastun towards other editors, Bastun has simply engaged in the discussion from a different political standpoint from Crossroads. As a trans person myself I am very grateful that I see at least one other editor is standing up for a minority group and against discrimination both intentional and unintentional, and the overal systemic bias that naturally exist in Wikipedia. Bastun's interactions with other editors in the protracted disputes on the JK Rowling articles has been part of a completely normal content dispute in a contenious area. The is no solid evidence that Bastun has espicially behaved in a Un-Wikipedian like manner to warrant any topic ban whatsoever. I agree also with WanderingWanda that this appears to be a proxy fight about how Wikipedia should cover JK Rowling. That fight is indeed best conducted on article talk pages. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We need more uninvolved, unbiased commenters. So far all of the support and oppose !votes are from people who are in some way involved, either editing the Rowling articles directly, or else heavily involved in transgender related articles. As -sche stated, there is the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics. Crossroads -talk- 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is going to get involved, if they are not already, in such a bitter, vitriolic, hate filled topic area? I only notice it when it appears on one of these boards, I am staying far away. Admins really need to take some action to make the topic area one uninvolved editors feel comfortable participating in. Smeat75 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This, I think, is really the important question. 1RR limits seem to help (q.v. Terf and what might help even more would be an approach to relevant, reliable sources (or even basic evidential standards) more in line with the rest of the project (the constant re-hashing of issues on Talk:Trans woman is exemplary here).
    And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary, Bastun and myself - have a tendency to become dismissive or waspish in these discussions. Additional efforts at civility (and avoidance of microagressions) might go a long way. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the editors "re-hashing" issues at Talk:Trans woman are not the editors here. It's not those of us interested in neutrality repeatedly complaining there. It's new users. Crossroads -talk- 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is true, I would venture that a respect for evidence and process over self-certainty and personal conviction would make an improvement to the discussion at Talk:Graham Linehan just as much as it would at Talk:Trans woman. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably ... Pyxis Solitary ...." If there's one thing I've stayed away from for a long time, is being involved in the editing of trans-related matters. Editing trans-related subjects is a snake pit. As for becoming involved in a discussion such as this one, well ... that's one of the privileges granted to all Wikipedia editors. Now, I know from experience that you're into baiting and turning discussions into arguments. But I just want to assure you that whatever cork you blow after this, I have more productive things to do than to respond to anything you have to say to me. Don't spit in the wind. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And there it is. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First... Regarding votes aligning with editors' POVs. My "support" vote is not about any personal POV I have on trans issues. I only saw this thread because I looked at Crossroads's contributions. And editors have noted that I do look to follow Wikipedia's WP:Neutral policy and other rules on these (and other) topics. Second, except for one or two others who may have followed Crossroads, it appears to me that WP:Canvassing has taken place. I could understand if certain editors voting "oppose" frequented ANI, or this thread about Bastun was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Talk:J. K. Rowling, or Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling (although it shouldn't be). But for a number of editors involved with trans topics to show up here out of the blue, and when a couple of them haven't been editing frequently lately (such as being absent from Wikipedia for two days)? No. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest anything like "both sides are POV and equally bad". It's not like that. The evidence - actual evidence - speaks for itself as to what is neutrality and what is activism, and it is also clear what is supported by evidence and what is based on ignoring evidence. Crossroads -talk- 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That CANVASSING accusation is so oblique that I can't really tell who is being accused of canvassing or being canvassed, but I will volunteer that I followed Crossroads's contribution history here, like a normal person. I have studiously stayed away from Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling, but when I saw what was going on here I had a feeling there was a desire to re-litigate the Talk:Graham Linehan RfC, which is not even closed - and I certainly do not seem to have been mistaken in that apprehension. If editors are going to use one-sided behavioural accusations (accusations not accompanied by a degree of self-awareness) to gain an advantage in content disputes - which certainly seems to be the case with Crossroads here - it should not be surprising that the potential targets of such strategies become wise to them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not normally watch this noticeboard, who does? Like other editors on both sides of this current dispute i was simply mentioned on this very page, so I came, nothing more. I am extremely saddened to find that some very experienced editors seem to be playing Wikipedia politics here, to shut down (or to induce doubt about) fair and reasonable contributions of opposing editors and viewpoints. ~ BOD ~ TALK 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose: per User:Bodney. Bastun is simply an avid editor, a trait encouraged by wp:bold. It's normal to have disagreements followed by some reversions on controversial topics. At least from that editor's part, the confrontation of different points of view is being maintained healthy, productive, and is helping to improve the articles mentioned here. There's nothing out of ordinary on your accusatory diffs. We can see that Bastun is very active on talk pages; edit history of articles show that that editor frequently avoids escalating unproductive edit-wars, turning those into talk page discussions and subsequently abiding by established consensuses. daveout (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another highly involved editor whose defense is founded upon denial. Crossroads -talk- 04:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be fair, I also think that your contributions have a positive side to them and that they are helping to improve those articles (in a way). But those "evidences" you are bringing here simply aren't grievous enough in order to justify banning someone. They look like just any other editorial dispute (honestly). Suppressing disagreeing voices isn't the way to go. daveout (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Mostly per what the other opposers said. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Crossroads has accused Bastun of advocacy, but is there anywhere a text where Bastun actually voices a personal opinion on transgender issues? Most of the above examples seem more like content disputes and disagreements over sources. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, Bastun's personal opinions in and of themselves are not relevant if they were to edit in accord with NPOV, NPA, etc. My point is that Bastun's editing, however, constitutes POV pushing/activism, resulting in tendentiousness, BLP violations, personal attacks, and WP:IDHT, causing disruption and driving away other editors. I believe my evidence and that of others (especially here) shows that. Crossroads -talk- 17:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Question of Scope

    The evidence-based discussion here has been largely confined to the (highly sensitive) J.K. Rowling article, but those seeking sanctions have suggested a much broader scope for a topic-ban. Is there evidence from any other page suggesting that problems extend beyond the single page? Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. A great deal of my evidence has to do with the Politics of J. K. Rowling article. But Rowling isn't the only BLP either. My 8th bullet point (second to last) clearly stated, regarding another BLP. That is the Graham Linehan BLP. Lilipo25's comment also specifically referred to that page. Clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads -talk- 13:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I had wondered if there were a desire here to re-litigate the Graham Linehan article text; if so, I would direct interested admins to Talk:Graham Linehan, particularly the ongoing (?) RfC at that location. I have seen some dubious accusations there, but no actual problems with Bastun's editing on that page. But I would encourage everyone to review the evidence for themselves.
    As far as "clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics", that is the question I was asking in opening this section: is it? So far I have seen mention of one other page, and a rather minute examination of its edit history hasn't shown me any inappropriate editing on the part of Bastun. But I would be happy to look at anything I missed. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Newimpartial should not be at this discussion. They were warned by El C: Newimpartial, you should not have responded to Lilipo25, anywhere, for any reason. Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN. If you address Lilipo again you risk imminent sanctions. There is unlikely to be another warning about that (should be taken as a final warning). Above you can see clearly they are effectively responding to/addressing Lilipo25. It is a case of mak[ing] reference to or comment[ing] on each other anywhere on Wikipedia...indirectly. They obviously saw where Lilipo25 talked about the Graham Linehan page - there was no need to ask about evidence beyond the Rowling page. Newimpartial's I have seen some dubious accusations there is also a backhanded reference. Sure seems like a violation of El C's clear direction to me. Crossroads -talk- 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC) expanded Crossroads -talk- 18:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossroads, I have not addressed Lilipo in any way in this discussion, upon due consideration of El C's comment. I have been very careful to do so. I have responded to comments by three highly INVOLVED editors in this ANI report: yourself, SMcCandlish, and Daz. I am not under any form of topic ban or Iban, and as El C said above, Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN, even if there were one. So it seems to me that a BOOMERANG sanction for Wikilawyering may be appropriate here; it reminds me of the time Crossroads flagged me for a (dubious) 1RR violation in reprisal after I refrained from reporting them for a clear 1RR vio, opting instead to a notice on their Talk Page. GAMING the system really ought to be taken seriously at ANI, IMO.
    And the policy-relevant consideration I raised was whether there was a basis to extend the proposed sanction to Bilorv beyond the J.K. Rowling articles. You mentioned the Graham Linehan page, and so I asked whether there was an intention to re-litigate the current RfC at Talk:Graham Linehan, without naming names or casting aspersions. It seems pretty clear that there you do intend to re-litigate, in which case I would point to this 2019 RfC, the one that brought Daz to his aforementioned "up before the beaks" and which you, Crossroads, have introduced POV edits to overturn (q.v. slow motion edit war) without any Talk page resolution, almost as of you did not accept the result of the 2019 RfC. [173] [174][175] Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not technically under an IBAN then I am in the wrong about that, but El C's language is clear regardless. But anyone inclined to believe Newimpartial's version of events should check their links. Yes, I did report you for a 1RR violation within 26 instead of 24 hours, as WP:GAMING, and for which you were warned by El C who considered it a violation. My supposed violation of 1RR, as I said there, involved two completely separate edits involving content by different people. As for the 2019 RfC about Graham Linehan, I don't remember ever hearing about it before, although maybe I forgot, and was not aware of it for those edits. In any case, it does not appear to be about the heading itself.
    As for "INVOLVED", readers should know that Newimpartial is in no way an uninvolved, unbiased observer. We have debated each other for ages. And despite their nom-de-plume they are in no way impartial on LGBT matters. Check their contribs and the above discussions. Crossroads -talk- 19:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify that I was up before the beaks on a completely unrelated matter (for which I was exonerated). During that kerfuffle I had to apologise and redact an instance where I'd mistakenly used the word 'transvestite' and inadvertently caused some offence. It was totally unintentional but unfortunately was portrayed as evidence of my bad character, which I obviously regretted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the aforementioned Rowling BLP noticeboard discussion, Bodney repeatedly used the word transsexual even though so many trans people object to it. So you're forgiven. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally see myself as me, sometimes as a woman, sometimes third gender, an individual, but also as a transsexual woman who was bullied out of job and became homeless I was rescued by a women only charity and given shelter for two years in a shared single sex female only accommodation, four years of single sex group counselling and support. After my sheltered housing, they rehoused me permanently. That is why I was interested in that BLP RfC because Rowling is tying to bring to an end the very same safety net that came to my own rescue. I am not sure what is your objection to me using the term transsexual? ~ BOD ~ TALK 06:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bodney, I did not state that I object to you using the term transsexual. I stated that "many trans people object to [that term]." This is made clear in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles. It's made clear by IPs and registered editors (especially newbies) removing the term transsexual as offensive (or, as some of them say, "outdated") and replacing it with transgender, including in cases involving people who identify as transsexual...such as Buck Angel. It's made clear by various other cases. It's often that when people use the term transsexual, they are accused of bigotry and/or ignorance. Never mind the fact that the person using it may be transgender. So I do avoid that term unless the text on Wikipedia calls for it, such as a person who identifies that way or researchers using that term to specify a type of transgender person. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Wow apologises I must be an ignorant self hating bigot. Thank you. Point scored. It is a long time since I was actively and productively involved in trans politics or civil rights campaigns, so please hang me for not using the terminology that some of my fellow trans folks prefer. I humbly suggest even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority. But for the point of this thread I am happy to bow down to your obvious greater knowledge in this matter. Gosh you are sooo right. You got me. Everything I have written must be wrong. I shall now disappear in a puff of trans terminology smoke. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bodney, serious question - do you think that was a helpful interjection to this discussion? Flyer did not criticise you anywhere in her post - she expressly said that she doesn't object to you using that word, and then explained why she doesn't use it. Why did you feel the need to be sarcastic? This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about below - discussions about this subject rapidly descend into the gutter, and it's very hard to drag them out again. GirthSummit (blether) 16:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't see at all that Flyer22 Frozen meant to 'score points' or lord over greater knowledge. Rather, she is making the same point which you now made: even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority. This is the same point that me and numerous other editors are making. What happens at these articles is that a few editors tend to want to present only or nearly-only one POV (e.g. one set of sources that present that POV) because that POV is treated by some people (most of whom are cisgender) as though it were the one and only trans POV, and hence the only right one, morally and in terms of WP:Due. All other sources presenting another POV, even though such a POV is held by trans people like Buck Angel, Dana International, and so on, are minimized or rejected. This is the activist approach to editing that, ultimately, leads to disruption, and thus led us here to ANI. Crossroads -talk- 16:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Girth Summit,Crossroads and apologises to Flyer22 Frozen. Happy to strike through the offending parts of my reply, even though I was not sure of the tone being directed towards me, I was thinking myself that my reply was a bit rushed, flippant and not productive. I was hoping to delete/modify my reply, but its been exceptionally busy half a home moving day. I would suggest that views held by individuals like Buck Angel & Dana International are simply minority points of view, compared to all the trans organisations that have responded to Rowling's tweets and Essay. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bodney, thanks for this gracious apology. I genuinely feel that if everyone editing in this topic area were to follow this example of self-reflection and moderate how they interact with other editors, people from different viewpoints would be able to work together in a more collegiate manner. Sincerely, thank you. GirthSummit (blether) 20:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the apology too. Regarding the views expressed by Buck Angel and Dana International, WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We do give WP:Due weight to advocacy organizations, but we also are to give due weight to other views represented or described in the reliable sources. WP:NPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Crossroads -talk- 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As seen here, Crossroads is correct that I was noting that not all trans people think alike. I've noted this more than once. As for the trans people who partly or fully agree with Rowling being in the minority, I don't consider voices that are louder necessarily the majority. As various people have noted, a lot of trans people on social media have agreed with Rowling...at least in part. They just don't get any, or hardly any, media attention because certain viewpoints have managed to get deemed transphobic so often by the newer generation. I have often seen that younger trans people's views conflict with older trans people's views, and older trans people like Buck Angel have talked about this. But there are enough young trans people who share Angel's views on trans matters. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to say that whoever Crossroads is talking about, who present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were the one and only trans POV, that isn't a thing I do, and I don't think it is a thing Bastun does either (though I havent reviewed their entire edit history). Without diffs being provided, I wonder whether this is idle speculation on Crossroads's part or more some deep intuition. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Without diffs being provided". The diffs I already presented show it. The diffs you already presented show it. The diffs and discussions presented by others show it. Crossroads -talk- 01:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, Crossroads, you say a thing, and you handwave (this time to already presented diffs), and you have exactly no evidence for the thing you claimed. This time the thing is that Bastun, or I present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were the one and only trans POV. I know my own diffs, and I just wasted my time going through all the Bastun diffs from your original filing and found nothing at all that meets that description. The closest thing to it that I found - and I looked at every last one - is Bastun's use of the impersonal "some signatories" rather than naming Gabrielle Bellot and/or Jennifer Boylan. And whatever error that might have been, it did not take the form of presenting the one and only trans POV. His edits on the letter don't direct the reader to any Trans POV at all, as far as I can see.
    Perhaps readers here will come to recognize that the imprecision and merely assertions nature of your blanket accusations here is entirely of a piece with your behaviour at the PinkNews RfC and the Linehan RfC, in neither of which do you seem to listen to your interlocutors. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. I already explained above that the issue is maximization of coverage of the activist POV and minimization of coverage of any other, in violation of NPOV. People can judge for themselves if my presentation is accurate. Certainly no one needs your heavily involved and biased characterization of me at other discussions in which I, for my part, would say you engaged in the same WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT behavior as you have here. Crossroads -talk- 03:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Crossroads, how can you still insist even now that you were in the right about the matter discussed here? WP:3RR reads An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (emphasis added). Nobody should let their battleground tendencies overcome their respect for process and consensus, and consensus about process. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me the diffs. Were they even reverts? Even if it were a violation, I made a mistake in good faith and had said I would have self-reverted. [176] You, on the other hand, have twice gamed the system by reverting twice within 26 hours on a 1RR page (1st time: [177][178] 2nd time: [179][180]), been warned by an administrator as a result, [181] been blocked for edit warring, [182] and just earned a one-way IBAN. [183] "Battleground tendencies". You are not in a position to condescend to me about anything. Crossroads -talk- 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit and this edit were made 12 minutes apart, in a 1RR page, and are both labelled as reverts. Are you questioning your own edit summaries? And you know why I was so well aware that 3RR/1RR can be violated without reverting the same material? Because that's what I was blocked for. I learned my lesson from that, thanks. How does your "mistake in good faith" argument now fit with your "supposed violation" comment two hours earlier? Either you have learned from your mistake or you haven't, and honesty and directness are better approaches than defensiveness and deflection, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the edit war warning and the (very recent) 1-way IBAN are concerned, they are both cases that you filed/instigated and were both placed by the same admin. And since you want to talk about GAMING, this is clearly GAMING, as well as a misreading of the Talk page discussion that it repeatedly distorts through selective quotation. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pinged by Crossroads in the above comment. I didn't even bother reporting this, even though I can see it is meant as a reply to me, because the user was careful to avoid addressing me directly. But they also went through my User Talk page to find comments to use against Bring back Daz Sampson, below, so I did report that to El C. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So I'm in work today, then travelling with just my phone until Tuesday (it's a bank holiday in Ireland), and likely patchy coverage. I will be responding, but not substantively until next week. What I would say in the meantime is:

    a) Anyone commenting here needs to have read the Linehan RfC in full (yeah, sorry), and in particular this contribution, which addressed most of Lilipo's points from above, almost a month ago.

    b) Yes, WP:BOOMERANG is a thing. I had been wondering about the merits of seeking a tban for Crossroads from the Rowling articles, as they seemed determined to remove or minimise anything that could be deemed negative, citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, and to include or highlight anything that could be deemed positive, for quite some time. I hadn't gotten around to anything like recording diffs or quotes, but a scan of the talk pages Talk:J. K. Rowling and Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling will show what I mean. E.g., I include coverage of two of the largest HP fansites, MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, jointly announcing that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her HP fiction; this gets reverted as WP:NOTNEWS. Similarly, removal of mention of The Trevor Project from the Politics of... article; removal of mention of a U.S. Senator quoting her essay prior to a vote (NOTNEWS, apparently, and a strawman about inferences); arguing against inclusion of mention of the Stephen King issue, because NOTNEWS. Yet, at an RfC at the BLP noticeboard, the same user proposes including mention of support from Dana International (suddenly NOTNEWS doesn't apply?); and, at the Politcs article again, adds a new section on the fact that Rowling was one of 150 signatories of an open letter - while debate was ongoing. Again, NOTNEWS and UNDUE stopped applying?

    So there's that, and that too needs to be considered by the community. I would point out the absolute irony of championing that particular open letter, on the one hand, and attempted cancel culture of someone whose views you don't agree with, on the other.

    c) Crossroads mentioned quite a few editors. I'd be interested in hearing from some, too, involved in the Rowling and Linehan pages, who may or may not be aware of this particular AN/I, and may or may not wish to comment on my and/or Crossroads' editing: YuvalNehemia; Licks-rocks; -sche; Bodney; Ward20; Bilorv; Wikiditm; JzG. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Thanks for the ping; ironically, I posted above in the exact same minute as you, requesting no further pings to this discussion. No harm done but pretty amusing timing.) — Bilorv (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And all of those things ended up in the article anyway. I followed WP:BRD and accepted when consensus was against me. And many other things, especially lately, I have not reverted, even though it's a continual pile-on of negative material. WP:NOTNEWS is a valid argument and WP:ONUS does favor discussion before inclusion. And those discussions show I was not alone in my views. For example, regarding the US Senator, inclusion was opposed by Zedembee, Autumnking2012, and others. Much the same views were expressed by many at the RfC at BLPN, including by SMcCandlish, CactusJack, and Zaereth, about limiting excessive ephemeral Twitter drama. I mean, nobody's perfect, but we're not going to have a false balance between me and you. I made every effort to follow policy. Trying to prevent POV pushing is not the same as actual POV pushing and advocacy. I am all for WP:Due and substantive criticism of Rowling. My comments and discussion behavior shows that. Crossroads -talk- 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Crossroads, I don't mean to intrude, but your claim that you make every effort to follow policy is somewhat undermined when you have engaged in a slow edit war to reverse the outcome of a previous RfC without any kind of mandate to do so from a new RfC. [184] [185][186] Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to intrude - you clearly do. Where does that previous RfC discuss the heading itself? Where was I made aware of it before I made those edits? I did not willfully reverse any RfC. False accusations don't reflect well at ANI. Crossroads -talk- 19:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form was the RfC close. That is quite clearly includes the section title, including the term "anti-transgender" that was discussed in the RfC. As far as your not being made aware of it, BastunAutumn King referred to the this edit - which was on the Talk page before your edit warring and is still on the Talk page now - explicitly acknowledged that the editor in question changed a section title. I now realise that this last action was counter to a Talk page discussion, for which I apologise. No, the word RfC wasn't used in that case, and I didn't use it when I referred back to the same consensus, but it isn't my referring to a previous discussion as "an RfC" that makes it one, or that makes Edit Warring against it against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious WP:WIKILAWYERing. The RfC never discussed the heading itself, nor did the closure specifically mention it. When it was referred to here (actually by Autumnking2012), on 6 June, I never read that discussion; I didn't join the talk page until 2 weeks later, here, at a higher discussion that had picked up again. And as for this, you never even linked it. So, no, I am not at fault for going against an RfC I did not know about and that did not address the heading. Crossroads -talk- 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry; I have now corrected the name of the actual author of the diff, above.
    It seems obvious to me that the close, The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form, includes the section heading itself; the RfC did explicitly discuss the appropriateness of the term "anti-transgender" in the text, which was the object of your edit warring on the article (as well as your BLUDGEON and IDONTHEARTHAT in the current RfC). So I'm not sure that "I was unaware that the previous discussion people keep referring to was actually an RfC" provided a valid justification for the slow edit war. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I was pinged a couple of days ago, apologies for not replying sooner. In all honesty, I have avoided getting too involved in all this. However, I do strongly feel that there is a major issue at present with the editing of transgender related issues on Wikipedia, in particular with certain WP:BLP’s. The talk page atmosphere has become unhelpful and unconstructive, largely due to users’ insistence of casting aspersions on the motives of other editors. Unfortunately, this is something Bastun appears to do on a frequent basis. For what it is worth, I will add my experiences:

    • The first was on what I believe was my first interaction with Bastun. Following an editing disagreement at J. K. Rowling, I took the matter to the talk page as requested. Bastun’s first reply to me contained the following [187] Minimising coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues and activism seems to be a particular interest of yours. It is my opinion that this type of response is not only unnecessary and against WP:UNCIVIL as well as going against WP:AGF, but that it is also an attempt to discourage editing by those who disagree with them. When I responded asking that editors refrains from throwing aspersions at others motivations, Bastun’s response was to double down [188] Your contributions speak for themselves and appear to be aimed at minimising, specifically, coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues. That is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. You could of course prove me wrong by supporting the inclusion of coverage "the subsequent coverage they have generated", which you say above that you support. which is pretty much agree with my edits or you are wrong/anti-transgender. I strongly dispute the allegation thrown at me here, and am confident that my editing supports that. Like many editors, my editing has periods where it tends to “go down a rabbit hole”, following linked articles/issues to make subsequent edits. However, my aim has only ever been to insert balance, especially in BLP’s, something which is often severely lacking in this topic. If by “minimising” we mean attempting to present balanced opinion, using reliable sources as opposed to conjecture and opinion pieces, using neutral language for WP:WikiVoice and avoiding contentious WP:LABEL’s, then I will happily admit to such.
    • During the somewhat protracted and unproductive RFC at Graham Linehan regarding the section title “Anti-transgender activism”, Bastun saw fit to make the following comment [189] This was very clearly aimed at myself, and again was totally unnecessary and unhelpful and felt simply like another attempt to discourage my input.

    This should not be the way Wikipedia editors treat each other. Assume good faith should always come first, and seeing Bastun’s interaction with others as well, I do not feel that is how they are acting. Additionally, the Linehan RFC very clearly illustrates the problems in this area. I originally took part in it, but then had to step away from Wikipedia for several days for a variety of reasons. When I came back, the descent of the RFC made further involvement seem pointless. There is an utter refusal on the part of some editors to attempt consensus. There is a section title which multiple editors agree is contentious, which many are concerned violates standards for a WP:BLP and in particular of WP:LABEL and which is not widely supported by sources. Various alternate options have been put forward. A group of editors disagree that it is contentious and therefore refuse to discuss alternatives, and continually insist that the current section title remains. This should not be how Wikipedia works. If multiple editors feel there is an issue, the resolution is to find a compromise not to double down. It is pretty unacceptable that the section heading still remains. I am unsure as to whether a topic ban for Bastun would be the solution, he is not the only editor behaving in this manner. But something really needs to be done to resolve these issues. AutumnKing (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it might be helpful to discuss, not the Bastun part of this comment, but Autumnking's characterization I originally took part in it, but then had to step away from Wikipedia for several days for a variety of reasons. When I came back, the descent of the RFC made further involvement seem pointless. There is an utter refusal on the part of some editors to attempt consensus. I don't think this accurately summarizes either the RfC or AutumnKing's part in it. Their concluding attempt to add evidence to the discussion - for which I expressed appreciation - was this. Both I and other editors suggested alternative readings of that evidence, additional evidence, and additional policy considerations. From that point, the evidence-based discussion simply stopped on that subthread and the BATTLEGROUND resumed over what the stable heading had actually been. From there to here, I see very insistent doubling down on the part of those who are more interested in discussing their internal conviction of NPOV than actual evidence and policy on the matter, and a willingness to continue the POV dispute by other means which led directly to this filing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And these replies were themselves replied to, there were multiple editors on each side, and there was no official closure. For those who want to see the entire discussion in context: Talk:Graham Linehan#RfC on heading on Linehan's activities in relation to transgender causes and people. Crossroads -talk- 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discretionary sanctions?

    Let me start for apologising for what will be a lengthy post - I feel it is necessarily so. I also want to stress that in writing it, I am accusing nobody of acting in bad faith, but I do think that there is some seriously problematic editing going on in this topic area.

    I have been taken part in a number of discussions involving some of the editors mentioned and commenting in this thread. Some of them are noted above, but there have probably been others that don't jump so readily to mind. I've come to the conclusion that there are some issues that seem to make editing in this area particularly contentious, and make it difficult for some editors to truly follow the old WP:AGF maxim; discussions often become uncivil rapidly, quickly descending into sarcasm, personal commentary and accusations of improper conduct. There are numerous examples in the threads I've posted above, and many more can be found by checking the contributions histories of some of those commenting here.

    I don't pretend to be in a position to comment on why some people find it so hard to collaborate constructively in this area with people who they disagree with. I think that Bodney's moving explanation above about how they came to edit J. K. Rowling is interesting though. I don't intend to single Bodney out for criticism here, but if an editor is coming to a BLP because the subject has spoken out on an issue that is so close to the editor's heart, I think that it would inevitably be exceedingly difficult to avoid editing, unconsciously perhaps, with a RGW attitude, and it would perhaps be unusually difficult to see avoid seeing editors who are coming from a different viewpoint as being 'enemies', rather than collaborators.

    I'm not sure that a topic ban for Bastun would do anything to solve the over-arching problems here; I wonder whether a more widespread approach is needed. BLPs are already covered by discretionary sanctions, which might need to be enforced more actively in this area, but I'm not sure whether that is in itself sufficient. Here is an example of Newimpartial telling an editor with whom they disagree that they are talking out of their arse. That sort of confrontational approach is not civil, it is a barrier to effective collaboration, but it is not on a BLP talk page. I'm starting to wonder whether 'Transgender issues' needs to be covered by its own discretionary sanctions, targeted at enforcing civility and cooperation. I'd welcome others' views on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 10:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Girth Summit it is OK I have no personal WP:RGW issues :) (I expect that will now be held against me for ever), prior to the current Rowling disputes i have done comparatively minor and infrequent amount of editing on trans issues (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Bodney/1 ) I am in fact passionate about all civil liberties and Human Rights, and I simply support the standing up against inequality & discrimination everywhere. Should anyone of any 'minority' be banned from taking part in articles that affect them, should Jewish or Muslim editors be banned from topics to do with their faiths or the Middle East, black editors from black lives matter etc , female editors from feminism etc, differently abled people be banned from issues relating to their impairment, .... etc etc I really do not think so. Its also one sided, every single editor who contributes to wikipedia everyone has their own political bias, both sides (and more sides) all have biases, but we all try to be neutral. If we removed everyone who spoke in support of a minority just because they might be linked to that minority, Wikipedia would be left with an enormous systemic bias. What matters is how we act. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bodney, I certainly hope you didn't get the impression that I was saying that trans people shouldn't edit trans articles - that is very far from my position. I was speculating on why it is such a contentious area, and I thought your comments might shed some light on that. Having said that, I would observe that the distinction between 'speaking in support of a minority', and 'righting great wrongs', is subtle. We're not here to advocate for any position, we aim to be genuinely neutral. If one has strong feelings about something, one might be well advised to avoid it as an editing interest. I do not direct this at you, and I have not looked into your contribs in detail - it's a general observation, not a criticism. GirthSummit (blether) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discretionary sanctions are desirable, although as you said, BLP sanctions are already available. The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Wikipedia in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed, as seen above. I support community general sanctions for transgender topics per Girth Summit. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly agree that topic-specific DS are desirable. I have definitely had my lapses, which usually come late in a long interaction with editors who violate editing and/or talk page norms, as illustrated by the diff provided by Girth Summit above (the editor I addressed was banned for edit warring before the comment was made, as it turns out, but I shouldn't have let them get to me).
    • So I do think that more active enforcement of WP:NPA in this area would help, but this should also address the persistent tendency for editors in this area to engage in civil POV disputes, complete with moving goalposts and Lucy's football, and also the remarkably consistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior whereby editors refuse to condescend to provide evidence (whether diffs or sources or whatever) because of course their position is self-evidently correct. Strawman arguments and slippery slope fallacies thrive in this environment and make policy-based consensus almost impossible to achieve. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I also wanted to sincerely thank Girth Summit and anyone else who reads these difficult talk pages in order to comment on this ANI filing. It can't be easy to go through Talk:Trans woman, Talk:Graham Linehan, or for that matter the ongoing PinkNews RSN discussion, and I salute anyone with the stomach for it. I mean, I can't take more than a peek at Politics of J. K. Rowling discussions (or even edit summaries) before scurrying away like a timorous beastie, so I wish well to all who manage to bring fresh eyes to bear. Newimpartial (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support discretionary sanctions for all articles that deal with transgender issues.WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:HOUNDING violations are out of control and have been for some time. The most aggressive editors work as a bloc to overwhelm any others who attempt to make pages adhere to WP:NPOV. I have confidence that the admins will recognize any offenders who might attempt to manipulate them and will deal with rule violations consistently. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, it is already covered by WP:ARBGG, so you are already authorized to apply the discretionary sanctions as you see fit. El_C 13:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that gamergate discretionary sanctions were interpreted that broadly, but looking at it again I see that it covers any gender-related dispute or controversy. If you are confident that it would be uncontroversial to apply GG in content disputes over transgender issues, I will bear that in mind for the future.
    Newimpartial, Lilipo25 your comments directly above kind of underline the point that I was making. I am certain that stuff like what you describe does happen - but too many people in these debates lose their trust in other people far too quickly, and start seeing everyone who disagrees with them as part of an opposing side, and seem to end up assuming that anyone disagreeing with them is guilty of things like civil POV pushing, failure to hear whatever, hounding when they turn up at related articles, etc. WP:OFWV really is worth reading, and trying to abide by - especially when interacting with people you disagree with. GirthSummit (blether) 13:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, I'm confident. In fact, I have just invoked ARBGG to sanction Newimpartial yesterday with a one-way interaction ban with Lilipo. El_C 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still not entirely clear how this sequence of events merits this outcome, but I suppose discretionary sanctions means not having to say you're sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this sort of innuendo is to your credit, Newimpartial. I recognize venting, but you are not doing yourself any favours by engaging the imposition of your sanction in this manner. El_C 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The I-BAN has has been ruled upon by an experienced admin. Wikipedia has legitimate avenues for appeals if that's what is desired. I would love some peace on that front. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment (as original filer) I think that in any case, the BLP discretionary sanctions need to be enforced more actively in this area. It would help a great deal. The POV pushers in this area often fall into BLP violations. But the issues go beyond BLPs, and yes, there is already the GG/gender DS too. Yes, there is much incivility. Yes, the problems seem to come from WP:RGW behavior. As Johnuniq said, "The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Wikipedia in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed". And there is so much WP:SEALIONing, but not by the group Newimpartial thinks. It is hard to even try to get these issues handled, because WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view..., and this is hard to prove with diffs. And then when a report is made, one can see above the denial, closing of ranks, whataboutism, and by one editor in particular, use of the WP:BLUDGEON against the filer (me). Crossroads -talk- 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) clarified Crossroads -talk- 14:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      From over here, the problem looks different. There are RfCs held, to establish the consensus or policy-compliant version, and then people with a strong sense of subjective certainty (SMcCandlish is paradigmatic in this regard) arrive, completely prepared to ignore consensus, RGW as they perceive them conforming to NPOV according to themselves, without the modest accessories of sources or evidence. The arrivals then engage only superficially in Talk Page discussion, or edit war, or FORUMSHOP or just engage in skewed editing from their own POV. I am (have been, in fact) the first to admit that there are civility violations on all sides, but as long as "one side" is convinced that the "other" is engaged in RGW and they alone are the guardians of NPOV (a kind of NPOV so deeply understood that it doesn't need sources or evidence), it is difficult and frustrating to move forward with these articles. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But those of us trying to hold the centre ground are not the obverse of the POV-pushers. We have an influx of editors simply looking to bash Graham Linehan or J.K. Rowling etc. because they have an axe to grind with them and think they are "TERFs". Then we appear to have another group of editors who, like me, have no strong emotional attachment to trans issues but just see a real mess being made of Wikipedia articles. I only waded in because I remembered some of Linehan's comedy and noticed his article had been distorted into an attack page with several other glaring issues. It's also true that the problems at these pages do run much deeper than you and Bastun, although you have undoubtedly been consistently among the worst culprits. If I had strong emotions around hating some celebrity or pushing some other sort of controversial positions I'd probably keep away from them on Wikipedia to be honest. Experience tells me that it will only end one way, and ultimately no amount of whataboutery or off-Wiki canvassing will change that. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, Daz, I have nothing against Graham Linehan; I have nothing against J. K. Rowling; I have nothing against Fred Sargeant. In the latter two cases, I hold real respect for their early work. In the case of Linehan, I don't know his work, and I literally had not heard of him until his 2019 fiasco on Trans issues.
    But when you did these POV edits followed by this over-the-top comment on Linehan, well, your perception that you have no strong emotional attachment to trans issues seems misleading. Your idea of BALANCE in the currently existing RS commentary on Linehan just seems to be off, and your edit-warring last year to remove the section on the issues for which he is now best known is, in fact, a version of RGW thinking, even if you can't see it in yourself. That isn't the "centre ground", man, and we can only base an assessment of NPOV on sourced discussion, not on feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Daz, please do not claim that you are trying to hold the center against POV pushers when you replaced a whole section of the Graham Linehan article with a single NPOV sentence that describes his critics as "censoring" him, and then when the ensuing RfC turned overwhelmingly against your edit you called your opponents "transvestite activists".
    To be honest, I have been very frustrated by this rhetorical gambit from multiple people on multiple trans-related articles. For some reason, people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing. But that's not true. Everyone is trying to improve these articles, including the people you disagree with. The people who are trying to add examples of anti-trans activism to Graham Linehan's page aren't doing so because they are pushing a POV, they are doing it because it is heavily documented in reliable sources. If the people who were claiming they were "neutral" had free reign of these articles, they would be worse: heavily POV and discounting many statements from many reliable sources. Loki (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, when that happens, we get "balanced" versions like this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More whataboutery and finger pointing. This was a genuine attempt at WP:SOFIXIT to a single article, more than a year ago. Contrary to what you have written here there was no edit warring on my part, and the 'examples' of supposedly POV edits you've cherrypicked are pretty lame too. Contrary to what you are suggesting I took the result of that RfC on the chin and walked away. I have never been active at any of these other articles which you all descended upon. No wonder you're currently subject to interaction bans if you go about making these sort of unfounded aspersions! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When we are talking about TENDENTIOUS editing that does not conform to the neutral point of view..., I think we have to consider specific, representative cases or descend into mudslinging or caricature. Thoughtful consideration of cases is not what WHATABOUTISM is. Section blanking with POV insertion in the midst of an RfC is not a "cherrypicked" example, it is a key one in terms of policy, as I thought you understood since to my knowledge you have not repeated the gesture. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem too worried about descending into mudslinging and caricature - it seems to be your stock-in-trade. I'm glad you seem to have dropped your incorrect allegations of edit warring though. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still edit warring even if you don't break 3RR; you reinstated both your template tag and your section blank after reverts. But those are just facts [190] [191] [192] [193] Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't edit warring. Given your own long and happy liaison with edit-warring (and other WP:BATTLEGROUND antics) I might have expected you to know the difference! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Daz, my problem is not so much with the edits themselves. I recognize they were made years ago, and that you struck the comment later. My problem is your insistence that you are merely a neutral observer fighting against POV-pushing opponents while you have in the past demonstrated a clear POV. I don't have anything against you personally and recognize that even edits I think are obviously POV were from your perspective a genuine attempt to improve the article. All I'm asking you is to assume that same minimal amount of good faith of everyone else. Your perspective isn't objective or neutral just because it's yours, and other people aren't "POV-pushing" just because they disagree with you. Loki (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, if Graham Linehan had offended some other set of particularly zealous ideologues (vegans, Zionists or whoever) I'd still have showed up at the talk page, and tried to have the same sort of discussion with them. That's the difference. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And you would have done so with an anti-vegan POV, or an anti-Zionist POV, presuming you arrived with the assumption that their edits were bad and should be opposed. Many people can believe a thing because that thing is true: the fact that you see them as "zealous ideologues" who are "offended" (when I presume you wouldn't say that about, say, believers in evolution removing creationism from a biology article) without even a serious attempt to discern whether what they believe is supported by the sources is a further indication that your "neutral" POV is nothing of the sort. Loki (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing. There's an irony in how editors who like to go on and on about their own "neutrality" and their hatred of "activism" are very likely to be partisan. If you (and here I'm speaking generally) have a dog-eared copy of a RadFem book about how "transwomen" are "erasing" "real women" on your bedside, and if you can't stub your toe without angrily accusing the coffee table of being a "transgender activist", you probably aren't quite as neutral as you make yourself out to be. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shout out to Talk: Lesbian erasure. The page is aggressively archived, but there is some good material here for those who want to see frustrated editors talking past each other. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WanderingWanda, I'm going to be honest here - I have no idea what your post is about, or who you are referring to. Please either be clear about the point you are making, or refrain from commenting. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BATTLEGROUND

    (This section is for discussing what to do only. Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section per WP:TPOC)

    The above clearly demonstrates that there is a huge battle going on regarding this topic. I would like to open a discussion about what to do about it. Suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: terminology RfC - it might help to have an RfC on NPOVN concerning whether "anti-transgender activism" is subject to normal sourcing requirements (like "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish sentiment"), or whether it is subject to the stricter requirements of LABEL. Lots of people think they know the answer to that question, but it gets discussed heatedly on various pages without any consistent outcome. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Newimpartial, I think there's potentially something in that suggestion, but I'm not quite sure about the comparisons you've used to make your point. You've compared "Anti-transgender activism" to "Anti-black violence". I don't think that it would be controversial to describe an attack on a trans person, because they were trans, as "anti-transgender violence", or as a "transphobic assault". However, "Anti-transgender activism" isn't quite the same. "Anti-black activism" would more usually be called "White supremacism", which I think most people would agree would fall under LABEL, as does neo-Nazi (which is listed explicitly, alongside "transphobic"). The same goes for "anti-Jewish sentiment" - if we're talking about the abstract idea of anti-Jewish sentiment, it's not being applied as a label - but if we call someone an anti-Semite, or say that they are involved in anti-Semitic activism, I think that LABEL would definitely apply. If an RfC is necessary to nail that down, it might be a good option. GirthSummit (blether) 15:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I intended that as a real question, not a rhetorical device. I understand that there are differing perspectives on this, and it may also make a difference whether a particular discussoon concerns a BLP matter or not. So I would like to see the community discuss this matter outside of the BATTLEGROUND of a particular page. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion dealing with the content dispute over the phrase "anti-transgender activism" will just move the battle to a new phrase or some other way for the combatants to have a go at each other. I think we need a general solution of some kind. Simple dealing with the one phrase will leave us playing Whac-A-Mole. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Query - I am wondering if there is any provision anywhere in the rules that could limit the sources that can be used for articles that are proven battlegrounds? I know it's a long shot, but it seems like a lot of the trouble occurs because there are so many subject-specific websites and publications now that whenever a topic is as controversial as this one, anyone can find a source that says pretty much anything on it that they happen to agree with. If we were limited to only using content from general news sources that don't specialize in either of the polarized viewpoints - meaning no feminist or LGBT publications - and that have a Wikipedia rating of "Reliable", it might cut out a chunk of the edit warring. I've never seen any provision for it and frankly, I don't even know if it's feasible, but figured I'd throw it out if we're brainstorming ideas here. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lilipo25 Take a look at WP:PARTISAN. Sources which might be perceived as biased are not disallowed if they are otherwise reliable, but it is often appropriate to use in-text attribution when using them. GirthSummit (blether) 15:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply. Well, if limiting the sources can't be done, I'm not sure what would help other than the consistent monitoring of these articles by a few genuinely impartial admins, and strict sanctions going forward for anyone violating the rules. I know that admins are busy and I don't know how it would work, exactly, but things like opening yet another RFC on the same section heading would get us nowhere: we'll just have the same arguments all over again, and there's far more than that one subject heading in dispute anyway. The divide between the two points of view is at this point a chasm the Colorado River could have made and I'm sorry to say that without more oversight, I don't see these entries ever becoming less of a battleground. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any admin volunteering to constantly monitor the ongoing battle. How about a warning to everyone who is doing the fighting that if it doesn't stop, everybody involved will be given a "no fault" month away from the article so that some other editors can give it a go? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn. See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "everyone involved" gets blocked from the article implies that would include people who are being personally attacked/hounded/etc. as well as those who are the perpetrators, and that seems both unfair and unhelpful. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If, as you claim, there are some who are innocent and some who are guilty, how do you explain the many comments opposing singling out a particular editor and blocking him? I certainly wouldn't say that everyone is equally guilty, but it does take two or more people to have a battle. Look, it isn't the end of the world being caught up in a "no fault" month away from the article, especially if it the no fault bit is is made clear. We routinely block everybody from editing a page with full protection -- including editors who have never edited the page. I don't see anyone who has been harmed by this. I think that "kick everyone off the page for a month and let new editors give it a go" is reasonable in a world where we routinely decide to "kick everyone off the page for a month and don't let new editors give it a go". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that will work for the time out, but I fail to see how that will make editors work cooperatively afterwords. I still favor some sort of carrot and stick approach for the long term. Ward20 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell what you're trying to say with this sentence: If, as you claim, there are some who are innocent and some who are guilty, how do you explain the many comments opposing singling out a particular editor and blocking him? as that doesn't seem in any way at all to disprove that there are often issues between editors in which only one is actually at fault? And "it isn't the end of the world" to punish an innocent person is a poor argument in any case: if "the end of the world" is the standard by which we plan to judge what is a fair response and what isn't, we might as well just ban everyone who disagrees on the first offense. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is my theory: [A] The battling editors may find a one-month time out to be a good motivation to cooperate instead of battling. We have seen this many times with on month full protection. [B] One or more of the battling editors may not come back. Again, often seen with on month full protection. [C] The new editors may be able to create a version that the battling editors are willing to live with. [D] when the month expires, the new editors may be able to change the dynamic on the talk page. I think it is worth a try. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is still unjust "both sides"-ism as Lilipo25 said. And the simple fact is that full protection is not a sanction on individual editors, but a topic ban is. As for "it takes two", pretty much any social misbehavior takes two or more, but any civilized legal system knows only the wrongdoer is to be punished. Anything else is simply wrong. Crossroads -talk- 17:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Who told you that a partial block (that's what I am proposing, not a topic ban) of everybody who has edited a page in the last 30 days is a sanction on individual editors, but a block of everybody who has edited a page in the last 30 days plus everyone else is not a sanction on individual editors? That any admin who applies a no fault page block and says that it targets everybody who has edited the page whether they are at fault or not is automatically lying? Neither the no fault page block or the full protection singles out any individual or attempts to assign blame. In fact both actions purposely affect both the guilty and the innocent. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No way is my clean block log getting sullied because 'no fault block for all'. You apparently don't see it that way, but let's be real here: blocks and bans are pretty much only given to those who have done wrong. So no, I will not roll over and accept a public humiliation without good cause. Crossroads -talk- 19:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I'm with Crossroads on this. Until this time I thought this was about a full protection of the article for a month. That I would reluctantly support, but I am totally opposed to having a partial block history on my record for editing constructively at the wrong place at the wrong time. Ward20 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I had not considered the block logs. I withdraw my proposal until such time as the W?F gives administrators the ability to do it without causing entries in the block log. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it would be a help I would be willing to commit to a voluntary editing time out along with the commitment of the other involved editors. There could be a discussion about it, and a pledge sign up on the talk page. It could even be a coerced time out, voluntarily pledge or face a partial block. That might eliminate the block log quandary as it is giving the editors a choice to opt out of a block. I think there are less than 10 on the Politics of J. K. Rowling. I do not know how many editors are involved in the J. K. Rowling‎ article as I haven't been involved there nearly as much much. It seems like it would be easy to monitor as there would be several editors checking their watchlist to observe activity. It could be reported here for sanctions if someone broke their pledge not to edit. Question though, if a voluntary editing time out is implemented would it include the talk page? Just wondering. Ward20 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am reasonably certain that Wikipedia does not have a legal system, "civilized" or otherwise. Strong moral intuitions here, though. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am well aware of WP:NOTLAW, but the principle stands nonetheless. Crossroads -talk- 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you weren't really saying that Wikipedia ANIs constitute a legal court under international law? (; Thanks for your continued attempts to debate in good faith. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The issues seem to be not adhereing to: "Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. and not adhering to WP:AGF by mentioning motives of editors.

    Propose: 1RR per editor per day, and trying to find an uninvolved admin to follow the article and give a week or more time out on the topic to any editor that violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:LAWYERING or WP:Tendentious editing. This is not a unique problem, there must be a history of how to handle this. Ward20 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section"

    (As promised, moved from above section.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I already stated what I think needs to be done when I started this thread, and gave evidence when I did so: [194] And this very recent comment by Autumnking2012 is also particularly evidence based. The bulk of all this behavior occurred within 1 year of Bastun's 4 July 2019 BLP DS notification. There's been a lot of noise since this thread started consisting of WP:IDHT and whataboutism, but if administrators focus on the evidence, they will know what to do. Crossroads -talk- 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I do think some problem editors need to be blocked or topic banned, and anti-trans POV-pushers pose a particular problem. Of course, over-eager non-transphobic editors can be a problem too, but a partisan with a strong, angry view about a vulnerable minority group will necessarily be a bigger problem when it comes to maintaining an atmosphere of WP:NEUTRALity and WP:CIVILITY. Everything the WP:NONAZIS essay says about racist POV-pushers applies just as well to transphobe POV pushers. Just substitute "transphobe" for "racist": [a] problem with racist beliefs is that they immediately alienate any non-racist. As soon as a good-faith editor begins to suspect another editor of harboring these beliefs, it becomes all but impossible for them to work together without conflict. The block a couple of years ago of one problem editor for transphobia, a block which was upheld by community consensus, was a good start, but he was part of a larger circle of bad faith actors who contribute to a poisonous atmosphere on the site. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So, in contrast to my suggestion of a single editor getting a topic ban tailored to fit proven disruption, WanderingWanda apparently wants multiple blocks/topic-bans doled out to unnamed anti-trans POV-pushers and partisan[s] with a strong, angry view. The previous indef of TaylanUB, who actually had significant evidence against them and who repeatedly engaged in misgendering, was just a good start. Actually, I agree that editors who engage in a pattern of any kind of POV pushing, tendentiousness, attacks, and so on should be topic banned or blocked, including that which is anti-trans. But given the claim of an apparently already-existing larger circle of bad faith actors, this looks to me a lot more like casting WP:ASPERSIONS and creating a chilling effect. Regarding WP:NONAZIS, I believe the WP:CRYRACIST portion is more relevant here: Casting aspersions of [transphobic] trolling and vandalism should not, however, be used as a trump card in disputes over content or at a noticeboard. These claims can have a chilling effect and make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through....Unsubstantiated claims of [transphobic] vandalism and use of unsubstantiated claims to gain an upper hand in a content dispute or noticeboard thread is disruptive and a form of personal attack and will often lead to the user making it being blocked. Claims of [transphobia] should not be made lightly and editors should strive to work through the normal dispute resolution process when it comes to legitimate disagreements on interpretation and quality of sources and other content disputes rather than clear [transphobic] disruption. Crossroads -talk- 21:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WanderingWanda, the instruction at the top of this section says specifically This section is for discussing what to do only. Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section. With all due respect, it appears that you've done exactly what it says we should not do, by attacking those on one side of the debate as transphobes and bad faith actors. I don't see how that's helpful here. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic banning Bastun is already being discussed. Please don't suggest topic banning Bastun as the solution to the battleground. The section above is for solutions to the general problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please don't suggest topic banning Bastun as the solution to the battleground." Who are you responding to? Are you having difficulty keeping track of who said what? Because if your comment is directed at what User:Lilipo25 wrote, it's senseless and baseless. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is rather obvious who I was replying to. You are assuming a huge amount of bad faith over how many colons someone put in front of a talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is rather obvious who I was replying to." Actually, it is not. Assume nothing, because the yada-yada keeps expanding and eyes begin to roll. So who, exactly, where you responding to? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I think that "anti-transgender activism" is obviously a WP:LABEL, since it's basically equivalent to "transphobic activism", but LABELs are sometimes justified. We call a whole bunch of neo-Nazis and white supremacists "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" when there's sufficient sourcing to justify it, and if anything is a LABEL it's "neo-Nazi". For example, the very first line of Richard Spencer is Richard Spencer is an American neo-Nazi..., without even in-text attribution. I feel like we need to update the wording of WP:LABEL to acknowledge more clearly that the presumption that these labels shouldn't be used can be defeated entirely (as in, even in-text attribution is not necessary) if the sourcing is strong enough. Loki (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, the comparison to Richard Spencer is not an apt one. I did not want to debate the WP:LABEL here, but as several editors have brought it up now with the argument that it is fine to call him "anti-transgender" in a Wikipedia heading because he is - and we now have a comparison of his views to those of Richard Spencer - I think it's necessary.
    Spencer is called a neo-Nazi because he recited the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels in the original German ("Lügenpresse") at pro-Trump appearances during the 2018 presidential campaign, encouraged his followers to give him the Nazi "stiff-armed" salute, called for "ethnic cleansing" of Jews and other minorities and, when Trump was elected, gave a speech telling his followers to "party like it's 1933" (the year Hitler came to power in Germany). No matter what anyone thinks of Linehan, he has never done anything even half so egregious in his disagreement with trans activists. He has stated repeatedly that he believes trans rights are human rights and that it should be illegal to discriminate against trans people in the workplace or in housing or education, etc. His beliefs (that self-ID laws are wrong because he doesn't think someone born in a male body should be able to self-identify into women's prisons, sports and changing rooms, and that children should not be given medical intervention to transition like puberty blockers or surgery), are certainly very controversial, but Wikipedia cannot summarily label them "anti-transgender", particularly when there are some transgender activists who support them. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I pretty strongly disagree with the assertion that Linehan has "never done anything even half so egregious". I think he has been quite blatant about his anti-transgender activism, and the fact that the nature of his activism is anti-transgender is stated clearly and repeatedly in the reliable sources, in a very directly analogous manner to how the fact that Spencer is a neo-Nazi is all over the RSes covering him. We're talking about a man who has been both banned from Twitter and warned by police for transphobic harassment. Loki (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned by police: Come on. Stephanie Hayden - who calls herself "litigious" and was recently forced to admit in court that she is currently suing so many different people for "hate crimes" and harassment that she didn't even know how many court cases she had going - called the police because he misgendered her and called her by her previous male name when they were arguing on Twitter. A patrol officer was obligated to respond and said "just stop tweeting about her".. Are you really comparing that to Spencer saying that the US needs to be "ethnically cleansed" of Jews and black people, while encouraging people to salute him the way they saluted a man who murdered six million people? And yes, Twitter banned him for saying "A man can't be a woman". You have every right to be offended by that. Other people have the right to agree with it. But it isn't even close to Richard Spencer quoting Joseph Goebbels, the architect of Jewish genocide.in Europe. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Socionics

    Socionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    There are attempts to remove classification as pseudoscience from very reliable sources [195], [196], [197]. There is a long-running conflict over socionics in the Russian Wikipedia. Almost all supporters of socionics were permanently blocked. --Q Valda (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth noting that Gennadiy Frolov has the exact same userpage formatting as ThesariusQ with the weird sub-heading with the username, I think it's clear that they are the same user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    QuantumBorg [203] edits [204] are completely identical to the edits of Q Valda in ru-wiki [205],[206],[207],[208]. Later Q Valda took part in the editing of the Socionics article and restored the QuantumBorg version [209]. Тhey seem like sock- or meatpuppetry.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    QuantumBorg edited exactly once on the 14th. Q Valda has previously edited the article in 2018, and resumed recently on the 29th. I don't see the problem there - as opposed to the pro-fringe editors who all rotated in and out in the course of a day to game the WP:3RR rule. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The connection between Q Valda and QuantumBorg is obvious.QuantumBorg made these non-consensual edits, and Q Valda defended them in Enwiki. This was the cause of the edit war.--ThesariusQ (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie has it right. I address this here: [210] And ThesariusQ is themselves the subject of an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sounderk. Crossroads -talk- 04:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnwinNovaTrichy (formerly User:Guru Trichy)

    AnwinNovaTrichy (talk · contribs · count) has a long-term pattern of making disruptive edits on topics related to India and Islam. These edits often insert unverifiable claims or remove citations of reliable sources. A significant portion of these edits are accompanied by edit summaries that are not representative of the content of the edits. See the following examples:

    1. Special:Diff/969783560: Inserted a link to a personal website that redirects to an article on OpIndia (RSP entry), a domain on the spam blacklist, to claim that Sushant Singh Rajput's cause of death is disputed
    2. Special:Diff/968925500: Inserted unsourced political labels with deceptive link targets, [[Leftist terrorism|leftist]] [[Propaganda|political]], in Merku Thodarchi Malai, marked as a minor edit
    3. Special:Diff/954556820: Changed "areas currently administered by Pakistan" to "areas currently occupied by Pakistan" (emphasis added) with the edit summary "minor gramatical error" in Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, marked as a minor edit
    4. Special:Diff/920570071: Added "(and to some extent, extremists)" to Baʽathism
    5. Special:Diff/945641979: Removed a citation to an article from The Washington Post and changed "far-right and Islamophobic groups" to "centrist islam groups and anti-islamic extremism groups" in Mohammad Tawhidi, with the edit summary "Cleared dead links", marked as a minor edit
    6. Special:Diff/913316196: Changed "Islamic religious-political-armed movement" to "Islamic Extremist religious-political-armed movement cum Terrorist Organization" (emphasis added) in Houthi movement with the edit summary "minor gramatical error", marked as a minor edit
    7. Special:Diff/918814093: Changed "Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organisation" to "nationalist, volunteer organisation", added "(It should be duly noted that said person was kicked out of the organisation even before he assassinated Gandhi for his radical and supporting ideas irrelevant to Rss's agenda)", and changed "Hindu community" to "culture of India and her place in the world" in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, with the edit summary "Numerous Spelling Mistakes and long quotations have been removed", marked as a minor edit

    AnwinNovaTrichy's contribution history shows that most of the user's edits violate policy in some way. Some of these affected articles do not receive enough attention for the unconstructive edits to be reverted in a timely manner.

    I propose that AnwinNovaTrichy be indefinitely blocked for long-term disruptive editing. — Newslinger talk 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user formerly known as Guru Trichy has renamed their account to AnwinNovaTrichy. I've updated the above comment to reflect the new username. — Newslinger talk 01:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban on the basis of the bold and outrageous deceit between the edit summaries and the contents. Noobs get patient instruction. Policy followers with a tinge of POV get somewhat more assertive reality checks. Intentional deception of this sort should get shown the door. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't we have a DS in this topic area? AE might've been faster. Can't indef with it, but topic bans and 1 yr blocks sure. Flicking through contribs since 2016, I can't find a single constructive edit. Even the ones that aren't highly problematic are edits that go against our core content policies, and the rest are just religion/IPAK POV pushing -- support site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we do, however it only kicks in if you can show the user was "aware" of it. In this case, the alert notice has been given, but not before most (all?) of these diffs. So its in place for next time, but given the outrageous deceit, why kick the can down the road? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NewsAndEventsGuy is right. This kind of report would ideally be submitted to arbitration enforcement, but the editor had not been notified with the discretionary sanctions alert prior to making all of these edits. The edits are both consistent and egregious enough for me to submit this report right away. — Newslinger talk 19:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: A long time editor with a history of productive edits, that's someone to whom you give a warning shot. But it just seems that this guy shows up every year or so and makes a heap of such edits. Ravenswing 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support seems to be on a political mission, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Guys sorry about all the disruptive edits, My father(Who is a full blown conservative) had been making all these edits for the most part,He couldnt think straight due to his old age and his political positions, The only edit i made personally was the one about the Siberian husky, Sorry about this mess, I understand that my account cant be deleted, but i still support a edit ban on this account as he still has access to this account! Nova ( Nova ) 07:5, 01 August 2020 (UTC)
      The fact that Special:Diff/969783560 added a link to what appears to be your personal website contradicts this explanation, but we will accept your suggested resolution. — Newslinger talk 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding Special:Diff/969783560, My father added a page to my site's root for some reason(He has access to my cpanel from the RPI i keep in the living room for easy access, he has worked in IT before, I am just sorry about the whole thing Nova ( Nova ) 09:19, 01 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban And as user seems to be saying father has access to this account, suggest blocking at once. Why User:AnwinNovaTrichy could not let father not know the password here and on the website is mysterious to me. (Most strange case of WP:BROTHER I've seen. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, This was originally my father's account that i took over, The password for the cpanel was saved up in rpi, Also, You claiming this is a case of WP:BROTHER is ludicrous Nova ( Nova ) 09:19, 01 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Um, that's not allowed per WP:NOSHARING:

    Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the user being required to stop the practice and change their password, or in sanctions (up to and including the account being blocked), depending on circumstances.

    —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hostility towards tag and prod removers from Ravenswing

    Let me preface this by saying I respect the time Ravenswing puts into the project.

    That being said, there is a problem. Ravenswing has been prodding articles with longstanding problem tags. While I personally think that in general deletion of articles that have survived for over a decade is unlikely to be entirely uncontroversial, that's not even what this is about. The issue is that when anybody has the nerve to challenge a PROD or tag by Ravenswing, his response may be:

    These examples are from this month, but apparently it ain't nothing new: "My, you're not very good at listening or at assuming good faith, are you? (..) For another, if you're going to act like a butthurt newbie incensed that someone has "dissed" HER article" is from December 2019.

    I have asked Ravenswing directly in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Ravenswing influx whether they acknowledge that this kind of approach isn't inspiring collaboration. Instead of answering the question, Ravenswing suggested I bring this to ANI.

    In an ideal world, an admin tells Ravenswing not to be hostile towards his fellow editors, and Ravenswing agrees. In a less ideal world, Ravenswing would be topic banned from responding to de-prods and tag removals. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Aye, thank you. For instance, what Alexis Jazz carefully didn't quote from that bit from last December, on my user talk page, was the bit preceding it, which I invite people to review: [211]. Or, perhaps, some of Alexis Jazz's own comments:[212][213][214] (Just FYI, my actual answer to them, in a discussion based on the deprodders' alarm that I was prodding more articles that had been carrying notability tags for over a decade than they appreciated, was “I certainly acknowledge that "When did you stop beating your wife?" style questions aren't going to get any kind of answer from me. Feel free to take it to ANI, if you're unafraid of boomerangs.” Ravenswing 13:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the interaction on my talk page (I beleive this was prompted by my Preview (computing) deprod) that Alexis Jazz has already cited, I found this AfD discussion unnecessarily hostile. ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I certainly found hostile, in that case, that you deprodded with a rationale that a redirect or merge was more appropriate, then you reverted the redirect, and then claimed that there were useful sources when not a single one of them actually mentioned the subject. Nor, if you were wishful of avoiding hostility, was a response of "Why don't we just close this as redirect and I'll make some improvements to Steven Martini and we'll have an edit war there or whatever" helpful. Ravenswing 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you willing to acknowledge your own hostility? You're eager here to identify it when yours brings out the worst in others. ~Kvng (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose any sort of action against Ravenswing. This is just plain old silly. Disagreement can be terse but it isn't uncivil and there isn't any type of disruption to warrant any sort of ban. Praxidicae (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: We do have editors reluctant to challenge Ravenswing's prods due to expected hostility. Isn't that a type of disruption? I do see incivility in these interactions. Am I imagining things or being overly sensitive? ~Kvng (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like they are afraid to be challenged. Doesn't seem uncivil to me. Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's absolutely nothing civil or constructive about interactions like this, blatant badgering, responses like this, or any of the other stuff that has been presented here. It's evident from this that Ravenswing is attempting to bully anyone who opposes their attempts at deletion. The strawman fallacies are not a good sign either ([215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220]). Darkknight2149 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: This sort of thing is unfortunately very common among overzealous deletionists (who almost always have a victim complex as they assume bad faith toward anyone who deprods or opposes them for any reason). Everyone is entitled to deprod an article if they dispute the deletion. Controversial redirects must be discussed. Full stop. If Ravenswing has evidence that this snarkiness is called for, they should present it. But generally speaking, even an "eye for an eye" approach is disruptive. Darkknight2149 19:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      "Overzealous deletionist who almost always has a victim complex" is, in my view, more uncivil than any of the recent quotes in the OP. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not uncivil. OZ is something that I feel is aptly applicable here, and "victim complex" refers to acting like the victim after attempting to bully or harassing another user (which is something that tends to happen on Wikipedia, to the point that there is a guideline on that). Darkknight2149 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose in case this wasn't obvious from the above. Firstly, it's not clear what admin action is being requested. Secondly, it hasn't been shown that Ravenswing is being any more hostile towards others as they are towards him. The opposite has been shown, in fact. Thirdly, the above support is so mendacious and hypocritical that I can't let it pass without comment. Reyk YO! 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reyk: From OP, the requested admin action is, In an ideal world, an admin tells Ravenswing not to be hostile towards his fellow editors, and Ravenswing agrees. In a less ideal world, Ravenswing would be topic banned from responding to de-prods and tag removals. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just double checked all of the supposed "evidence" of rudeness from Alex Jazz above, and they really don't help Raven's case ([221], [222], [223], [224]). Each of these diffs clearly show Alex and The Drover's Wife responding to Raven in a calm and collected manner. Calmly calling someone out for being uncivil or bludgeoning a discussion is not disruptive, and it's exactly what WP:UNCIVIL says to do. Likewise, no one needs anyone's approval to deprod an article, and no discussion is even required in the first place. Instead of badgering those who do, Ravenswing needs to either open an WP:AFD or engage in dispute resolution in a less confrontational manner. Harassment in fact disruptive, regardless of whether or not you agree with the prods. Darkknight2149 00:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drover's Wife accuses Ravenswing of being a vandal, of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and of marking his territory like a dog cocking its leg. Ravenwing tells him to jog off and he is the bad guy? Really? Your unswerving dedication to unfairness and inaccuracy continues to astound. Reyk YO! 09:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Your unswerving dedication to unfairness and inaccuracy continues to astound." - Yes, that's very ironic coming from you. There is absolutely no weight to any of the supposed "counter evidence" against Alex Jazz. So far, no evidence has been provided that The Drover's Wife is casting aspersions either. You can poke the bee hive all day long, but that won't magically help your case. As of right now, everything else makes Raven look worse, not better. The ball is in your court. Darkknight2149 10:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To say that the case against Ravenswing has collapsed would be to imply there ever was one. At four opposes to one support, it's clear that no action will be taken. This is not surprising: generally evidence against someone must be presented before action can be taken against them, and this has not been done. The ball is in your court. The fact that you treat this as a game says a lot. Reyk YO! 11:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Would be better to decide (via RFC) the criteria for prodding. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That has already been discussed to death, and regardless of criteria, it doesn't justify harassment. This is not a content issue. WP:INCIVILITY is defined as "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable", which I think fits the bill here. There are claims from Reyk and Ravenswing that the deprodders were uncivil first, which I don't believe has been substantiated and Raven's statements at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion suggest that s/he is always confrontational. But even if that's the case, it still doesn't justify what Ravenswing is doing - "In general, be non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind. Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. Bear in mind that the editor may not have thought he or she was being uncivil; Wikipedia is edited by people from many different backgrounds, and standards vary. Take things to dispute resolution (see below) only if there is an ongoing problem that you cannot resolve." Darkknight2149 22:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that anyone who, a few lines above, accused another editor of having a "victim complex" is in any position to be lecturing others about incivility. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I should clarify that I didn't say Raven necessarily has a victim complex, I said that harassing other users and then accusing them of their harassment ("victim complex") is a common trend among overzealous deletion. However, I must opine that you are treating this more as a content dispute than an actual ANI report. This thread is not an RFC about the value of prodding/de-prodding. If Ravenswing can substantiate that s/he was attacked first, I believe s/he should do so. Darkknight2149 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GoodDay: This isn't about the criteria for prodding. While different policy may have prevented part of the conflict, it wasn't the actual issue. If a car breaks down the moment you hit a bump, you could smooth out all the bumps in the road, but the suspension on that car would still need to be looked at. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with being direct with editors in any discussion. Much better then being polite & suggesting block/ban reports, just to get someone to stop disagreeing with you. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Another argument over the mess that is PROD - Wikipedia really doesn't help itself with this half-arsed method of deletion where a tag can be removed purely because someone doesn't like it, unlike a speedy tag. IMO there should only be two reasons for removing a PROD tag - 1) The reason given for deletion is either not a valid deletion reason, or is clearly not applicable to the article 2) The deletion reason is valid, but you fixed it before you removed the tag (i.e. you added sources to an unsourced article). If you're removing a PROD tag for another reason ("well, this actually looks notable, but I haven't got time to fix it now"), a far better idea would be to shift the article to Draft space so you can fix it when you can. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've noticed Ravenswing's hostility too. I shrug it off myself but others are more sensitive. Note that The Drover's Wife, who is mentioned above, has retired, specifically citing Wikipedia's culture of bullying as the cause. That's a shame as they were quite congenial and productive.
    Ravenswing's talk page indicates one possible reason for this unpleasantness, "This user is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia." Per WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:BATTLEGROUND, they should not be using Wikipedia to blow off steam. The remedy is also indicated there, "...work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "You're not acting in good faith: for one, you don't tag obviously experienced users with newbie warnings because you're feeling passive aggressive. Stop tagging articles that you have no intention of ever helpfully contributing to with tags that add nothing to the article and serve no purpose except to say "Ravenswing was here" so you can see your "work" marked on articles. These tags serve exactly the same function and rationale as someone graffiting a wall in real life, and they will be reverted." That's from The Drover's Wife; it's the beginning of the exchange you claim you read. Reyk characterized that eloquently above, but if that's your definition of gentle flowers wilted by "bullying," then I don't know what to say. Ravenswing 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang on here. Curious, I went to The Drover's Wife user page to see what was what. And I see this: "Wikipedia has always had a hardnosed culture, and as someone who's pretty tough I've managed to get through it for a lot of years. It's one thing if people exchange hard words in a content dispute, as long as the point is ultimately to resolve that dispute, find an outcome people can live with, and move on. Bullying for the sake of bullying, over a resolved content dispute, on a level I've never experienced in all my years on Wikipedia, because someone feels like that's a thing those around them will accept, is a very different matter. When you're then threatened for speaking up about the influential bully's conduct, it tells you all you need to know about the culture you're dealing with." This is for an incident in April, several months after our own dispute. And you're inferring that I'm the cause? Ravenswing 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, for some reason a lot of inclusionists seem to think they can badmouth people all they want and everyone's supposed to nod sagely like they've just dropped a devastating truth bomb. But if you backchat they get all flustered and think they're being hard done by. Reyk YO! 14:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I was very clear - "your most recent accusation of "hardcore inclusionists" turned out to be objectively false." But thank you for continuing to demonstrate your battleground mentality. I rest my case. Darkknight2149 19:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You "rest your case"? That you think this is a court of law says a lot. Actually, I don't think you will "rest your case". I suspect the pompomendacious sermonizing will just go on and on and on. Reyk YO! 19:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject here is Ravenswing and so extensive quotes from The Drover's Wife are not relevant. Ravenswing's own statements are better in communicating the issue:

      "My Rant of the Month: Turning on the flamethrower (7/20)
      An occasional column for rants of mine that I wanted to memorialize. For past rants, see my Rant Archive.
      ...
      But here's where I cross the civility line, and I don't really much care.
      ...
      what I feel for you is utter and deep contempt.
      — User:Ravenswing 02:19, 1 August 2020

    Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If those quotes are not relevant, then neither you nor the other two who raised her as an issue should have done so. Unless you're seeking to confirm Reyk's assertions? Ravenswing 20:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlikely to see anything come of this - Some of the diffs above show comments from Ravenswing that are below the standard for civility/collegiality/AGF. ...And some of the diffs above show comments towards Ravenswing that are below the standard for civility/collegiality/AGF. A couple notes before this thread is inevitably closed without action: (1) Don't bother asking people why they deprodded. Ideally they'll use an edit summary or leave a comment on the talk page, but beyond asking for the most basic reason, just don't bother. Been there, done that. They're not obligated to elaborate and I've never seen someone restore a prod they've removed. It's just meaningless conflict. You don't like it? Change the PROD rules. The only way I can think of that might show evidence of abuse is if we could generate a list of someone's deprods and show that some extreme number find consensus to delete at AfD, but that's hard to do and I'm still not actually sure people would support a sanction on those grounds. (2) Arguments appealing to the essay Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion (or otherwise sounding alarm bells about deletionist bogeymen) tend to quickly lose me. There's no actual argument there other than "I don't like it" plus an assumption of bad faith. (3) back-and-forth between two editors is not WP:BLUDGEONING. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction whatsoever. Could Ravenswing act more civil & adjust his 'Tone' probably, but I don’t see any dire transgressions to warrant any sanctions. Celestina007 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Apparently it's pretty hard to write out "a PROD can be declined for any reason, so if you're giving other editors stick about it you're doing it wrong", but there we are. I wrote, anyway, and Ravenswing can take note that one administrator asked him point-blank to step back and stop getting in other editors faces about de-prodded articles. Is it frustrating when a crap article gets de-prodded for no reason? Of course. Is that a reason to go snark at the person who did it? Never. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note: I am not a veteran deprodder. I may have been around for 10+ years, but mostly on other projects. It is technically possible that my deprod of DICE (band) was inappropriate. I don't think it was, there are some sources (and I provided some links), most are not in English (which complicates referencing) and the name of the band makes it difficult to find sources. So I think that warrants a discussion. But regardless of whether that was right or wrong, it wouldn't be an excuse to snark at me. If a deprod is "wrong", just open the AfD and if really needed, explain calmly to the user why the deprod was "wrong".
    Also one more note on the "10 year" argument, an example that just happened coincidentally: I just added some pictures to EqualLogic. These have been available on Flickr for over 14 years and were very easy to find. Never uploaded here until today. Some things just take over 10 years. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In looking at this ANl, I have notice other deletion-related problems; among them is the excessive use of redirects, instead of merges or a search for additional references. As I am not going to ask for action on this , I omit diffs, but some that I reverted as samples of the problems are on my user contributions page this evening:. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction. When someone edits a lot, occasionally, among the many civil comments I have seen from Ravenswing, people may get angry and be a bit uncivil, including me and pretty much everyone commenting on this discussion. It's not great, and it's certainly something I've got better at the more I've edited Wikipedia, but we all make errors and there doesn't seem to be any history of attacking lots of other editors, maybe just not ignoring uncivil behaviour but hitting back - which probably isn't the best way to deal with it most times, but is understandable. Ravenswing has been working on the backlog at CAT:NN; it's a slog, difficult to judge, leaves you open to quite disheartening attacks from others and accusations of being an 'overzealous deletionist'. I appreciate the fact that Ravenswing is doing this valuable work. Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boleyn: I don't think I provoked Ravenswing. My deprod was neutral, and Ravenswing responded by snarking at me on my talk page. This eventually resulted in some back-and-forth arguments, but I didn't provoke Ravenswing. It is true we all make mistakes, and generally those are forgiven when acknowledged. As Ravenswing commented "No worries, that's a lesson already learned." this appears to be resolved. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Darkknight2149 has posted links to his/her own interactions with Ravenswing, so they are not exactly an uninvolved editor. His/her proof that Reyk is an overzealous deletionist is a single instance where Reyk posted his/her approval over a lengthy comment by Piotrus. None of the cited texts include instances where either Ravenswing or Reyk resorted to personal attacks or attempts to intimidate others. I have my doubts that the incivility levels ever exceeded the typical heated argument. Dimadick (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I'm curious to know when I called Reyk an overzealous deletionist, since the instance you are referring to above was actually the reverse - Reyk complaining about inclusionist boogeymen, and me pointing out that his most recent claim of "radical inclusionists" was immediately proven to be empirically false.
    2. I have only ever interacted with Ravenswing once, which is linked above, and it wasn't heated or all that confrontational. Most of what I am responding to is what others have linked in this thread and my first impressions from their contributions, which would make me uninvolved. Likewise, I think Reyk's aggressive behaviour in this thread alone speaks for itself, but it just so happens that this is not a report on Reyk. Darkknight2149 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction. Ravenswing is a good productive mature-minded editor showing impatience. That's all I see. Anybody who has worked the AfD queue knows it can be a test of patience, dealing with the same grade of shameless self-promoters and gibberish merchants who try to sneak stuff into the encyclopedia. No way is this issue chronic / intractable / urgent. (THAT SAID, there's a good point above: no reason to engage with anybody who removes a PROD. They're not going to put it back.) I'm certain this discussion will be warning enough to make the point. --Lockley (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

    (non-admin closure) Content question. The respondants here remain unconvinced. Darkknight2149 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some people seem to be unconvinced that this psychological tool is valid and repeatedly insert things such as "pseudoscientific" in the lede or categorise it as "Alternative Medicine", even though it is almost never categorised as such in scientific literature. Although the MBTI is very controversial, this does not seem to be constructive editing. --2003:CD:7F0E:F700:40A6:1EDB:B000:5467 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably because it's bullshit - a pretty much meaningless fad that won't die, invented by a couple of blatant opportunists Guy (help!) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo. Grandpallama (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apropos of nothing, my "personality types" story: as part of a class my first year of university, a guest lecturer gave us a bunch of those personality tests (to "learn about how we best work with others"), and at one point I stood up and asked the lecturer what difference it made if I was an INTJ, or whatever my enneagram value is, or any of the other "types", when the tests are so obviously gameable as to be meaningless. She responded "well of course you'd say that, you're an INTJ!" Probably the only time in my life somebody has used reasoning so circular that I was literally left speechless. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a taughtology? Grandpallama (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    Tautolly. El_C 04:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Knox490

    Knox490 has continued to beat a dead horse into a pulp over at Talk:Stefan Molyneux for 4 days or more over the issue of Molyneux being called a white supremacist. Their essential argument being "RS are wrong" [[225]]. Its time this was stopped.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I provided ample evidence for what I maintained. I did so in a cordial manner despite some incivility of some of the discussion participants. I also invoked a Wikipedia rule which is designed to amicably resolve situations such as this.Knox490 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been following this (as a non-participant) with some interest. Correct me if I'm wrong, Knox490, but essentially you are using an ignore all rules argument to set aside the RS SECONDARY coverage of this matter and base the article text on PRIMARY research? Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, yes. That is correct. The mainstream press is not infallible. And in cases where they are wrong, it makes sense to do so.Knox490 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of cordiality, I have decided to agree to disagree on this matter and move on.Knox490 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the issue may go deeper than just this one article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Muboshgu Censorship and Overlording

    No misuse (or even use) of admin privileges here. Editors interested in throwing boomerangs can start a new discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin user Moboshgu openly likes to use their admin privileges to censor information on political figures or notably referenced quotes they don’t like without opening consensus discussions and then turns around and tries to act like the editors he censors are the ones that have to open a consensus. They abuse their position. They act as an arbitrator of truth, you can find their actions on the politician Karen Bass’s wiki page. Tired of these partisan hacks acting like arbitrators of truth by censoring completely valid and verified information they don’t want others to see or know about their pages they watch. Wikipedia!!! Get it STRAIGHT and NEUTRAL. People like this admin have no business being here whatsoever. Sirsentence (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sirsentence, please provide diffs of the edits that you believe were improper. You also have failed to notify Muboshgu (whom I assume is the actual subject of this section) as required by the ANI instructions. Please see the red box towards the top of the page for how to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've checked their edits in the last 2 years on that page (4, in total). None used any admin tools afaict (that is, they're engaging as a regular editor). They removed new edits cited to Fox News. Per the recent RfC, doing this and seeking consensus on the Talk Page (where they have raised a discussion) seems perfectly legitimate. Consensus is needed to retain edits like this. In lieu of Sirsentence providing specific diffs of policy-breaking behaviour, I'm inclined to say no foul. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Nosebagbear, yeah I acknowledge my WP:INVOVLEMENT in US politics and do not act as an admin on AP2 pages, except in the cases of extreme vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was unwise. I anticipate a WP:BOOMERANG. First of all, I was not notified of this post, even though the instructions are clear, in red lettering, that you are supposed to notify someone when discussing them here. Second, when adding contested information to a page, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to add it, not the person who opposes it, to establish consensus. Third of all, I have used the talk page, at Talk:Karen Bass#Fidel Castro, and so far you have not. Finally, there is the highly POV content of your addition, seen here and here, to which I have a valid objection as even the Fox News source you use doesn't go as far in attacking Bass as your edit does. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does one apply to be an overlord? Asking for a friend. Praxidicae (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was offered an overlordship, but I held out for being Lord of the Underworld, which I was told was already occupied by some orange guy in Washington, DC, Tramp or Dump or something like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Feminism is as bad as racism." New user Velvetlaptop looks like Dcasey98 sock

    Back in March I reported this person, resulting in a block. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Need more eyeballs – Amerocentric disruption from Greater Chicago. The person is strongly nationalistic, pro-American to the point of absurdity. Now they have a new username, Velvetlaptop.

    The first involvement I found from this person was activity on the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64 in 2017. They shifted to the range Special:Contributions/2601:243:680:3688:0:0:0:0/64 in June 2019. Activity on the range included climate topics, pop culture topics such as music and fashion, and politics. One locus of trouble was at Stereotypes of the British in August 2019 with the person blanking a section and saying, "America gave Britain its modern musical heritage."[226] Another trouble spot was the article 2010s in which this person said, "Fuck off. Feminism is as bad as racism. It’s a female supremacy movement that has ran unchecked for decades..."[227]

    In March 2019, the IP Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:A022:89B:5556:C699 began disrupting the American popular music article, saying, "America invented punk..."[228] This stuff was reverted, and Honethefield98 continued the disruption. Honethefield98 was found to be a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98, who was also using the same range of IPs.

    In February 2020, this person began using the IP Special:Contributions/73.8.230.59, tagging a bunch of global music genres as being American.[229][230] This IP returned to the 2010s article to add a bunch of fashion stuff, unreferenced.[231]

    Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked by Berean Hunter in May for a period of three years. Today, the range Special:Contributions/2601:243:680:3688:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for six months by Widr, followed one minute later by new user Velvetlaptop picking up where the IPs left off, restoring reverted material.[232][233] I have a discussion going at User talk:Velvetlaptop, but it looks like the user should be indeffed as a sock of Dcasey98. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. Story is not adding up. Perhaps they can offer a cogent explanation, but it's best if they were to do so in the form of an unblock request. El_C 02:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Ha, smoking gun on their userpage now... Our exchange I'll quote here, starting with my statement: "Let me quote what you state above, "User:Binksternet has often battled with me on Wikipedia on my original IP address, and repeatedly reverted a sourced edit I made to Heavy Metal music about 5 months ago that was reverted..." The only reverts "five months ago" on the Heavy metal music by Binksternet were to revert an Checkuser blocked sockpuppet named Grafton56 (sockpuppet of Dcasey98). Binksternet reverted no IPs and no other accounts "five months ago", and no other repeated reverting of a user or IP has occurred by Binksternet this year on that page. This to me reads that you are saying that you are Grafton56 (aka Dcasey98), no? Zinnober9 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    to which they replied
    "That was indeed the account I had used at my previous address a long while after I had lost the Dcasey98 account. I think I mentioned this, or at the very least implied it, on one of your talk pages. I'm often frustrated to find seemingly convenient accusations of sockpuppetry linked to me, often over accounts that I have lost the log-in information for and can no longer access. That's why I was mainly focused on my current IP conduct, on which I abided by any bans I have ever received, under which I made this account today. I think it's counterproductive to accuse anyone who's ever owned two+ Wikipedia accounts of engaging in sockpuppetry, and banning them continuously for it. Velvetlaptop 03:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    Acroterion has since marked them as that sock, and turned off their talkpage access. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two new socks today by Dcasey98: one edit by Illinois IP Special:Contributions/107.138.239.21, and some reversions by Special:Contributions/Campainfinance. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Flagrant Twitter Endorsements

    BLOCKED
    209.122.10.206 for 3 months for the persistent addition of poorly-sourced content by El C (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This IP User: 209.122.10.206 continues to add Twitter Endorsements to different pages. They have been warned many times about not adding solo Twitter Endorsements. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many warnings on one talk page. Most recently I had to change back something on List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    These warnings were mainly for unsourced or poorly sourced edits as well as speculative vandalism and being uncivil to other editors. They have had way too many warnings in my opinion. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 03:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    More eyes needed on Patrisse Cullors

    Patrisse Cullors is one of the founders of the Black Lives Matters movement, which unsurprisingly is despised by the right wing (bloggers especially).

    As such her article has had a succession of mainly drive-by editors trying to push “Marxist” into the article. Although it’s been somewhat civil and mainly a content dispute, I’m wondering if there is anything else we can do as it’s a bit exhausting to deal with the same issue repeatedly. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Gleeanon409! I am not an administrator but I saw this post and I added warnings to this page. Anyone who makes further disruptive edits, I will report. I’ll let the administrators take it from there! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protected it for four days, that should knock off the edit warring and give some time for a consensus to build.
    @Gleeanon409: Oh, and by the way you were definitely edit warring, don't do that. I have decided not to block you only because I've protected the page, but I doubt another admin would have been so kind. Don't push your luck going foward. Even if you're right, that doesn't mean you can break WP:3RR. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CaptainEek, apparently she "learned about Marxist thinkers". We had a programme at school that also did this: it was called "history". Guy (help!) 08:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise for me. Our history teacher (Britain, early 1960s) was an Irish Catholic communist and Marxism was prominent on his curriculum. He was very successful – in putting us all completely off communism. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I should have come here sooner. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have come across this a while ago, and spent some time looking into a YouTube source that a new account had used (can't remember which one, but can dig it out if anyone is interested). For what its worth, there is a video of her being interviewed some years ago where she does describe herself as a "trained Marxist", but the context is important. The interview was about setting up the Black Lives Matter movement, and the interviewer was asking her whether the movement was grounded in theory (in a history/political science sense). Her response included a brief statement that she was a "trained Marxist", by which I inferred that she meant that she had studied Marxist theory, but they moved on and didn't explore that phrase. I agree that for any mention to be made of it in the article, we'd need a heavyweight sourcing with discussion of what is meant by the word in this context - it's not a label shat should be used glibly, or without thorough explanation. GirthSummit (blether) 13:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider pasting this in the new RfC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war (sorry!)

    (non-admin closure) Beware the three-revert rule. Darkknight2149 04:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I’m sorry, but I could not figure out the edit war noticeboard. On the page Patrisse Cullors, Fa suisse keeps adding back controversial information without coming to a consensus. I believe that they even broke the 3 revert rule. If someone could please take a look that would be great. Once again, sorry this is the wrong noticeboard, the other one was a bit confusing. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two users asking for "consensus" but effectively blocking the addition of specific content. They provide no sources, their references to policy are pretty artificial, and they do not provide much if any constructive contribution. The contention centers around the addition of Patrisse Cullors' self-description as a marxist, which has been supported by 8 users on the talk page (myself included) during the past few weeks. There are quality secondary sources and the primary source is provided as well. The addition consists of a few words (10-15) on the page of an activist that has over 800, yet this is called POV-pushing, undue, etc. I almost initiated a procedure here but I felt that the matter was solved, the two users being unable to engage meaningfully on the talk page, consistently falling back on their request for "context", because the proposed addition is considered to be in itself a political statement which could have consequences outside of wikipedia. If need be I can of course provide diffs and attempt to detail the debate a bit more. Fa suisse (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fa Suisse:Even if you're right, don't edit war. You have just narrowly escaped a block, only because I opted to full protect the page. Do not break WP:3RR. At any rate, this board does not solve content issues. What it seems like is needed at this point is either formal dispute resolution, or for someone to create a neutrally worded WP:RFC on the subject. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the decision was wise (as to my intentions, I was not planning on reverting any further). The discussion is still proceeding on the talk page and we'll see if this needs formal dispute resolution or a RFC. Thank you. Fa suisse (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gd123lbp and Alex Jones

    (non-admin closure) Blocked from editing the applicable pages for 1 week. Darkknight2149 04:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Gd123lbp has been complaining about how unfairly Wikipedia treats Alex Jones,[235][236][237] which is fine; with 10 million monthly visits to InfoWars, a few of them showing up on Wikipedia to complain is inevitable. However, despite there being a clear consensus against him on the article talk page, he has been edit warring to remove sourced material from the article.[238][239][240] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They have now said that Guys posting a link to this is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    2a00:23c5:bb05:9500:24c0:2e5f:7187:6ad has been blocked for 2 weeks for making legal threats by Orangemike. Kris Weston has been semi-protected for 1 week by Deepfriedokra (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 20:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I recently reverted an edit by 2A00:23C5:BB05:9500:24C0:2E5F:7187:6AD on the Kris Weston page (this edit in particular) due to it being an unreferenced change to a BLP article. I gave them a level 1 notice for an unreferenced BLP addition. They shortly after posted on my talk page seeming to believe I represent Wikipedia/WMF and threatening legal action. I then responded stating that I do not work for WMF, nor represent Wikipedia, and attempted to give them advice on what to do. I'm not quite sure if this was the right thing to do in terms of responding, however I attempted to be as helpful as possible in regards to the issue. I've asked on IRC to talk to an administrator and was recommended to post about this here, which I was wishing to avoid making it public however I don't quite see a quieter route for this. 0qd (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, the IP might well be the article's subject; Kris Weston has mentioned his autism diagnosis widely on social media and his own website, so I can understand why they might be upset even though you technically did the right thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more edits from the same /64 range, all of them to Kris Weston except for the post on your page, 0qd. Contributions here. Note especially this lovely edit. I have blocked 2A00:23C5:BB05:9500::/64 for two weeks for personal attacks. Perhaps another admin wishes to block them for longer for legal threats; I don't have much taste for it myself. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you for the assistance. I'll hold off on archiving the post on my talk page until this discussion is closed; the post is a tad out of place. 0qd (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added an NLT block as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note this edit. I think that semi protection is needed for the article and talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm I reading this right? Threat over removing "autistic"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy has been at it since 2005 apparently: [241]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's arelief. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issues with a user

    Hi,

    Please let me appeal to your tolerance if this is posted in the wrong place. I joined Wikipedia yesterday and was almost immediately threatened with a ban by a Celestina007 who has continued to be abusive since then, both on my talk page and on other pages, including purposefully misrepresenting my answer to a question she put to me and telling other editors "not to bother" investigating my request for help at the Teahouse. I’m not so concerned about editing the article in question, some Wikipedians have explained the process around that to me and that’s fine but given that she’s been following me around the site I’m actually now worried about posting or editing anywhere and feel effectively bullied off the site. Could someone take a look at this for me please?

    Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemian Alchemyst (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • In this diff you competely & significantly overhauled an article “List of occultists” I reverted your edit & rather than discuss your proposed changes in the talk page of the article you undid my revert & labeled me a “vandal” as can be observed here. Now In this diff Ian.thomson told you the same thing I told you earlier which was, for such bold changes discussing it in the talk page of the article is good practice. Then in this diff here you cast aspersions by insinuating that Aciram is a sockpuppet of mine with 0 proof to substantiate that. You proceed to go to the TEAHOUSE to attack my character as seen here. I’m afraid defending myself isn’t stalking you. In that same TEAHOUSE you were told the same thing every other editor remotely involved in this has been telling you, which is; seek consensus first at the TP of the article, simple! Furthermore please stop using your “expert editor on occultism” excuse to introduce WP:OR into the article & if you’d quit with the POV-PUSHING that wouldn’t be a bad idea as well. It’s never about what you know for a fact but rather what you can prove via WP:RS.Celestina007 22:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007 My first edit was my overhauling of List of occultists. Being new, I was unaware that overhauling an article was considered problematic for you. In my edit summary, I asked anyone reverting it to continue the discussion on the talk page. You undid it, I rolled it back, you undid it again and since then I have not touched that article. Your first interaction with me, which can be seen on my talk page, a few hours after I'd opened an account to contribute my learning, was to threaten me with a ban. There was no discussion, no explaining, just you on a power-trip, abusing a new user. I advised that I wanted another editor to check over my work. You asked me a question about whether I had any practical experience of the occult and when I answered yes but that that wasn't relevant to my edits you behaved appallingly, openly telling me that you hadn't bothered to read the rest of my detailed response but that you'd caught me out and that I was pushing POV. You know that that is a lie. After more of your abuse and power-tripping and because I didn't want to presume the time of Eggishorn who'd been kind enough to explain a few editorial matters to me and who also called you out for your aggression, I went to the Teahouse to ask if other users could help me to deal with you because I felt that if I made any further edits, anywhere on the site, your ego would go berserk again. You followed me there, said untrue things about our discussion and then told the people that I was turning to for help not to bother getting involved. You've left me no choice but to ask an admin for input. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia. I have a lot of learning in some areas that I'd like to share and I do not want you to continue stalking me and abusing me while I do that, in fact I do not want you to ever communicate with me again. You should read your own comments back to yourself in a spirit of honesty and feel ashamed of how you have behaved. Also, I am aware that if you've done this with me you'll have almost certainly done it with other users as well who won't now be editing because they've been bullied and abused from the minute they have started contributing. You have caused me to feel that this website is a hostile environment but I will do what I can to make sure I'm the last person you do that to. So, I would ask any admin to check over our contact with each other; let them see my talk page, my contributions at the Teahouse and on the List of occultists talk page. You've written the words that are there; I think you should be judged by them. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to do you, don’t just be disruptive. I’ve “watched” & “bookmarked” that page since 2017 & if you are going to up & make such drastic changes please propose them first at the talk page of the article. Simple! Quit dragging me. Celestina007 00:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said when I opened this complaint, none of this is about the article. I'm an intelligent person, once it was explained to me that there's something of an etiquette around major edits, I understood that and I've been using the talk page since then. This complaint is about your behaviour. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Luniaring.jpg
    Her ring, so red. - L
    As a point of order: Bohemian Alchemyst, before they even registered, attempted to discuss the issues with the article on the talk page and received no response. The idea that they came stomping in and whacked a great heap of changes in without attempting to engage is a herring so red it makes candy apples look dull. I also note that Celestina007 has yet to respond on the article talk except to accuse BA of socking, not apparently noticing the timestamps of the initial talk page post or BA's explicit acknowledgement that the IP comment was theirs before they registered. I don't honestly know what to make of this. There is nothing that should have resulted in immediate threats and it's all way out of proportion to an obvious good-faith attempt to contribute content and improve the project. BA could have done better but we tend to cut newbies that want to contribute some slack - that is what AGF says, after all. The lack of AGF that should be extended by experienced users is disappointing. This is certainly not how we should welcome subject-matter experts to the project, with templates and threats. At this point, however, there is nothing here that should result in administrative action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eggishorn, I have suggested to each a few hours ago that WP:ACADEME may help each to understand the other somewhat better. It deals with interactions between generalists and experts. Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm outdenting out of context. I hope to suggest to both parties and admins and others who taken action or interest in reports of this nature that a period of quiet reflection be taken by involved parties, with a view to quiet resolution away from this board. This feels like a WP:BRD that has escalated almost by accident. There is no long term problem here, just a flash in the pan (0.9 probability).
    I'd like to see olive branches held out by both Celestina007 and Bohemian Alchemyst to each other (probably on one or other editor's talk page, not here on this board in the harsh glare of other editors' opinions), and a quiet resolution of a situation which most assuredly ought never to have happened. I am making a conscious decision not to "A said, B said" here, but to make a firm suggestion of each of them standing away from this for at least 24 hours and then either approaching the other in spirit of working together and both discussing how to improve Wikipedia rather than sparking off each other.
    If that happens successfully please may I suggest that this be closed as "No action needed, issue resolved"?
    If it does not happen, certainly let whatever transpires here take its course after due consideration. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This entry made here at the talk page of that article by Desmay really summarizes what I think I have been trying to say. Perhaps I should be less tough next time in my approach but in the end I don’t think original research should be tolerated in any form by any editor even if they claim to be experts on the subject or “intelligent people”. Celestina007 11:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohd.maaz864

    BLOCKED
    User has been indeff'd. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I am at something of a loss as to how to approach Mohd.maaz864 (talk · contribs). This user is a relatively infrequent editor who has a somewhat abrasive and disruptive editing style that I have not been able to address. I previously gave them a warning at their talk page (User_talk:Mohd.maaz864#Hi), which describes some of the problematic and somewhat off-putting behaviors that this editor has engaged in. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about (though essentially every edit that they've made is in this style):

    • Talk:Al_Jazeera#The_Guardian®'s_report_on_a_memo ([242], I would have quoted it but it's very long)
    • User_talk:Aroma_Stylish#Final_warning (same)
    • At least somewhat disruptive edit summaries:
      • [243] edit summary: Undid revision 970463345 by PedroLucasDBr (talk): “Unconstructive[sic]” how? Don't be impetuous because of your WP:UAL. I didn't mention the relevant docs owing to an advice of much-senior editor but here they are, chronologically: MOS:RETAIN, 2nd para in WP:MOS, and WP:GLOBAL. If you can't fix any of my lapses, please don't break!
      • [244] edit summary Undid revision 970593489 by Marko67efc (talk): Welcome to Wikipedia, "dear"! Regardless of whether you happened to just watch the rerun of that documentary on AJE a while ago or something else motivated you to know more about him, but what you've done is called vandalism here. Hopefully, you'll stay. ("Welcome to Wikipedia, "dear"!"?)
      • [245]: Undid revision 969019342 by Aroma Stylish (talk): Spelled-out my tags questionable to the extent of any reason! There's no compulsion to open talk-page to merely "discuss" inline tagging if they're succinctly explained in "reason=" parameters and even duly-linked to their respective policies for oblivious editors in edit-summaries — especially when they're. Cease-and-desist from acting obtuse and vandalism. Shabbat Shalom!'

    These are just the first diffs I came across; there are many more. I simply cannot make sense of what's going on here. A large portion of the edits this editor makes is varying levels of disruptive and the editor doesn't seem to get it, though they're likely here in good faith. The user's been previously blocked by Bishonen for edit warring against multiple editors, rudeness, aggression. Any advice? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Their various responses to my block in 2018 were just as strange as the diffs you found, L235. I would have thought by now they'd either have learned better or been indeffed, frankly. Here's their unblock request (warning, may cause dehydration) and here one of their responses to me. Since it was in 2018, it doesn't matter. Just saying that what you found is not a new thing, Kevin. As for their being here in good faith, welll... is that your honest opinion, or just your Wikipoliteness? Bishonen | tålk 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    My advice involves opening their userpage, selecting your block tool of choice, entering a reason like WP:NPA, WP:NOTHERE/WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, or WP:CIR, and pressing the go button. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I agree too. Indef'd for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Thanks all. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And thanks for shutting down talk page access. That screed was the icing on top of the lovely cake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    serious issue with another user

    here is the story:

    basing on the experience I acquired about sources, writing a gay porn bio myself, I decided to get rid of all the not notable gay porn bio (there are so many, believe me). So, I started reading them, checking out the sources and when I found one that wasn't notable I put an advice on my page AlejandroLeloirRey, I left a message on the article's discussion page to ask if people had more sources and I looked for more sources myself. if after one or two weeks I couldn't find any significant source I nominated the article.

    Anyone can see the result of my job here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=AlejandroLeloirRey&max=&startdate=&altname=%20your%20AFD%20stats

    everything was fine until @Gleeanon409:: entered into a discussion, since then he kept following me around accusing me to nominate with out doing WP:BEFORE. I asked him to check my statistics to see that my nomination are pretty reasonable but most of all I asked him, politely, 1000 times, to argue the sources and not me. obviously he kept accusing me in any discussion (more than once per discussion). the first time he accused me I also left a message in his talk page to ask him if he wanted to help me out to find better sources for articles before I nominated them but he never answered. I asked for help on the teahouse but no one could help me.

    So, how does this story end?

    I can't simply stand his personal attacks no more, so I have insulted him. for this reason I will be banned from wikipedia. obviously, for our community telling a person he is an A.H. or to F.O. is way worst that stalking a person for weeks pulling his never to the point he is ok with being kicked out as long as he gets rid of its stalker. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just saw that an admin here said he (Gleeanon409) should have been blocked for edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#More_eyes_needed_on_Patrisse_Cullors --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) @AlejandroLeloirRey: You're required (see above) to notify other editors you're starting discussions about at WP:ANI. Another editor has done this for you since you forgot, but keep it mind for future reference. You should also try and provide WP:DIFFS which are examples of the types of behavior you're reporting. "Diffs" are like evidence and if you don't provide any evidence, administrators are not going to go digging through Wikipedia to find it for you. You should also probably take a look at WP:AOHA because someone examining your contributions is not automatically considered "stalking" or "harassment". That's another reason for providing diffs; they will help administrators see if this is really a case of WP:HARASS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly: thank you for helping me. examining my contribution is fine as long as u do not keep accusing me of the same things again and again in different discussions, especially after other editors told u that my behavior is perfectly fine. I will look for some examples. thank you again. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly: ok, these are the first examples I could find. as u can see I explained him why his accusation are wrong more than once and I asked him to argue the article not me more than once:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_Barry
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raging_Stallion_Studios
    and this is the last one (notice that in this last one i offended him and swear at him and because of this I had a warning so I deleted my messages). As u can see Gene93k told him to discuss the article and not me also:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Kincaid
    I don't care for having him blocked but please, I need an administrator to tell him that what he is doing is not good and he needs to change his behavior: argue the article nominated not the nominator. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I encountered the op through watchlisting the LGBTQ article alerts, specifically their string of AfD’s targeting gay male porn actors. As I’ve previously stated elsewhere I have no issue with removing the ones that no longer arise to Wikipedia standards, bravo for eliminating crap articles. But their goal seems to be to systematically remove them all or at least as many as possible. (See their talk page for evidence of this.)

    Where I sharply disagree, is with the OP’s tactics where they apparently don’t follow WP:Before—specifically searching for and identifying sourcing—and treating AfD as clean-up. Also their being combative towards those they disagree including being rude and dismissive, and repeatedly violating WP:AGF all while arguing and repeatedly filling the discussion with WP:TL/DR walls of text frustrating the entire process. Additionally they exhibit a breathtaking inability to use logic in their targets: The world’s largest gay porn production company Raging Stallion (RS), a principal of RS and Hall of Fame winner, another principal of RS and Hall of Fame/Wall of Fame winner, another Hall of Fame/Wall of Fame winner, another Hall of Fame winner. Much of this seems to be an odd vendetta against Wikipedia for trying to delete Carlo Masi.

    pinging: @Kbabej:, @Ipsign:, @Chris7179:, @Toughpigs:, @Bearian:, @GoldenAgeFan1:, @Britishfinance:, @Cardiffbear88:, @Sharouser:, @QueerEcofeminist:, @Theroadislong:, @Kleuske:, @Sulfurboy:. Please feel free to comment.

    WP:VOTESTACK???? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a discussion, not a vote. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Canvassing ???? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this bundle of edits of particular interest. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since porn bio has been deprecated things like being in the Hall of Fame of whatever prize doesn't prove notability itself anymore, this is why I don't take that parameter into account when I nominate an article (I told him 1000 times). About the text wall, we both showed to have that problem more than once. I am trying to do it less (it is not an excuse but English is not my mother tongue). about my swearing and offending message I got a warning for those, I removed them and I admitted I wrote those message right from the begging (see above). pluse, I wrote them today, when I lost my nerve and finally lost control. I know I shouldn't have and I apology for that but I have been stalked for quite a while now. moreover, 77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April (about 10 nom per month) should convince anybody to stop following me around accusing me of making disruptive AFD nominations. For all the other accusation I can't see where they come from. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unclear as to why I was pinged to this. Granted, I've had to take a leave of absence due to working in a field involving the COVID outbreak, so I might have totally forgotten how I'm involved. If you could clarify my involvement or what level of comment you need from me, that would be greatly appreciated. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gleeanon409, Such mass pings are not acceptable as it is canvasing, usually I would have refrained from commenting on such pings but here I will point out to few issues I feel of some importance.
    • I was part of the Carlo Masi afd debate and I still think that article should be deleted as it was created with clear promotional intent and by the user who has connections with the subject of the article. they have confessed it on their talk page too. the link is here Special:Diff/951412768
    • Edits on 8 wikiprojects all of them only on the Carlo Masi Page.
    • Blocked on commons and itwiki for socking. [[254]] sock was created to upload Carlo Masi's photos.
    • Here, they started series of AFD's in revange of afd of Carlo Masi.
    • They are only editing pages related to pornbio's and nothing else.
    • Definitely the language they are using on talkpages and their continuous haunting to anyone coming in their way is not acceptable at all.
    • All of it forces me to suggest at least a topic ban on the concerned user and for a cross-wiki promotional activity, ideally they should be globally blocked. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pinged those who seemed to have interacted with the OP, across the less than ten AfDs at issue, I felt it would be votestacking to only invite those on one side.
    • I find your report compelling and certainly hope someone can find a path forward. A global block might be appropriate given the interactions I’ve seen. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gleeanon409's "stalking", as shown in Levivich's list of diffs above, is just commenting on three of Alejandro's AfD discussions, and chiding him for not following WP:BEFORE. Two of those AfD discussions (Rod Barry and Raging Stallion Studios) were closed as keep; the second one was even withdrawn by Alejandro. The third one (Tim Kincaid) also seems headed for Keep. It is possible to get a decent hit rate on AfD nominations and still make some mistakes. Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack.

    I believe that Alejandro is a bit zealous in wanting to delete as many gay porn bios as possible. He argues a lot with people voting Keep, and often refuses to accept other people's opinions on sources. (See WP:BLUDGEON.) I think that the process would be smoother, and get more positive results, if Alejandro would simply make his case for deletion in the nomination, and then allow the discussion to proceed without trying to dispute every Keep vote. If Alejandro could do that, and Gleeanon could participate in the discussion without making sarcastic comments about BEFORE, then the world would be peaceful once more. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Toughpigs: "Saying that Alejandro should do a BEFORE is not a personal attack" correct, when u say it once or twice not when u say it 1000 times in different discussions, especially after I showed u my stats that proves I do WP:BEFORE. u know I am right, I really expected more from u. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that once again Alejandro is WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and blowing this far out of proportion. As far as I can tell, Gleeanon criticized Alejandro a total of three times. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    not correct. I gave tree examples od discussions where Gleeanon409 criticized me for the same reason multiple times in each discussion... that doesn't sum up to three in any system. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In my interaction with Alejandro at the Raging Stallion AfD, I asked twice if a WP:BEFORE had been done, and Alejandro responded with "Is this a trial?" I think Toughpigs' suggestion for Alejandro allowing the discussions to proceed without bludgeoning other editors would be good advice to follow. Also, I reminded Alejandro in the Raging Stallion AfD not all gay porn bios are the same, and BEFORE should be completed on every AfD nomination at the very least. --Kbabej (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Please ping me if mentioning me or replying. I will not be watching this page. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kbabej: the conversation we had is here for everybody to read RS. I was being personally attacked by Gleeanon409 (as usual) and u started personally attacking me too. I had to explain my actions once over again (this is why I end up being accused of text walling) this is why at the end I told u that I was not on a trial. u drop it immediately, so I was (and I am) fine with u. As a personal note, I asked u politely to add the sources u found to the article but u and Gleeanon409 made a big fuss of it, like if I was asking who knows what. So at the end I added the sources myself (after asking u the permission), I asked u kindly to double check what I wrote as my english is not good and u never answered... that is not the best conversation u had. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, asking if you have done a BEFORE is not a personal attack. I would encourage you to read the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section on WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Asking if you've followed policy, which it certainly seemed you did not, is not a personal attack. As for you asking me "to add the sources u found to the article", that is not a requirement of AfD; as Gleeanon stated in that AfD discussion, only the existence of RS needs to be found, not that they have to appear in the article. I would encourage you to read WP:BEFORE, which states "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Kbabej (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kbabej: Asking me once is not a personal attack, asking me twice, after in the same discussion I was asked 10 times and I already gave a long answer is pretty much different. are we here to improve wikipedia? than if I find better sources I add them. Is that a requirement? may be it is not but if it improves an article I do it. the point is the fuss u and Gleeanon did about it. I asked you politely to do it, and u reacted like if I asked u to give me a kidney so I did it myself. the problem here is the attitude. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would politely suggest some introspection as to how you interact with other editors here. Before, in this very discussion, you stated "so I was (and I am) fine with u". Now you are saying "the problem here is the attitude." Nowhere, even once, in the Raging Stallion AfD, did I personally attack or make accusations against you. I simply reminded you about the steps for an AfD nomination and if they had been followed (which they obviously had not). Calling people "r*******", swearing, bludgeoning, and refusing to listen are not acceptable behavior on WP. --Kbabej (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am so tired of this way of reading in a distort way what I say and having to explain you again and again. No, u didn't personally attack me. No, I don't have an issue with u (this is why I reported here Gleanon and not u) and finally no, I didn't like ur attitude but that doesn't mean I couldn't handle it or that I automatically I have a problem with u. I believe u had a bad attitude in that situation, this is it, not a big deal. not a big issue, not a big problem, not a personal attack and not something I would report here. u simply reminded me the steps before AFD 2 times, after Gleanon reminded me 10 times and after I answered him about it 1000 times and spite my stats tells I am nominating reasonably... all in the same discussion, nevertheless, u left me alone after that discussion so I am fine with it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alejandro, a little over an hour ago, you said that you would stop bludgeoning the discussion, but here you are again. It seems like you can't help yourself. I think that this is a problem. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And one minute after I posted that, you changed the timestamp on your previous post to make it look like your promise to stop bludgeoning was posted after this. This is not good faith behavior. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    if u check u will see I have to make many changes when I write because my english is not that good and after I read what I posted I need to change it. I didn't change the timestamp, I simply added something to the post. if I changed the timestamp than it was not intentional. Since Gleeanon409 called u all to speak against me I became the subject od the discussion and if u are the person that people talk about it is hard not to answer, especially since my words are changed, misread and lies are told. that said, all of you are talking ill about me... accusing me of? nothing but bad nomination, even though my stats show i am a good nominator. why don't we speak about the reason I started this post? because of my stats Gleeanon409 has to stop accusing me of bad nominations and start talking about the articles I nominate not about me. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making this about you. You keep talking about your amazing 77% deletion rate, which is not impressive. It means that you're wrong about one out of four times, and since you tend to nominate a batch of about four articles at a time, that means you're getting something wrong pretty much every time you make a batch of nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toughpigs: ok, let's make this obvious. do u honestly think I am making disruptive AFD nominations? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that your bludgeoning behavior indicates that you are very personally invested in deleting as many gay porn articles as you can, and your insistence on having the last word makes it difficult to work with you as a colleague. This report that you made at ANI, turning three instances into "1000" and trying to get Gleeanon sanctioned, is certainly disruptive. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toughpigs: I was 99% sure u are unable to openly lie. so, if I am not making disruptive AFD nominations why Gleeanon keeps accusing me of doing so? about the number of times u r confused: those are 3 EXAMPLES (it is not exhaustive) where he repetitively (more than once each time) accuses me of disruptive AFD nominations. that doesn't sum up to 3 in any system. I know u r an honest person and u gave me good advice in the past and I don't forget it, I only want him to speak about the articles I nominate and not about me. plus, yes, I want to delete as many not notable porn bio as possible. I am not nominating bios of death people because i feel weird about it but I wish someone did the same I am doing with straight porn also and with any other nice. what I would like to achieve is an academically speaking reliable wikipedia and to do that we need articles to have reasonable sources. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm not getting through. Yes, I believe that your behavior is disruptive. Yes, this problem is about you. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toughpigs: I see. than I really should be banned from wikipedia. people here should help improving wikipedia not being disruptive like me. u will see, an admin will read all this and I will be banned at the end. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toughpigs: just before I get banned: if one out of 10 articles on gay porn bio are not notable (10% is a lot but if I assume less my argument is even stronger). u said that out of 4 nomination 3 were good and 1 was bad (u r counting as bad also the not consensus but still). this rate with a random nomination has a probability of 4!/3!1! (1/10)^3(9/10) = 0.36%, now I did this 10 times in a raw, so the probability that i nominated randomly is of 0.0036^10 (this is an approssimation correct calculus is 40!/30!10! 0.1^30 0.9^10 ... so, math says: no, I didn't nominate randomly. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is interesting, here you are displaying advanced mathematical equations and Carlo Masi—the article that seems to be the heart of all this—is a mathematician. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ah, ah, ha advanced mathematics? this is something that any Italian would do in high school. it is called a binomial distribution and it gives u the probability of having m-good results out of n proves when the probability of one good result is P... no, this is not advanced math. at least in italy this is average education in math (liceo scientifico=scientific high school) --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    ok, I don't know how this works but, should I ping people who can talk positively for me or just let the facts and the examples here above talk for me?. is this a voting process? Once again, "77.4% match rate over 40 noms since April" proves I am not making disruptive AFD nominations (why are we even still talking about it?). Could I have done a better job sometimes? of course, like anybody else but this doesn't mean I didn't do WP:BEFORE. do I argue too much with people (text walls)? yes, just like Gleeanon409 does. But at the end of the day we are not here to decide if I am perfect because I am not, we are here to let know Gleeanon409 that he should argue the article nominated not the nominator and stop accusing me of something I obviously don't do, just to pull my nerve and provoke a reaction from me to make me kick out of wikipedia. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment - I believe I’ve been pinged as I have contributed to some of these AfD debates. I have some sympathy for AlejandroLeloirRey because I also nominate a number of articles for AfD, and there are some editors who throw around WP:BEFORE whenever they find any source. Highly frustrating. And I can see why they find some of Gleeanon409‘s comments aggravating. However, its undeniable that AlejandroLeloirRey has made some poor nomination choices, and have bludgeoned editors who make Keep votes. This needs to stop. And there needs to be some action taken against this comment. Saying that an article looks like it’s been written by a “r******* 10 year old” is grossly offensive language. However the editor thinks he’s been provoked, this offensive language is completely unacceptable and I hope some action will be taken against this comment. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You left out the part in that diff where he calls Gleanon, who showed admirable restraint, about every other possible swear word. Setting aside the stalking charge, which seems to be false, the incivility here is stunning. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree ThatMontrealIP. We all know that AfD can get heated at times but the level of incivility and bludgeoning from this one editor is completely unacceptable and action needs to be taken. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Toughpigs: told me I am WP:BLUDGEONing this "discussion" (is this even a discussion? I thought an admin would have looked at the examples I gave, listened Gleanon and took a decision) so I am not going to answer anymore to the army that Gleanon called to defend him here. even though, after the army call I become the subject of the discussion so it is hard not to speak. let me just ask the adimin to look at my stats to decide if I was making disruptive AFD nominations and than to look how many times I had to defend myself from this accusation by Gleanon. thank you.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • AlejandroLeloirRey I can’t speak for others but I’m certainly not part of Gleeanon409’s “army” - from what I can see, each editor has made an independent comment based on previous AfD interactions. Sadly your comments in this thread alone, and your disgusting language used against Gleeanon, seem to have proven the point. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cardiffbear88: I had more than 20 gay porn bio deleted, of course I have many opponents. I also created a porn bio which gave me even more opponents. what have I been accuded of so far? lets' summaries it: 1) nominating as a revenge because carlo masi was nominated. fist, can u read my mind and know what is in there? i explained more than once I want to get rid of all the not notable bios as I wish wikipedia to be academically reliable and that is possible only having a certain type of sourcing. 2)creating carlo masi profile as a promotion and to be connected to him: i send him some messages on FB months ago before creating his bio just to be sure he didn't mind and he answered. is that being connected? lol. promotion? that article has the best sources in the world and each thing reported is taken from a very very very reliable source. we have reliable sources deep covering him for years from porn to theater to university to his weddings. 3) WP:BLUDGEONing: when a message is directed to you is still WP:BLUDGEONing if u answer? plus, my opponent does it just as much as i do it... if not more. 4) the most important: making disruptive AFD nominations: my stats tell u I am not doing it. now, can we talk of how much my opponent kept accusing me of making disruptive AFD nominations in any discussion repetitively ? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AlejandroLeloirRey none of this reply actually addresses any of the points that editors have tried to make. The notability of various gay porn bios is actually irrelevant in all of this. What’s frustrating and upsetting is your grossly offensive language towards Gleeanon and your aggressive bludgeoning of anyone who disagrees with you. Can I please politely suggest that you try to take this feedback on board, take a deep breath and then move on with your life because this discussion isn’t going anywhere. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate ur message. I explained that for my aggressive messages I was punished with a warning and I removed them, I explained I wrote those message when I finally lost the grip after asking Gleeanon to stop for the 1000 time. Could u give me an example of me being aggressive apart form those specific message we just addressed? so far so many people said a lot of things about me but I am the only one who actually gave a link where u can double check that what I said it is true. about bludgeoning I will try to let people tell their opinion without interfering but when I will be nominated I will answer as I believe it is fair to answer if they are talking with or about u. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I have to give it back?   // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Alright, if you're looking for uninvolved editors to voice an opinion, allow me. I've been very active at AfD over the years, and it is not an area of Wikipedia for the thin-skinned. People are going to disagree with you. People will disagree with you for stupid reasons. People will vote based on the most superficial of glances at the article. (And it's NOTHING like it was back around 2005-2008, when Keep closes based on "It's useful," "It does no harm" were common.) Since it's common for people to look out for AfDs in areas in which they're interested, if you go after a particular topic, you're going to see some of the same people -- for instance, I'm alerted with every ice hockey- and Massachusetts-related AfD. Heck, at any time in the last decade, an ice hockey AfD might get me, DJSasso, Resolute, Patken4, GoodDay, Alaney4K and a relatively small handful of editors commenting.

      That Gleeanon shows up for AfDs in a topic area s/he's interested in is not some personal attack on you. Even if it was, it wouldn't have warranted that vicious attack. Your best move right now is not to do what you've been doing in those AfDs -- and what you're doing here -- and argue out every comment and every point. It's to say, simply, "I'm sorry, I was out of line, and I won't do it again." Full stop. Ravenswing 05:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravenswing: for my swearing messages where I called him name I'm sorry, I was out of line, and I won't do it again. For everything else I am fully right. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not 100% sure of what that means but I think u r telling me that this debate is concluded and I should move on. also that if i keep writing it will be considered disruptive. as i am sure u r giving me advises for my good I will take it and move on and stop answering. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It appears that I am late to the party. Personally, I think some of the actors nominated are notable, but it's hard to find reliable sources, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleging chronic false statements by an administrator

    IP blocked per boomerang. That is all. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'd like to dispute a months-long series of statements and actions by administrator Sergecross73. It may be possible to glean the essence of the controversy from the diff for his talk page comment at this link. Before going farther, I'm wondering whether there's a way to prevent him from blocking me or closing my talk page discussions while the dispute is ongoing, and I'd like to be sure this forum is an appropriate place for it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The easy fix is for you to create an account, agree to only edit from that account, so you can be officially blocked by a uninvolved admin, for the necessary time until you stop disruption. Do you have any other advice on how to stop your from edit-warring from a dynamic IP other than semi-protection?AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, I’ve repeatedly protected the primary page that this WP:SPA edits because every time the page is unprotected, they edit war or edit against consensus. And every time, it stops until the page protection ends, when they start it up again. Also, the IP refuses to use our edit request system. And it’s been going on for over a year now. And they didn’t notify me if this conversation on my talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Maddie1243 and Teardropcity

    Both warned {{uw-agf-sock}}. Both blocked 48h by Cullen328. Cabayi (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Two users Maddie1243 and Teardropcity have been vandalising pages related to The Monkees. Since they both share the same editing patterns, they are very likely the same person. While neither of them have a very high edit count, I think that keeping a close watch on both users would certainly pay off. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Actually, I blocked both of them. If any other administrator thinks longer blocks of one or both are justified, please go ahead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have indeffed as VOA's. There may be more. I SP'd Michael Mesmith. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by Raltor

    (non-admin closure) Vandalism-only account. Indeffed accordingly. Darkknight2149 04:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Raltor recently vandalized Dian Fossey with this vulgar sexist edit[255]. Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this. I figured that this wasn't persistent vandalism. ~ HAL333 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not persistent, but a report at WP:AIV would have sufficed. Indef'd for vandal only, though NOTHERE could apply. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. ~ HAL333 16:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Go Into The Light

    I'm not sure what to do in this situation, but this (new?) user who appears to be a WP:SPA seems bound and determined to derail the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination). Perhaps an uninvolved admin can look at the situation and decide whether there might be some way to engage with this particular account that would allow things to become more... wieldy? I note that a query into a possible conflict of interest was removed from his talkpage a few days ago with a rather snide edit summary: [256]. jps (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Inferring from the talk page of the article, this could be the subject itself desperately attempting to keep his own bio here. It was suggested that the good doctor was the one who originally posted the material here so it wouldn't be an unreasonable guess. That being said, we'd need an SPI case page to compare the two before leveling accusations. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that he hit a disallow edit filter (LTA 1053) twice. Any idea as to why? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He used the word 'moron', which the filter blocks. Number 57 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is Dr. Bechly. It is more likely someone who is active in ID controversies of the Denyse O'Leary sort. That's as far as I'm willing to speculate, however. jps (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A 2011 source describes him as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart. As discussed at Talk:Günter Bechly#Career change, he resigned his job at SMNS in December 2016, and began work as senior scientist for the Discovery Institute’s Biologic Institute, senior fellow with DI's Center for Science and Culture, and at some stage [founded?] an Austrian offshoot of the DI. . . dave souza, talk 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It should be noted that this very page contains the subject's denial of the accusation that he created it, and he seems to have been well aware of concerns like Wikipedia not being an autobiography service, as he then proceeded to try and edit it... You wouldn't want to burn in hell for all eternity, after all."[257] -- Go Into The Light 11:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
    • "The article was created by a colleague at our museum and subsequently expanded by myself"[258] --Dr. Günter Bechly 11:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Here is the edit by "a colleague at our museum":[259]

    --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Go Into The Light: The evidence that raised the suspicion about a conflict of interest is the contributions history which is public information. Single purpose account is a related essay. Another useful essay is WP:BLUDGEON: the important is that your "keep" vote entry be clear and ideally based on policy-based arguments. While it's possible to reply on other parts, it's not very useful to fill the page with repetitive text and accusations for instance. While you shouldn't edit your previous messages where other editors already replied, it would be best to revise your own "keep" section (<s>...</s> may be used to strike parts when doing corrections) and to let the process run its course. As for religious advocacy itself, WP is not the place for it and I'm sure that threats of hellfire will not convince them to ignore English-WP policy... —PaleoNeonate – 17:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not religious in the slightest, I fear you have totally misread that hellfire comment, which was sarcasm. Why I came to Wikipedia is already part of that public record, as is my denial of having any kind of conflict of interest at all. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for block

    Aspersions at ARS

    User is continuing to re-insert personal attacks at WP:RSL#Lessons learnt after they were reverted by me. Another editor reverted my removal and advised me to simply redact the offending portion, which I did, but 7&6 once again undid my redaction to reinsert the personal attack. In this case, the attack was the casting of aspersions on "the usual suspects" who showed up to "stealth delete" an article. This was an assumption of bad faith on all the participants of the various AFDs (three in total I think; the actual situation was a bit complicated).

    This further goes against the general principle of focusing on content (or even process) rather than contributors. And it's not in line with the ostensible purpose of the project page it was posted on, which is for improving articles at AFD to the point where they can be kept, not for kvetching about an outcome you missed and didn't like.

    I'm requesting that the attack (and yes, it's an attack) be removed, and for this to be kept in mind in case there are any similar problems in the future. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple statement of facts with appropriate links. This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process. No one is mentioned by name.
    If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or it could be argued it is a good thing about the process as it allows fresh views/consensus to emerge. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't make WP:POINTy comments and not own up to it when challenged. I don't even care about the underlying issue but all this pointless inflammatory comments you make like "agenda fulfilled" and "stealth deletion" is what gives ARS a bad rap. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: It only works one way - for deletion. You can put an article up for deletion often- I have seen 12 AfDs on one article. However one recreation of an article brings a G4. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But 7&6=13 was talking of deletion, so recreation isn't the issue here. On the other hand, G4 won't apply if the article is significantly different. The bar for deletion is pretty high usually, and that "no consensus" defaults to "keep" increases the sense of that and is contrasts weirdly with the spirit of BURDEN etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling people the usual suspects to push an agenda in secret is a personal attack. You have now added yet another with these edits, alleging that people are trying to act in secret. As I attempted to do with the redaction, a simple notification of the events is one thing, but assigning nefarious motives to the "usual suspects" is not. Please revert your personal attacks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what happened. The article Yoast was nearly a SNOW keep with lots of participation. Then someone moved the page to Moz (marketing software). Followed by a new AfD just months later with a unanimous delete result by a small number of participants (no Keep voters from the original AfD were there). It is strange. How did this happen? It's not like consensus would change that radically in a few months, or so many Keep voters would suddenly all loose interest in participating. -- GreenC 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @GreenC: Trying to figure out what happened is fine. We also have WP:DRV for reviewing in case something went wrong. The personal attacks are not fine, and this is why I brought this up, not the odd sequence of deletion/move events. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is a big nothingburger, in that there is not a PA to be seen. It does seem like Deacon Vorbis has been edit warring over the comment in question so perhaps a boomerang is warranted. DV made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Additionally, GreenC is correct about the article's somewhat-stealthy deletion. If it walks like a duck... Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, I made 2 full reverts and one redaction; I undid a third revert of my own to err on the safe side of 3RR (which frankly should be granted a little leeway for personal attacks anyway, but that's another story). Accusing people of behaving stealthily and to promote an agenda is a personal attack. Canvassing for like-minded editors at WP:RSL for a purely behavioral issue as 7&6 did is problematic as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not accurate, I listed four times you refactored. Your fifth edit was a refactor of your fourth refactor of the comment, after you were warned for edit warring. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't get to count a fourth when someone immediately reverts himself. I reverted the fourth one of those immediately, before any warning was made (check the timestamps, I reverted myself 13 minutes before any warning was left, and even if it were after, that's still usually good enough). That leaves me at 2 or 3 (depending on how you count the {{rpa}}, which was even advised in place of a full revert). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. I don't see much different from something like I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article....I WP:AGF and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant, or No thanks to you and this wasted exercise, Keep your mask on and your head down (while at the same time reprimanding another editor for an ad hominem). All in a days work. ——Serial 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure why you'd "meh" after finding more examples of similar problems. Maybe some sort of (partial) topic ban? Just spitballing, maybe something like "no personal comments at ARS/AFD/other deletion-related venues"? This would allow 7&6 to still list articles at RSL and participate in AFDs as long as they don't get personal about anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I talked about process only.
    There was no WP:PA.
    Unlike User:Deacon Vorbis who has been blocked three times for them, and know what he is talking about.
    He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress. Bad policy; slippery slope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Statements like He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress are uncivil. That you don't understand that is mind-boggling. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Levivich That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you. So my mind is not boggled. But I am bothered by the policy implications. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the "worst" part is that you make your uncivil comments, which are sometimes outright personal attacks, in separate edits, and you just keep on compounding them. These are nine of your most-recent fifteen edits:
    1. "Stealth deletion is for real. "
    2. "The usual suspects voted delete."
    3. "An agenda fulfilled."
    4. Restoring the above, twice (with an assist)
    5. Describing the above as "Simple statement of facts" and asserting "This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process.", while excusing it because "No one is mentioned by name.", and then ending with "If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella." - You're contradicting yourself: are you exposing a secret, or was no one mentioned by name, or does the shoe fit?
    6. "There are those who want this series of transactions kept secret. The Star Chamber will brook no contempt."
    7. "He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress."
    8. "That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you." - That doesn't even make sense. I'm complaining about things you've already said; that's not prior restraint (which is stopping someone from saying something before they say it). It would be good if you exercised some restraint though, prior or otherwise. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, let's just talk about one behavior: accusing noms/delete !voters of, e.g., not understanding policy, failing to perform a WP:BEFORE search, etc.:

    1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall
      • 7&6: "No compliance with WP:Before."
      • DF: "Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion."
      • LB: "obviously a WP:BEFORE fail. WP:TROUT to nominator"
      • 7&6 again: "Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers"
    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot)
      • AD: "The nomination seems to misrepresent the content of the article." and "The fact that this is not understood, further demonstrates the invalidity of the nomination." which aren't uncivil or personal attacks, but are still comments directed at the nominator.
      • 7&6: "And there is an obvious and obdurate refusal to read the sources and the article and references, so that WP:Before is being flaunted."
    3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III (I'm thinking of changing my username to this)
      • 7&6: "Proving WP:Before ignored."
      • LB: "Strong Keep WP:SNOW WP:PILEON Ouch! WP:BEFORE yields a notable WWII Ace." (If a pile on is "ouch" then why are you piling on?)
    4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination)
      • 7&6 (emphasis in the original): "WP:SNOW Wikipedia:Speedy keep broke a 55 year old record of the Nigerian Airforce to become THE FIRST NIGERIAN FEMALE COMBAT HELICOPTER PILOT ... Given the present sourcing, this AFD is a travesty. Clearly no compliance (pretended or otherwise) with WP:Before."
      • 7&6 again: "But it won't satisfy the die hards. We will have to agree to disagree, and let the process play out. She should be in WP:ITN as a recent death, but we have this wasteful sideshow going on."
      • AD: "So, [delete !voter's] case rests on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of WP:1E. Essentially it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a veneer of flawed Wikilawyering."
    5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory
      • 7&6: "Rather than doing the AFD wrecking bar/crowbar — AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG — you might try a different tool I suggest that this would be a good candidate for this week's article for improvement. Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers."
      • 7&6 again: "Proving there was no compliance with WP:Before. The article creator's WP:SPA status is now an irrelevancy. Argumentum ad hominen fallacy."
    6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room
      • 7&6: Same stock line about TAFI, "misbegotten nomination", etc.
      • 7&6 again: "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before."
      • 7&6 again: "And not even pretended compliance with WP:Before."
    7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination)
      • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
    8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia)
      • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
    9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey
      • LB: "[delete !voter] was canvassed to this AfD." - this is an amazing statement, given that in every one of the AFDs on this list (and many more), LB, 7&6 and DF voted !keep, often joined by other ARS members.
      • DF: "you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this" <-- that's what ARS does!
    10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building
      • LB: "I always find it to be bad form for a nominator to constantly diminish the article during an AfD. Please stop. and allow the AfD process to complete. It is clear that you favor deletion so diminishing the article to favor your desired outcome is not good form."
    11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary S. Cox
      • The closer, Spartaz wrote, "I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight."
      • Followed by User talk:Spartaz#Cary S. Cox:
        • LB: "You had a disturbing statement in your close. ... I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. ... I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, ... If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD."
        • 7&6: "Oh yes. You've admitted your bias. WP:ARS takes articles and improves them. ... You need to rethink your bias. ... I've been the subject of personal attacks, which claimed I "always" voted Keep. I know that isn't true. ... But if you are thinking about discounting my votes in the future, you might bear that in mind. You ought to choose your jockeys, not just your horses. ... And there are those who habitually start WP:AFDs without an effective WP:Before; half-assed observance (I WP:AGF) is often found. You need a list? In short, it is easier to delete articles than it is to create and improve them. There are those who actually brag about their body count of deleted articles."

    These are just some examples, and I'll note they have much in common. What's my point? My point is this ANI report has merit. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You should write some articles. You have only written a few and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. You should look closer at the McWhorter article. I WP:HEYd that article. After that I wrote about three articles for other aces - and other notable articles about organizations related. What have you done? Following and poking people and gathering diffs of nothing - sending up walls of text. I wrote these articles after McWhorter was improved... Cecil G. Foster, Clayton Kelly Gross, Dean S. Laird, Distinguished Flying Cross Society, American Fighter Aces Association, and an article about an acrobat Andrii Bondarenko. Also after my talk page discussion with Spartaz, they had this to say about me. You really should edit the encyclopedia instead of following and lurking around the drama boards. You have also AfDd some articles that I started out of spite. Honestly...edit the encyclopedia...look at my edits from the last two days, I was on vacation last week so my productivity fell off, but since then I have been an editing fool. One might say....as was discussed in this ANI about you...that you are tendentious. Now lets get to work on the encyclopedia Lev. And quit following and harassing, and typing walls of texts. This is going nowhere. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. Considering how frequently I see Levivich's edits on my watchlist on a variety of topics (which often disheartens me, because their arguments are typically civil and well-written and in complete disagreement with my stance politically), I am very puzzled how one can claim they go on wikipedia solely to harass ARS editors. The rest of this comment is a pretty unambiguous PA. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably thinking of the many times he's done this in the past such as at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes in the hatted section. Dream Focus 04:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That AFD follows the same pattern as the previous 11:
    12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes (2nd nomination)
    • LB: "... misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious ..."
    • 7&6: "Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over. The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that. Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books" - I discussed every source in the nom statement.
    • 7&6 again: "Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises." Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You did nominate an article for deletion the same day the previous AFD closed as KEEP. Most people in the AFD who said KEEP this second time around weren't from the ARS. That should be taken into context with their statements there. Dream Focus 04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      13. The first AFD followed the same ARS pattern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts, with 7&6 writing, "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before". Here's another more recent one:
      14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta - Stuff 7&6 said:
      • "WP:Speedy Keep WP:Snow Keep Keep Lots of sources here and there. Meets WP:GNG. This is an example of language-based systemic bias in Wikipedia. No compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve."
      • This exchange is great:
        • Cavalryman (the nom): "As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources? ..."
        • 7&6: "These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. ..."
        • Cavalryman: "That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission?"
        • 7&6: "Do you have anything that says they aren't?" <-- I mean, seriously? It's notable because you don't have any sources that says it's not notable? What do you call that kind of an argument? "Ninedentious"? "Elevendentious"? I don't remember. Back to stuff 7&6 said:
      • To a delete !voter: "I assume you read the article, but maybe not."
      • To Cavalryman, another statement that shows incredible lack of self-awareness: "You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis. Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that."
      • "That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice. If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up."
      • "As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Wikipedia systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer."
      • "Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur"
      • To another delete !voter: "Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself. You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them. Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice"
      • "CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise"
      That's all from just one AFD in July. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      One take-home message is that if a delete voter participated in a previous AfD that's bad and wrong. If they didn't, that's also bad and wrong. Reyk YO! 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Out of context. What I said was: "KEEP Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines, and the article has been massively expanded since the time it was nominated for deletion. Also click Google news at the top of the AFD, and the first page of results has a New York Times article discussing first a single Beer Hall, then the Beer Hall in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/europe/germany-beer-halls.html Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion." That was not rude in any way, just pointing out how easy it was to find sources for that particular one, and politely asking them by saying the word "please". Dream Focus 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Easy" is relative. Eg: despite what some people in the US seem to think, not everyone in the world can access the NYT in quite the same way and it is this sort of arrogance that can really piss people off. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many US newspapers are inaccessible online in Europe because of US concerns about the effect of the EU General Data Protection Regulation - link. Searching is not as easy as you might think. Narky Blert (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush and Narky Blert: I have just written Wikipedia:How to access US news websites for this. As the title is impossible to remember I also created the shortcut WP:EVADEGDPR. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Alexis Jazz, and I will take a look. However, my point still stands: the arrogance of assuming everyone has access to everything is bloody annoying. There are loads of sources and repositories that are not universally accessible. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexis Jazz: Thanks. Your #1 is my standard trick; it's especially good if you have a headline. I'll have a look at the others. Narky Blert (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • People have been raising issues about ARS for literally more than a decade. The page has been MfDed over and over again, there have been RfCs, there have been noticeboard threads. Sometimes it's about one member that inevitably turns into a discussion of ARS; sometimes it's about ARS and then focuses on one or two members. There's always evidence of battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, and canvassing, and there's always evidence of articles improved and sources found. There are fingers pointed back at the "deletionists" and the discussion always sprawls to be about deletion process, notability, behavioral issues of several different people, and eventually the purpose of Wikipedia. The most common outcome goes something like this: "The fundamental ARS idea is good, there are good outcomes, and there are also problems. Knock off the battleground stuff and be more careful about how you use the project or someday something might happen." Then we're here again. At this point I'm doubtful any of these threads will result in any sort of action. It'll probably require an arbcom case to do a full accounting of evidence. That's where complicated, sprawling behavioral issues can be separated from good projects. The problem (problem?) is, I don't know if it never quite gets bad enough to merit an arbcom case, so I'm torn. An arb case could probably help this years-long constant low-level issue, but does arbcom want to be involved with relatively low level issues? I don't know (and to be clear, I'm not actually suggesting anyone open a case at this time). For historical context, there was actually a case request in 2013 which was declined. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I participate in a lot of AfDs, and only vote when I think an article should be kept, so I'm sympathetic with the goals of ARS, although I'm not part of that group myself. That being said, the quotes listed above are pretty shocking. There really isn't a good reason to talk that way in an AfD — it's nasty, it promotes an unhealthy environment, and most importantly, it doesn't actually make you any more successful at achieving your goal.
    I don't always live up to that myself; I've had moments of frustration and posted snarky personal things that I wish I hadn't. If someone were to go through my AfD contributions and pick out my worst moments (note: please do not do this), then I would have to look at them and say, yeah, that was unhelpful and unproductive — and most of the time, it didn't work and I lost the argument anyway. I would apologize, and I would say that I'm going to try to be better than that. That's the kind of mature self-reflection that I would expect to see from someone confronted with a big list of borderline-mean things that they'd said. I'm surprised to see people looking at those examples, and saying that it's someone else's fault. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban

    Given the overall WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality of the original comments that prompted this thread, as well as the subsequent ones listed by Serial and Levivich, along with the general WP:IDHT response to a behavioral complaint with not only a refusal to admit that something might be wrong, but also making more of the same kinds of comment, I propose:

    7&6=thirteen is banned from commenting on anyone's behavior (explicitly or implicitly, broadly construed, including, but not limited to, speculating on motives) in any discussion or edit summary involving article deletion. They may still contribute to deletion discussions, WP:ARS, etc., as long as comments are focused on articles, sourcing, and so on.

    Indeed, that they are characterizing some of my defenses at this very proceeding as 'misconduct' shows the paucity of their argument and their desperation. There ought to be an evidentiary privilege against use of such arguments.
    If such a rule does not exist, and the statements are used, the compilation of such an accusatory list should itself justify a WP:Boomerang. WP:SAUCE.
    The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost) in a new and different forum. That they did not like those results is no reason to let them rule here. And they have been hostile to me for years. I could cite to these, but Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant on both side of this proposal.
    No reason for a Prior restraint. Bad policy. We ought to be able to comment on AFDs, and artificial, ambiguous and evanescent lines won't help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OPPOSE Someone was upset that an article they worked to save got deleted without anyone noticing. This happens all too often. This time none of the people who voted to delete it voted in the previous AFD for it, so it is not the same people gaming the system, as does happen quite a lot. Was the AFD mentioned on a wikiproject discussion for company articles? Anyway, no reason to blow things out of proportion here. No one should edit war to erase someone's comment though. If you have a problem with it then enter a discussion about it. Dream Focus 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Per Lightburst and Dream Focus. Darkknight2149 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - all the !votes above seem to be very tribal. If you don't like ARS, support; if you're part of ARS, oppose. Not sure they have anything much to do with the person or proposal terms. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this type of sanction was tried with other editors, it caused more trouble than it cured. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my diffs above. I also support the closing admin dismissing out of hand the comments and/or !votes here of ARS regulars (they have self-identified through the WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion which is microcosmic of many of the AfD discussions they pile in to). ——Serial 13:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I agree with Lightburst. And please...the t-ban proposal is ridiculous. A behavioral issue (and in this case, one that doesn't exist) cannot be a topic ban. Topic banning is for topics. Our admins can make much better use of their time than wasting it here. See WP:Thicker skin sanction. Atsme Talk 📧 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    −

    • Am I the only one amused that in an discussion accusing ARS members of voting en bloc that a group of ARS members vote en bloc to oppose a sanction? More seriously, its not entirely the case that the ARS is a canvassing page for keep votes but there was a serious attempt many years ago (IIRC correctly and I can't be bothered to do any research to back up my assertion with evidence) to close it down because of that concern and as a response ARS members adjusted their approach and made a real effort to make more detailed & policy based arguments that defused the concern to a large degree. I have a sense that recently some votes from ARS members responding to rescue requests have drifted away from this. While I had some thoughts about this after the discussion cited above it hadn't felt like we were anywhere near the point where we needed to look at this. I do agree that some of the personalised comments need to stop and I would ask ARS members and those opposing their mission to step back a bit. It would be a good thingb if there was a bit less righteous indignation on both sides and a bit more remembering that everyone here is a volunteer with the aim of making the encyclopaedia better. Maybe its time that AFD closers simply discarded votes from users ascribing motivations to other users instead of discussing the merits of the article? Spartaz Humbug! 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we did that, then there would be a tonne of comments that are just repeats of each other. Sometimes other people either beat you to the punch, or say what you were going to say in better or more concise terms. It's not just one "type" of user that does this, it's basically everyone in any discussion - people who want it kept, people who want it deleted, people who want chocolate, people who want vanilla, people who want pink, people who want yellow, etc. Selectively discarding votes just makes it easier to game discussions and I don't think that's a precedent anyone wants to set. (For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with ARS. Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent helping out with comic-related topics, getting horror articles to GA or FA quality, monitoring articles and removing chunks of original research/uncited material, and occasionally dealing with disruption or vandalism). Darkknight2149 05:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing nefarious here. I follow those I respect - and I respect those who work on content...7&6 is just such an editor. My interests are in content creation and improvement and the ARS and 7&6 have the same interests. If we take those who are snarly to ANI there may be quite a few among you here in the soup. I could jam up this ani of diffs of Levivich casting aspersions, following, pooping on DYKs, AfDing articles of mine, and !voting to delete articles out of spite...and serial# often cosigning. Reyk - I do not understand the extreme dislike of those who improve articles. Reyk had an editor friend who was recently indeffed and I think that they blame the ARS. I think Reyk is a fine editor - unfortunately Reyk thinks I am a pathetic loser. These discussions are brutal and they can be cathartic - yet they are also time wasters. We have articles to write and improve. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, as you well know, is one of the reasons why ARS gets so much bad press: you work as a team through that list. Perhaps not co-ordinated as such but nonetheless it is like a honeypot. It is why all the accusations of gaming canvassing restrictions have flown around for years and it is showing again in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was already shown previously that some things on that list get no one to go there and vote keep. Someone even did a comparison chart for everything listed and how many people from the ARS showed up each time and what the result was, and how many made improvements to the article or found sources to mention in the AFD. There is no canvassing, it nothing different than all the other Wikiprojects who list things in them. Dream Focus 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very different. No other project is centred on AfD participation. As an example, again from my experience, the delsorting that goes on for the India project only rarely seems to attract experienced contributors from the project. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I wouldn't exactly call this a topic ban. WP: TOPIC BAN states that topic bans relate to pages on a certain subject, so they have nothing to do with making comments about other Wikipedia users. That would be an IBAN. In this case, I could support a warning to both sides for mutual personal attacks, but this strange, fake "topic ban" is quite unnecessary. Naomi.piquette (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I stand by what I said. WP:Before is something that can and should be implemented before making and AFD and before deleting an article. The various quotations are taken out of context; and what I said was fair an appropriate comment and argument as an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers.
    1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep."
    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta Per the closer: " The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator."
    3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. No further comments after the article was improved"
    4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory Per the closer: " The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator has withdrawn, unanimous consent to Keep, helpful advice has been given, no reason to keep this up any longer."
    5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing obvious evidence of mass canvassing here to discount opinions from experienced and long standing editors."
    6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep. The German Wikipedia also has a couple useful sources."
    7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot) Per the closer: "The result was keep."
    8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III Per the closer: "The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn."
    9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room Per the closer: " The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)"
    10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was keep."
    11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey Per the closer: " The result was delete."
    12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building Per the closer: " The result was keep."

    This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Boomerang

    Not happening and an unhelpful distraction.Spartaz Humbug! 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Deacon Vorbis made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment on the ARS page: (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Then DV reverted their fourth edit with a fifth edit. DV was warned about their edit warring and then came to ANI, to complain about this comment that does not rise to this level. We have now all spent valuable editing time about this nothingburger. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some suggestions

    ARS seems to be a reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars. I think ARS could materially improve their image if they were to refine the process for selection of articles. Am I alone in that view? Specifically, if there was some kind of gate that excludes articles with promotional and likely paid contributions, prioritises under-represented subjects (in the style of Women In Red), and includes a rationale for rescue, which some of the better nominations do (e.g. Roger Treat: "American sportswriter, mainly in newspapers. Wrote a monumental history of American football and was an advocate for racial integration in sports").

    I'm concerned that right now anyone who has a pet article that's at AfD can just list it, and have a reasonable hope of attracting a group of editors who will only vote one way. A refinement to the selection criteria would make this less like an end-run around WP:CANVASS, which is how ARS is often perceived right now.

    The constant lameness obscures the fact that parties on both sides of these perennial disputes are sincere and committed Wikipedians who are trying to improve the project. I see little evidence that the partisans are spending much time trying to understand each other's perspectives, which is a shame. Guy (help!) 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD is a "reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars." :FWIW, your concerns about WP:ARS is not supported by the facts. Thousands of articles come up for repeated deletion. Few get listed at ARS, and even fewer still get a response from members. And when I participate, it is to improve the article. And the correlation of any success I have at AFDs is related almost totally to those efforts.
    You are quick to stereotype ARS members. If criticism is warranted, you need facts. And if such generalizations are to be indulged, you ought to consider looking at both sides. WP:AGF is sometimes suspended or unevenly applied. Just look at the above discussions.
    Serial AFDs are a real and overlooked problem. It is hard to create an article; and it is far easier to delete it, especially when it is a rigged game. In fact, the AFD proponents only have to succeed once. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I intimated somewhere above, if "no consensus" didn't bizarrely mean "keep", there would probably be far fewer serial AfDs. If ARS are involved and something scrapes by because of a "no consensus" then it would probably be worthwhile for those involved in the project to bolster that article there and then but in my limited experience what tends to happen is the thing gets left more or less as it was. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And in connection with that AFD, we now have an article about the company's founder, Joost de Valk. Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable, it's pure advertising. Lev!vich 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    7&6=thirteen, your reply is a perfect exemplar of the problem.
    I am minded to move a topic ban from deletions based on this obvious paranoid behaviour. It is bringing out the absolute worst in you, when normally you are a decent person to be around. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus" just means "no consensus for change." If you are trying get an article deleted and there is no consensus, then it would stay deleted as well. I don't really see an alternative other than not closing the discussion. It's not like we can send articles to purgatory and keep them there indefinitely until a consensus arrises. Darkknight2149 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkknight, your comment makes no sense to me. I'm guessing you mean that if someone goes to DRV for an undelete and there is no consensus then it stays deleted. But it would not have been deleted in the first place unless there was a clear consensus to do so, so the situations are not comparable. My point has always been that we have things such as WP:BURDEN but the spirit of these does not apply at AfD in a no consensus situation and, in many cases, the article does in fact end up in a state something like purgatory because it is neither one thing nor the other. That is why I suggested above that if the ARS people are particularly frustrated with serial AfDs then surely a reasonable course for them to take would be to actually make substantive post-AfD edits to "no consensus" keeps in order to minimise the chance of re-submission to AfD. I've lost count of the number of articles where I have revisited the AfD to locate the alleged sources that satisfied GNG etc but which were never actually inserted into the article itself even years later: sometimes they were valid, sometimes not, but in either case it really doesn't help matters and does increase the risk of a further AfD. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor NOTHERE

    A cursory examination of the user and user talk pages and contributions of EzinneAnwuri pretty clearly demonstrates either a NOTHERE or CIR case, or both, and if not that then problems with UP#GOALS at the minimum. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a welcome template and message. I don't think anyone had really attempted to communicate with this user prior to that outside of a templated warning or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say definitely WP:NOTHERE. With the exception of this edit, the user's contributions are almost exclusively religious in nature, and most of them are on their userpage and talk page. This looks like textbook WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM to me. Darkknight2149 04:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate's friendly message seems like the ideal response to me, and I don't think any further action is needed just now. I say wait and see how they go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Anjan10: Agenda-driven editing, fringe content, edit-warring, etc.

    (non-admin closure) Anjan10 indefinitely site-blocked by El C. The articles in question have received extended confirmed protection. Darkknight2149 05:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Trying to be as succinct as possible, editor Anjan10 needs some administrative attention. I noticed him edit-warring at Sushant Singh Rajput where multiple times he injected editorial content into the article. Sushant Singh Rajput is an Indian actor who recently died, and police declared it a suicide. A fringe of fans and conspiracy theorists believe that he was murdered and that there is a police cover-up. While Indian police are still investigating matters related to the death, like claims of abetment and fraud, the police have not changed the cause of death. Yet people like Anjan10 and recently-blocked editor Jack Shukla have a different tale to tell.

    As for Anjan, he seems to think that Wikipedia is a forum for fringe thinking and conspiracy content. At the Rajput article he has added:

    At Death of Sushant Singh Rajput he has added:

    Competency concerns are certainly raised by their questionable insertion of (poorly-written) rumours and editorialising about what details constitute a "mystery". And this is not the first time the editor has focussed on conspiracy stuff, as their edit history indicates. Here promoting alternative Covid19 treatments and here when he resubmits the content, describes it as "Covid Killer".

    A little bit before that, in March 2020 the editor was again editorialising in a Covid19 article, adding "as during the time of 2009 Flu Pandemic lots more people were infected and died yet the mass hysteria seen for Coronavirus wasn't there". The editor tried to force this content into the Covid19 article three additional times[260][261][262]. On the talk page, he argued: "This is edit I tried to put on page why have edit war over it is Coronavirus same as H1N1 why even quarantine patients can't tell if it is dangerous though read reports of a third of patients being on Ventilator." I don't exactly know what he is trying to say, but the tone of it seems like he's pushing the "Covid-19 is a hoax" agenda.

    So, it would seem they're here to promote fringe thinking and conspiracy theory content, not to build an encyclopedia according to community standards. The fact that they've skirted by with not-quite-three-reverts just looks to me like someone trying to game the system. I'm not sure what action should be taken here about the user, but I would also suggest raising article protection to Extended Confirmed for Sushant Singh Rajput and Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite partial block from Sushant Singh Rajput, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput and Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput for disruption related to the promotion of WP:FRINGE content of a recently deceased person. Have not investigated if the other edits are also problematic, so am not sure if a sitewide block is needed. But this takes care of the immediate disruption. El_C 20:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the conspiracymongering about COVID I would say he should also get sanctioned for that as well (IIRC isn't COVID-19 under community sanctions?). I also agree with ECP for the main article at the very least; the constant presence of stans trying to convince the world he didn't off himself reminds me a lot of EgyptAir Flight 990 (Where everyone but Egypt seemed to consider it tantamount to suicide by pilot, but Egypt officially refused to even consider the possibility despite the evidence). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 21:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually ended up going with sitewide indef, after all. Both articles now ECP'd for a while. El_C 21:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Constant Vandalism

    Hi Admin, User talk:Shaheed Hemukalani is constantly vandalizing Communist Party of India article putting all sorts of rubbish information without any reliable sources. Putting whole list of leaders name without realizing that political parties can have multiple leaders that does not mean we have put entire list of leaders in an article. This particular editor has been warned multiple times by other editors regarding his behavior, but he is no mood to relent. His main job is put bullshit information without source in Communist Party of India article. Please intervene immediately. Either you block him or warn him, but the problem is he is not willing to listen at all.--Amrita62 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment from an uninvolved non-admin - The user in question (Shaheed Hemukalani) has made unsourced edits, but you gave him a 4im as his first warning on his talk and left a comment swearing and threatening a block. You were also warned by Soman for said nonconstructive comment and were told to give him constructive feedback/criticism if you wanted to. [263] Instead, you took this to ANI, and without warning the user at all. I highly suggest you resolve this with the editor personally, or else you may face a WP:BOOMERANG. Giraffer (munch) 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought this issue over here because user Shaheed Hemukalani is not willing to listen I told him that entire list of notable leaders of a political party is not required instead it should focus on developing an article with reliable sources. I even gave him eg of different political parties which are nominated as good article. Moreover he does not give any reply at all in his talk page. What can I do; thats why I took this matter to ANI. Take a hard look at the article you'll notice now he keep adding information like vast list particularly after the "Leadership" section. Don't you think it violets MOS:LISTBASICS and MOS:LIST. Yes I do admit I should have notified him. Despite you guys pinged him, he is not even willing to comment over here. If this is a behavior of a person how can you communicated to him.--Amrita62 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    LouiseFeb1974

    LouiseFeb1974 (talk · contribs), LouiseVickers74 (talk · contribs) - I believe these two accounts are the same person but I am not looking for a checkuser and will be cross at anyone who thinks about it.

    This is one of those cases where I wish we could do something, anything else. In short we have:

    1. A user who seems to be pretty good at creating content

    2. Leaves no (or minimal) edit summaries, never edited outside main space

    3. Email disabled, so the only way to communicate with them is on their talk page, which receives no replies

    4. After unanswered messages about problems, a thread is started here

    This usually brings us onto point 5 :

    5. User is blocked, generally per WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and is gone forever

    Essentially, it's a conflict between don't bite the newbies and communication is required. Previous examples include Bob Henshaw (talk · contribs) and Ludwigpaisteman (talk · contribs). I don't want these people to leave Wikipedia, they're improving the encyclopedia in good faith and not getting into trouble.

    Ideally, we'd have a better communication system than talk pages, or possibly some sort of "oy, read your talk page [link]" notification that is impossible to miss (unlike the current notification system, which is possible) that comes up when they try to edit, that's not as swift and severe as a block.

    Any other ideas? Does anyone else lament the loss of the big orange bar? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean something other than blocking them in article space with a block summary that says, "please respond to our concerns on your (link to talkpage|talk page)"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, this was actually my thinking as well. I was discussing the accounts with Ritchie333 and it occurred to me that an article space block with a reminder to WP:ENGAGE would be appropriate in such cases. Problem is that when I have tried this approach in the past it's effectively been as if I'd fully blocked them from project. Editor did not return nor engage. The script idea is an interesting one and worth exploring but perhaps some people just aren't cut out for (or just don't have any interest in) working in a collaborative way? We can only but try... Glen 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to your question, yes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One possibility could be for an IAdmin to install User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar for them and see if that makes a difference. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with the big orange bar the phenomenon of the article-space-only editor was real. I think an article-space block is a reasonable avenue in a case like this. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Ritchie333, although it had escaped my notice here were two accounts. I have now left a few messages asking for edit summaries from LouiseFeb1974 (talk · contribs). But as Ritchie says, there has been no response since the account was started on 30 June. I have even belatedly added a welcome message. A block may now be justified, unless there is some way of selectively adding a "review filter" for edits made by these two accounts? Yes, I do miss the old "OBOD"! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a block from a single article to get their attention? Murder of Lesley Molseed seems like a candidate. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jauerback, this seems reasonable. Glen 14:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we make sure any block notice has a wikilink to their talk page that they can click on and emphasises they need to reply? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I only comment because I remember of Bob to whom I sent a beer template back then. The talk page warnings were issued without effect, so a block was ultimately needed. Another editor had to cleanup the census data at many articles. This means that any large template, perhaps even the beer one may have been missed from the talk page. The hope was that the block would cause the editor to respond and it would probably have been lifted. If there was another notification system that'd show up at the top of any page and made it easy to write a reply, I'm all for it and it's probably worth a Village Pump thread. On the other hand, the block should theoretically have produced a similar effect while also stopping the ongoing disruption (the editing needed to be interrupted in this case). As previously mentioned I'm sure the block would have been lifted if the editor managed to reply, so is it that different to a block that displays the OTRS email address? I've been blocked as an IP address but years ago (the block was targetting another user using the same ISP), I don't remember what message is shown when we try to edit when blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 00:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG

    User reported - RTG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Diff of ANI notice[264])
    Reported by - NewsAndEventsGuy
    Sanction sought - Community-imposed site ban
    Basis - WP:CIR
    Summary - RTG's contribs demonstrate disruptive editing by refusing to answer simple questions, gaming consensus through stonewalling and gaslighting, and making personal attacks, etc. In RTG's own words (July 2020) [265] "I feel like I've had a fresh argument somewhere on the site every week and contributed little in material terms...". Like the tide, these things seem to roll in until RTG's energy is spent and the drama drains back to sea... until next time. The project has gained little from our forbearance, but has spent a fair bit of energy dealing with RTG's disruption and their contributions' lack of competence in collaborative editing and WP:CONSENSUS process. Since WIkipedia is neither a WP:FORUM nor WP:THERAPY, it is time for the community-at-large to ask RTG to pursue other interests. Ordinarily I'd suggest a temporary site-ban, but in this case RTG already made a RAGE QUIT followed by a 4-year quasi retirement. Immediately upon return RTG resumed an almost monthly disruption, so it is time to just part company. If you have trouble reading RTG's talk page due to the floating image, modify your common.css file with the code in the final collapsed story below.

    Apologies, for the large byte count in this report. These long-running low-intensity CIR-disruptions are hard to demonstrate with convincing brevity.

    2014 IBAN then wages war with admins

    RTG had some troubles in 2009, but I'll start with the minefield that led to RTG's RageQuit and 4-year semi-retirement. In 2014, RTG earned an IBAN prohibiting interactions with Ryulong, who was later indeffed by ArbCom in unrelated proceedings. This drama spans multiple venues so I'll present it by date

    • November 11, 2014 (16:39) RTG does not comment in the ANI thread. Instead, RTG's first response was in a previously-declined thread at the EW noticeboard. Someone else had reported Ryulong a few days earlier and on Nov 10 Admin Bbb23 declined to take action against Ryulong. RTG was not a party. Nonethless, the day after action was declined, RTG chose to respond to Ryulong's pending IBan request by tacking on a comment later described by Bbb23 and another editor as a "rant".[266],[267].
    "RTG's addition to the noticeboard was an aggressive, unhelpful rant...I can't discern what administrative action RTG is requesting... the style here is similar to the style at AN3, combative, aggressive, and overly dramatic. That certainly doesn't help RTG's credibility."
    • Novemeber 13, 2014 (01:20), RTG replies to Bbb23 with a bitter WallOfText under edit Sum but of course treat this post as though it might be from a banned user seeing as I am so dumb and not very happy isn't it, thanks
    • RTG's remaining comments in |that ANI thread are mostly back and forth bickering with Ryulong, which is ironic, since in the walloftext addressed to Bbb23 he said I don't want to bicker. The reason I have posted here is to report bickering.
    • November 14, 2014 (15:48) Richard Yin adds call for a boomerang at RTG
    • November 18, 2014 01:06, Drmies closed ANI#2 as not consensus.

    Meanwhile....

    • AN/ANI-#3 On November 13, 2014 While AN/ANI-#2 was still open (and right after posting the above-quoted bitter walloftext to Bbb23) RTG opens yet another thread, this time at the Admin's noticeboard. RTG says
    I need help. I am not getting it from ANI. The bullying is making mew feel sick. I do not want to interact with anyu of the contributors again. But I cannot let them control the site contrary to its goals and purpose. (bold added)
    • Within six hours multiple eds and admins advised taking a break.
    • RTG then made his/her only other comment in that thread, with edit summary "nightmare" and the content just a wikilink to a medical condition called Dark triad. It is unclear if RTG meant to say (s)he suffers from this condition or was accusing admins of suffering from it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • An hour later thread was closed with consensus that RTG should take a break.
    • While RTG's short-lived cry for help was pending at AN, RTG opened yet another plaintive complaint, this time implicitly assailing admins generally, on the talk page of a failed proposal for an ombudsman (apparently to deal with crappy admins)

    After Drmies' closure of AN/ANI-#2 on Novemeber 18, for about 12 hours all the threads were closed. And then....

    • VPump started November 18, 2014 (16:23), Unhappy with the admins, RTG posted a WallOfText at VPump(policy); its hard to make out but seems to want to create an ombudsman position to somehow rein in crappy admins. (Full thread)
    • AN/ANI-#4 started November 18, 2014 (19:21) Three hours later, admin Drmies, who closed AN/ANI-#2, reopened it via a separate thread at AN (not ANI) after seeing new info. In part, Drmies commented
    "I have plenty of problems with Ryulong's editing, but in these threads and in some of the linked conversations RTG is even worse..."
    "...See, I don't always make sense, and I believe in nice-to-be-nice, that philosophy is misunderstood... I have a type, and usually that type does not illicit frustration. Usually they are busy and move along in the face of such mistakes in their direction, but sometimes... just sometimes... one of them looks right at you and moves their head without moving their eyes. It makes you want to hit them worse. Ban me all you like...." (bold added)
    2015 to end of 2018, four year retirement

    Apparently RTG took the advice from AN/ANI and took a break, because for the next four years RTG barely edited at all.(Contribs 11-19-2014 to 1-1-2019)

    February 2019, Blocked and CIR suggested over Village Pump and the Witch Trials

    After four years, RTG really returned to regular editing on Jan 19, 2019.[268] Not even a month went by before drama and controversy again consumed RTG, this time, at the Village Pump.

    • USERTALK
    " Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, and failing to listen and "get the point" - that your comments are more suited to an essay than a proposal - is WP:disruptive editing." to which RTG answered the admin "...Don't leave any more text here. I don't know what you want, and it obviously has nothing to do with the content of my suggestion."
    • 3RRN
    • In the 3RRN complaint, RTG replied with a great example of just not getting it. [270]
    • ANI
    • While the 3RRN was pending, RTG went WP:Forumshopping by filing a separate ANI over the same issue. The visible thread is archived here but much of whatever RTG posted was so unhelpful it was RevDeleted [271].
    • As this unfolded Davey2010 attempted a Nonadmin-closure and later giving helpful advice at RTG's talk page and received contempt from RTG for his troubles.[272] Davey2010 eventually gave up and called for indef per WP:Competence is required saying
    "*I tried and failed - Given the user really isn't getting it I support indeffing as per CIR." (see full archived thread, as pinpoint diffs seem to have been caught up in rev deletes)
    • BLOCKED
    • February 4, 2019 (17:35), RTG was blocked for a day by admin Floquenbeam
    • RTG protested on his own talk page by starting a thread "Blocked without notification".  ::*RTG asked for review which went no where. In the course of discussion
    • RTG asked ... Do I seem unclear or out of control? [273]
    • Admin Floquenbeam replied,
    "Yes, you seem to be both of those things..." [274]
    • Denying the unblock request, admin IvanVector said in part
    "... if you wish to raise an issue about editing at the village pump, please do so without attacking other editors or alleging a grand conspiracy against you." [275]
    • AFTER BLOCK
    March 2019, RTG and Village Pump (again), 2nd ed raises CIR concerns
    "that no-one could even understand (RTG) is more of a problem. Competence is required..."[277]
    June 2019, WP:REDACT war

    At the Photography Workshop, RTG offered advice, and after others commented, altered the original comment. Begoon reverted twice, pointing to WP:REDACT.[278],[279], but could RTG convert their changes to WP:REDACT format? No! Instead RTG re-reverted saying ...No, that's fighting talk. You've been going through my contributions looking for ammo. You didn't find enough so you are looking for a fight. All you've had to say here is, people talk too much for you and, you don't care who is right or wrong so long as you can put any disagreement with your friend down as an insult...[280] More of same at [281]. Note RTG's paranoid claim that Begoon was going through RTG's contribs "looking for ammo". As near as I can tell, their only prior interaction was earlier that day at Plastic paddy when Begoon made this simple revert. RTG wraps up this particular battle saying I haven't even read your comment....It is obvious you have only contributed to this to be confrontational. When they talk about dropping a stick, this is the stick you should drop. You are only holding it because it is a stick. I don't want your stick, boy. You haven't even faulted my advice. Step back. No. Step all the way fricking back behind the line and stay there...[282]

    November 2019, WP:IDNHT battle with an arbitrator

    In Nov 2019 RTG took arbitrator and Joe Roe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to task over the arbs doing housekeeping edits, as they are authorized to do [283]

    December 2019, Edit warring and WP:POINTY essay changes over the Reference desk

    In December RTG asked a question at the Ref Desk and edit warred[284] over others closing it. (final closing diff with full thread) RTG then took the fight to the talk page in "Battleground" (full archived thread). Meanwhile, Jasper Deng added a thread to RTG's talk, first warning of 3RR vio and then alerting to related ANI filing (3RR (full thread) and eventually launches an ANI proceeding ("RTG_and_RDMA" from archives) In this episode, other eds' observations of RTG include

    • "...If you actually have a question you want answered, I recommend you devote some energy to communicating the question clearly -- performative rambling is not a good substitute" Joel B. Lewis [285]
    • "...I tried to follow this thread - alas, could not find a sense of humor in it. And not only a sense of humor, but actually little sense at all..." CiaPan [286]
    • "...Multiple mathematicians have clearly stated your question is ill posed. Enjoy the WP:Boomerang/" Jasper Deng [287]

    Those are just a few sample quotes from a few involved eds.

    As a sidebar to this flap, RTG took his indignation to our essay on WP:TAGTEAM, edit warring over a highly WP:POINTY addition[288]

    Feb 2020, IDNHT at In the News

    RTG took issue with In the News' blurb of the Irish election[289], starting a (thread to complain ) which is long on repeated WP:IDNHT from RTG and was finally resolved when when frustrated editors started a survey (full results), and the returns were 100% against RTG's view.

    • "We have basically a single editor who seems unwilling to accept years of accumulated precedent and consensus regarding what we cover and how..." Ad Orientem [290]
    • "The OP should understand what all the people above are explaining to them and there'd be nothing more to do here. – Ammarpad [291]
    • "The problem this allegedly solves is one that only exists in the OP's head..." Iridescent [292]
    • "there's no need to change what we do just because one editor seems unable to accept the explanation and consensus from the discussion above" Amakuru [293]
    April 2020, Topic-banned from COVID for one month

    The ANI thread is "Tendentious behaviour at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019", in which at least four admins tried to correct RTG's views of MEDRS sourcing.

    • 21:27 April 11 above ANI started
    • 21:31 April 11 warning issued [294] by El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    • 22:09 April 11 RTG's parting salvo in the ANI after repeated filibustering included an obsessive "...I for one will get what I want...". Alas, this was not his parting salvo in the war.
    • SIDE-BAR #1 at WP:AN
    • 22:16 April 11 RTG makes inappro post at Talk page for WP:AN ...I am not interested in arguing with a brick wall, but I will leave this grafitti here on the other side of the wall, however much of a boomerang that may seem to be, thankyou
    • 22:17 April 11 El C reverted this is not helpful and goes outside the scope of this talk page, anyway
    • SIDE-BAR #2 at Talk:El_C
    • 22:22-22:43 April 11 RTG takes it to El C's talk page (full thread), saying ...You really need reactionary behavior to resolve a dispute? Your next move, as I see a new message, will be to blankly tell me to shut up...
    • SIDE-BAR #3 at Talk:EvergreenFir
    • 22:25-22:59 April 11 RTG rehashes it all in thread "This is a mistake", eliciting from El_C I am the uninvolved admin overseeing your contributions — you cannot wish me away. And you must refrain from innuendo. I won't warn you about that again.
    • SIDE-BAR #4 (the only one RTG did not start) RTG attacks uninvolved admins
    • admin Acroterion, supported by admin El_C, warns RTG about filibustering and NPA vios but RTG throws it back in their face Why even bother if not to be inflammatory, EL C?[296],
    • RTG blocked.[297]
    • RTG responds to block notice you are just trying to provoke me. You've examined it and realised it too was a provocative incident, revolving around trying to prevent me creating a discussion on the Village Pump[298]
    • El_C warns against tendentiousness and possible talk page revocation during block
    • 1:03 April 13, RTG, as soon as the block expires, goes after El_C how can you be a Wikipedian and a Leninist at the same time [299]
    • SIDE-BAR #5 at Talk:EvergreenFir
    • 1:26-6:26 April 13 in thread "Topic ban from Covid", eliciting helpful outside advice from OhKayeSierra I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach to editing if you wish to edit constructively on this project, especially when there have been numerous other editors that have already asked you to as well. and EvergreenFir added I feel like the entire issue is being missed. The primary source of disruption was your behavior...What prompted me to give the t-ban was your behavior immediately following the ANI closure. You were not dropping the stick. You behavior toward El C was poor. You were warned by Acroterion to stop but you did not and they blocked you for it. Now, immediately after your block expired, you decide to antagonize El C further ([300]). I am not convinced by any means that you will cease this pattern of disruption... but RTG doubles-down ...You can put a halt on me Evergreen, but you can't tell me not to disagree with untrue claims like edit warring. That's the hinge here. Honestly, I have no interest in this fussy nonsense...
    • Side Bar #4 resumes and ends
    • 23:28, April 14, El_C says sorry, but I am not interested in engaging in polemics with you at this time
    • 08:36 April 15, RTG mass deletes SIDE BAR #4 (thread "warning") saying ...if i had realised it was more of a personal/private support that you couldnt easily detail, i'd have deleted the whole lot of you... [[301]]
    April-June 2020, "straight out lies" at Planet of the Humans (part 1/3)

    On April 29, 2020 RTG nominated Planet of the Humans for Did you know?[302]. and withdrew the nomination on June 4 with a personal attack saying "it does not look like the article is going to be treated without a blatantly errored bias twisting (straight out lies)" (bold added) [303].

    Between these dates, RTG made no article edits and only used the talk page for all of four days, (RTG talk contribs), during which time RTG ignores a call for WP:DR via WP:RFC. Slatersteven observed "we are going round in circles, and not producing RS but engaging in OR. time for some new voices, I suggest an RFC."[304] which RTG deflected saying Whoah! Did you just avoid me?[305]

    Meanwhile, on May 10 Femkemilene began editing the article [306] and on May 12 expressed doubts about the DYK nomination, saying the movie asserts WP:FRINGE views and "has been found ... rife with mistakes".[307] Full disclosure, F and I are both active members of WP:WikiProject Climate change.

    • June 4, without ever editing the article or attempting dispute resolution, RTG withdrew the DYK nomination accusing unnamed editors of "straight out lies"[308] Then a couple weeks later...
    • June 20 01:39 RTG reverts Femkemilene ("F") dubiously saying
    this is not a clarification[309]
    • June 20 12:31 RTG ignores F's call to do WP:DR via WP:3O with POV accusation
    this isn't even complicated. The problem here is perception and neutrality[310]
    • June 20 12:33 RTG reverts F with NPA vio saying
    Fabricated statement clutching at the maximum negativity possible, right?[311]
    • June 20 13:10 RTG ignores F's second offer of WP:3O [312]
    • June 20 14:08 RTG ignores F's third offer of WP:3O with WP:BATTLE attitude
    ...Will you reject and evade it immediately because it does not fit your view of accuracy? * * * If you are wrong... will you admit it?[313]
    • June 22 10:10 RTG ignores F's fourth offer of WP:3O, with an NPA vio calling her opinions a
    totally rubbishing endeavour[314]
    • June 22 10:57 Femkemilene gives up on talking to RTG saying
    "I'm going to sign off as well as previous editors interacting with you. Your prose is very difficult to follow, and in combination with a misunderstanding of the science, it's really difficult to get anywhere."[315]
    • June 22 17:45 RTG didn't like that
    "Misunderstanding of the science"... another cop out simply leaves the discussion without concession. I haven't misunderstood anything...[316]

    Alas, this was not the end of this drama.... read the next one...

    June-July 2020, RTG follows Femkemilene to Global warming (part 2/3)

    Long before RTG's prior conflict began, Femkemilene had started doing the heavy lifting prepping Global warming for WP:Featured article review.[317] F discloses at her user page she is a PhD candidate in the field. Until the events described below, RTG had never visited the article or its talk page.

    • June 22 22:06 In a thread long on pontificating ramble but short on RS, RTG complained complained that we didn't cover two greenhouse gases the way he thought we should and that the article didn't touch on Global warming potential even though at the time (this version), the article included a piped link to a redirect going to that article, i.e., [[carbon-dioxide equivalent|equivalent]]. On that basis RTG said
    Sorry Femke...it doesn't qualify as a featured article if it doesn't include this information [321]
    • June 27 06:08 F points out the piped link already existed [322]
    • June 28 20:25 RTG also objected to FAR because there is no See Also section [323]
    • June 29 08:40 F points RTG to WP:SEEALSO, says we don't need one[324]
    • June 29 08:49 In typical IDNHT, RTG just announces they'll add Global warming potential to SeeAlso anyway [325], and he does at 9:02[326], which F reverts at 9:25 saying its already linked [327] and RTG edit wars it back in at 9:36 [328]
    • July 02 17:17 RTG adds Shutdown of thermohaline circulation to SeeAlso, which F reverted at 17:35 [329] and at 17:47 RTG, to his credit, at least starts a thread to discuss it (full thread). This thread is where I first really encountered and engaged with RTG. [330]. In this thread (full thread link above) RTG
    • Opening post, misrepesents his own RS (where he says slowdown of the Gulf Stream is beyond theory now but the source only says that's an expected outcome but there is uncertainty if it is already here
    • July 2 19:10 enages in WP:OR/WP:POV the average temperature of the earth changes little... but it has long been told that it only takes a couple of degrees to destroy the whole thing, which doesn't match the sources. A couple of degrees means change, not "destroy the whole thing".
    • July 2 19:18, fires off a paranoid NPA vio I've given maybe 3 or 4 minor points of improvement which would significantly increase the dissemination of the topic on this article. Each of them has been exploded into a large debate....The idea of the same people supporting cut-down elements of a topic, and also opposing a see also section entirely, on a wide ranging controversial topic... gives me nothing but suspicion...
    • July 3 03:34, Uses WP:GASLIGHTING to make another personal attack while saying he's not saying it.. are you confused? Probably, after all, that's the whole point of gaslighting. Now, I'm not interested in being childish, but there is extensive talkpage content here now, the idea of having no see also section, is the dumbest thing I have ever read up in here that isn't purposely designed to be dumb. and also You must have gone to some effort to keep a see also section off this article...It is like you are trying to guide people off the site. Hum. Ding.
    • Generally repeats walls-of-text to filibuster
    • But most importantly, fresh off his failed DYK nomination for Planet of the Humans, RTG declares his opposition to Femkemilene's major project
    You can be sure, I am in opposition to this being a featured article.(July 2 19:18)

    When I asked him to redact some of the personal attacks at his user talk, I got three separate walls of text in response, including a fictitious quote, and rife with attacks and paranoia, and odd statements that are hard to parse. Perhaps the most bizarre of RTG's rant was the claim page editors are trying to sow climate skepticism to increase Femkemilene's post-graduate job prospects! Seriously.

    • some of your main contributors to the global warming article are budding to publish work on the issue... The larger the body of global warming skepticism, the more need of their work. Not quite the attack you may have expected, but it is certainly a founded suspicion

    That's from the last paragraph in the wall of text series in the thread "Please revise a problematic comment". RTG closes the thread contemptuously saying

    • Maybe it will fix itself. Maybe you can just burn... something else?
    • July 7, After endless going in circles over the SeeAlsos, I suggested RTG seek a change in the MOS if he couldn't let it go [331]

    And so the story will continue....

    July 2020, Filibuster, Sanction-gaming and forum-shopping over the MOS (part 3 of 3)

    On July 21, RTG seems to have taken up my gauntlet to change the MOS guidelines about WP:SEEALSO. He didn't notify me, or editors at Talk:Global warming where this seems to have started, nor editors at WP:FAR who he seems to complain about. Alas, his quasi-complaint/proposal was vague in the extreme. See full thread "...or_not_see_also..." (this link is the version at the end of July) He found a single supporter and argues with everyone else, pointlessly, eliciting remarks like

    • "I don't see the point of this request... Calidum [332]
    • "The request, such as it is then, is hopelessly unclear as to what change is actually wanted" Bkonrad [333]
    • "Unclear alternative it all sounds a big vague. I would need to see some draft text, ideally via a test diff..." (from me) [334]
    My comment was July 24 at 12:33; Seven hours later RTG gamed a personal attack by posting this nonspecific salvo on his user talk
    Don't be a little shit when you realise it isn't making the intended target feel good. Catch your breath, sit down and give them a bit of understanding. It'll have the desired effect on you both, whereas crossing the line from little shit into angry little shit is going to get you both in trouble. And later at a more opportune time, you can be a little shit again...[335]
    • "What specific change do you want to see made to the wording?" Nikkimaria [336]

    Each editors' expression of confusion resulted in replies from RTG which shed little light on the purpose of the discussion. Notably, Nikkimaria's question about specific wording changes elicted a long handwaving.[337] So I followed up repeating N's question

    So again, as Nikkimaria just asked, What specific change do you want to see made to the wording?....[338] and RTG used WP:SANCTIONGAMING to accuse me of being the disruptive one
    • Don't keep your foot on me. You are the one being disruptive. You are specifically, above all here, being purely disruptive. Your original reply here shows that clearly. You cannot wait to abuse SNOW and template with total disregard to the value of the output, which is the only thing up for discussion here. WP:BATTLEGROUND. You seem to feel like you are placeholding for editors like Ser Admantio... [339]

    Ser who? I never heard of that editor... but, whatever. More importantly, while this was all underway, RTG forumshopped with more of the same to Jimbo's page, (full thread at end of July). I did not participate and I'll just let you review that one on your own if you feel compelled.

    RTG's inane floating monkey messing up his talk page
    Struck because this minor issue distracts from the major issues above

    And finally, consider the annoying floating monkey image on their talk page (if it gets deleted, you might be able to see it in the latest version as I write this paragraph), which violates WP:SMI by making the text difficult to read and edit. Set aside the fact that if you know the magic css code [style*="position:fixed"] {position:relative!important} you can neutralize the interference, at least for yourself. Instead, focus on RTG's response to Guy Macon's ANI proceeding (full archived thread). RTG posted a rambling off point 3-edit series [340], [341], [342] in which RTG describes their own behavior saying "...I ranted on a bit...I haven't been so "angry"(angry?) in years"...parenthetical in original One commenter said they were tempted to call for a boomerang at RTG over something else, and everyone explicitly or tacitly agreed the image created trouble, though some thought the rest of us should ignore WP:SMI and just "suck it up". Hearing all that, any collaboration-minded editor would have deleted or anchored the image, but not RTG! Sixteen months later when I raised the same complaint RTG just gave me the middle finger, with a touch of gaslighting weirdness.[343]. In the big picture, the trouble caused by the floating monkey is trivial, but dealing with RTG's aggressive tendentiousness is not. UPDATE - I intended this as character depiction, but substantively its pretty minor and it seems folks are focusing on this instead of the serious protracted chronic issue, so per Floquenbeam's suggestion in the subsequent discussion I've struck it NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So take your pick. These stories show an editor who consistently applies IDNHT tendentiousness in disputes, and is generally unable to work together in a collaborative consensus endeavor. We should ask RTG to do something else with their time so we can be more productive with ours. It's time for a community-imposed indef ban.

    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE - As the discussion is unfolding, some folks are suggesting TBans. Please specify whether you mean "global warming" (which might be taken to mean the page global warming) or whether you mean the broadly-construed topic "climate change" (as defined by arbs in WP:ARBCC). Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What has caused this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Click "show" in the greenish collapsed bars to read each installment. "the cause" is long running chronic issues as painfully detailed. I personally ran into this issue in the chapter when it moves to our article on global warming. you were mentioned in the earlier chapter, about Planet of Humans NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I saw those, I wanted to know what the ur0gent matter is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair this board also handles chronic, intractable behavioral problems which appears to fit this report.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I stand corrected.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. As to the most recent offence, I don't think the monkey is particularly egregious, and if inanity were an offence we'd lose half our editors  :) it might be where I got my floating Clint Eastwood from, and no-one threatened to C-ban me. Although I think Vanamonde came pretty close  :) ——Serial 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed the point... your floater isn't used to obscure your talk page to make communication and collaboration a lot more difficult. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [[344]] It caused me zero issues.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven, I'm just guessing you have the suppressing code in your common.css file. When I disable that line in my own common.css file, RTG's image floats about obscuring the talk page once again. But as Floquenbeam says below, that's a really trivial issue. The chronic disruption and noncollaborative approach hopscotches from venue to venue, chronically but at low intensity so its easy for few to be buggered except the ones dealing with it at the timeNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I find it quite a strain, on both the talk pages of SN and RTG. El_C 13:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, for reasons that might make a good psychology thesis subject for someone, if you list 10 serious problems, and 1 non-serious problem, people will focus on the non-serious problem. When they decide it is not a serious problem, they'll say "this all seems to be non-serious". I think the floating monkey complaint is harmful to your case. I suggest this: [345]. I'm mentioned in the third box above, I'll see if I can find time to comment more fully later. But I have thought for some time that RTG should be sitebanned, but lacked the will to do the work to assemble all the diffs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s often a subset of the bicycle shed syndrome. “Inane floating monkey” is eye-catching, at the beginning or end of a list of thing that have to be opened, and straightforwardly understandable. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here just to say WP:BIKESHED. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with the fact that it is being presented as the most recent in a chronological list of cases? You're correct that it weakens the case; the adage re links and chains comes to mind. ——Serial 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point F, maybe I should not have collapsed the part where a few hours after I asked for specifics RTG made a gaming attack (not naming me and on his user page) saying Don't be a little shit when you realise it isn't making the intended target feel good. Catch your breath, sit down and give them a bit of understanding. It'll have the desired effect on you both, whereas crossing the line from little shit into angry little shit is going to get you both in trouble. And later at a more opportune time, you can be a little shit again...[346]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only on Wikipedia. In the real world, if you present 10 problem and 5 of them are found to not be serious, everyone will focus on the 5 that are serious. On Wikipedia, if you present 10 problems and 1 of them are found to not be serious, most people will call for your head. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A case of "Go ahead, RTG...? [347]. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to comment about the floating monkey. I wrote "It's a small thing, so 'suck it up and live with the annoyance' is a perfectly acceptable answer, and the answer I got was "Suck it up and live with the annoyance, I'd say", which as promised I found to be a perfectly acceptable answer. Bringing it up now as justification for a community-imposed site ban is, in my opinion, an example of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I just read the rest of the sections. It looks like community-imposed site ban is something worth discussing, but I am not ready to make a recommendation for or against. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • RTG being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive literally goes back for years (here he is back in 2009 arguing that the white supremacist British National Party wasn't a white supremacist group because the source said "indigenous caucasian and defined ethnic groups eminating from" not "white"). He actually seems to be being marginally less incompetent than he used to be; he at least seems to have eased up on his habit of treating Jimbotalk as his personal jotter pad to note down whatever thought happened to pop into his head. This type of editor, who unquestionably makes Wikipedia an unpleasant place for most people with whom they come into contact and who doesn't add any obvious value anywhere, but who hasn't actually broken any explicit rule, is a type we've always struggled to deal with. I don't really like the idea of indefs for being incompetent or unpleasant unless the incompetence or unpleasantness (in this case, both) reaches such a level it's having a demonstrable disruptive effect on other editors, as WP:Don't be a dick blocks almost invariably get immediately lifted (it only takes one sympathetic admin). Would a ban from global warming at least calm the immediate problems? ‑ Iridescent 14:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (A) I'm not just selfishly interested here, but community interested. As RTG wears out the welcome in one place he takes the show on the road and buggers others. No one else should have to deal with this.
    (B) But if that ain't gonna fly, Topic bans should be where he has been mostly recently active Manual of Style and Climate change, both broadly construed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a community ban is a bit drastic right now (I see your first and second comment and appreciate it, Guy Macon). And Iridescent, you have a valid point though I am not sure I agree about the ease with which NODICK blocks are lifted. But you said something I was thinking too--we might could start with a topic ban on global warming, since their behavior there, which shows a high degree of IMAFACEBOOKEXPERTTOO, is not acceptable. I am hoping it's not caused in part by misogyny.

      I was looking at RTG's contributions, and they do produce article content and DYKs and all that--but I just made some edits to Toxic Beauty, which was on the front page, and 1400 people watched it on 4 May 2020, but it was tagged almost immediately for neutrality issues. Those problems should have been caught by the DYK reviewer (ha), but an editor of so many years should not have written this kind of prose (check the opening sentence, and the first sentence of "Content"). So I do think there are problems here that are larger than just behavioral problems on global warming or whatever. Whether they are big enough for a ban, I cannot judge right now. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Drmies:, what was wrong with that prose? "Toxic Beauty is a 2019 American documentary that seeks to raise awareness about exposure to dangerous substances from naturally unsafe use and inadequate regulation of commonly trusted beauty products such as baby powder." and "Based on three years of research, Toxic Beauty challenges an attitude of silence around carcinogenic and hormone-disrupting substances found in previously approved and popular cosmetic items in the US cosmetics market." It's all accurate. In fact I've just noticed that the article now says "alleged", but you tell Johnson and Johnsons who are out of pocket to 4.7 BILLION in damages just for the TEST case...? Following your other edits... "Challenges" is less neutral than "addresses"... and I should be site banned for that sort of issue..? ~ R.T.G 20:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:RTG, if you were planning on a defense, you picked up the wrong manual. You were told, on the talk page, about why another user (Therapyisgood) tagged the page, and you responded mostly jokingly. Pity Therapyisgood didn't respond, even more a pity that you didn't edit the article. "Naturally unsafe use" isn't even proper English, and it was quickly tagged as needing clarification (that is, being incomprehensible or meaningless), and the sentence as a whole states, in Wikipedia's voice, that these things are indeed "naturally unsafe[ly] use[d]" and "inadequate[ly] regulate[d]", which remains to be proven. A court case does NOT constitute scientific proof that any of that is the case. If you think it does, after so many years on Wikipedia, CIR applies. This "culture of silence" thing is also opinion, and just as vague as "naturally unsafe use", of course. It makes me think that if, for instance, you get topic banned from one area, you should not enter an area like WP:MEDICINE.

      The next CIR problem is that I didn't say you should be site banned, and so your reading skills here are lacking at a critical moment in your Wikipedia career, and it's the kind of carelessness that makes support for a site ban appear more reasonable. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Good grief, "naturally usafe use" is perfect English. And the reason the court case won was that the talc was found to contain asbestos over half a century ago by J&J themselves, the sceintists studying the talc, who were then silent about it..? The proof was their own. They simply covered it up, J&J, imagine that. 5 billion damages just as a test case. Want to feel sick? They might absorb the whole thing. Sorry... Anyway, "challenges a culture of silence" is totally semantics and tone, not obvious malintent. Totally accurate and sourced and polite. ~ R.T.G 22:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    original report redacted and annotated accordingly, sorry about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The CIR issues also span to communication, which is not only hostile (as shown in previous diffs), but just plainly very difficult to follow. Sentences are overly long and full of commas subclauses ([348]), or contain random catch phrasing ([349]). This means engaging is quite the time drain. I think RTG does not have the necessary competence to engage in climate change (f.i. insisting that global warming potential be added to global warming's see also section, before understanding what it means, as evidenced by this diff on the science reference desk). A topic ban from CC is warranted imo, and I'm not against a fuller ban either. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm I've blocked for many things, but never for too many commas (I don't quite get your point). But the second diff is the kind of thing I was thinking about too--the more or less random stuff that aims to suggest knowledge but fails. That's what I meant with "Facebook expert"--the kind of person that says "oh masks can't stop a virus cause a virus is too small" without realizing that a mask blocks the droplets that the virus travels on. I think this global warning/climate control topic ban should be a first step. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In US, people shock monkey. On Wikipedia, monkey shock reader. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very well-behaved money-- an astronaut, no less. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced in the efficacy of a TBAN, as problems seem to have migrated from topic to topic. And TBANs seem to create their own sets of problems. Unless User: RTG can fully address these concerns in a convincing manner, I doubt anything short of a CBAN would stop the disruption, even though I do find the monkey endearing. Could it be user lacks basic compatibility? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      per Eggishorn below, an regular non-CBAN block for CIR would be the best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading through the above, a TBAN seems like an ineffective remedy because of the history of jumping from topic to topic. A topic ban tailored to the areas of disruption (including some of the stuff at RD and Jimbo's page not in the OP diffs) would cover "science, philosophy, politics, and the operation of Wikipedia" which would leave, I don't know, KPop articles? A CBAN is, OTOH overkill. While trying and disruptive, RTG is not showing irremediable behavior nor apparently driving other editors away. Driving them to distraction, certainly. Driving them to disengage with a topic, definitely. Driving them off the project entirely, though? Maybe I missed something and there was an editor that left but I don't see it stated anywhere. (Not that "driving other editors off the project" is the standard for CBAN discussions but it is an aggravating point to be considered.) An ordinary admin CIR indefinite block seems called for. If RTG can convince and admin somewhere down the line that they won't treat Wikipedia like their personal on-demand therapist and debating platform, then they could possibly return. If a CBAN is implemented, then a full community discussion to review a CBAN might be necessary at some point down the line which seems like a waste of editor time. Goldilocks solution, anyone? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • RTG response: Okay there are 13 apparent issues.
    1. Okay, Ryulong was the most aggressive long term tireless contributor turned newb biter and profanity communicator the site has ever seen. 100s of thousands of edits, largely based on the aforementioned. Ryulong, the double dragon, is banned forever. Contrary to the impression User:NAEG is trying to portray, I believe if I said an uncensored "eff you Ryulong" now, it would be my most egrarious addition so far, notable by the lack of actual egrarious diffs by me. I have since turned against people using psychiatric diagnosis as a tool of argument, so I digress on that, but to give context to my linking dark triad, I don't recall much reaction and there was a reason for that... Ryulong was a true blight on the site, attacking and belittling all who did not elevate their aggressive ownership of Asian gaming articles. If I was a significant part of the huge row that took Ryulong down, I deserve one of the medals. And, "rage quit"? Isn't that one unfounded accusation? Again, truly nasty diffs please, not just speculation by others.
    2. Actually, I went off to live up the mountains. No really, I went off, to one of the most rural areas of my country, and lived in a field for several years, and I am not comfortable about dicussing it here in this contxt. How can anybody have a problem with that? What is this?
    3. "The Witch Trials"? Again... what is this complaint about? Well, the issue with the VP at that time was when the big argument was going on about closing the ref desks. I hadn't used the site much for a couple of years. Nobody even was trying to detail what exactly a ref desk is. I was almost infuriated that they could be closed because we couldn't handle some heated discussions. I checked as deeply as I could into what a ref desk is... it's a part of a library where you find books which have the information you require and they have been an integral part of Wikipedianness for a long, long time. I opened a thread to ask the community to protect the ref desks and perhaps other projects, that they couldn't simply be closed on a whim. That if they were going to die out, given that they are so important... just to let them fizzle out then. Well, some of the main protagonists for their closure stuck a template on my request immediately. I got into 3RR saying leave my talk posts alone. As an editor, I get to make a proposal at the VP. All of the resulting furore was directly that I would not stop demanding that I get to make a proposal at the VP without being insta-harrassed. If I cannot say that... well I just did again... and neither does it seem to be egrarious this time to say so.
    4. Again, Sitush attacks newbs from Asia (I've no connection to Asia BTW, but alas...) They came to my talkpage to do nothing but belittle me in the strongest terms and accuse me of being a threat to them. Note the lack of diffs about where it came from.
    5. Someone asked the graphics lab how to edit details on a photograph. Their enquiry was ignored. I tried to explain how to edit the tiniest details on a photo as to fully restore the particular photo, that would be the most difficult task. I regular editor said that the clone tool is much more effective. I said, not for pixels, and I think pixel editing is relevant to the request. Now let's not forget that nobody else appeared interested answering the request anyway, like someone asking how do you edit an article... For disagreeing, this editor Begoon said I should just accept what I am told with an edit summary that they were shaking their head, literally saying that it did not matter what the question was, just not to have a different answer to the other editors answer... Then I edited my response to the OP adding spacers and the most minor of copy edits, to make it more digestible. User:Begoon started edit warring with me, over rules designed to prevent an editor changing their comments, even stating in an edit summary "as it deprives replies of their original context"... Here is one of the edits[350] and th other [351]. Changed the context? No. The editor was just looking for an argument, that I would dare disagree with their friend, in an inconsequential way. Suddenly User:Begoon turned up on articles I was editing. I was so egrarious as to point out the obvious, given their aggressive reaction to me, they were looking for ammo to have a fight. I am still stunned they didn't find enough, as I expected some sort of extensive nit-pickery like this current post seems to be.
    6. Yes I contacted an arb about simply deleting anothers talkpage comment without any sort of recourse. As it happened, it was the worst. It was a noob saying something like, nobody seems to know I am here can I just ask for a response? So I ticked User:Joe for that a bit. Not a habit. Didn't take much of their time. Broke no rules. They should have guided the new editor, it wouldn't have taken two minutes. Don't bite noobs, please...
    7. RTG asked a question at the refdesk and got teased at length and wasn't happy about it. What again is this complaint all about?
    8. The response was 100% against my request, yet it is the single most perennial request on that talk page. Again, load of comments about people saying they aren't interested, in an individual thread. The problem with my interaction, was again?
    9. I was insta blocked for pointing out that I was within the guidelines invoked against me... I wanted to find a way to bring an understandable description of how the coronvirus affects the body, a description which did not seem appear in the news and media for a week afterwards. What can be more provocative than that? The above complaints go on and on about that incident, but in fact it was isolated and short and caused no disruption.
    10. I stand by ALL OF THAT. Let's have it out in detail. Certainly it was a battle. They were totally rubbishing the movie on bad sources. It's been almost entirely fixed now. Did User:NAEG care to elucidate on that? There were straight out lies from the sources, and poor representation of them.
    11. Now we are at the crux. I went from a global warming article to the global warming article itself. I entered several minor suggestions on the talk page (this was about the promotion of burnable fuels as "green" energy long debunked, but not on Wikipedia...) So I asked to improve that and to link related articles better. I was put down at length for every kind of improvement, right down to the point where User:NAEG takes up against me for asking that there should be a see also section in the global warming article. User:NAEG invoked the MOS guide for see also sections. Some time later... a bunch of featured articles appeared on the main page at once, in a topic that interests me. None of them had a see also section. At least nothing substantial. Given the early problem with adding see also to global warming. I researched the see also guidelines extensively. It turns out that the intention of the guideline has been skewed in a way which has been warned about and complained about for ten years. Response to the complain has been less than mediocre. So I attempted to open a debate about it. User:NAEG opened a lengthy reply to the thread, all about focusing attention on me..., if course percieving me to be prepossessed with them over the dispute on the global warming article. User:NAEG is provocative. User:NAEG singled out an editor in good standing who agreed with me about the see also, and templated, their talkpage alone... which they also did during the argument at the global warming article... And to cut a long story short... Depreciation of see also as a sign of a quality article must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It is a navigation tool with no valid replacement. HOW ON EARTH IS THAT GASLIGHTING??? And, YOU CAN BE SURE I AM OPPOSED TO THAT BEING A FEATURED ARTICLE. Yes, I am. Am I banned now? And to cut short, User:NAEG says above, "When I asked him to redact some of the personal attacks at his user talk..." and they got a response... what personal attacks, and let's have it out in detail about that response if you like because it is actually a valid concern. Global warming is, or has recently been, suffering from expertitis and popular bias.
    12. Included above except... I made an edit to my own user page which said something like, "If you are going to be a little shit, try to be a bit more understanding about it". Now, I invite you to read the stuff on my userpage, then come back here and tell us it is some sort of personal attack page against User:NAEG...?? What the *bleep* is the nature of this complaint again? Yes I did eventually and openly give up on what is obviously a harrassment. How dare I go from arguing that there should be a see also section to arguing that there shouldn't be less of them, unless it is some sort of attempt to gaslight one user or another..? (I'm really not happy with that response but a spade is not a shovel, even if you don't like catch phrases??? *bleepity bleep bleep bleeeep*)
      Sarcasm is rare effective in text, struck. Obviously not a case of harrassment, that I edited my own userpage. ~ R.T.G 19:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    13. My little monkey friend...
    14. Site ban me? Topic ban me from all science articles? Because I'm not afraid to discuss or to support things which others tend to disagree with? Usually ditors are brought here with diffs showing that they are attacking others, vandalising, or otherwise breaking the site. I disagree sometimes, and I talk too much...
    15. I'll try to respond to the furore but let's face it, I'm not popular with the in-crowd. Thanks for taking the opportunity to point that out at length. ~ R.T.G 19:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why my numbering attempt has failed. Apologies. I will try to figure it out and fix it. ~ R.T.G 19:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Fixed. ~ R.T.G 19:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RE numbering, try removing the blank lines between paragraphs NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consant invokations of comeptence, and not one diff about it. Therapy? Thanks very much. No I've changed my mind. I've made my responses to the initial complaint. If anything truly egrarious comes up, I apologise. As for any more nit pickery... I am not going to fear people in high standing, and if that insults them, and they expect me to accept their insults like accusations of attacks when there are none and so on, gaslighting when there is no such thing... no editor can be expected to take that naturally as suitable for them. However I am just going to note that where I am accused of claoiming the BNP is not a white supermacist group, the word spremacist does not appear on the page. In reality, I complained very clearly, that the source did not support the statement they are "whites only". Do I really have to defend such accusations at length? ~ R.T.G 19:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RTG, your #4 makes no sense to me. Not unusual when reading your stuff but this one affects me. Where are these attacks on "newbs from Asia" and who is the "they" to whom you refer? Me or the newbs? - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I must apologise if I seem to compare you to Ryulong, which would be totally unfair... but after your response to me that time I did check if that was the case and as I recall there were some agressive and protective items. You certainly bit into me on first interactions. ~ R.T.G 20:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RTG, you do not have to apologise for seeming to compare me to Ryulong because you didn't, you know you didn't and you're just deflecting by suggesting that now. If you are going to make sweeping statements along the lines of Again, Sitush attacks newbs from Asia (which is also in the present tense) then I want to see some diffs, not I did check and as I recall .... I'm not aware of biting you on first interactions, either, leaving aside the fact that WP:BITE refers to newcomers, which I very much doubt you were at the time of our first interaction. Please provide the diffs for this, too. - Sitush (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You just popped in to tell me that you noticed someone claim I am incoherent most of the time, and would like to take the chance to agree... How can I not follow that with a sarcastic remark? Directly after which you say, "Bearing in mind my most commonly edited topic area, that really is saying something." Now, that is a comparison to your claim that I am incoherent. You are saying, "And do you think you are incoherent..? You should see the noobs on these Asian articles..." but if I took you for someone who is openly disrespectful at that point, well that's my fault or something... (Look, nobody says it better than the guide, it's a list of tangentially related topics. Not simply siblings or categorically related, but sensibly related... closely similar and related topics for further reading. It's like a form of trivia, but a more informative form of trivia. It's like trivia for learning the subject, rather than for trivias sake. It's intellectual trivia. There's nothing non-quality about see also, and if you would entertain them, even I could write a diffusing guide to tolerating empassioned vs non-empassioned calls for see also items. It's about how branching the topic is, how easy it is to navigate the significant items from the rest of the article, and how concise the list is. Am I crazy? Yes of course I am crazy.) ~ R.T.G 05:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't parse your response at all. I rather think this is a big part of the problem and for that reason I think you need to go, sorry. If you can't communicate in a way that the average reader understands (and I'm probably a bit better than average and regularly have to deal with near-gibberish) then you're not suited to this place because reasonably clear communication is essential to its function. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a WP:CIR/WP:TEND indef block by an admin is a better solution than site banning at this time, per Eggishorn. It's unfortunate that RTG didn't take my advice to reconsider their approach to editing constructively on the project and following WP:BRD when working with other editors (especially in controversial subjects such as COVID-19), but not unexpected. While I'm convinced that there's an established pattern of disruption/WP:TEND-like behavior in topics that they edit (with their response above serving as an object lesson of the issues at hand), I think a site ban might be a bit overkill at this point. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now in favor of a site ban, given how much RTG has been bludgeoning other editors in this thread. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Checklist for WP:TEND 1. Yes. Twice. Both times for defending my own talkpage comments from being edited, not for pushing a bias. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Sort of, yes. 6. No, not really but always open to that. 7. LOL, no. 8. No. (inadequate occasionally, not to push a bias or anything like that, I don't recommend it) 9. Yes. 10. No. 11. No. 12. No. (what?) 13. No. But I do complain when little to no weight is given at all. 14. No (but for User:NAEG, I didn't take up such an offer during some of their issue). 15. No. 16. No. 17. No... Fix society, no. Make Wikipedia articles accept when society is fixing itself, yes, of course. 18. No. 19. No. 3 ... minor yeses and a couple of greys out of 19. That's a little over 86%. B flat. Okay I think I'm busy now. I've upset people but, almost exclusively over content and guidance issues that I believe in, and I do not give up easily, but I always give up. It's not my mission to pursue anyone, or to die hard on anything, which is generally what this sort of complaint requires. I'm sorry that User:NAEG is afraid of me, or angered or amused by me, but they should be if they are going to harrass me and people who agree with me. It is true I have been trying to return to this last year and a half to editing the site, but to be honest, I do feel like there is an ominous wall of cronyism and protectionism falling over the site far too soon. I am sure I have left that impression in various places on the site, but look at the things I am trying to promote. See also for instance. Nobody bloody answered it yet for ten years. It is certainly not the intention of the guidelines to depreciate them in quality articles. The guide is simply trying to prevent wild and irrelevant see alsos. The coronavirus source... the guy is a surgeon. An expert in anatomy. People said he wasn't because he has a slimming surgery channel on Youtube. People couldn't ust say no, they had to quote guides which, strictly, didn't support them... Um... There's another couple but they are all picky little items, mostly that would be good improvements, that a bunch of big shots sat on, and I complained about it. Look, I'm after making an accusation on this Sitush editor who does thousands of edits. I'll never be able to find the diffs to back it up. If that was what I am doing normally, it would clearly be in the diffs of the body of complaints above, and it would have come out many, many times. Often it has been claimed that I am making attacks and stuff, with little or no evidence of such and nobody ever gets in trouble for that. I am that type. Well, depreciating see also is a mistake. Practicing exclusion on global warming is proving counterproductive. I would argue about that at length, and I did, and it is long over, but there is the matter of a stick... ~ R.T.G 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TEND isn't a "checklist". It's a supplemental information page to the disruptive editing behavioral guideline. It is meant to describe warning signs of what tendentious editing may look like, but it's by no means a "checklist" nor is it all-encompassing in any way. I'll also note the final sentence of the first paragraph, which says On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. I think that your actions (from what I've seen so far) fits the bill for a majority of the warning signs described on the page, not necessarily all of it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    THe above wall of self justifying wall of text leans me towards a site ban.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Given how much RTG has been bludgeoning other editors in this thread, I think that it has served as an object lesson of their incompatibility with the project and tendency for disruptive editing. I've struck part of my above comment accordingly, since I'm now in favor of a CBAN. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Byzantine Empire page move

     Done. El_C 13:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was moved without discussion to (Eastern) Roman Empire. A noble sentiment but not justified or consented to. Now the page needs an administrator to move it back. GPinkerton (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Shadybabs

    User reported - Shadybabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction sought - Community-imposed site ban
    Basis - WP:CIR

    I've noticed this user who has recieved dozens of warnings and a block for engaging in an edit war on numerous pages has been making a string of small vandalisms and intentional overt POV edits. The ones I've detected I've gone through and reverted but I can't keep a watch on all his future edits. What action can you recommend to avoid these future disruptions? He's just deleted his talk page so all prior warnings and blocks have been erased too. You can see some of them below. Many of his edits use the wording "Remove whitewashing". This user seems to be single issue. The list below is but a snapshot. He also told me to stop harrasing him for calling him out on this behaviour

    Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shadybabs&diff=prev&oldid=970969716

    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sacking_of_Lawrence&diff=970970087&oldid=967478366</ref>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Cameron_(Kentucky_politician)&diff=prev&oldid=968033577
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Modern_display_of_the_Confederate_battle_flag&diff=prev&oldid=963242818
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Southern_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=937197733
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America&diff=prev&oldid=963226098
    https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_Post-Gazette&diff=prev&oldid=962884738

    Alexandre8 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Every user has times when they have different interpretations of wikipedia policy than other users. Some also have differing opinions of what constitutes NPOV vs POV. I personally find whitewashing of controversial or harmful acts and statements as POV pushing. Users are free to disagree, but that doesn't make my edits by default "vandalism". Also note that only a small proportion of my edits have ever been flagged or reverted for these issues. This user has been reverting my good faith edits and is presenting an extremely biased and misleading case against me, hence my accusations of harassment. Shadybabs (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It still needs sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to state that Shadybabs and I have no prior history. Unfortunately I stumbled across what I see as a high number of unhelpful edits or edits likely to be perceived as vandalism. Your deletion of your user talk page which involved a high number of previously disruptive incidents and a BLOCK, led to my suspicion that our interaction was not a singularity. I do not feel that I am reverting good faith edits when the user's main purpose APPEARS to be to change the political bias of every contentious article they come across. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadybabs, unless you are able to acknowledge your policy violations and commit to correction, you are likely to face some form of sanction or another, probably of some severity (see: User talk:Shadybabs#Warning: conservative and libertarian politicians are not "far right"). El_C 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have run into Shadybabs myself on both the Cultural genocide of Uyghurs article where he edit warred (and showed a poor understanding of WP:BRD), and the UKIP article where he made 5 reversions in 24 hours, as mentioned above, which he was banned for. In addition he isn't great with Wikiquette, doesn't seem interested in engaging, and unashamedly introduces PoV into articles. I think Shadybabs, frankly, is a tendentious editor. — Czello 17:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That shifts me to an outright ban.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Czello, for pointing out that Shadybabs was blocked (rather than banned, which is technically different) for the edit warring on the UKIP article. I didn't realise that had happened - Shadybabs has since blanked their talk page, so I didn't see the block notice, but I should have checked their block log before commenting above. The fact that they were already blocked for those edits is relevant, and had I noticed it my comment would have been different. The fact that almost all of their edits after coming off their block were main space reverts, rather than talk page contributions, does not inspire confidence. I hope that Shadybabs will respond properly to these issues very soon, and I'll reserve judgement for a while in the hopes that they give us something to work with, but this is not a good look. GirthSummit (blether) 19:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to set the record straight in my initial report I erroneously used the word "ban" to describe previous "blocks". Apologies if that caused confusion. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What time frame is usually given for a reply on this from the user in question?Alexandre8 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I warned WoodLay about copyright issues in May, but they appear to be continuing to add copyright material to articles (e.g. Crucifix of Quebec National Assembly but also sentences in edits such as this). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A first short block is probably in order, on the other hand I wonder if it will change anything considering the low activity level, other than being in the log for longer future blocks if violations persist. Also concerning is the lack of response to warnings other than blanking. I wondered if a language barrier explains both, but I've seen other edits in proper English like Special:Diff/966808502 (does not seem to be a blatant copyright violation?)... —PaleoNeonate – 23:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User repeatedly creating uncredited machine translations from other wikis, despite warnings

    Despite receiving multiple warnings (such as [352]), Jackson767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to upload articles which are machine translations from other language wikipedias, without crediting the source. This is a violation of WP:Licensing, WP:COPYVIO, and leaves messes for other editors to clean up after. Furthermore, it's not a constructive contribution (to see a machine translated version of another wiki's article, use Google Translate). The results are often incoherent and/or unverifiable. Here are some examples of his work: Battle of Heishiguan, from Chinese (deleted), Alfonsas Vincentas Ambraziūnas, from Lithuanian (reverted/stubbed), and just today Andrey Davidovich Gorshkov (from Russian, draftified by me). As far as I can tell, virtually all of their contributions consist of this. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would add that moving the poorly translated and under-referenced articles to draft doesn't help as the user simply moves them back to mainspace, for example [353] and [354] --John B123 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue at China–United States trade war

    I'd appreciate help or advice on an issue at China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The main problem is that a few times now, Flaughtin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disappeared from the article and the talk page discussion for 1–4 weeks, and then has come back and reverted most or all of the updates and corrections that have been made in the meantime [355][356][357]. I've asked the user to discuss these reverts on the talk page, but they refuse. On the talk page you'll find discussion of several other disputes, but when I asked the user to discuss these reverts, they said "I have my reasons for reverting your content, but the explanation will have to wait until after we have addressed and resolved your second round of mass purges of edits"[358], "You'll just have to wait for me to tell you why"[359], and "You'll have to wait for my explanation"[360]. I first asked for an explanation for the reverts on 18 June, and Flaughtin still hasn't provided one. This seems to be a case of WP:Status quo stonewalling.

    It's impossible to keep developing this article when all the additions and corrections will just get reverted in a couple of weeks by an editor who refuses to discuss the reasons for the reverts. I'm not sure whether ANI is the best venue for this issue, but I'd appreciate help or guidance on how to deal with this situation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The admins should shut this request down with prejudice. I can't be refusing to provide explanation for my edits when I have already said I would provide an explanation for them - it's just they will have to wait given the preceeding and proceeding mass purges/battleground edits the other user has made. It really isn't my problem that he/she wants to (or feels entitled to) jump the line and it really isn't my problem either that he/she doesn't read either carefully or at all - that isn't meant to be an insult, it is just meant to be a statement of fact as the debates on the talk page demonstrates. The rounds of debates has to be resolved sequentially, partly because of, again, the problematic edits the other user has made (the mass purges as I have already pointed out), partly for reasons of clarity (there are too many points of contentions to be resolved), and partly for reasons of fairness (this is self explanatory); to do it any other way would make it impossible to keep track of the sheer number of disputes which have to be resolved. The issue of my editing pattern is something that I have already addressed; that said, I will going forward do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia.
    For the record admins should note the irony of this request and how it's (or seems to be anyway) a classic example of an aggressor playing the victim card - this whole debate all started with this mass purge of my edits by the opposing editor here. I could have disregarded his/her edit summary (just like how he/she has disregarded my explanations for the reversion of his/her edits) and taken the issue straight to this noticeboard but I didn't given the confidence I had in my edits and suppporting arguments. The debates on the talk page were and still are moving in the right direction, most of the points of contention have been or are being resolved and majority of them are being resolved on my terms - i suspect that that is real reason why this ANI was brought up in the first place. At this point, the best solution would be if an admin could directly intervene in the debates on the talk page (mainly to prevent a request like this from happening again by expediting the dispute resolution process) or barring that, then do nothing and just let the debate run its natural course. Flaughtin (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do make an effort to read carefully, and that's why, for example, I object to claims like these ones about GDP that don't match the sources they cite. But back to the issue at hand—I note that Flaughtin still has not offered any justification or explanation for the reverts linked above. Flaughtin's insistence on discussing disputes "sequentially" with weeks of delays (and periodically reverting any new changes to the article) has the effect of making it impossible to make progress on the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Without having looked at the actual material - if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert. No one can hold another editor hostage to their whims because explaining their actions doesn't fit their schedule right now. If that's what is going on here, it should stop. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Elmidae, that's a good summary of what's going on. The editor is discussing other disputes on the talk page, but refuses to discuss the reverts linked above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Elmidae: As I have made clear in my comments above and many times to the other editor elsewhere I am prepared to explain my reverts - the real problem is that editor's sense of entitlement; specifically, the arrogance on his/her part to not just demand that I respond on his/her terms while he/she mass reverts my edits, but to be completely ignorant of the hypocrisy of the demand. He/she demands my immediate and unceasing attention to my reversion of his/her edits; meanwhile I'm supposed to just pretend that his/her mass reversions of my edits never happened. I can understand if an animal accepted those kind of demands, but what kind of self-respecting person would do that? As I've said, going forward, I will do my best to be more punctual in my response given the escalation of this matter, but again i cannot make guarantees on this because my life just doesn't revolve around Wikipedia.
    Granger: Well no no you don't read the things I write carefully (or at all) and your arguments on the talk page demonstrates this. For every example that you can find where I haven't carefully read your edits, I can find ten examples where you haven't carefully read my edits. If you want to talk about problematic conduct, then of course it's best if we began with your mass purge of my edits which is what started this whole debate. I've been more than patient with you and assuming of good faith given your initial mass reverts of my contributions to that article and for you to try to play the victim-card here on this noticeboard and rehash your demand that I respond on your terms when you took the initiative to mass revert my edits rests on a kind of arrogance (i.e. arrogance of ignorance) that really, really just scrapes the bottom of the gutter. If you did that with any other editor, your (multiple) mass reverts would have been reverted mercilessly already and you would have ended up at WP:3RR ages ago. I have already said that I will do my best to respond in a more punctual manner and if you are not going/refuse to take my word for it, then that is your problem, not mine. Flaughtin (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your life may not revolve around Wikipedia, but likewise Wikipedia doesn't wait on you. As Elmidae said, if you revert, you need to be prepared to explain your reasons. If you don't have the time to do that, don't revert. Your edit doesn't need to stay up; you can take the time to discuss this on the talk page. — Czello 10:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Geo Swan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Following one month after the close here (Dennis Brown: I'm going to assume Geo Swan gets the point, and just close this. No need to summarize what should be obvious.) we have this deletion review. Evidently they have not gotten the point. I suggest that some kind of topic ban would be appropriate. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would strongly support this given more detail about a specific topic ban. Preferably as it involves BLPs. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Requesting undeletion at the DRV because "I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4.", without disclosing that the deleted article contains the same BLP-violating content that was the subject of that ANI thread, merits a TBAN from the subject matter at issue, if not all BLPs. This is "not dropping the stick" at the expense of BLP privacy, and it's not reasonable to expect the community to be constantly "on the lookout" for new blpvio attempts from the same veteran editor. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed when combined with the incessant wikilawyering about it and extreme WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually the second time they've tried that manoeuvre, see the discussion here. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    in which case I would propose an outright tban from anything related to Chauvin broadly construed. If they continue to have BLP violations, that can be revisited. Praxidicae (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting that Geo Swan received DS alerts for BLP and AP2 topics back in June. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is way past time that Geo Swan dropped this particular stick. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4" Really?? I'm guessing that Cullen328's warning ("In my opinion, Geo Swan should receive an indefinite topic ban on any content relating to living people or recently deceased people if Geo Swan fails to drop the stick") wasn't clear enough... Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from Deepfriedokra. The above linked ANI thread was preceded by this discussion on my talk page. Having been harassed and doxed, I'm very concerned about Wikipedia revealing PII about people who have tried to hide their PII out of concern for being doxed and harassed.(link) If I am to err, I'd rather it be on the side of not revealing BLP sensitive content. I suppose GeoSwan does not understand this concern. I suppose this all adds up to WP:TENDENTIOUS. WP:ADMINACCT is important, but this has become vexatious. No opinion on remedies as I am INVOLVED. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone spell out what exactly the claim is? Are folks saying that GS was trying to get that name back into the history of the article? If so, to what purpose? Or are we saying it was an oversight not remind people about the issue? It all sounds like everyone here knows that the issue is but no one is really making it clear. Hobit (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hobit: So it would appear. To what purpose? I cannot say. Just to bring you up to speed, this concerns info about someone who is not the subject in an article, which was revealed in more than one article and revdel'd. GeoSwan has been attempting to get this content back into the encyclopedia. Trying very hard. To get the full flavor, please read my talk page thread and the ANI. It will be clearer then. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
    edit conflict
    1. JBL, doesn't the discussion you refer to concern a separate and distinct issue?
    2. Levivich, you write I merit a TBAN because I started a DRV "without disclosing that the deleted article contains the same BLP-violating content that was the subject of that ANI thread..." I didn't edit the Derek Chauvin (police officer) article, and I have never seen that article. The arguments for deletion offered in the first AFD were BLP1E and CRIME - which I think we are all agreed aren't applicable now, and FWIW, wouldn't have been considered applicable, if anyone had done an effective web search on June 3rd.

      Levivich, you initially agreed to the restoration of the deleted material, and changed your mind when another contributor made two claims, first, that the deleted material violated BLPNAME, second, that I knew the deleted material violated BLPNAME.

      I am not aware of anyone claiming the deleted material violated BLPNAME up until the accusations you took at face value. So, if the first claim of a BLPNAME violation is true, I would have had no way of knowing that. So, your suggestion my request for restoration of the deleted versions was in bad faith is, well, extremely unfair.

    3. I made 17 edits to Derek Chauvin, the first 12 were innocuous edits to more fully populate the article's references. On June 13th my last edits to Derek Chauvin did introduce new content - on his career prior to the killing, so, also innocuous and noncontroversial. Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In your DRV filing, you wrote: Fuzheado closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer), justifying a speedy closure due to unspecified BLP concerns, and A10. It didn't dawn on me when I first read that what the "unspecified BLP concern" was because I forgot about this whole issue. But you did not forget about it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And to be clear: I don't think for a second that your intent was to harass anyone or that you have any bad intent at all. It's not about intent for me; I think that you're strangely oblivious to the seriousness of this BLP privacy issue. It should have dawned on you that restoring something that was deleted for BLP reasons risks violating BLP policy. When you posted at REFUND [361], you wrote speedily closed, justified, in part, on an assertion BLP1E was a speedy deletion criteria without mentioning the BLP privacy issue. Thankfully, others caught it, but you're just not being careful enough about this, and this isn't the first or second or third time. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)
      • Levivich, the only BLP concern explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) was BLP1E. Kire1975 and I both asked Fuzheado to explain their closure. He or she didn't do so, didn't reply at all, until told of the first DRV. Then they implied they would explain at the first DRV.

        I can't remember when I read anything about protecting that individual's name. It was long after I read the first AFD, and long after Fuzheado declined to offer a further explanation of their closure. Your suggestion I should have known what they meant by their phrase "the sensitive BLP issues" is unreasonable. The meaning you suggest never occurred to me, until I read your comment 15 minutes ago.

        Fuzheado could have said something like, "sorry kids, this is an instance where privacy issues preclude me from explaining my closure. See Meta:Office." They didn't say that at the first DRV, as they never showed. No one else did, either.

        Since then Fuzheado has been pinged numerous times. I honestly thought the reason they never tried to explain their closure was that they were embarrassed for claiming BLP1E was a speedy deletion criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

        • After you talked to Fuzheado about the close on June 5, and after you requested the REFUND and it was denied on June 14, a bunch of other stuff happened that culminated in the ANI thread, which was closed on June 30 [362], a little over a month ago, with a BLP warning posted on your talk page. [363] A month later on July 30 you started the DRV of the June 14 REFUND decline, without really mentioning any of this except as "unspecified BLP concerns". [364] The next day, you posted in the BLP warning user talk page thread from June 30 [365], and then you posted in the DRV (favoring undeletion) without mentioning the BLP concern. [366] [367] [368] The meaning you suggest never occurred to me, until I read your comment 15 minutes ago isn't credible when you posted in that BLP warning thread on your UTP four days ago. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My pointer is to the part of the discussion between me & DE (not you and DE), which involves the same issue that I've raised here. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hobit, Deepfriedokra, and Black Kite:, as I wrote, above, I never edited or read any of the deleted versions. I am not aware of anyone claiming the deleted versions mentioned the name of the individual we have decided not to name, prior to the DRV. No one should accuse me of using the DRV to trick the community into putting that individuals name in our visible history.

      I have never employed trickery, of any kind, at any point in my fifteen years here.

      Deepfriedokra, you ask "for what purpose". I can't imagine a more pointless exercise than tricking the community into burying it in revisions from months ago. Any mean spirited person who wanted to use that name to harass that individual would find it orders of magnitude simpler to find it using google. Geo Swan (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Assuming good faith here, there is no point in restoring any of the deleted revisions of the original article.
    • Most of them would have to be oversighted anyway for the reason mentioned above
    • A number of the others contained unsourced BLP claims and/or simple vandalism
    • None of the content was re-used in the current article anyway, so there is no need for attribution.
    • Please, could we review the deletion at DRV and confine this discussion to user conduct?—S Marshall T/C 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've come across Geo Swan several times over the years. I recall his remarkable effort to produce an exhaustive series of articles on the inmates of Guantanamo Bay. I think Geo Swan's a committed, long-term Wikipedian who's interested in transparency as it relates to criminals who're of political interest in the US. I also think he's got a good faith belief that the public benefits of covering difficult topics on Wikipedia often outweighs the harm; and he's had lots of experience dealing with editors who want him to shut up. Personally, I've found he disregards threatening messages with red warning notices on them, and responds well to a civil and reflective conversation.—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I have extremely limited experience with Geo Swan. I am extremely puzzled by their behavior with regards to this matter. But I do not think the lack of civil or reflective conversation is the problem. For example, Geo Swan never responded to EEng's post here. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • JBL, correct me here, you started this review because you had the idea I knew some deleted versions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) included the name we have decided not to include. Correct me here, you regarded me requesting the review, knowing the deleted versions including that name, as me ignoring early discussions where it was decided not to include that name.

        But I had absolutely no way of knowing the deleted revisions included that name.

        I don't go looking for trouble. And I would not have started the DRV if anyone had let me know it contained that name. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Valoem and New Way Forward Act

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

    Doesn't understand how BRD works? Check. Bad-faith accusations against other editors? Check. Edit-warring at multiple BLPs to include contentious material despite clear objections? Check check check check. (This is ignoring the competence and NPOV issues in the parent article New Way Forward Act that they created; I've removed the citation to Tucker Carlson and the time-traveling criticisms from Trump, but more attention would be helpful. This is escalated from BLPN.) --JBL (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Couple of points:
      1. Including this bill on the pages of numerous American politicians strikes me as a bit of a coatrack: "Senator Gurpleton is a supporter of the New Way Forward Act. Here is a long-winded ramble about what the bill is. Blah de blah de blah de blah de blah de blah."
      2. I agree that a statement Trump made in May 2019 cannot possibly relate to a bill introduced seven months later.
      3. You won't get far talking to POV-pushers the way they talk to you.
    • Reyk YO! 22:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I honestly can't even believe what I'm reading.
    • Valoem: How could you revert this, I added sources? These are facts.
    • JBL: WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and misrepresenting sources are all concerns here. You made a bold edit, but per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to stop reverting and take your concern to the talk page. Here are several other demonstrable problems with your edit.
    • Valoem: But... but... NO, I ADDED SOURCES!!! [continues reverting]
    Valoem has now been reverted by two different users. And who cites Tucker Carlson? On top of obvious edit warring, POV pushing, and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, I suspect there could even be an element of WP:CIR at play, just going off of Valoem's actions here. Darkknight2149 23:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I've added reliable sources showing this two people believe in the New Way Forward Act I did nothing wrong here. The onus is on me I added sources why are your removing source information? Valoem talk contrib 04:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you had a point, the onus is on you to go to the talk page and discuss the disagreement instead of continuing to hammer the Undo button. As an editor with rollback, autopatrolling, and pending change review rights who has been with us since 2006 and who was blocked for breaking 3RR back in 2010, I have a hard time believing that you don't already know this. A better question would be why are you edit warring and ignoring the WP:BRD process? Darkknight2149 05:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3RR was due to editing the article Phil Ivey against an IP editor regarding format. It is fairly clear that you are using Wikipedia as a political tool if you are going to bring that up. Our goal is to create a neutral presentation of laws. Is there a rule against attributing Tucker Carlson? I also cited what Jesus "Chuy" Garcia said in the support section yet that was not removed. And 2010? you haven't even been around that long. Valoem talk contrib 07:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that you are obviously familiar with edit warring policies, not that the 2010 block has anything to do with this situation. Darkknight2149 08:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is there a rule against attributing Tucker Carlson?" Visit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Under "Fox News (talk shows)" it specifically states: "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions." Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh

    The behaviour of User:Sandbh in a discussion at Talk:Periodic table#IUPAC: an endorsement on group 3 (1988) is concerning me. It appears to involve misreadings of reliable sources, using original research to discredit sources, and selectively using sources.

    Let us take one case as an example. Now, I am afraid that this will be a bit long, because it just takes quite long to refute a misuse of sources.

    Landau and Lifshitz's Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Quantum Mechanics (1958) contains a note on p. 271 regarding the periodic table.


    And this source, among others, was cited by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in a 1988 report (doi:10.1351/pac198860030431) to endorse the idea that group 3 of the periodic table should contain scandium, yttrium, and then lutetium instead of lanthanum:


    For reference, the symbols of the elements involved are Sc (scandium), Y (yttrium), Lu (lutetium), Lr (lawrencium), La (lanthanum), Ac (actinium), Ce (cerium), Th (thorium), Yb (ytterbium), and No (nobelium).

    IUPAC currently even has a project reexamining the matter right now, whose chair is Eric Scerri. And he considers it an endorsement:


    This seems to me to clearly support the idea that the relevant body endorsed the form with group 3 as Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr in 1988. But that is not how Sandbh sees it.

    First he discredits the report itself. He claims that "Fluck’s saying that group 3 is Sc-Y-Lu-Lr was a personal opinion, relying on questionable sources." But how is it a personal opinion? Fluck is not listed as the author of the 1988 report per se, but rather as the person who prepared the report for publication. Indeed the report is rather headed by the words "International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry: Inorganic Chemistry Division". And at the bottom of the cover page it is even called a report: "Republication of this report is permitted without the need for formal IUPAC permission on condition that an acknowledgement, with full reference together with IUPAC copyright symbol (© 1988 IUPAC), is printed. Publication of a translation into another language is subject to the additional condition of prior approval from the relevant IUPAC National Adhering Organization."

    Then he discredits Scerri's interpretation. He writes "Eric seeing Fluck’s statement is a personal opinion, not connected with his role as the Chair of the IUPAC Group 3 project." True that. But Eric Scerri, being on the actual IUPAC Group 3 project, is surely well-placed to know what IUPAC did or did not do in the past. And he's surely a reliable source for that very reason. Sandbh disputes this, saying "No, Scerri does not necessarily know what IUAPC has or has not done." But on what basis?

    We have to take the source at face value, we cannot try to discredit it based on some supposed behind-the-scenes background that we know nothing about (because it isn't publicly stated) That would be original research. But that's exactly what Sandbh does. He wrote to me in that discussion "You are reading things into this article when you do not have sufficient awareness of the background to it". But what have I read into it? I simply reported exactly what the IUPAC report said and that Scerri said it was an endorsement.

    Finally we come to what, to me, is the most astonishing part of Sandbh's behaviour. That is with reference to the source by Landau and Lifshitz (the Course of Theoretical Physics) referred to in the IUPAC report.

    Now, this is not just any other old textbook. It is a classic. We need only look at the Wikipedia article on it to get a sense of the accolades which it has received. Science called it "renowned". American Scientist called it "celebrated". The Soviet government even awarded its authors the Lenin Prize in 1962 (which was the first time it had ever been awarded for teaching physics).

    But what does Sandbh do? He tries to discredit it. And not by referring to an independent reliable source to do this. By instead referring to his own WP:OR analysis of it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 48#Landau & Ligshitz (1958): Redux. He advocates his own view of it that is at variance with what the IUPAC report says. He claims that Landau and Lifshitz supported lanthanum and lutetium in group 3, but IUPAC does not seem to see it that way. In fact he gives no source for his interpretation. Whereas all the sources I found that consider Landau and Lifshitz's statement interpreted it the way IUPAC did:



    And finally, that's not even the most astonishing thing Sandbh does in his WP:OR attempt to discredit the source. He draws a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" which is assuredly not what Landau and Lifshitz give.

    What Landau and Lifshitz give What Sandbh in his own analysis calls a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table"


    As can be seen, Landau and Lifshitz did not even give a periodic table. These tables are scattered across different pages in their book! But Sandbh creates a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" anyway, even including elements on it that were unknown to Landau and Lifshitz as they were only discovered after 1958. To do so, he must read into the minds of Landau and Lifshitz to figure out how they would have dealt with lawrencium with its unprecedentedly anomalous gas-phase ground-state electron configuration of [Rn]5f146d07s27p1 rather than [Rn]5f146d17s2. Not only is lawrencium not in their table, it would require rather more than mind-reading to find out what Landau and Lifshitz would have done, because this configuration was first predicted in 1971 when Landau had already passed away, and first received clear experimental support in 2015 when Lifshitz had also already passed away.

    I ask: how can this be considered anything other than a misuse of the source?

    This is not even the only case of misuse of sources in that discussion. There I have referred to several, such as claims about the relevance of gas-phase ground-state configurations for the d and f block elements. Sandbh continually claims these as relevant (without quoting any sources, simply asserting that thousands of sources use them without backing it up) despite the fact that I have already provided five sources refuting the idea. He also selectively quotes Scerri whenever he says something that might be taken to support La under Y: thus, for instance, he quotes Scerri and Parsons to support his idea that Jensen's 1982 article supporting Lu under Y (which IUPAC also refers to in its report above) is flawed, but fails to note that Scerri and Parsons support Jensen's conclusion anyway for other reasons. (In fact, both their criticism of Jensen and their support of his conclusion for other reasons anyway can be found in the same essay in Mendeleev to Oganesson.) Or how he claims that there effectively wasn't any controversy about group 3 before Jensen's 1982 article, despite me being able to find so many sources about it and supporting Lu under Y prior to 1982 (Bury 1921, Shemyakin 1932, Landau and Lifshitz 1958, Seel 1961 and 1969, Hamilton and Jensen 1963, Hamilton 1965, Matthias et al. 1967, Merz and Ulmer 1967, Luder 1967 and 1970, Chistyakov 1968 and 1970, Matthias 1969, Wittig 1973). But in the interest of not taking too much space, I have restricted myself to just the one above.

    I have pointed this out to him all there, but he does not address my concerns. He simply points to word length and says "​​​It's unfortunate this topic takes up so much wordage. Addressing Double sharp's contributions now takes me so long it's starting to impact my RL obligations." Well, of course it is long. It always takes more verbiage to point out a misuse of sources than to engage in it.

    And this is not a new pattern of behaviour from him. This topic has been discussed since last December(!) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 42. There it came about because he was planning to publish an article outside Wikipedia about the group 3 issue and asked the other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements for a peer review. By far the most active participants were him, myself, and Droog Andrey. There we found much the same thing: misinterpretation of sources, selective quoting of sources, and refusing to change his view even in the face of completely standard texts like Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements contradicting him. In the interest of space I haven't provided specific examples, but I can do so if requested. Because, after all, that is not quite relevant: it was for an external publication.

    So it spilled on through archives 44, 46, and 48, in which I progressively lost my patience. Since refuting him made me realise more and more about the subject and that Wikipedia's showing of La and Ac in group 3 may not be justified (as reliable sources focusing on the issue are generally against it, and they already form a significant 18% minority in general chemistry textbooks – we must remember that the textbooks are often not quite within reach of current knowledge; an example is how the d-orbital explanation of hypervalence lives on in textbooks despite it having been known to be false for decades), culminating in a first RFC (Talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should the default form of the periodic table be changed to put Lu and Lr in group 3, rather than La and Ac?)

    Now, I realised that I overreached in my harshness towards him: it was not justified per WP:CIVIL. So I apologised to him on his talk page and withdrew the RFC. (Since I did not know yet that IUPAC had really endorsed the Lu under Y form, it did have a weaker case.) However, despite this, the same behaviour with sources manifested itself again when this discussion was reopened when I found this statement about IUPAC's endorsement. And this time it's not about his external article, but about Wikipedia.

    I escalate this here reluctantly. I have worked productively with him on Wikipedia in the past, and would certainly much prefer to be doing so again. But this misuse of sources is now affecting a content discussion. Is there anything that can be done about this? Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ​Over the course of three posts Double sharp has so far contributed 10,000 words to the relevant discussion at Talk:Periodic table, here. My two responses, which I've tried to keep concise, amount to 1,200 words.
    His latest contribution here, brings his word count up to 12,000 words,
    I pity the poor Admin who has to deal with this one. It is not WP:ANI material.
    That said, I stand ready to assist. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ As can be seen, Sandbh still does not address his problematic use of sources. He only refers to word length even though it simply takes that long to show how problematic it is. Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (non admin comment) These arguments approach the length of a PhD thesis over multiple archives. But really it sounds like the RFC opening rather answers the question, the IUPAC have a compromise form at the moment, clearly intended to stop chemists from bickering. Could you both live with the compromise form? PainProf (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PainProf: The point here is not the form, it is about Sandbh's misuse of sources.
    But since you asked: I could live with Sc-Y-* indeed. It is shown by IUPAC (even if not explicitly recommended). It's Sandbh who apparently cannot, judging from his comments about it at Talk:Periodic table#A navigation aid for Wikipedia, based on the periodic table (see the end of that section).
    It is true that I would prefer Sc-Y-Lu as it was actually endorsed by IUPAC in 1988 as quoted above, whereas Sc-Y-* is not explicitly recommended by them. Actually Sc-Y-* poses a little difficulty for the navboxes on Wikipedia like {{Periodic table (navbox)}} which give the 32-column form. There the compromise is impossible. But we can look at what IUPAC does in that situation. Only the 18-column form appears in the most recent 2005 Red Book, but the 1990 one has 8-, 18-, and 32-column forms. In the first two, the compromise is possible, and they show Sc-Y-*. In the last it is not and they show Sc-Y-Lu. But, again: this can also be resolved by switching to an 18-column navbox and showing Sc-Y-* everywhere. I am okay with that compromise. Sandbh, it appears, is not. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see a major conduct issue, you are holding each other to very high standards, it seems like you've collaborated productively a lot in the past. I really think if you both concede ground you could end this minor conflict quite quickly and get back to that? PainProf (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PainProf: But I am willing to concede ground. I've stated above that the compromise form Sc-Y-* would be fine with me. It's not my first choice, but I'm fine with it. It's, however, apparently not fine with him.
    I do think that misuse of sources is a significant conduct issue. We have indeed collaborated productively a lot in the past, and I would like to get back to that, but it really does raise questions about his use of sources. And it is not even a new issue: Flying Jazz pointed it out back in 2013. There is this exchange in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 17:
    And later it turned out that what Sandbh said wasn't true:
    Indeed, Flying Jazz was not being particularly civil. But his point stands: Sandbh makes statements about sources that do not correctly represent the sources. I do feel that it is a conduct issue as it lessens trust in what he writes on Wikipedia. And it inevitably raises questions about the discussion. Like I said at Talk:Periodic table, I am willing to follow whatever consensus results on this matter. But how much will a consensus based on one editor's misrepresentations of the sources be worth?
    That's why I saw no choice but to reluctantly go here. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    ​​ Another 1,200 words and we do not even have admin involvement yet.

    I object to Double sharp dragging up ancient history from six years ago.

    The simple fact is the IUPAC has a project looking at the issue.

    The project recently conducted a survey of nearly 200 textbooks and found the La form, which we show in our periodic table article, is the most popular form:

    "Dec 2019 update – A survey of about 200 university textbooks of how group 3 of the periodic table has been prepared by UCLA student Jonathan Wong in association with Dr. Eric Scerri. The survey is divided into searches for each decade starting with the 1970s. A final tab labeled “data” presents comparative graphs."

    Double sharp posted an rfc to change back to the Lu form, with a 7,000 word supporting statement, and then withdrew it one day later after a particular hostile response from a member of WP:CHEMISTRY.

    User: Michael D. Turnbull recently expressed an interest in the issue. His personal conclusion, which I support, is "…we should wait as the matter may well be settled by the IUPAC working group within a few more months." Sandbh (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I withdrew it because you suggested it at Talk:Periodic_table#Last_try_at_being_reasonable. I do not want a fight. I am forced into one because you constantly misrepresent and selectively represent reliable sources. You do this yet again in this post, claiming that the La form is the most popular form, without mentioning that the IUPAC data itself shows that its popularity varies strongly by decade. It dropped from 82% in the 1990s to 48% in the 2010s as more and more chemists heard about it. It only considers English-language textbooks. You don't consider the fact that simply searching for "periodic table" at Google Images gives a 2/3 majority for the compromise form * under Y. And you also don't consider how overwhelming the majority for the Lu form becomes if you count articles focusing on the subject.
    Advocates Lu Advocates La Advocates *
    Bury (1921)
    Shemyakin (1932)
    Landau and Lifshitz (1958)
    Seel (1961 and 1969)
    Hamilton and Jensen (1963)
    Hamilton (1965)
    Mathias et al. (1967)
    Merz and Ulmer (1967)
    Luder (1967 and 1970)
    Chistyakov (1968 and 1970)
    Mathias (1969 and 1971)
    Wittig (1973)
    Jensen (1982 and 2015)
    Holden (1985)
    Kulsha (1999?)
    Fang et al. (2000)
    Horovitz and Sârbu (2005)
    Wulfsberg (2006)
    Ouyang et al. (2008)
    Scerri (2012)
    Nelson (2013)
    Settouti and Aouragi (2014)
    Scerri and Parsons (2018)
    Alvarez (2020)     		Smith (1927)
    Trifonov (1970)
    Shchukarev (1974)
    Atkins (2006)
    Lavelle (2008)
    Restrepo (2017)
    Cao et al. (2020)     		Xu and Pyykkö (2016)
    This is something you have done throughout this whole year, and I dredge up six years ago to show that this is not a new problem. It is a chronic issue.
    I don't do that. When describing the issue, I admit that a plurality of textbooks show Sc-Y-La, a majority of Google Image results show Sc-Y-*, and most sources focusing on the matter show Sc-Y-Lu. You selectively try to refute the latter two by reading into them and using your own WP:OR analyses while noting nothing at all about the first one. And you called my cited additions to the periodic table article "hack work".
    I do plan to start a new RFC based on the IUPAC endorsement of 1988. But it will not be a productive one unless you start representing reliable sources correctly and stop questioning a clear statement by Eric Scerri that it was an endorsement. There is no evidence for when the IUPAC working group will settle anything. In the meantime it seems to me that the past IUPAC endorsement is the best place to start. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandbh: Forgotten ping, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Isn't this more of a content dispute? This seems to be better suited to the dispute resolution noticeboard. There are volunteers there who can hopefully mediate the issues raised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tenryuu: Indeed it's partly a content dispute, but there is also a dispute regarding misuse of sources. What's the the best venue for mediating the latter? Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Double sharp, the link I provided in my previous comment will take you to the noticeboard. The arguments laid out here seem appear much more appropriate over there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Context is important. Compared to the vast mass of the academic literature, effectively zero chemists have lost sleep over the group 3 issue since 1921. The periodic table on the inside cover of the 2005 Red Book does not form a part of the actual red book recommendations. In the preface it says, "Lesser omissions [from the 1990 edition] include…the several different outdated versions of the periodic table. (That on the inside front cover is the current [internal] IUPAC-agreed version.)" Even Scerri has acknowledged this.

    IUPAC endorsement of the Lu form did not occur. Fluck's 1988 mention of the Lu form was a 230-word afterthought in a 4,300 word paper. The report that the afterthought appeared in was neither expressed as a formal recommendation of IUPAC nor did it feature or include any form of formal IUPAC endorsement. The abstract tells you what it is limited to:

    "In 1985 the IUPAC Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry circulated for public comment a proposed new notation for the groups of the periodic table. This gave rise to worldwide discussion in the chemical literature. This article reviews the historical process that led to the IUPAC proposals, and discusses them in relation to the response within the scientific community."

    His afterthought refers to the chosen *-** form as a compromise.

    That Scerri said, "Thirdly, I should also mention that figure 3 [Sc-Y-Lu, 32 column] that I call an optimal table, was already endorsed in an earlier IUPAC report, E. Fluck, New Notations in the Periodic Table, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 60, 3, 431-436, 1988" was a misinterpretation and an error of wishful thinking. Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As we can see, Sandbh favours his own OR analysis over what the actual chair of the current IUPAC project says about past IUPAC decisions. He also claims *-** is the compromise Fluck refers to in the IUPAC report he prepared for publication, when actually the report never mentions *-** at all.
    At Tenryuu's suggestion I will head over to WP:DRN. I will start a new thread soon. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tenryuu: Started a thread at your suggestion at WP:DRN#Periodic table, so I believe this ANI thread may now be closed. Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Kevin Deutsch

    Some very enthusiastic editors have crossed the line into personal attacks against Snowfire I've warned them, but somebody might want to have a patient word with FTIIIOhfive (talk · contribs) and LaneyJfromHoward (talk · contribs) about consensus and user conduct to de-escalate the tone. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    what... is even happening there?--Jorm (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user we had a dispute with spent days unilaterally placing language in article despite administrative attempts to get him not to. It became a problem and we responded. We are ready to quash the beef with the agreed upon language. Enough beef. Can you help facilitate the reversion? Bevkingcares (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: a related discussion was started over at WT:AN#Kevin Deutsch article editathon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks on display: [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] I think MelanieN had a try at de-escalation, but I'm not seeing that it's working. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been a few more on other articles as well - the sockpuppets have made additional minor edits elsewhere (after the previous sock was rightly accused of being a WP:SPA) but also edits like [375] which are basically just attacks, as well as section titles like in [376]. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's all the same editor with the same pro-Kevin Deutsch agenda, who's been to ANI before and been site-banned. I've just been waiting on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexVegaEsquire to finish up but agree that regardless of sockpuppet status, it's crossed over into full-fledged harassment and threats, and should be banned on that basis anyway (although they'll just create new socks, hence me not pushing very hard myself). The sockmaster clearly has lots of time on their hands and has threatened me with an endless campaign of harassment on the hour if I don't edit exactly as instructed by the sockmaster (he needs me to do it because thanks to his edit warring, the article is 30/500 protected). Darkly hilariously, I actually agreeed and made the edit, but was met only by further abuse, so I rolled my edit back. SnowFire (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey guys, we quashing this? People wanna get some sleep. We agreed to the language and we apologize, snowfire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaneyJfromHoward (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not going to get what you want, chief. We don't really like bullying much.--Jorm (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear quacking, but suspect it might just be meat-puppetry. Regardless this behavior is absurd and several editors should feel grateful to be getting off with only a page-ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We may need more than partial blocks/page bans. Things really got out of hand at that talk page today. I did some hatting, and I gave a warning to the worst of the group, User:WillieHowardCO67, for personal attacks [377] [378] and harassment [379]. After my warning they apologized and (sort of) tried to reconcile with the object of their attack, but the guns are still clearly cocked and loaded. This attack [380] came AFTER my warning and their apology. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We get it. We messed up. Sorry. It just wasn’t ethically right what we saw but I responded poorly and I apologize. Not trying to bully. I just let my emotions get best of me.WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Moneytrees: Looks like you partial-blocked only FTIIIOhfive and LaneyJfromHoward, but check out my comment above: WillieHowardCO67 has been the worst of the three at that page. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: FTIIIOhfive, LaneyJfromHoward, and WillieHowardCO67 have been blocked as sockpuppets of AlexVegaEsquire. Sockpuppet investigation here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit on Joseph Nicolosi and Dean Hamer

    I seek attention about this change in Dean Hamer and this changes in Joseph Nicolosi article by User:Sxologist. He has a biased tendendency of establishing his own view, he tends to use same policy differently to establish his view, above are the proves. 116.58.201.111 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You've mentioned me on two administrator noticeboards for this. One revert is not edit warring. First, you removed the required WP:FRINGE notices from Medical Associations, made drastic edits to a page that are not required, used primary/original sources instead of reputable secondary ones, added a fringe source (Joseph Nicolosi) and now you're disruptively wasting peoples time by tagging me here under an anonymous IP. Learn how to use Wikipedia. For making such baseless accusations and disruptive fringe edits, I hope you get banned. Don't call me "bias" because I actually happen to work in this field and can see how you're trying to spin things. Sxologist (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin) As this full diff will show, Sxo's edit to Nicolosi was simply a restoration of the article to a state before a series of IP edits, most of which were made with no edit summary to justify them. The Hamer edit was similarly a reversion. I suggest the IP editor learn about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I smell COI, or at least a heavy barrow being pushed uphill. This fails WP:MEDRS. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No explanation in reverts

    Armantkb reverts my edits without explanation and I've both encouraged them to use the talkpage in the edit-summary and on their talkpage[381]. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Semsûrî! I'm not an admin. But I've reverted Armantkb, and also warned them using {{uw-editsummary}} and {{uw-disruptive1}}. Twinkle is handy for semi-automating the process of gradually dispensing increasingly-threatening user talkpage warnings. In one-on-one disputes, please try not to revert-war; please try to seek out an uninvolved third editor to help you instead. —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Over action

    Dear senior editor, I'm an experienced editor from Wikiproject Myanmar. I want to complain about over action of User DMySon on recently created, Salin Supaya. Salin Supaya was a highest level crown princess consort and chief queen designate during the late Konbaung dynasty. The article is created by newbie editor Zin Win Hlaing without online source. I've added many book source to article when i saw the article. However DMySon moved the article to draft again again! What the hell is that? This is pure bullying and he bite newbie!!! All of Burmese royalty articles have only book source! How much do he need? Royalty are almost always notable. Please kindly see newcomer Zin Win Hlaing' talk page and Salin Supaya article also. He also received the Warning: Three-revert rule on his talk page see. Thank you so much dear senior. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the message in the red box at the top of this page, you're required to notify the involved editor of this posting. I've done that for you. Neiltonks (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Cape Diamond MM, i moved the article in good faith. I would suggest to Zin Win Hlaing to submit this draft for review. If you really think this article is notable enough and having good reliable references. You may submit the same draft for review. Let the other editors decide whether it is notable to make its entry in main space. I am not opposing anything. In-fact i would love to welcome newbies.DMySon 11:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait what? You moved the article for good faith? Lol the article have well sourced and good written! Please kindly see other Burmese princess articles on Wikipedia. Most of articles are no source! Why so serious? Cape Diamond MM (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    U1Quattro reverting edits after ANI warning

    Hi. On 13 January, U1Quattro and I were warned about edit warring regarding how turbochargers are described in Infoboxes: AN3 page The argument spread across several pages at the time, so the issue is not specific to BMW M8.

    A few days ago, U1Quattro's edit violated the warning: diff

    It turns out that there are also 2 other breaches since the January warning: diff, diff

    This user continues to make unjustified reverts and label good faith edits as "disruption" or "vandalism". So it seems that the lesson of his previous 6 blocks hasn't got through. (I look forward to U1Quattro vehemently arguing that the AN3 decision was wrong or whatever, but IMHO this is a simple case that a warning was issued and has not been followed.) 1292simon (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Making 1 revert is not edit warring. But will get my told you so in, I did say there should be an IBAN between these two users. Having said that the warning say do not revert, and they seem to have done so, it reads like its a 0RR restriction.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brooklyn nine nine fan

    User:Brooklyn nine nine fan has continued adding unsourced content to articles after a Level 4 warning was given, this time 5000 characters of irrelevant fancruft on MrBeast, all without a source. The user has not responded to any warnings and has made no attempts to communicate. SK2242 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I appear to have gained an unwanted fan

    After making this edit (sourced to the official Boxing of Ireland website, the reference is above the table) which removed an incorrect addition by HuntGroup, the user took exception to my correct and sourced edit and engaged in a brief edit war (seen here and here), of which their reasoning for restoring incorrect, unsourced information was "...If you are going to remove champions at least have the good grace to add to them to the list of former champions" (when they could have done that themselves instead of needlessly reverting lol). They echoed their illogical point with a borderline PA on my talk page (diff), I replied informing them that that is no reason to revert incorrect, unsourced information back in (diff), and left an edit war template on their talk page (diff), which appeared to have the desired effect as they stopped the needless reverting. Their response was this kind comment and to drop me a retaliatory template on my talk page (of which I removed). The user then followed me to a CfD discussion to cast a seemingly retaliatory vote (diff), followed by what I consider another PA on my talk page (diff), disrespect often manifests responses in kind, I replied and told them to no longer post on my talk page (diff). End of story? Nope. Following another person attack on the talk page I asked them not to post on (diff) they continued to stalk my edits to add a retaliatory comment at an article talk page that I'm guessing they've never previously edited before, just for shits and giggles (diff). I let them know in no uncertain terms that their behaviour isn't acceptable (diff) to which they responded with another personal attack (diff) and some more stalky behaviour; this revert, which I will revert as its blatantly retaliatory, and this pointless comment which again, is a PA. I'm guessing their antics up to this point don't warrant a block, but at the very least this user needs a few stern words regarding their disruptive, and to be quite frank, just outright weird editing behaviour. – 2.O.Boxing 11:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolute nonsense. User:Squared.Circle.Boxing has been editing in a bullying manner and is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. This is what drew my attention to his editing. I was merely mirroring his editing style and this he sees as problematic - well that proves my point. I tried to enter into a discussion with the editor but as you can see from the aggressive and abusive edit summary that this is not exactly easy. --HuntGroup (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the first edit this editor makes after making this report is to enter into an edit war. Honest, I think we have a serious issue with projection here and an editor who has a bad case of WP:Ownership.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As for suggesting that I was making erroneous edit, my edits were sourced. I would have been happy to discuss the issue with the editor but User:Squared.Circle.Boxing prefers revert wars and has a long history of this, again pointing to issues of WP:Ownership.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of his attempted ownership of articles can be seen here where the editor reverts every attempt to improve the simply because he does not like it. More discussion and less aggressive edit warring would be the solution here. --HuntGroup (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to enter into a discussion? With a PA, after you were told not to post on my talk page due to your PAs? Funny lol and yes, I reverted your stalky, pointy, disruptive, retaliatory revert. Your edits were not sourced. The source for the list of current champions is the BUI's official website, which is directly above the table. And as seen in the diffs I provided, you were the first one to revert (Back to unsourced, incorrect information), so, fail. As for your final comment, I've already addressed my latest revert and the one prior is due to an unexplained reversion after apparent refusal to engage in discussion. Anything else? – 2.O.Boxing 11:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You deleted my comment from your talk page asking me not to comment there. Why not try and have a normal conversation elsewhere where others less bolshie or aggressive editors could contribute. No you would rather control issues. As for being unsourced, I already provided evidence that the edit I made were sourced not unsourced and that the BUI website have not been updated correctly. I cannot respect and editor who behaves in this manner.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also suggest that it is actually User:Squared.Circle.Boxing that has been following my edits, as can be seen here and here and here and here etc etc. Simply provoking editors and displaying issues of ownership over articles.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First diff – You were correct, I forgot about the BUI Celtic title, which is why I haven't reverted your revert.
    Second diff – per MOS:BOXING.
    Third diff – per various WP:MOS
    Fourth diff – per MOS:NICKNAME
    I have over 1,500 boxing related articles on my watchlist, if I see an edit that isn't an improvement or goes against an MOS, I'll revert or adjust where necessary. Unfortunately for you, there's an interaction tool which compares editors contributions on articles (I don't know where it is). If somebody (which they probably will) uses that, they will see that I have more than likely edited each of those articles before you. So no, correcting mistakes on articles I have previously edited that are on my watchlist is not stalky behaviour. – 2.O.Boxing 12:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You also have a long record of edit warring, warnings and even blocks relating to your editing of boxing related articles. Maybe you should just approach other editors with a bit more respect and you wouldn't constantly be getting yourself into bother and falling out with other editors. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=971141752"