Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Personal attack

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

Please, I just need someone to intervene, since recently It has been told to me: "You are a troll, and I won't fedd trolls. It is as simple as that", "go and learn to quote what is relevant; go and learn how to quote; GO AND LEARN", "Why don't you stop pestering wikipedia with your sloppy nonsense?", "don't you understand the difference between a journal article and a book?", "no reviews, no articles - and learn how to give correct bibliographic information". I've tried to talk to the editor, but I don't think that's possible anymore, and I'd appreciate a third opinion. He's a good editor, but I think he uses an aggressive tone. I know I'm not a perfect editor, but I'm learning every day, and I try to be a better editor based on my experiences. Best regards.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

See here. Tell me, Jairon, how many of your "articles" have been deleted? How many of your edits would have been worth deleting? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what something on another Wikiproject has to do with the English language Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 23:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, maybe the problematic behaviour of a user in one version is not seen as problematic in another version. Different wikiprojects certainly have different policies and different understandings of quality. For me, if an editor after many years still has not understood some basic principles of quality, he remains a problematic user in whatever language version. Jairon has never responded to any critical comments here until he recently started to haunt the German language version and some users there immediately recognised his problematic behaviour. Now he blames those who insist on some quality standards and principles like NPOV. Funny! --Qumranhöhle (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I notified the editor on his discussion page, but he deleted it.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Qumranhöhle has been here for ten years, yet has made only 113 edits, most of which appear to be edit-warring and/or calling other editor's work "nonsense" or worse. I am unconvinced that they are a net positive, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's because this is not the language version I usually edit (unlike Jairon I do not leave textual deserts in wikiprojects which are not my mother tongue and let others guess what my gibberish could have meant), unless I try to prevent nonsense (yes, I use the word again). --Qumranhöhle (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors are guilty of edit warring -- see [1] -- and should stop. If they don't an admin should give both a time out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• It also seems as if this dispute has been imported from German Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: 1. No, the problems with Jairon started here, until he recently started editing de.wp, i.e. he imported his problematic editing to another version. Now he he got problems there he tries to trouble here again, i.e. this is a reimport. 2. Very funny the difference between the treatment here and the case below. Probably, I should simply have been here first and write (and give the many references): user:Jairon keeps adding unsourced edits, his references are fake references (they give wrong information or do not refer to what they seemingly should refer), he does not react to reasonable arguments and pushes his POV. Every article misses minimal quality standards, several were nominated for speedy deletion or otherwise deleted. Please could an admin explain to the user what wikipedia is and what not. Thanks! --Qumranhöhle (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Could it be demonstrated how "he keeps adding unsourced edits, his references are fake references (they give wrong information or do not refer to what they seemingly should refer), he does not react to reasonable arguments and pushes his POV"? It is true that some of my articles have been deleted, but that is no justification for personal attack. You guys figure out if my work here at Wikipedia has been bad.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Beyond My Ken. Both editors need a timeout; the violation of WP:3RR is rather obvious and egregious and the only talk page discussion I can find is not particularly edifying. If there's the same problem on German Wikipedia that is even more grounds for action; though I guess German WP is able to deal with this issue if it exists on their end without our help. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In the German wikipedia user: Jairon was banned for 1 year from using the main namespace for his articles. It seems, there were enough users there that had a similar impression of the quality of this user's articles. All of them were "translations" from the english ones which likewise says something about their quality. If insisting on some standards counts as a personal attack here, I won't waste more time here. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have advised the editors there and asked for their input on this matter (my German is rather limited). FWIW, the ban on the German WP is given in plain English on Jairon's talk page there; copied below:

"Ban" message from German WP

Because of this report the following edit restrictions now apply at until May 6, 2021: You may not create articles directly in the main namespace. Instead you can prepare them in your own user namespace. From there you may not transfer them to the main namespace yourself, instead you have to find helpers who have „aktive Sichterrechte“ (review rights) to work with you on your articles and confirm that they meet quality standards language-wise for articles in German Wikipedia. They can then transfer your articles to the main namespace for you thereby taking responsibility that they meet those requirements. Violations of those edit restrictions may lead to an immediate indefinite block.

Hopefully this clarifies matters a bit 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As the administrator on the German Wikipedia who decided on the edit restriction I want to make clear that the reason for the restriction was solely that Jairon's articles were written in very bad German. Their German skills are very limited as they admitted themselves. I hope that this way they can contribute productively to dewp. The alternative was a WP:CIR-block. --Count Count (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Since German wikipedia was mentioned, let me mention that recently the same user made a personal attack again Diskussion:JHWH.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Could it be demonstrated how "he keeps adding unsourced edits, his references are fake references (they give wrong information or do not refer to what they seemingly should refer), he does not react to reasonable arguments and pushes his POV"?" Sure, no problem, although I am not sure if this is the right page: A random example, Papyrus Fouad 266:

• the sentence "but according Albert Pietersma it is an early recension towards the Masoretic Text (i.e., Deuteronomy 22:9)" has a reference that leads to an article by A. Lange (Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold, József Zsengellér, Emanuel Tov, From Qumran to Aleppo: a discussion with Emanuel Tov about the textual history of Jewish scriptures in honor of his 65th birthday (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), p. 60.) A. Pietersma does not occur in this context.
• The quotation (?) "Unlike, "Kilpatrick and Tov... see no recension at work." leads to a review by someone completely different on a book by someone completely different. No page number is given. It is unclear, where this review was published (only on academia?).
• The next reference says "Sabine Bieberstein, Kornélia Buday, Ursula Rapp, Building bridges in a multifaceted Europe: religious origins, traditions (Peeters Publishers, 2006), p. 60." Nowhere is the name of the real author or the article given ot which the link leads. Even worse: The two sentences this reference belong to claim that A. Pietersma has said such and such. But the referenec does not lead to Pietersma. and so on and so on. This is exactly what I would call fake reference and sloppiness. This is certainly not a gain for Wikipedia. And I am happy that at least in the German language version there are enough people to see that the same way. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

By chance, I came across the edit war Qumranhöhle and Jairon had at Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 5101 and asked Qumranhöhle about the reasons for his reverts (see talk page). In his answer, he alleged that Jairon had been banned from "editing in the German version of Wikipedia". After I told him that was untrue, he alleged that Jairon had been "banned from editing in the main namespace". After a second correction from my side he changed the first allegation to "editing in the German version of Wikipedia creating new articles in the German version of Wikipedia" without changing the second one. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw that I duplicated this discussion. Don't know how it happened, would like to repair it if I knew how. Once again, sorry. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Your seem to overlook that I wrote here "banned for 1 year from using the main namespace for his articles" and that I admitted my (double) formulation error on the other page. The other page is an article discussion page where you had a question concening the article which I answered. You came there by chance and now by chance here? Sure! --Qumranhöhle (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Historic Hotels of America

I'm trying to convince User:Doncram that basing articles solely on promotional sources is not acceptable, but the message doesn't seem to have any effect. This is the umpteenth problem with Doncram and problematic article creations, and I don't see the point in trying to continue a one-on-one discussion about this. Basically, Doncram is creating a whole series of articles on "Historic Hotels of America", those listed in Draft:Historic Hotels of America. This page was in the mainspace, I moved it to draft because it was a working document containing visible text like "Any component specifically NRHP-listed?", "(doncram: the only Shingle Style one of all HHAs?)" or "Try Hilton Boston, Hilton Boston Downtown, Hilton Boston Downtown Faneuil Hall. " which are fine in project space or talk, but not in a mainspace article.

The discussion is at User talk:Doncram#Historic Hotels of America, where I noticed that the articles are sourced solely to the HHA website, and that the texts on this websuite seem to be provided directly by the hotel owners, i.e. aren't independent or neutral at all. E.g. Hotel Bethlehem is sourced only to this, which is basically a hotel booking site, not a neutral historic site:

• "Dining at this historic hotel is a pleasant experience with a casual elegant atmosphere and frequent live music accompaniment. Be on the lookout for any weird happenings, because with a hotel as old as Historic Hotel Bethlehem, there are sure to be some spooky, supernatural happenings."

Other examples are e.g. the Omni Berkshire Place, New York City, where the sole link says things like "The event planning team and tech team will work together to make sure everything runs smoothly on the big day and even be available the day of, in case anything should go awry. Best of all, free WiFi is modernly available throughout the historic Manhattan hotel.", or Dunhill Hotel ("Known for its gracious, personalized service, The Dunhill Hotel offers a boutique hotel experience in the heart of Uptown Charlotte."[2]), or ...

Note that the articles are neutrally written. My problem is that articles shouldn't be based on promotional, probably self-published sources (the HHA fronts these texts, but is unlikely to have edited or written them), and that such articles should be based on good, independent, factual sourcing. Doncram agrees that such sourcing exists ("HHA membership does indicate existence of substantial coverage and hence notability, and hence validity of Wikipedia article coverage of HHA places."), but argues that "It is nice to do so, but it is not immediately necessary to find additional other independent coverage about this place.", and when challenged about this states

• "And it doesn't truly matter whether HHA website is itself a fully great independent reliable source or not. Actually, no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, as you know. Subject to some qualifications, such as when another editor credibly questions accuracy of something. At this point, I believe you have zero specific complaint about any fact asserted in any of this."

They freely admit that their aim isn't even to be neutral and factual, but

• "Fine, yes, there is an obvious point to be made, which I guess you are making, that articles about hotels can be promotional. Which is not unambiguously bad, either; frankly it is somewhat a motivation for me and many other Wikipedia writers about historic sites to be "promotional" about them, in terms of wanting to explain what is of general interest about the places. And I and others do not begrudge links to bed & breakfast inn's own websites, say. I think it is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, to kind of support the commercial enterprises indirectly, for their public value in preserving and presenting about history of general interest."

Can some of you please make it clear to Doncram that no, we are not here to promote businesses, we should not use self-published or promotional sources as the main or only source for our articles, and all articles should indeed be sourced adequately right from the start. Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just tagged a bunch of them with {{Thirdparty}}. The website used as a only source also mentions the membership of said hotel and is far from the kind of significant, independent coverage in independent sources Wikipedia requires. One might almost suspect a COI. Kleuske (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think Doncram has a COI, he just wants to write articles for all historic places, and doesn't seem to care about basic sourcing policies or guidelines as long as he can reach that goal. Fram (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re probably right. Kleuske (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a non-problem to me, if the articles are about notable subjects, then what's the issue? Different people at Wikipedia have different skill sets and different interests and it is what makes Wikipedia work so well. Some people just clean up grammar and spelling, some people are good at digging up references. Some people have an interest in beetles or renaissance musical instruments, or whatever. If his skill set is in finding article subjects and starting them, and then letting someone with a different skill set fill them out later, so what. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and demanding that someone is sanctioned at ANI because they don't have a skill set that you personally don't think is necessary is beyond arrogant. He's doing nothing wrong, IMHO, and should be left alone. I can't come up with a reason for us to block or ban him for anything based on the evidence presented here. --Jayron32 13:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe Fram is asking for a block or a ban, merely for Doncram to fix the issue. An article is that is purely sourced to promotional sources should not be in mainspace. If these hotels are genuinely notable it should not be difficult to find independent sources for them, it's simple laziness not to do so. It's not even difficult - look at this source that's in the Omni Berkshire article (obviously promotional), and then look at this one, from the worldwide version of the same website, that is 90% factual (and it's more detailed). Why not just use that one? I've fixed that one, which took me about 2 mins. However Dunhill Hotel looks more problematic. A few local newspaper stories, a jolly local TV story about a ghost, and that promotional HHA site. Is it notable? It's probably borderline. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If it doesn't need a block or a ban, then this is not the correct place for it. This is not the "someone is doing something I don't like" page. This is the "someone needs a block or a ban" page. There is also no mechanism for asking someone to fix anything. This is a volunteer website, and Doncram is volunteering work that is within his interest and skill set. Doing so is not disruptive. --Jayron32 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's rather disingenuous to state that this is only "the 'someone needs a block or a ban' page". The honking big notice at the top of this page says that its remit includes "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which is what Fram's reporting. Whether it requires a block, a ban, or some other action is a matter to be decided by a consenus of responders. Deor (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"Actually, no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, as you know." I for one didn't know that... Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"The chronic intractable behavior problem" of improving Wikipedia. Oh no, whatever shall we do! --Jayron32 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The intractable problem of continuing to believe that"pulling stuff of my ass is sufficient for an article" improves Wikipedia is what you should have meant. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Dunhill Hotel has been expanded. I do not see it as problematic. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. Yngvadottir is clearly better at these things than me :) Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

These articles have also been troubling me. In one of them, I had to remove a block quotation that, as well as being unacceptably promotional, was certainly long enough to constitute a copyright violation. The Historic Hotels of America Web site seems to me to be clearly promotional (a marketing tool, with the text about each hotel written by the hotel's owner or staff), and I don't think any article sourced only to it (or only to it and to other promotional material) should remain. If any of these hotels are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, neutral articles could probably be written, referencing the listing and other reliable sources; but it's clear that most, if not all, of the stubs that Doncram's been creating are unacceptable. Deor (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If the articles are being created without basis in reliable sources due to a mistaken understanding that no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, then all of these articles have massive WP:V issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should have sources. No one person is required to provide them, however. You can't punish someone for simply not doing something. --Jayron32 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated additions of unreferenced/poorly referenced content, despite requests to stop, constitutes disruptive editing though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? Let's have a look at WP:V, the relevant policy - The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source. An advertorial for a hotel is not a reliable source. We get people creating articles sourced like this - especially about businesses - all the time. They usually get deleted. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

::I agree that the site uses promotional language to describe the properties. It does have criteria though (a hotel must be at least 50 years old; has been designated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior as a National Historic Landmark or listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; and recognized as having historic significance.) and the website is "the official program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation". So not a pay-to-play site, at least. Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let's be clear on one thing here: HHA is a trade and marketing association, nothing more. Whereas some owner-members may have an honest interest in historic preservation, the association's purpose is marketing. We should not be sourcing anything to them, nor should we link them in EL sections. That being said, Jayron hit the nail on the head. There's nothing wrong with making stubs. I've noticed that some long-term content creators like Doncram don't seem to grasp the depth of the promotional editing issues here. My suggestion would be close this with an admonishment to be aware of potential promotional content in sources. And Doncram, I for one will be happy to assist you if needed in that area. John from Idegon (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing wrong with making stubs (I've done so myself on occasion). The problem here is that many of the stubby articles in question contain no sources other than HHA (and perhaps the hotels' own websites). It's not just that Doncram needs "to be aware of potential promotional content in sources"; it's that he has no business creating a massive series of stubs based only on a list of the members of "a trade and marketing association". In many cases, the only claim of notability is that they're members of that organization (example, example, example). Some soi-disant article creators are so eager to bomb Wikipedia with articles that they have little regard for WP:V, WP:N, or other policies. Who's going to clean up this mess? Is Doncram going to do it (perhaps by tagging many of the articles for G7 speedy deletion), or are other editors supposed to start cluttering up AFD with them? Deor (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The issue is not notability, but rather sourcing. For example, one of the articles Fram found objectionable was Omni Berkshire Place, New York City. With about 10 minutes effort, I found additional sourcing which has now been added to the article. While it is always best to have more/better sourcing, Doncram's starting stubs verified by by the HHA history profile for each property does not seem terribly problematic to me. And if it is a problem, it's one rather easily solved by simply searching for another source or two. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The issue might actually be notability as well for some of them. The single sentence "X is a hotel in Y which is a member of the HHA" doesn't provide that. I've looked at sources for a couple and can find little apart from the hotel chain's own websites, advertorials, booking sites, review sites, travel guides and the odd local news story about events at that hotel. Also, for example, Haywood Park Hotel is a former department store which we already have an article for - The Bon Marché Building of Asheville, North Carolina. It should just be merged into that. Boston Transit Commission Building and XV Beacon are the same building as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is true that we generally have one article on a historic building. Subsequent uses/redevelopment can typically be addressed in the main article. I noted the same issue at Talk:Haywood Park Hotel. Cbl62 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, y'all, in my work I had identified a number of cases where a site was covered under a different name, and had merged most of them. For a very few, I added value already by identifying the overlap, but had not merged them. Right, and in very many but perhaps not all, i had searched hard and found photos, and i figured out locations and inserted coordinates, and so on. Wikipedia is not finished, right, but it is definitely further along for the contributions in this area that I have already made. --Doncram (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that Doncram was the subject of an arbitration case in regard to similar behavior on NRHP articles, so this is not a new issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I also note that Doncram filed a report on WP:AN in which he asks for this report to be quashed without consideration of the issues involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I recall the past discussions of Doncram's article creations, and IIRC Arbcom lifted sanctions on him not long ago. Doncram's heart is in the right place, but he really needs to put more effort into each article. I agree that there is an issue of notability with these recent articles, since the Historic Hotels of America site itself is insufficient to establish notability (while the NRHP is). But the underlying problem is the rapid-fire creation without providing more than a bare claim to notability based on the one source. I just did some work on Hotel Bethlehem, where the HHA site provided useful info—murals by a named artist—that Doncram had not put in. Then I worked on Dunhill Hotel, where I agree with Black Kite, notability is hard to demonstrate, but it was easy to say more about its original identity as an apartment hotel. And I'm shaken that an editor who worked so long and hard on NRHP properties, even to the extent of insisting that Wikipedia use the same titles as the NRHP listings, would double-create articles on historic buildings based on a list of hotels. I've merged Haywood Park Hotel and I hope someone else does XV Beacon, thanks to bl62 as well as Black Kite. Stub creation per se isn't wrong in my view, but creating articles based on a list that doesn't even confer notability without checking and either adding a supporting source or putting the hotel info into a pre-existing article is just asking for deletion, which is a sad waste. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've redirected XV Beacon to Boston Transit Commission Building, and merged the extra material from the former into the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this is Doncram, and I experience this ANI proceeding as very unfair and mean-spirited and wrong.

• ANI is about asking for an editor to be blocked or banned for "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", neither of which is present here. To the contrary, I have been properly collaborating with others (about 10 editors have contributed to Historic Hotels of America (HHA) or Talk:Historic Hotels of America, where several issues have been brought up civilly and resolved (a page move) or otherwise addressed (work done towards identifying/describing the nature of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (a very reputable organization)'s role vis-a-vis the listed hotels). The list-article has been developed in about 200 edits, mostly by me but also by User:Imzadi1979 and User:Bubba73 and User:Andrew Jameson, and it follows on work done by User:Thierry Caro years ago which was consolidated by User:DannyS712 into the list-article's earlier version, developed up to this version in April 2019, which was agreed to be merged into the current list.
• User:Fram arrived at my Talk page this morning, with sort of a huge case of IDONTLIKEIT. I replied to their challenges, and, before I indicated I could not do more at that time, I pointed them towards where issues had already been discussed and invited them to participate. I expected they would open a wp:RSN discussion about the quality of the HHA pages, and I (helpfully, I think) advised them that would not be necessary or productive. I have before and today acknowledged the promotional air of HHA webpages about the individual hotels, but have done nothing wrong. As Fram acknowledges above, what I have written in mainspace is "neutrally written", not promotional. No error of fact in any article has been indicated. No editing issue has been raised by Fram at my Talk page or here in ANI that is not more appropriately discussed at the Talk page of the list-article. Fram stated "I'll take a look at the HHA discussion" but apparently did not. Neither Fram nor anyone here has posted anything there.
• Instead, Fram opened this ANI and has proceeded to CAST ASPERSIONS which are unjustified and not supported by diffs, and succeeded to incite others to be concerned unnecessarily, about good work that I have done as a cooperative, productive, content-producing editor. Fram stated this is "the umpteenth problem with Doncram and problematic article creations", I think alluding to a past arbitration but without diffs, and unfairly. As I recall it, the arbitration proceeding years ago actually found no fault with my article creations back then, but rather found fault with my interactions with editors who I perceived had harrassed me, and advised that the NRHP wikiproject or a larger community could/should have an RFC or whatever to come to some judgment about creation of short stub articles, which never happened. Since then, I have expanded literally thousands of short stub NRHP articles by me and others, because, well, I am on board about developing with sources. Fram literally states that they "don't see the point in trying to continue a one-on-one discussion about this" with me, when the obvious point would be to communicate and clear up several misunderstandings that have been constructed. That have been inflamed by selective quoting above...leading some, apparently, to believe that I have been spouting promotional stuff in mainspace (not so) and creating articles that are not justified (not so). They quote promotional text which I did _not_ use or rely upon in any way. Hey, look at the Talk page, where there is some fairly intelligent discussion about the issue of promotion in sources and what might be done, including about developing context about this hotel association vs. others.
• And Fram is literally inciting others: "Can some of you please make it clear to Doncram that" whatever, instead of discussing the issues. They quote me out of context about several matters, including about where I point out the fact that I and other editors do not begrudge including an external link to a b&b website, where no one actually would judge it inappropriate, which I was mentioning in passing, relating to what motivates editors about writing about historic preservation. It is a fact that wp:RS and wp:OR go on about information must be verifiable but does not necessarily have to be already verified by inline citations, where the assertions are factual, ordinary, unchallenged, as can hypothetically happen (but did not happen anywhere here; everything I wrote is in fact supported directly by inline citations!). I have indeed used inline citations from the promotionally worded sources, as is completely justified for factual statements such as addresses and number of rooms and so on. Hotel Bethlehem in particular is called into question, in which I had in fact established that the building was within a NRHP historic district, but where I could not access the extensive NRHP document online. User:Yngvadottir developed it with a different source, apparently easily they assert, which is fine, and User:Cbl62 removed a negative tag. There is absolutely nothing wrong here. Oh, right, there were a few bits of editorial questions or notes left in the list-article, which bore a big "Under construction" template upon it. What, do you think an ANI is necessary to convince me that these bits, which I have been clearly addressing, should not be left permanently in mainspace? I would surely have agreed to Fram removing those bits to the Talk page, say, or would have done it myself if they would have asked.

I was surprised to see this all, and it all seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia collaborative process guidelines and guidelines for ANI. Fram and some others here have more power here at ANI, i.e. they have more following and are more likely than me to get others to agree to what they might want, I suppose. But the only remotely justifiable outcome that I see here would be for a boomerang, an admonishment, i guess that is what would be appropriate, upon Fram for inciting this dramatically and unnecessarily. Thank you, User:Jayron32 for providing a voice of reason through the above, and thank you to some others too. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pointing out the sourcing of the articles you created is wholly inadequate is not a “huge case of IDONTLIKEIT” but a very legitimate concern. Bringing that to ANI in apparent exasperation is a legitimate action. The wall of text above in response to those concerns comes across as WP:IDHT. I do not think you should be requesting boomerangs. Kleuske (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A few things: I read, but didn't reply at the HHA talk page, because the articles I'm discussing here were created and edited by you alone and are separate from the issues with the general HHA article. I came to ANI because this was a rather urgent situation; an editor creating many (more than 20 in the last week alone) articles based solely on a promo site, and who didn't see a problem with this and showed no indication that they would change their approach.

"As I recall it, the arbitration proceeding years ago actually found no fault with my article creations back then": well, the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Findings of fact accepted 11 / 2 the following: "Problems with articles: " Doncram (talk · contribs) has a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant. ", so your memory is faulty here. Fram (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• There will be no boomerang or anything else, because we do not sanction editors for bringing up legitimate concerns. The reason that a number of people have agreed with Fram above is not because they are some sort of a cabal, but because they understand the proper sourcing of articles. Let's be clear about this - you were previously banned from creating articles for three years because, according to Arbcom, you had "a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant" And with some of these articles, you're now doing this again, except this time it's worse because they're often not NRHP locations, which means there is no presumption of notability at all. These are how some of these looked when you created them [3] [4] [5], and some of them are still stubs with no obvious notability. I mean, that's pretty much "placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant", isn't it? Obviously I'm not saying that all of them are like this, but far too many are. My suggestion is simple - that you not create any more hotel stubs based purely on sourcing from the HHA and that such stubs clearly explain why they're notable buildings. Then we won't be back here again. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: The problems also seems to be that this user is autopatrolled and that their articles are therefore not subject to review by NPP, which is why many of these articles are not either tagged or nominated for deletion. --MrClog (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a salient point. I don't want to run around with a pitchfork here, but I do not believe that someone with a demonstrated penchant for producing undersourced -to-functionally-unsourced stubs should be autopatrolled. At least Cork Factory Hotel and Skytop Lodge would (well, should) not have made it through NPP without someone bringing up the sourcing problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Both Cork Factory Hotel and Skytop Lodge have now been improved with third-party sourcing. Both are notable properties. These examples seem to me to show the merits of the Wikipedia process -- a notable topic begins as a stub and is improved by collaboration among multiple editors. Seems to me that much is being made of a normal, productive, and healthy process initiated by Doncram. Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Regardless of whether an article happens to be improved later on, editors that create articles that are not properly sourced in order to establish notability should not have their pages autopatrolled. --MrClog (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: If Doncram was creating a mass of stubs on non-notable topics, I might agree with you. That is not the case. The articles he has created concern notable historic properties. There is nothing inappropriate about creating these articles in a form that begins as a stub with a primary source. Each editor contributes according to his time and talents, and others add on, as we are seeing here. That is the genius of the Wikipedia system. Far from being disruptive, I believe Doncram's efforts have made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Such articles at least need to be tagged, which is why we have the NPP process. --MrClog (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, I really really need to do real life stuff, not continue here for a while. But, I sense the possibility of maybe a fun and constructive way to deal with disagreement here. Basically, Fram thinks I have damaged Wikipedia by bad behaviors on my part (my editing about HHA stuff, I guess) and that I deserve to be punished (including by subjecting me to an ANI roasting which could lead to me being blocked, banned, or restricted in some way) while I think Fram has damaged Wikipedia more, by their bad behaviors that tend to hurt people and destroy community fabric (including by opening this ANI instead of discussing or pursuing dispute resolution etc, as is required by reasonable interpretation of stated ANI requirements, and by their making substantially false or misleading or unnecessarily hurtful statements when there exist clearly better, more constructive ways of engaging). And I think they should be punished, say by admonishment here requiring them to apologize meaningfully for their crimes. This is basis for a competition or game or something!

Fram basically is stating that 20 articles created by me in the last week are bad behaviors on my part; I think they are all fine; there is some uncertainty whether the topics are really valid or not. Validity could be resolved by going further into each case. There could be a sort of game requiring a judge or panel of judge to make judgments about the set of articles and statements by me and by Fram. Like how there are evaluations of truthfulness of statements made by politicians, done by judges awarding "pinocchios" or whatever. Yikes, i really have to go, but Fram, could you possibly entertain engaging in some such joust, with winner getting something and loser having to do something they wouldn't usually be willing to do? I really have to go now though. --Doncram (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see - this is a big joke to you. Noted. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Doncram: I get it, I really do. I also want us to have an article on every notable building (and not just in North America either). I see the HHA started off under NRHP auspices. But those blurbs don't establish notability all on their own, like NRHP listing does. Not only do the criteria include eligibility for future listing—fudge factor right there—and being a contributing property—does not confer automatic notability, and the building could have been substantially altered in the decades since its inclusion in the application—but Fram's right, the blurbs are promotional. Functionally, it's an advertising vehicle for the hotels, they write their own blurbs, and you yourself have demonstrated that some don't meet the criteria as originally set out. So these places need a search for at least one other source to show notability. And you haven't even been using the blurbs to say what you can about the building, and to find another source. In contrast NRHP applications, when one can access them, are marvelous, but the NRHP just isn't getting them digitized fast enough. So yes, it takes a bit of time to look for sources on the building's previous name, or using the name of an artist mentioned in the blurb. It also takes a bit of time to check for connected articles here, but you really owe it to the historic building (and the other editors who have started NRHP building articles; you aren't the only one!) to make sure we don't already have an article on the building. Just making a new article about the fact it's an HHA hotel is promotion of the HHA, especially in the instances where we already have an article that sets the hotel in the proper context: as just the latest use. I'm sorry I used the term "rapid-fire" if we are really talking about 20 articles a week, but expecting other editors, such as me, to establish notability for your articles, to chase down necessary context like Boyes Hot Springs, California (for an article you mentioned you'd created anew; and you're not the only one not following up obvious leads readers should be able to expect us to have followed up on—Boyes Springs was pretty much destroyed in September 1923 by a big wildfire, and we weren't mentioning that in the article), even to add information about teh building itself that was in your source&nsbsp;... well, I'm hurt. I have other things I need to do off-wiki. At least when I had to drop everything to render a Google-translated article into comprehensible English, or even translate it out of a foreign language, in order to save a notable topic, I could say the article creator was new, or didn't know any better. You have already been subjected to a requirement to create your articles through AfC. I was thrilled when you succeeded in getting that lifted. With apologies to Elmidae, no, the solution here is not for Doncram's articles to be added to the NPP burden. It's for Doncram to always search for an existing article, and to always make sure the assertion of notability is supported, which for anything except the NRHP or its equivalent in other countries means at least two sources. And those are the minimum Wikipedia requirements for new articles on historic buildings. The stub thing is actually a further point: if there's more information easily to hand (like in the 10-line source you started out with), put it in, both to inform the reader and as a grab handle for those who do expand articles. But the other two are minimal. Otherwise it gets deleted, and that is to cry over. So now I will have my coffee, damnit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• A question: I just read through Doncram's arb case and a bunch of prior AN(/I)threads. It seems to me like history is repeating itself, at least with respect to article problems. Have there been recent-ish instances of the behavioral issues (NPA, move/edit warring, etc.)? Taking a broader view would probably help in determining if action is warranted. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Considering his history, and this current repetition of the same behavior underlying the Arb case, perhaps someone should formally propose that Doncram's autopatrolled rights be removed? They were previously removed on June 20, 2011 by User:NuclearWarfare and were restored on May 17, 2017 by User:Swarm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don’t have time to fully assess this case, but I will just note that my expectation in granting autopatrolled is for the user to remain 100% policy compliant in their creations and have absolutely zero benefit from the review process. Mistakes and shortcomings are acceptable but the user needs to be 100% accountable for them and rectify them immediately and without incident. If any administrator feels the user has fallen short of this standard, do feel free to revoke Autopatrolled with my full support. It’s not about punishment or sanctioning the editor, nor does it imply that the editor is untrustworthy, disruptive, or not a net positive. It simply means the NPP process will serve a purpose and will not just be a waste of time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've revoked it given the consent above and the concerns raised here. Just noting for clarity that the restoration of rights in 2017 was entirely proper. DrKay (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that I did not intend to imply that Swarm's re-granting of the right in 2017 was in any way improper or unjustified, given the circumstances at that moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Doncram just taking the piss now?

OR does he really not understand the issues? Today, he created Mayflower Park Hotel with four sources and one external link. The sources are:

• The Historic Hotels of America website, the promotional page this section is about
• A subpage of that same promo site
• A PDF from the hotel, a pure primary source
• "EXPERIENCED EVENT PLANNERS OFFER TIMELESS ADVICE" from "Northwest meestings + events"

The EL is the official site of the hotel, which is fine of course.

So, instead of using one promotional source, we now have 4 of these, and still not a single neutral, reliable, independent source about the actual hotel. Why not use, oh I don't know, the complete book on "Seattle'Historic Hotels"[6] instead? Really, how hard is it to use good sources instead of this shit? Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

He has been here long enough to know how we operate. The fact he continues to edit in this manner shows a blatant disregard for that. GiantSnowman 07:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I do think that this is a problem in an autopatrolled editor. Put it this way - if someone applied for autopatrolled, and their history showed they were creating articles like that, there's no chance they'd be given it. I create a lot of articles about historic buildings - I create them in userspace drafts, and I don't publish them until they have enough sourcing to demonstrate a clear GNG pass. I've got no problem with the creation of stubs, but publishing them while they are sourced only to promotional or affiliated sources just isn't what we should be doing, even if we hope that someone else is going to finish them. I'd be happiest if Doncram said something along the lines of "OK, I'm hearing you, I'll stop putting articles into main space until I've put multiple independent, secondary and reliable sources into them." If Doncram isn't willing to do that, then as a minimum the autopatrolled perm needs to be pulled, because these stubs clearly need to be reviewed and improved (or deleted, if sourcing can't be found). GirthSummit _(blether) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• DrKay has already removed Doncram's autopatrolled rights. [7] Mysticdan (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of sources to Mayflower Park Hotel - there are more out there, it's definitely a notable building. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's the frustrating part, isn't it? These articles could easily have been created with proper sources in the first place, with a modicum of additional effort. BD2412 T 04:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Doncram is subject to an indefinite ban from creating new articles in mainspace. Articles created in Draft space must be reviewed by an independent editor prior to moving to mainspace.
2. Doncram is warned that creation of large numbers of candidate articles based solely on directory-style resources may lead to an extension to this restriction, banning all article creation.

---

• Support as proposer. This is clearly a long-standing failure to accept WP:NOTDIR. Guy (help!) 09:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The creating of the Mayflower Park Hotel noted above is a slap in the face of people who have brought concerns to Doncram. These concerns seem to have been utterly ignored, and Doncram can appeal these sanctions whey they understand what the problems are. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Taking APP away is enough, let them have enough WP:ROPE to seal this deal themselves. I do not support a ban on article creation outright, but AFC might be the way to go if the problem is severe enough. Doncram writes nice articles for the most part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That essay clearly lists the user ... is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong as a situation in which it should not be used. Doncram clearly feels that they are above the rules (see also their recent feud with BHG), and we simply cannot assume that this will change when they themselves have neither announced nor implied any such intentions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hiab here, I had a name change the response below does not inspire confidence. I'm hoping they climb off the drama cliff before they do permenant damage to themselves. Unbroken Chain (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We shouldn't be in this situation. Doncram, I'm not going to insult you by giving links to guidelines that you've already read - I'm certain you already understand notability and the importance of independent sources, just as I'm certain that you are capable of writing excellent, properly sourced articles. Please would you undertake to stop creating articles that are referenced only to sources that are affiliated with the subject? You're more than capable of doing that, it's not like you need hand holding over this. It's not like there is a deadline by which all of these hotels need to have an article - just take your time and add independent sources that demonstrate a clear GNG pass before publishing them in main space. If you give such an assurance, this proposal would not be necessary; I don't want to find myself supporting it, but I fear that might happen if you intend to carry on creating articles like this. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - unfortunate but necessary. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Their stubborn refusal to admit they have done anything wrong, even now, means this unfortunately has to be forced upon them.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as necessary given Doncram's history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This thread has already resulted in removal of Doncram's autopatrolled status. That is a sufficient remedy IMO. The further sanction proposed here might be appropriate if Doncram were creating masses of stubs on non-notable topics. But that's not the case. The new articles Doncram has created in the last two weeks relate to notable historic properties. His initiative in creating these articles has led to a collaborative effort among several editors. See, e.g., Omni Berkshire Place (now nominated to be featured on the Main Page), Dunhill Hotel, La Posada de Santa Fe, Cork Factory Hotel, Hilton Santa Fe Historic Plaza, Morris Inn at Notre Dame, Skytop Lodge. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• The "collaborative effort" was not Doncram's doing, more credit for that should be given to Fram for bringing the situation to light. Without that, the articles you cite would most probably have stayed as they were when Doncram created them. In any case, the efforts of other editors to improve the articles does not reflect on Doncram, and should not be used as a reason to negate possible sanctions against him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

See also Mayflower Park Hotel also now substantially improved (by User:Girth Summit). And I do not agree with the idea that Doncram deserves no credit for the collaboration. He has come up with the kernel of an idea to start articles on historic hotels. It was a good idea, as evidenced by the fact that multiple users have now jumped in to develop the articles further. Doncram's style and walls of words may rub many the wrong way, but when you look at the substance of his effort, it's clearly a net positive to the encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, yes, I spent a bit of time to find sources that I think demonstrate a GNG pass (and those sources themselves have sources - I'm confident now that this would survive a trip to AfD). However, I actually agree with BMK - these articles have lots of eyes on them just now due in large part to this ANI thread. I don't think that we should host articles sourced purely to promotional material published by the subject and/or a marketing organisation - I know that Doncram is more than capable of finding and adding better sources, but I can't get my head around why they seem to think it's not important to do so. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Of course, I would prefer, too, that the articles be better developed (and that is happening), but do you really think that Doncram's initiative in starting articles on these historic properties is a net negative to Wikipedia? I do not. BTW, I am now digging now into the Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn & Spa and finding a trove of information on this property. How is it that nobody bothered to create an article on this property for the past 15 years? I am grateful that Doncram finally did so that it can now be developed. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, a net negative? I'm not sure I'd go that far, but an article written entirely around promotional, affiliated sources isn't unambiguously better than nothing in my mind. You're right, it can be a jumping off point if someone else notices that it's there, but I don't think that hosting them in that state does our reputation for reliability much good, and they encourage the many spam merchants who come here every day making OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about why their hotel/company/cousin's band should be allowed to have an article based entirely on promo. I think that experienced, capable editors who understand our guidelines about notability and sourcing have a responsibility to set an example, and to make sure that they don't put stuff like that in mainspace. Sure, knock up a draft and post at a relevant project page encouraging others to contribute, but don't publish the thing until it has at least some decentish independent sourcing. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that Doncram should be encouraged to add an independent source to his new articles. That has been done, and we will see if he takes that to heart. I also don't disagree with removal of his autopatrolled status -- an extra set of eyes is a good thing. I just don't think a ban on new article creation is warranted or helpful to the encyclopedia. Everyone's talents are different. Doncram has proven to be very good at coming up with overall structures and ideas in the realm of historic sites. Once he comes up with a concept, as he has with historic hotels, he is quite tenacious in developing it, and we should not be quashing that initiative. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose losing autopatrolled status is enough, and bringing in not directory is misleading - the problem is one promotional source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• That is much too reductive, as the problem is a number of things: creating articles based on nothing but promotional material, failing to look for other sources, creating new articles when there are already existing articles to which the information could be added, and on. Take another look at Fram's opening comment for a better idea of what's involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This would allow Doncram to continue to create articles, but avoid the issue of potentially inappropriate articles being deleted en masse, since they'd be in draftspace and anyone who felt they were salvagable could add sources at leisure. Looking at the numbers of articles involved, the alternative would be a Neelix-style cull, which would benefit neither Wikipedia (since it would waste a huge amount of time), nor Doncram (who would have the unpleasant experience of creating articles and seeing them promptly deleted). ‑ Iridescent 17:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Request. I know the consensus supports this additional sanction, but I am worried that this is having a very negative impact on Doncram. His edits today have been worrisome, most recently with his blanking his talk page with the edit note "it's happening. game over?". Also a note to Jimbo Wales that "This is depressing, crushing, awful for me." Can we please just close this without a stern warning but no further sanctions? If problems persist, this can be revisited. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doncram's diva behavior is no justification for not considering necessary sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: "Diva behavior" strikes me as unnecessarily harsh. Doncram has devoted years of work to this project, and he feels like he's under attack. Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. I understand that people are under more stress than usual in the current circumstances, and for most editors I'd be prepared to make allowances, but Doncram has been pulling variations of this "rules are for other people" routine for literally years ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and of course everything at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram). It's not unreasonable to expect someone with 180,000 edits over a 15-year period to be familiar with some of our most basic principles like Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It's certainly not unreasonable to expect Doncram to be aware of and to follow the arbcom-mandated principle that Community expectations for the creation of stub articles … require a stub article to contain, as a minimum, sufficient information to provide verifiable context and establish the subject matter's notability, given that that particular finding was from an arb case about Doncram. ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Note that the comment above mine was top-posted subsequent to mine; my agreement is with BMK, not with Cbl62. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Everyone has DIVA fits and we support sanctions or oppose regardless.... but having read his posts on Jimbos page I cannot support such heavy restrictions, Maybe there's issues we're unaware of or maybe it's all BS but given the current pandemic and whatnot I simply cannot support heavy restrictions, That being said he's been here long enough to know what is and what aren't reliable sources. –Davey2010^Talk 20:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Never said it was, I simply have a heart and I don't agree with coming down like a ton of bricks on someone who may be having a hard time in RL right now, You support this proposal and that's great however I don't and no amount of Policy throwing is going to change that. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I certainly agree with the general sentiment that we need to be protective of each other, and make allowances in the current circumstances, but as Iridescent points out, the overall behavior pattern exhibited by Doncram -- including the diva behaviors -- is not specific to these times, it's been going on for many years. A read of the arbitration case is instructive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Davey2010, Doncram has form for "everyone else is plotting against me and you're my only hope" posts on Jimbotalk when it looks like a community discussion is going to go against him—see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110#Help! and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 118#Wikipedia and bullying. Not expecting to change your mind—it's a legitimate view that this time he's sincere—but you should probably be aware if you're not already. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Iridescent, Thanks for making me aware of this, Unfortunately I didn't realise he did this when things didn't go his way, As stupid as this may sound I genuinely thought there were RL issues such as maybe virus related or more and when something like that happens obviously the last thing anyone wants or needs is this thread .... Anyway thanks for making me aware of this, I've since struck my original oppose and will be supporting. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind, too, that almost all of the links provided above as evidence of Doncram's problematic behavior date from the 2011-2012 time period. From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems, edited productively, and was not sanctioned. Given the long period of sanction-free behavior, it's not entirely fair to portray him as someone who has been a persistent source of disruption. The historic hotel issue is relatively new and, while sourcing is an issue, relates to an area where notability does not appear to be in doubt. Cbl62 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't take into account that from March 2013 to November 2016 Doncram was, as a result of the ArbCom case, under sanctions and could not create new articles, so your staement that "From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems..." is really not accurate. You might want to amend it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't take into account that from 2016 until last month's historic hotels campaign, Doncram has not been under such sanctions and his article creation in that time period does not appear to have been problematic. ... Stepping back for a moment to make some broader observation: Doncram has clearly rubbed some people here the wrong way. Heck, he can be inflexible and verbose, and he's rubbed me the wrong way at times. That said, when I look at the big picture, I see an editor who is generally civil and helpful, even mentoring with new users. I see someone who's clearly dedicated to improving/expanding Wikipedia's coverage of historic sites. I also see someone who's sensitive and is hurting as a result of the piling on here. I also see a piling on that appears excessive in relation to the most recent incident and worrisome in light of Doncram's recent edits, noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. Doncram could have easily nipped this problem in the bud when Fram first brought it to his attention by saying something on the order of "You're right, those articles are not as robust as they should be, I'll go over them and add some sources, and combine them with existing articles where that is appropriate." The whole thing would be over, and it would never have been brought to AN/I. In short, Doncram has brought this upon himself by stonewalling, and now by drowning us in bushel-baskets of words. Instead of acknowledging the problem and working to fix it, he's blaming "bullying" editors and running in tears to Jimbo to say how oppressed he is. That doesn't deserve our sympathy and a free pass, that's completely non-collaborative behavior, and his deficient articles actively harms the encyclopedia, the most basic Wiki-crime of all. He is, essentially, out of control, and our response to it cannot be a hand wave and a pat on the back. His behavior is sanctionable, and Guy's suggestions are both justified and reasonable, about the minimum that could be expected under the circumstances.

I would ask you to consider dropping this line of discussion. I don't think it's helping Doncram in the least, and the matter is simply not going to dropped by the looks of the !voting at this point. What point is there in continuing along these lines? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"What point is there in continuing along these lines?" I've spoken up because I believe (a) Doncram, while imperfect, is a significant net positive to Wikipedia, (b) the removal of autopatrolling and "Proposal 2" below are adequate remedies, (c) Proposal 1 is excessive, (d) Doncram is clearly hurting based on his posts earlier today and (e) I perceive there is some unnecessary piling on here. Simple as that. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are also more recent disruptive editing issues/sanctions: a lengthy March 2020 ANI thread, a January 2020 block, and a November 2018 block. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those two brief blocks seems to have anything to do with content creation. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They're related to the claim that

From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems, edited productively, and was not sanctioned. Given the long period of sanction-free behavior, it's not entirely fair to portray him as someone who has been a persistent source of disruption.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 23:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per everyone above - Enough really is enough. –Davey2010^Talk 21:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• General note. If there's anyone who thinks my "rules are for other people" comment was hyperbole, Doncram is now openly canvassing for people to votestack this particular thread. (Given that the canvassing has a header of "Please help me at ANI", there's no possible AGF interpretation.) ‑ Iridescent 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Since it was clearly a violation of WP:Canvassing -- perhaps the most blatant violation I've seen in 15 years of editing here -- I have reverted Doncram's non-neutral plea for help from the WikiProject NRHP talk page, and notified him on his talk page that I have done so. He can, of course, post a neutral pointer to that page, without pleading his case or suggesting what kind of response he wants from the members there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Doncram has now posted a neutral non-canvassing pointer to this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• This may give an idea about what Doncram's real focus is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken, that seems to be a low blow. Many people here are proud of their stats here. Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think so. In the middle of a controversy in which he should probably be engaging with the complaints about his behavior, he takes the time to update his stats. Whatever his motivation, it simply doesn't look good, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken, I'm no fan of Doncram at all—in the previous installment of the never-ending series of "Doncram treating Wikipedia as his personal sandbox" threads I described him as a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else) and I've yet to see anything to make me think I was wrong—but I see no issue with that edit. I'd imagine he's anticipating the possibility that this situation could lead to a site ban and just ensuring his userpage is up to date in case he's unable to amend it in future. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Point taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Articles should be based on reliable sources at their foundation, not merely written based on promotional materials and then patched over with better sources later when other editors try to fix the problem. The discussion above makes clear that this has not been happening in this case and will continue not happening unless we impose sanctions. So this is not about punishing Doncram for misbehavior, but about protecting the encyclopedia from foundationally-unsound content. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support AfC is not a particularly onerous requirement, and in essence requires all new articles to be peer reviewed. A wholly promotional draft should not in theory make it from AfC to mainspace. Considering my recent interaction with Doncram was a suggestion they pull out travel guides to prove an old building's notability at AfD, I think both the user and the community would benefit from this restriction. I also know at least a couple other editors who enjoy creating articles who have been subject to this restriction and have continued to use AfC after the restriction was lifted. I also think the peer review leads to better articles generally. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Doncram's recent comments, attibuting this fair pushback to "bullying", shows they are not willing to accept the feedback. Having him create drafts first prevents further incomplete stubs from entering the mainspace. --MrClog (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Doncram has done good work on NRHP places, but while such listing has been conferred automatic notability, this has not been extended elsewhere. The below explanations for HHA articles is not satisfactory, and while this organization links 'old' to 'historic', that is not linked to 'notable'. HHA membership criteria is far lower than that of NRHP: register eligibility and notability of other members cannot be equated to notability of all members. Doncram should please better consider significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources before creating articles, not basing it on some characteristic. Articles should be created with a modicum of assertion of notability with sources establishing that, not a hand-wave that HHA listing is enough. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - seems to be a case of recidivism. Oculi (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support with great sadness. I'd hoped to help avoid his losing Autopatrol, let alone going back to the AfC requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, Doncram seems to be a very civil editor, with the attitude that he knows better than others. I'd like it to be a warning, but....this has been going on for a long time, and he hasn't changed his ways. I wish he would, he does a lot of good work and is more congenial than many. Jacona (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - as we can see below, Doncram still isn't getting the message. --WMSR (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with a personal note to Doncram that I have created hundreds of articles in draft space, and either moved them or had them moved to mainspace when they were ready. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact it is a great way to get all of your content together without being rushed to generate something that will avoid negative responses. BD2412 T 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

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

---

1. That the articles created by Doncram and based solely on HHA and the hotels' own websites, be moved to draft.

---

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 09:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support This one I already support - an article sourced only to the subject's website and/or a marketing organisation is a draft, and shouldn't be in main space until someone has replaced the promo sources with proper ones. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Girth Summit above. Deor (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - yes, it's embarrassing having these still in main space. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Also necessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support These articles, while possibly notable and expandable, are not fit for mainspace in their current states. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to add that they should be checked for new sources before moving, but on second thought, I really think Doncram should be responsible for that if he wants the articles to be moved into mainspace. Cleaning up his own mess, in other words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in the section above. This would allow anyone who felt any given article was salvageable (whether Doncram or anyone else) to find reliable sources at their leisure, without potentially large volumes of spam cluttering the article space. ‑ Iridescent 17:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per MarkH21. ~ HAL333 19:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per above. –Davey2010^Talk 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Given the efforts of multiple editors, most of Doncram's recent historic hotel articles now have at least some independent sourcing, and those should remain in main space. That said, I'm fine with the proposal for the small number of articles that still need independent sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The cleanest solution to the existing problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support with a thank you to the editors who have helped clean up the promotional stubs to date. An article can pass WP:GNG but still fail WP:PROMO, so any promotional articles should indeed be draftified, hopefully with an index so they can be restored. SportingFlyer T·C 09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - very reasonable. --MrClog (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Query. Would it be too early to start implementing this proposal? There seems to me to be a clear snow consensus, and I'll have some free time today to begin to work on it. (I'd keep a list of the draftified articles in my sandbox that could be copied to wherever it's needed.) Deor (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Deor, looks like there would be no objections at this point. Worst case, some get reviewed and moved back. Guy (help!) 08:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deor: Note that articles that have been expanded with independent sourcing are outside the scope of the proposal and should not be moved to draft space. These include: Boar's Head Resort, Colony Hotel & Cabaña Club, Cork Factory Hotel, Dunhill Hotel, Hilton Santa Fe Historic Plaza, Hotel Bethlehem, Hotel Saranac, La Posada de Santa Fe, Mayflower Park Hotel, Morris Inn at Notre Dame, Omni Berkshire Place, Omni San Francisco Hotel, Skytop Lodge, and Sonoma Mission Inn. Cbl62 (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've started on these, though I'm only through Florida in the list at Historic Hotels of America. A list of the ones I've draftified is at User:Deor/Sandbox. Some of these are necessarily judgment calls; I've not draftified any NRHP-designated buildings, but if the place (like Draft:Kings Courtyard Inn) is said to be within a NRHP-designated historic district but is not specifically mentioned in the nomination form for the district, I've gone ahead and moved it to draft. I'll be continuing with this throughout the day, but if anyone wants to help out, I won't gripe. As always, anyone is welcome to revert any mistakes of mine, but I'd appreciate a note on my talk page notifying me of such an action. Deor (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I think. If I've missed any, please let me know or take care of them yourself. In any case, I'll leave it to someone else to hat this proposal if doing so seems advisable. Deor (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - very reasonable. An experienced editor ought to be capable of producing a draft that would sail into article space. Oculi (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

some responding

Hi, this is Doncram, briefly. Though this will be completely dismissed in part as being too long (proving Doncram didn't hear that), what I am posting now is way too short to actually respond, because, well, ANI is that way. And I don't have time for more. I am sorry to come back and see what's further gone on, though I do appreciate what several editors have done. Been thinking about what's same and different between big horrible 2012 situation and proceedings, vs. this 2020 situation, which someone asked about. Most briefly:

• I am different. Much else is same.
• Short stub articles in NRHP area are similar but different to short stub articles on HHAs. It would be reasonable to have discussion to consensus among NRHP then and HHA editors now about what practices should be. HHA discussion going on productively at its Talk page, about what practices should be, has overcome several difficult issues. But also there are only about 60 out of 300 or so HHA articles to be developed. It is hard to gain experience about what is reasonable for HHA articles in advance of just starting them all. Quite reasonable to continue discussion on local consensus, like has been going on.
• Venue choice, timing choice again absurdly given over to the wrong parties. ANI is horrible for this; the environment is poisonous. Participants seem easily incited/inflamed by most dramatic assertions, however wrong. Division to extremes rather than compromise is what happens (like U.S. politics). Unfairness and viciousness drive out reasonable discussion, make it hard for me to advance offers or assurances that could be generated, would be appreciated by some, in a less polarized forum (like the Talk page of HHA list-article).
• Then as again now, for real I am a reasonable, good, friendly, productive person, who likes finding good sources and ways to improve articles, it is what I do. I am not the inexplicably evil person projected by aspersions/falsehoods etc. here, which pretty much rule out cooperative discussion. What happened to "assume good faith"; this trial, like ANI usually, is all about casting aspersions, making accusations, inviting misunderstanding, inciting mob rule. All in general violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines about personal attacks, casting aspersions, etc., but weirdly Wikipedia lets anything go on, at ANI.
• Then as now, where original or early incorrect assertions are cleared up, new accusations are manufactured. Not fair. There is ongoing invitation to audit me and find anything that could possibly superficially look bad, which would work for review of anyone else, too. Open season on target (me). Moving target for me to reply to. Generally incomprehension about how difficult, damaging, demoralizing to me to be put in this situation. Any statement I make can/will be seized upon and criticized, generating more accusations, etc.
• (Aside: just one of many cognitive errors going on is miss-perception of extent of negative consensus present, not accounting for contradictions of criticisms. Another sad fact is ANI gives equal weight to those with relevant experience and knowledge and vs. those uninformed and wrong in their assumptions. Not worth considering more, now, of course.)
• Short stub articles, even without any source, absolutely are allowed by Wikipedia then and now, per wp:OR and wp:RS directly.
• Nonsense, truly rubbish, to run on with allegations about that. By the way, no occurrence of any unsourced statements in any HHA article, AFAIK. Or if there is some minor problem, would easily be fixed by regular editing problem.
  • the 2012 arbitration is misunderstood, of course, by (all?) readers now. I think i remembered it correctly. Just reviewing one "finding" linked there, approximately that "Doncram has created many articles which are too short to achieve adequacy somehow" is misleading. Need to see their remand to the community to come to any consensus on short articles (never happened), for a start. Situation was inflamed by harrassment; one most constructive decision then was an interaction ban.
  • I personally would welcome a proper RFC to increase minimum standards for articles in some ways, by the way. It is not reasonable for people to get enraged about what I did in complete compliance with all rules and above and beyond what is accepted elsewhere, though.
• Then as now: If challenged, though, I do believe there is obligation to respond to general concern of reasonable others in a working forum. Espclly to opinions of fellow editors participating in development in the area already or newly (e.g. Cbl62 for one). There is in fact some room for me to make some accommodation(s), but facts of matter remain that I have done nothing wrong, this forum is unfair/unreasonable, and it is just hard to discuss any accommodation in this atmosphere.
• Wikipedia rules and practices are mostly the same, have not been improved in addressing bullying and unfairness. Some advance of editors on average, perhaps, but not enough. Pathetic lack of intelligence about design of this eco-system.
• Then and now the unfairness, vilification, hatred, has real damaging impact upon the target, me. Then as now I perceive real malevolence and/or reckless disregard for truth and fairness on part of some, real concern and misunderstanding on part of others. The nominator of this ANI and some others truly, appear to me to act as if they deeply do not care about human impact. Nor, actually, about impact upon development of the encyclopedia.

It seems important to me now both:

• to respect the community voice expressed here, to some extent, and in ways that are feasible and reasonable (more later)
• to try to communicate/educate/make assertions about what has gone wrong this time, to some extent, even though ANI is patently not the discussion forum that will achieve understanding about ANI
• to really resist, in ways that I was not able to in 2012, some things
• to appreciate and thank several good persons who have done some HHA editing and/or participated here

I see that my user rights were changed so that new articles will be reviewed(?); it was simply done, whether justified and fair or not, and there can't be any different decision. As before that is acceptable and has some good aspects, is a change that actually sort of will likely have an impact as intended. Further proposition to ban my creating articles is unjustifiable. Note, again, not one article has been found to be invalid as a topic. And note my recent single article creation did suffice to convey enough about the topic to interest other(s) in developing further, which is fine. And note that despite suggestions that I am running wild against consensus, note I did respond to this ANI by stopping creating HHA articles, with that one exception. I also note ANI initiator did not respond, is apparently not accepting my genuine offer somewhere above.

I apologize to each of you for failing to concentrate on the one matter which you personally think is most important. Everything else I say is demonstration of deceit/misdirection on my part. Probably i should not push the Publish button, but will anyhow. Okay, please compete to get in the quickest, snappiest dismissals. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thoughtful response here is genuinely appreciated, really. However, the few sarcastic comments and assumptions of bad faith mixed in here aren't. We get it, this is stressful and some aspects could be very unfair. The snippiness doesn't help anyone though, and is unnecessary. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why can’t you just agree to use proper sourcing when creating new articles, like everybody else has to? That would entirely solve these issues, regardless of what the current year is. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• It would be nice in the future if you could make your points succinctly and without using walls of text. Ironically, your comments are far larger than the stubs you create. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not believe baiting is helpful at all, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Who's baiting? Doncram's comments here are all TL;DNR, and I was hoping that if he were to write with more brevity, it would be easier to determine what his salient points are. As it is, they're lost in the walls of text. You may have all the time in the world to read his comments, but many others, myself included, do not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

judgment about HHA and NTHP

The HHA is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The NTHP garners annual fees from HHA members and also fees from its hotel bookings website, which has promotional language in describing the member hotels. It is being assumed that HHA is non-credible as a source, that it has been compromised ("HHA is a trade and marketing association, nothing more. Whereas some owner-members may have an honest interest in historic preservation, the association's purpose is marketing.") I myself had questions (see Talk:Historic Hotels of America), but I came to the judgment that the HHA is credible and not compromised, for reasons:

• The NTHP is a 70 year old 501c3 charitable nonprofit organization, with many programs, dedicated to furthering historic preservation by operating 27 National Historic Sites (such as James Monroe's Monticello), by issuing "Save Historic Places" grants to directly fund historic preservation (e.g. $4.5 million in 2017 for items like $45,000 for the Lower East Side Tenament Museum in 2017, say). It consults directly with property owners to support historic preservation. The NTHP does take positions (its "11 Most Endangered Historic Places" program, its lobbying on issues such as changes to tax credit programs), as a 501c3 it cannot be overtly political/cannot endorse political candidates. It seeks "win-win solutions".
• It is governed by a 25 member board, all unpaid, which happens to include Laura Bush, and includes representation from the Attorney General of the United States, and other ex officios. I expect the board is very conservative and protective about the reputation of the NTHP (partly from my direct experience with the board of a different, comparable organization).
• The HHA program, while seemingly a good example of a win-win type program, in which independent historic hotels are supported and benefit from NTHP association, and which derives some proceeds for the NTHP (apparently dedicated further historic preservation, sometimes restricted to the same area as the hotel providing proceeds) is apparently a small part, too small to be discussed in NTHP's annual report for the public or in its IRS 990 filings. In 2016 (latest available 990) the NTSP, with $266 million net assets and annual revenue of $45 million has only about $3 million revenue from membership dues, the item which I think includes any HHA proceeds.
• The HHA states that member hotels must have historic merit, including being explicitly listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, which is a different thing, whose creation in late 1960s was supported by the NTHP) or being deemed eligible for listing.
• It seems highly unlikely to me that the board would allow the HHA program to be compromised, to allow association of hotels not meeting its stated requirements.
• It seems to me that the hotels' participation is genuine and so is the HHA's.

I also came to judgment that HHA membership is a signal of Wikipedia notability, for reasons:

• explicit NRHP listing of some
• obvious high notability of many
• NRHP-eligibility requirement
• facts stated in HHA sources
• I worked first developing out missing articles about the HHA's founding member hotels, which all seemed very notable, including by photos I could find, and by my seeing them in Google streetview, and also by NRHP and other sources.
• Continuing on others, perhaps lesser, I found when I tried that I could round up NRHP sources and other separate sources immediately, in many cases
• I found HHA sources to be consistent with NRHP and other sources (besides one apparent discrepancy, to be investigated)

Based on these judgments, and no opposition from editors participating or invited, I further judged it acceptable/good to push ahead in developing articles, even without locating non-HHA sources first. In order to collect information and establish more, including shaking out more about the nature/extent of HHA payments, wherever I did find additional sources.

I don't think my judgment was bad about choice to rely upon HHA source alone in many cases, though others now disagree and believe the articles are embarrassing. But was my judgment so bad, that I must be over-ruled and punished?

I do see, obviously, that there is now community concern about the HHA source and the HHA member notability. I did immediately stop creating HHA articles, except later creating one using HHA sources plus primary source plus local interview-type source to add a bit more, which I thought would be acceptable, not embarrassing. I have been given further feedback of concern about that one (although it is agreed that it is notable, I am at fault for not finding an available "Historic Hotels in Seattle" source). I have stopped completely, now, and it would be crazy for me to do more; it would make sense for me to allow other editors now in the area to go on to develop the remaining ones (about 60 out of 300). There is no urgent problem.

This ANI forum definitely does have the right to impose anything, now, whether I would perceive it as fair or not. Either proposal is very damaging to me, seems humiliating, equivalent to desysopping an administrator. This is very depressing, and seems to be happening, and to me it seems there's nothing I can do. I have received some messages of support, which is nice, but if this is done then I don't see any way forward for me. Is this really good for Wikipedia? --Doncram (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

NRHP stubs in 2012 vs. HHA articles in 2020

Then as now a major problem, almost all of the problem in my view, was the fact of bullying-type editors following me. Back then, others observed that in many contentions opened by one of the worst offenders back then, was that he was following me and interrupting and opening AFDs and ANIs and so in. Often opening an ANI or the like, instead of discussing, meanwhile I was continuing improving an article; his point was that it temporarily had some redlinks or whatever other deficiencies, some of which I had already fixed, because that was what I was doing, before the ANI opened. If he hadn't there would have been no problem. But this succeeded in getting random others riled up, outraged. And many times i tried to discuss stuff and he simply would not, rudely, deeply incivilly.

Back then, there were more NRHP editors and production, and it was possible to think that I had created a short stub, just before someone else would have created a bigger article perhaps, within a month or year or so. I was happy to go completely far away, e.g. to do North Dakota where there never ever has been any NRHP editor, but he and others followed there and contended. The problem for some other NRHP editors was the contention itself. They didn't want to see it, it was unpleasant, they didn't want to be involved, didn't care who was more at fault or not, didn't care to consider any argument. Sort of fairly, it was their home area; they had standing; I actually did care about what they (not intruders just following) wanted. When I was eventually banned from NRHP or from creating new NRHP articles or whatever, for a year, I chose to stay away much longer (someone above stated I was banned for three years, not true). Partly because I did want to give them a rest, partly to let the worst contending intruders drift away. Which they did, because they were there for the contention. They would only edit NRHP articles that I had started to prove they could do better, and I suppose sometimes they did some separately from me, but really they were not interested, so left when contention stopped. The arbitration process and ruling was in fact deeply unfair to me, but it did work.

Same thing now, there would be no problem if, just now User:Fram had not identified they could cause a stink, and confronted me rudely so in part i reacted badly, then they acted further rudely by openig this ANI instead of following available regular procedures. Here in HHA area in 2020, I pioneered the area, and there were only a few editors contributing, coming from NRHP because I invited them and they were willing to edit a bit on their states (Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin). There was/is no one with any disagreement. I invited discussion about category and promotional nature of sources at the Talk page, and two sorta difficult problems were solved, civilly. Since this stink started up, Cbl62 and some others have chipped in to contribute more. No one complaining here has any reason to care. I and others were going to develop the area, and partly do it in layers (e.g. start all, come back to add proper categories later, come back exploiting any new big source that might be found, etc.). Anyhow there would be no HHA area if I did not take it up, and IMO it was embarrassing that there was nothing. Intruding to shut it down serves no content-producing editors anywhere.

I am asking NRHP editors now to come comment here. This will reach some longterm editors who never liked me, I suppose, but have the decency to say the proposals are not needed, I hope. The proposals would actually further stymie NRHP development, which has slowed, is barely above rate of new NRHP listings. During 2015 to late 2019 i expanded a few thousand stubs, created similar number new ones, generally without contention and in fact with pleasant collaboration with several editors. (BTW, I walked away from new NRHP article development after a non-NRHP editor created issue about redlink categories; I was expecting to return to NRHP after finding forum, perhaps an RFC, other consensus process about that topic.) If anyone thinks these proposals help NRHP area, I think they are wrong. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, a more succinct statement of your views would have been helpful. Am I wrong in summarizing your position as being that you are essentially not at fault, and that the problems reported here stem from other editors "bullying" you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring POV on EverQuote by IP pushing same POV since 2018

((moving report here from WP:AN, where I mistakenly posted it yesterday))

This person edits from a shifting IP address, but these recent edits[21][22] are likely from the same shifting-IP person [23] reported by @Ponyo: in the past.

If you semi-protect the article for a few weeks, the edit-warring on the article can be replaced by discussion on the talk page. I will notify the talk pages of those two IPs though I doubt the person in question will see my messages. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP is back today inserting the same material with edit summary "WP:BRD is a guideline while WP:OWN is policy. Then on talk page argues that it doesn't matter what RS say because Online marketplace says something different. I don't want to revert his change a third time, but can somebody here take a look please? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I reverted and chimed in on the talkpage; the edits are obviously in violation of what the sources clearly and explicitly state. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For any admins that want to look at this, disruptive editing by various Virginia-based IPs, likely the same person, focused on the removal of the term "marketplace" goes back to November 2018. Grandpallama (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Grandpallama for taking a look at this IP, who is probably also this IP and this IP. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

((restart indent)) the comedy continues at the article as IP makes same edit for 4th time. I just copy-pasted this entire discussion here from WP:AN, where I mistakenly had put it. Apologies!! @Grandpallama: thanks for trying to help. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kuru:, Ponyo says you are the admin who dealt with this IP in 2018 incident re the same article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The page has been protected, but only for a week. Given the persistence of this IP, and the continued nonsense on the talkpage, I'd think another block of the range might be in order. Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is protected but the trolling continues on Talk page, 9 from him since 10 p.m. last night, latest claim is "Hate to break it to you, but no one from WP:ANI is even paying attention," so we should change article to what he wants so that he will stop trolling. Please some admin...help if possible, or even just advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You could probably put an end to the talk page trolling by opting not to respond further. It isn't as though the user keeps introducing substantially new insights that merit a response. Largoplazo (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Or I don't know, maybe you could give some consideration to improving the neutrality of the article by removing a claim that is only sourced from media outlets repeating the same promotional wording provided by the subject of the article? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If multiple bylined articles in RS use the word "marketplace" to describe a company's business model, that means multiple RS have vetted that metaphor used in company PR as an accurate shorthand to describe the company. Also, the article clearly describes (based on RS) how EverQuote connects insurance shoppers to multiple insurance vendors. (No insurance policies are displayed on wooden tables in a town square.) Also, the word "marketplace" is not a promotional term. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You are putting way too much faith in the sources provided. None of them would have even mentioned the subject without a press release and they are just copying the company description from the press release without giving it a second thought. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This makes no sense. WP:RS is not over-ruled by vague guesses and claims that some reporters are lazy. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is it important to you that Everquote be described as a "marketplace" when "lead generator" [24] is a much more precise and accurate term for the service Everquote provides and that also appears in less potentially biased sources? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:F9C0:5EF4:6552:69A1 (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Even the one negative 2018 stock analysis you cite specifically describes EverQuote as "an insurance comparison website." From 2017 WSJ to 2020 Motley Fool 99.7% of news articles call it an "insurance marketplace." The Motley Fool piece, which ends by teasing 10 other stocks they like better than EverQuote, is hardly a reprint of anybody's press release. You are asking for Wikipedia's voice to contradict RS. IMO it shouldn't. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the S&P Global Market Intelligence article as "negative" analysis. It is objective and neutral. Also, if you read the article, the only time the author uses the word "marketplace", he clearly indicates that is how Everquote describes themselves and then goes on to provide his own professional analysis describing them as a "lead generator". You have repeatedly avoided answering why it is important to you that the word "marketplace" appear in the description. Could you answer that question please? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds more like it's very important to you that the term not be included. Demanding others adhere to standards you do not isn't going to win any favors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I am attempting dispute resolution and have called what I consider to be a misrepresentation of Everquote into question as well as the quality of the sources presented because I do not think that "marketplace" accurately describes their business model which consists of the collection and sale of personal information to third parties. I have clearly disclosed this. I have asked those who disagree with me to plainly explain why. Wikipedia policy does not require all information from reliable sources be repeated verbatim and encourages the removal of potentially inaccurate information if it cannot be sufficiently verified. So, just saying it is in RS, does not demand that it appear in the article, especially when the quality of the source is in question. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(restart indent) Back in January 2019, you were trying to remove a different description (also from RS) "insurance matchmaker."[25] I am not in love with the word "marketplace" or the word "matchmaker," but I object to SPAs trying to use Wikipedia to "correct" what RS say -- in your case, to hide the fact that EverQuote is a (some metaphor here) where insurance seekers can get competitive quotes from multiple insurance providers who have in the past sold insurance to people like them. Also, I don't see how EverQuote could be a "lead generator" if insurance shoppers who went to EverQuote did not, in fact, get insurance quotes they liked enough to buy from one. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why must any metaphor be used at all when there is a plain language alternative available to clearly describe what Everquote does? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is vague and inaccurate to hide from our readers the fact (however you express it, and RS say "marketplace") that insurance shoppers go to EverQuote to get connected to sellers of insurance. Most RS call it a "marketplace" first and many never bother to mention lead generation at all, because just about every website that asks you for information is ALSO making money from "lead generation." It is hard for me to understand that in a universe with Google, Facebook, and Amazon, you are so shocked and irate about a tiny Internet company few people have heard of that you need to spend two years trying to get Wikipedia to contradict the way RS describe it. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's just it. Calling Everquote a "lead generator" isn't hiding anything, but rather telling readers exactly how Everquote connects perspective buyers to prospective sellers. Amazon is accurately described as a marketplace. Facebook runs a marketplace amongst providing other services. Google is not a marketplace although they do provide Google shopping search services. The difference is that none of them sell personally identifying information under the guise of claiming to provide a different experience. I am not shocked or irate about this but according to the Better Business Bureau and other ratings/review websites which are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, many people (both perspective buyers and sellers) are irate with Everquote once they find out what really happens when someone requests a quote. Rather than focusing on those poorly sourced negative reports, I am only suggesting taking a more neutral approach of describing exactly what Everquote does, as reported in reliable sources, without using any colorful metaphors that may carry additional connotations and disguise what service Everquote offers. That is exactly what Wikipedia NPOV policies say must be done. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is already in the lead paragraph of the article that Everquote is "an online insurance marketplace and lead generation service." (By the way, "lead generation service" was your own choice of wording in early 2019.) The article already explains clearly "what really happens when someone requests a quote." People who are unhappy with "what really happens" complain to rating/review sites. People who are happy to get a bunch of quotes from different insurance companies buy insurance from one of them. According to one recent article, those insurance buyers saved money as well as time. Wikipedia need not reflect the POV of either the happy customers or the angry ones (presumably a smaller group, given the success of Everquote) but it should reflect its predominant description by reliable sources. If we want to describe "exactly what EverQuote does, as reported in reliable sources," removing accurate and well-attested material does not make things clearer for our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources provided define what a "marketplace" is or is not. The fact that you and I have different ideas about the possible definition or it's usage as a metaphor should be an indication that one is required and that the sources are lacking in that regard.2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Having read the talk page and looked at the edit history, I'll extend DeltaQuad's protection for a bit; there is no indication that this will go away. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You would think someone who has been here this long would do better.

I‘m sure Davey2010 is upset because he can’t unilaterally change things, being told to "fuck off" over an objection, because I simply said we as editors should leave the image of Billie Eilish alone, not do 2 more futile RfCs on it? I’m sure we have rules against this petulance. Behaving like some banned sockpuppets (Billiekhalidfan). Even I’m not this bellicose. ⌚️ (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Curious how you seem to be offended by the words "fuck" and "off" when they are said to you, yet you seem to think it's okay to use the word "fuck" on your user page which is read by others who may be offended. Cassianto^Talk 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Who said I was upset ?, I'm mellow as a cucumber, You came to an RFC complaining that we've already had 3 RFCs ... despite RFC 2 being withdrawn,

Your comment was utterly pointless and at that time I was pretty pissed you came to that RFC for the sole purpose of telling us "we already had 3".

Also context matters, I didn't randomly tell you to fuck off in a huff, I told you to either participate or in less-polite terms - leave, –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

And you think this is acceptable behavior when "mellow"? Do you need to brush up on this? ⌚️ (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the saying I'm looking for.. "much ado about nothing", yeah, that's it. That sockpuppet suggestion is really inappropriate. Let's all fuck off and do something productive instead. - Alexis Jazz 22:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked 24 hours. I've warned Trillfendi several times before about personal attacks in edit summaries (or in general), and I said the last time I would not warn her again. Davey2010's "fuck off" comment is clearly meant as a directed personal attack. What's this about a sockpuppet investigation? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Clearly" to you, maybe, as it fits your woke narrative on "incivility", perfectly. To the rest of the world, however, it is language that is in common usage; those of us in the real world just roll with it. And what's this? One rule for admins, another for the rest of us? Cassianto^Talk 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Fighting for a meaner Wikipedia has got to be the single worst crusade. Cjhard (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's doing that? And why is telling someone to "fuck off" mean? Doesn't that differ from one person's view to another? It's people like Ivanvector who is sewing division among the community by treating one group of people differently to the rest. Cassianto^Talk 14:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Telling somebody to "f off" fails common and basic standards of civility. The proper way to say it is "Please, leave", or if that is not verbose enough, "Would you be inclined to stop your participation in the current matter and take a break?". But "f off" crosses a line and I don't see what point you're trying to make. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Log in of you want me to take your comment seriously. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There was a recent RFC that was done that actually determined "fuck off" to not be inherently uncivil in terms of Wikipedia civility standards.--WaltCip (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Good. Plain common sense. Still waiting for Ivanvector to explain their obvious double standards, as linked to above. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If telling someone to "fuck off" is civil, I think WP:CIVIL needs a rewrite. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a safe space, and sometimes you'll need to read things that you may disagree with. Someone's language is very much determined by the behaviour of others. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the "fuck off" RFC. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Walt's description of the RFC outcome is accurate. The close was: ... most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So in Davey's instance, he met fire with fire. So going by the RfC, his "fuck off" was therefore justified? So why the block? Or is it because Davey is not an administrator? Cassianto^Talk 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Both editors were blocked, I presume because neither editor's comments were justified. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon that, do you agree with me that Ivanvector has displayed unfair behaviour here by blocking a non-admin for saying "fuck off", whilst last year, had jolly japes and gave a lukewarm warning to an administrator for doing the same thing? Cassianto^Talk 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I spent all day yesterday arguing about disparate treatment of myself and an admin. Generally speaking, do admin "get away with" stuff that regular editors don't? Yes, absolutely, we could both come up with many examples. (Is this the first time we've agreed on something?) Also the sky is blue and the sun rises in the East. But that doesn't mean that these blocks were wrong. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Faux pleasantries aside, absolutely this makes the blocks wrong. What has changed in the past year to warrant this "fuck off" worse than the other "fuck off"? Ivanvector set the precedent with his 2019 closure that in his opinion, "fuck off" was an offence worthy of a warning. Not here, and as far as I can see, they're both the same. So what's different? Cassianto^Talk 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why are you complaining, you're not even the one being blocked. As far as I see, if "f off" is acceptable under WP:CIVIL; then I concur with HouseOfChange that WP:CIVIL requires some form of rewrite, because if you told somebody in any professional scenario to "f off" I assume you'd be met with quite a few unpleasant gazes and possibly, in some contexts, some unwelcome news... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, more subjective interpretation. You may find it "offensive", others don't. What makes you think your view matters more? If you don't like it, get over it. Offence is never given, it is taken. Cassianto^Talk 02:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Civility is one of the five pillars. "If you don't like it, get over it." is good advice that you should consider following. Cjhard (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I "should consider" telling you what to do with your advice? Cassianto^Talk 06:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There’s a limit to If you don't like it, get over it, otherwise WP:CIVIL wouldn’t exist as a policy and pillar. Interpreting the boundaries of civility is and always has been a matter of consensus, as most things here are. There is no clearly-defined line, and context always matters.

That said, I don’t the point of continuing this ANI thread. This issue seems to have been dealt with, and an appeal for grounds of a bad block or other misconduct is probably better fit at another venue at this point. There’s nothing to be gained here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of the meaning of that choice of words as "leave" until I read a Neal Asher use it to say he was gong to leave. I thought of it as a derisive dismissal of an individual on most levels. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: In no universe does telling someone to "fuck off" pass the civility test, unless there's a degree of humour, or the situation is especially diar. It's not the swearing that makes it uncivil, it's the obvious aggression. Telling him/her to "leave" would have sufficed just fine. The fact that we are having a conversation about whether or not users should be allowed to casually tell others to "fuck off" in itself is honestly ridiculous. I'm just imagining the ways that slippery slope could (and probably would) be abused and stretched in the future. Be civil, period. DarkKnight2149 04:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• ANI never disappoints, full of people dictating to the rest of us that their offence seems to makes them right and everyone else wrong. Ivanvector, possibly one of our worst admins, knows they have been caught out as they've been silent here. Woke has just got woker. Cassianto^Talk 06:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

How is the ever-simple concept of Telling someone to fuck off in a collaborative environment is uncivil considered "woke"? It's borderline common sense. If you like to want to use the term ironically (or in an especially ludacris situation), no one is going to stop you. But if you are in a conflict with someone and your response to them is "Go fuck off", then obviously you shouldn't be surprised when you get hit with an WP:NPA block. No offense, but your responses here are making it seem as though you want free reign to lampoon other users or something. DarkKnight2149 06:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

An especially ludacris situation.

-Cjhard

No, I just want to be able to be myself (someone who is not offended by the phrase) just as much as those who don't like the term to be able to be themselves. It takes a bigger person to be able to walk on by, having been told to "fuck off", rather than get all woke about it and hypocritically come to a drama board and complain of hurt feelings. The fact someone doesn't like to be told to "fuck off" doesn't make them right. That doesn't mean you can say it when you like, but when the situation dictates. When you've been trolled as many times as me, sometimes, "fuck" and "off" are the only two words that seem to make any sense. And in situations like that, I maintain my right to say it. Cassianto^Talk 09:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• So Ivanvector, Just wondering - When an admin tells someone in a hidden comment to fuck off you warn them, yet when I say it I'm blocked ?, Whether the comment was hidden or not the phrase was still used so why did you feel it was appropriate to only warn that admin yet block me ? ... I'm genuinely curious, Unless you're telling us all from this point forward regardless of whether the "fuck off"er is an admin or non-admin that you're still going to block them? (ofcourse fuck off used in humour is obviously excluded). –Davey2010^Talk 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Davey2010, welcome back. These two discussions are not an apples-to-apples comparison. The discussion about JzG was a community discussion about general incivility which I closed based on my interpretation of the comments of other editors. As I described at the time, there was support for a sanction of some sort but not which one in particular; I didn't think that a block based on flimsy consensus three days after the incident would have been defensible. I don't know about JzG but personally I would find a long thread of my peers agreeing that I'd fucked up more convincing than one solo admin handing out a cowboy block after several days had passed.

As for this block, you made an aggressive personal comment to an editor who you were clearly in conflict with, with little provocation. You could have ignored the pointy comment, you could have attempted to engage the other editor in civil discussion, you could have simply made your point and moved on, if you thought the other editor was being needlessly disruptive you could have asked an admin to intervene, but you didn't do any of these, you went straight to "fuck off". That's why I blocked you. Besides being pointlessly uncivil, editors carrying out personal battles on talk pages is disruptive to everyone else.

To the general point: nobody is being blocked for saying "fuck". They're being blocked for incivility. If you don't understand the difference, maybe you should find other words to use. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether it was being incivil or using "fuck off" both of us were still being uncivil - only difference is one got warned and one got blocked,

I've seen far worse comments from admins and yet nothing happens with them ? ... Yet I lose my patience with someone who's unneedlessly complaining over an RFC and yet I get blocked for it,

I don't see the point in further arguing over this but in my eyes it feels like one rule for one, one rule for another that really is how it feels. –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey, you're right and it's not right. You have a right to be dissapointed with double-standards. Then again, I think it's fair to say that you have a history of being uncivil, so some introspection is due here, too. El_C 15:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, to be fair, so does JzG. He has received many warnings. I'm sure I'm missing some, since these were in the archive, but he most recently was warned so that would be in the most recent archive.

• • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Threatened_with_block_by_edit-warring_admin_using_"fuckoff"_template
  • JzG is admonished
  • JzG is specifically admonished
  • JzG warned re civility
  • JzG is warned
  • JZG is warned Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. That's why I spoke about double-standards. El_C 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey El_C, Absolutely agree and to a point agree that the block was actually deserved - The F Offs have been a thing for years and my first block for it was only in 2018 so I can't really complain over it but yeah the double standards to a point is really what gets me, Ah well onwards and upwards as they say! :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In future for insults, add some Shakespeare as an addendum to the standard "Fuck off", ie "Thou damned and luxurious mountain goat", "Thou lump of foul deformity", "The rankest compound of villainous smell that ever offended nostril".--MONGO (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I quite like the goat one, I also like this one > "You whoreson cullionly barber-monger!" but no doubt that one would earn me a block, Would be worth it tho. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Twelfth Night has "you wearer of only one stocking!", which will probably earn a trip to arbcom for...whatever. serial ^# 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

TMI but just spat my tea out with laughter, I would happily be taken to AN, ANI, Arbcom and then WMF-Office blocked all in that order just for that comment!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I always liked the following from David Eddings: I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen ... Is it possible thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat? And ending with: It speaks. Behold this wonder, my Lords and Ladies—a talking dog! El_C 20:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tis time to pull out ye olde Shakespeare insult generator— Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The RFC's over the image are getting a little repetitive. ~ HAL333 19:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being labelled as a troll. I was simply agreeing with Trillfendi's sentiment that the RfC's are getting a little old. We've already had 3 on the exact same topic this year. ~ HAL333 20:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on "Attraction to transgender people"

The last 13 edits on Attraction to transgender people are from editors either adding or removing the following line:

The term skoliosexual has been used to describe attraction to non-binary people.

References

Can an admin please protect the page? Maybe sanction some of the individuals involved in the edit war? User:Bandors in particular has clearly violated the 3RR with these three reverts today. But also I feel like several of the other people involved must have been aware they were involved in an edit war and just kept going. That includes: three IP editors (two of which are both from the 171.233.X.X range and so might be the same person; if they are they also violated 3RR), and everyone else who edited the page today: User:DIYeditor, User:Materialscientist and User: Waddie96. (User:Flyer22_Frozen also reverted the line twice but at the point she was involved it was not unambiguously an edit war, IMO.) Loki (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems overzealous. Even Bandors did not violate 3RR contrary to what you say, and I warned them on their talk page when it was clear it was becoming an edit war and they were just going to keep reverting. I think we were having some discussion via the edit summaries. Trying to warn (or sanction) the preeminent vandalism fighter Materialscientist is absurd. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• The page had this content to begin with, so the people reverting to restore the status quo so as to follow WP:BRD are obviously not at fault. Rather, the issue is Bandors and the near-singularly-focused IPs, who are the only ones trying to remove the sentence. I think it is safe to say the IPs are WP:LOUTSOCK or at best WP:MEAT, and if they are, 3RR has been violated already. I therefore support an edit warring and LOUTSOCK temp block on Bandors and the IPs. But note that I am not endorsing the sentence in question as WP:Due; I am focusing on the behavioral issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Crossroads above. comrade waddie96 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I did not violate the 3RR rule stated. Can you guys actually look at why I am trying to remove it? The sources are bunk. Huffpo source says Zucchini as a sexuality. It is a opinion piece, this is not a valid source. The other source mentions its source is "The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health " which does not provide a link to the main source. Bad sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandors (talk • contribs) 09:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how 13 (now 14!) edits that entirely consist of reverts to the same line is not an edit war. Every single edit to this page for the past TWO WEEKS has been inserting or removing the same line, without anybody going to the talk page about it. Even the people re-adding the line should have gone to the talk page about 6 edits ago. Loki (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Full Protection for 2 days: Participants are advised to take it to the talk page and not to start the war again once protection expires.--v/r - TP 23:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated COPYVIO

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

---

While سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ has a number of editing issues, the most prominent one is that he is frequently restoring WP:COPYVIO on Battle of Chamb,[26] and claiming that he has "changed the content",[27] while the mass copyright violation continues. Attempts to mentor him about copyright violations have been futile so far.[28] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point out the copyvio in no uncertain terms? A few brief quotes from the respective article revision and source ought to do. El_C 13:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are the results of his recent edit that how much he has violated COPYVIO. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the revisions due to copyvio. If they engage in copyvio again, they will be sanctioned. Please feel free to contact me personally if further violations take place. El_C 13:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A revert was missed as the copyright material is still present in the article history ([29]).

I think I got em all now. El_C 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

---

@El C: Nope. The copyvio is still present in the article history. Just copied the diff afresh to prove it. [30] 86.164.128.246 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Purely for the record:-  Done 86.131.235.177 (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Change to all our welcome templates

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

---

We recently had a change to our main welcome template....this of course did not fly over well with many old timers but most were willing to live with it as those familiar with the templates simply used others that still contained all the important links , But now we have ever template changed to this users preferred format and their favorite links with ZERO talk. This mass change to our templates had changed the wording all over and has resulted in the removed of links to our five pillars and to simple how to pages like the simplified MOS and links to our article wizard and how to edit a page....while at the same time highlighting their favorite links to be more dominate then the links related to the templates purpose. Really think we need a wider talk on the matter before a mass change to drop our main links that we have had for over a decade. The editor in question has been reverted a few time but do we really want to mass revert and cause more problems till we have a solution? As a NEW template editor who knows this may be contentious they should be following the rules outlined at Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes.--Moxy 🍁 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious blunder here, I'm confused as to what possible benefit granting sdkb TPE has for the project...this right should be yanked until they explain this mess and you know...the need. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, good shout, I have done this. It was probationary anyway - I think we can consider this as evidence that the user is not ready for this right. Courtesy ping Primefac, who granted the right. This is a WP:AGF thing I think: an excess of enthusiasm on Sdkb's part but nonetheless incompatible with the initial temporary grant of template editor rights. Guy (help!) 14:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that Guy. As you say, this was largely an AGF thing - I had actually written out a rather large post at their initial application detailing why I felt they should not receive the right, but I felt that my personal opinions were getting too much in the way of a good faith request, so in self-reflection I opted to grant it temporarily to (if anything) prove myself wrong. I should have listened to my gut, I guess. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I think you did right, because the problem doesn't appear to have been that hard to fix. Guy (help!) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, so revert it and discuss at an appropriate venue. Guy (help!) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I would revert all...but since I have had the same conflict with them over the main template and a few others ....think its best a third party do all the reverts. I got an email this morning asking WTF is going on by someone who cant revert because of the protection level involved.--Moxy 🍁 13:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, OK, done then. Guy (help!) 14:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree; significant changes to templates should be vetted, or at the very least proposed first before being mass-implemented. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree here too! -- Alexf^(talk) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello all — this was obviously rather unpleasant to wake up to. There seems to be a large misunderstanding here that I was making edits with "ZERO talk" or consensus. That is not true. Some context: At the widely-attended Village Pump discussion on the standard welcome template that was closed last month, there was strong consensus in favor of the general changes proposed (reducing links, making the template more personal, and better visual design), and a rough consensus in favor of the specific proposed template. It's important to note that, while I respect much of the work Moxy has done, they were the primary dissenter, and have strenuously resisted implementation at several turns since. The main welcome template was subsequently updated, and at Template:Welcome-anon, we established with the closer over Moxy's lone objection that the changes carry to other welcome templates with the same basic structure as Template:Welcome. Prior to this change, I posted at Template talk:Welcome to see if anyone objected to adding the parameters that would be needed for the change, and no one replied (the welcome templates are a notoriously neglected area), so I went ahead and added them.

Regarding the merits of the change to wrappers, there is a clear need for consolidation among the welcome templates to help make them easier to maintain, within the spirit of WP:CONSOLIDATE. Many of them claimed to be e.g. "the same as the standard welcome, just with [variation]", when in fact they had drifted out of alignment not just years but many years ago. Thus, as an implementation of the VPR consensus, I had been updating them to bring them back into alignment and set them up to stay synced to the main welcome via use of a wrapper. I rolled out cautiously, starting with Template:Welcome-autosign a month ago (converting to a module on the 6th) and then Template:Welcome cookie on May 3. I also asked a brief question at the technical pump that didn't hide what I was working on. There were no objections raised, and I did extensive sandbox and testcase testing and confirmed that Twinkle still functioned properly. Given all that, I saw fit to roll out the change to other welcomes that had a very similar format to the standard welcome. It's important to note that most of them are very low use compared to the main welcome; only two or so were template-protected, and most allowed edits by all users. During implementation, I studiously took care not to make any radical changes to the wording (despite plenty of instances where it could really use a refresh—again, this is a neglected area where it's hard to have big discussions), and I preserved formatting at templates like {{Welcome-vandalism-fighter}}. I did not wrapperify templates that differed substantially from the format of the main welcome (e.g. {{Welcome screen}}, {{W-FAQ}}; my only recent edit at the latter is fixing an unambiguous copy error that has now been reintroduced), as was agreed here.

I am not surprised to see Moxy disgruntled, but I'm disappointed to see that this was already closed so quickly by the single sysop out of any on Wikipedia I'd consider most WP:INVOLVED with me (due to a recent unrelated matter), and that that sysop has subsequently reverted not just the changes I made turning the welcomes into wrappers, but what looks like it may be my entire history of template edits, including many from months or years ago that appear to have zero connection here (e.g. [31]). Given my extensive backlog, I have no clue what sort of errors or downgrades that might be reintroducing, but I'd expect that there will be plenty. There was no need to revert on such a massive scale so hastily given that nothing was broken, and the rollbacks are unquestionably doing more damage than whatever objections there might be to the wrapperification. I hope that it will be possible to fix this all up without too much effort.

Overall, it looks like I did move too quickly on this, and I certainly erred in using only a basic edit summary ("turning into a wrapper template to keep synced with main welcome") that didn't include a link to the discussions. I'm happy to open up a larger discussion on wrapperification, but I think the immediate pressing need here is to undo the damage from the far too blunt rollback (restoring everything prior to this edit apart from the {{Welcome cookie}} test should be sufficient). Apologies that this has ended up here, and my thanks to those of you putting in effort to review everything. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging prior participants and others involved: @L235, Moxy, Praxidicae, Primefac, JzG, Ohnoitsjamie, Alexf, and Naypta: thanks for your attention{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, disclosing that I noticed on my watchlist Pppery undoing some of the individual rollback edits that broke things. I left a message on their talk page about cleaning up the damage from the rollback, and there is some discussion beginning there on that topic. I won't be making any direct edits to live templates while this thread is active. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Without comment as to the merits of granting or revoking the template editor role, I am very disappointed in the conduct of the user filing this ANI thread. Bringing a non-conduct dispute to ANI and, critically, withholding relevant context from the thread is misrepresenting the situation to the community. The filer failed to link to the relevant VPR discussion or to previous discussion at another welcome template talk page or to another one (all of which he vigorously participated in and knew were relevant). I understand that the filer and others feel strongly about this template, but this comes across as a trick designed to make Sdkb look more culpable. I also understand the filer's position that the consensus at VPR only applies to the {{welcome}} template and not to the others, and I think he's partially right about that, but it's really unfair to imply that all of these changes were entirely made without discussion and to neglect to mention Sdkb's likely position that the consensus covered the other templates. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They were fully aware that this would be contentious and have out right lied that I am the only one that contested the changes (very disappointing to see this). What we have is an overzealous new editor that is all over the place trying to make changes and getting into conflicts in many placed over their persistent approach.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• So there's a lot to unwrap here. I'm in no position to be qualified to opine on the template editor role, so much like Kevin I won't even try and get into that. The discussion I had with Sdkb over at Template talk:Welcome-delete may be of interest; I asked in particular about whether consensus had been established, and Sdkb told me All of these templates started out as variations of the standard welcome template (you can find lots of old references to "same as the standard welcome but with..." for templates that are no longer actually the same), but they just drifted out of sync over time, so yeah, I think it can be assumed that the consensus ideal practice is to keep them synced, and converting to a wrapper will help with that in the future (it should have been done when these were created, but either people didn't know how or the functionality didn't exist back then).

  I'll freely admit I'm not the greatest fan of the new welcome template, and I hadn't seen that VPR discussion - but that's on me for not seeing it, not on Sdkb, who did obtain consensus for that change. Whether or not there was consensus to make all the other templates a wrapper, however, I can see is a point of contention. I'm inclined to say that there may well not have been, in fact, but I don't think Sdkb in any way intended for that to be the case, and I'm yet to see any evidence whatsoever that would call into doubt their good faith in all of these matters. They may have been mistaken in their modifications, which were definitely bold even if there was consensus, but I think it's clear from the extensive discussions they'd had on the subject that they were not operating in bad faith.

  I, like L235, am concerned by the way that Moxy went about this all; I think the quote from Template talk:Welcome-anon in response to Kevin politely suggesting that they perhaps ought to revert their good faith edits sums it up: Yes very bad close but it was not about this template. That said its a much bigger problem then just here. Will have to write up a proper RFC to fix all the problems we now have. Will revert to show good faith... will just need a better explanation so others not familiar with how to retain editors can understand. This quote, of course, was from a page that was not disclosed when this report was made to ANI. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Moxy's being deliberately antagonistic or acting in bad faith either; from their point of view, I can see that these changes are extremely frustrating, much more widespread than perhaps had been previously understood to be the case, and done by a relatively new template editor. However, it's possible they're unintentionally biased by their own opinions and experiences; the same reasoning we ask for uninvolved admins applies here IMO.

  I left a message on JzG's talk page talking about his reversion of a particular edit Sdkb had made to a page I was watching, and he quite happily reverted his rollback there, which is good. I hadn't, however, realised that he had been just rolling back all of Sdkb's template modifications, including the ones that they had made prior to being granted template editor and far prior to any of these modifications. Once again, I don't think this is a deliberate abuse, and I don't think it's bad faith, but I do think it was a mistake under the circumstances and not really warranted.

  The final thing I want to address here is the early "closure" of this ANI discussion: I'm really not sure it's appropriate in a case like this to have closed the discussion before the subject of the discussion has even been able to come to ANI and discuss the problem. There was no urgent reason to close that I can see: if participants felt urgent action was needed, they could have taken that action, but left the discussion open such that Sdkb was able to respond to the criticisms that had been levelled against them. Inevitably, such a closure just results in the discussion continuing, making the point of closure rather moot.

  Overall, I don't think there's sufficient evidence at the moment to suggest that this is a case of bad faith on any side - which is sort of what makes it so difficult. A lot of people have made various mistakes here, often by feeling they're really doing the right thing for the encyclopedia as a whole - which is a great feeling, and we ought to make sure we're not discouraging any editors from feeling that. I suggest we collectively take this as a learning opportunity for the future, and it'd be good to get a completely uninvolved administrator to review all of this and suggest some learning points for people (including myself!) where appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup still agree it was a very bad close. As stated in the close no consensus on links to use.... no consensus to use action buttons and definitely no consensus to change every template to the same thing whatever that is. Only consensus was to trim links. Because of this horrible close with little direction we are now here dealing with this over talking about how to retain the thousands of potential editor's that are losing interest about learning how to edit with the new format.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to be making claims like "we might be losing thousands of editors to this". If you look at that same graph over a longer period, the story is quite different. And that's not to mention, of course, the fact that "clicks on this help article in particular" are not the same as "new wiki users coming along and learning". Whilst I do appreciate your genuinely-held concern for ensuring new editors know what they're doing, I'm not sure this is the venue for it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The link your saying shows better stats shows me that it's even worse than I thought.....more the 80 percent give up on the first page....that page has zero data to help add a reference. We should be learing from our past mistakes...not trying them again for the 4th time.Wikipedia:Adventure was once a preferred link til the same type of data came up.--Moxy 🍁 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, my take: the tempalte editor right was granted in good faith, Sdkb acted in good faith, Moxy reported in good faith, several uninvolved editors and admins commented in good faith, and now we have a good faith fight about what to do with the aftermath :-)

I am happy to help fix whatever mess remains, of course. If only I knew what the consensus view is of "mess". Guy (help!) 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia. Never change. The only place where this discussion isn't just a food fight I agree with you, JzG. I'd like to suggest that part of the solution to this is a full and formal RfC process, notwithstanding the previously closed discussion at VPR: I think there's now separate issues which have been raised, which need separate discussion, not just of the main welcome template but also of now all the other ones. In terms of the immediate aftermath - do we know if any welcome templates are currently in an unusable state? They might well have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they're currently usable, it might be best to leave them how they are now until a stronger consensus is obtained. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, an RfC makes perfect sense. Guy (help!) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If Sdkb and Moxy are happy with that, I'm happy to go and write one up in neutral text seeing as I'm only tangentially involved in any of this, probably on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates (unless anyone has any better suggestions for a venue). And no, I didn't just accidentally transclude the entire article for the letter P onto the Incidents page briefly before fixing it, what are you talking about... Facepalm Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I'd be happy with you opening an RfC at that page. Regarding timing, there's a lot of cleanup that needs to be done to reverse the damage caused by the mass rollback. That and addressing the conduct issues raised here is going to preoccupy myself and others in this area for a bit, so I think things may go smoother if we wait for this thread to settle and be closed before launching that, so that we can devote our attention to one thing at a time. But the decision is up to you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.....now that we have raw data and guideline updates about accessibility the outcome should be more definitive in nature. I believe all those involved in one RFC should be notified and the 8 or so editors involved in talks at the individual templates should get a wider say. We currently have an odd problem that people are creating new welcome templates because of how upset they are about the changes.--Moxy 🍁 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I now use User:Johnuniq/Welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note for closer: A previous reclose of this conversation was undone by the closer following discussion here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User Lilipo25 bullying through unsupported edits

I have been attempting to maintain balance and accuracy on the article Graham Linehan. There have been a small number of editors working alongside, who are also doing good work and are supportive of mine (I've received thanks for a number of edits). Unfortunately, the user Lilipo25 has been consistently edit-warring with all other editors and single-handedly pushing the article in one direction. In the talk page, they have been overtly hostile, freely throwing insults and allegations against other users, which already seems to have had the effect of pushing editors away from bothering with the article, and bullying through material which isn't supported by the wider editorial community. This previously led to mediated disputes with other editors, but is a more ongoing and general problem. Any help would be appreciated, and if I've not posted this to the right place then sorry!Wikiditm (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so for you. Mysticdan (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll make sure to do that in future if something like this happens again.Wikiditm (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wikiditm Could you be specific (with diffs) about where you see them throwing insults and allegations against other users? That's a long discussion, and I can see that there is more tension than would be ideal, but from a skim over it I'm not seeing anything approaching a personal attack - perhaps I've missed something? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. So the main tactic is allegations of bad faith against every other editor. Despite the fact that it is generally Lilipo25 edit-warring against a succession of other editors (they put the number at 10 in their response below), it is these other editors who are consistently accused of having agendas, ulterior motives, hounding, trying to intimidate, stalking etc. I think this can be seen on the talk page and edit history - what is meant by diffs?Wikiditm (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, this is a diff - it allows the reader to see exactly which comment you meant. If you are accusing someone of making inappropriate comments, it allows us to see precisely which comment you thought was inappropriate. I see a point where they ask you whether you have a COI, I don't see any direct allegations or insults - but perhaps I've overlooked something, which is why I was asking you to be specific. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to look up how to do that in future. Example comments from the talk page: "As you do not even have a Wikipedia account" "unlike you to wait weeks to post a Pink News smear job" "you're now just going to follow me around Wikipedia and harass me" "your bullying on another page" "You are WP: HOUNDING" "I figured you'd be along to join in" "trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible" "The bias against Linehan in this entire article by people with an agenda is out of control" "stop deleting any edit that isn't entirely yours" "there is no way those angry at him will allow this article to be edited as an encyclopedia article rather than a tool of revenge on someone with whom they ideologically disagree" "are you a member of Stonewall or in any way involved with their organization?" "it makes sense to ask if they are a member of Stonewall editing on the organization's behalf" "I'm not here for faux outrage from any of you" <- If this kind of conduct is acceptable on wikipedia, then that's a shame, but I guess it can't be helped.Wikiditm (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for notifying me, Mysticdan. I can't imagine how Wikiditm missed that big yellow warning about notifying other users when you start a discussion about them. Wikiditm is offended that I asked if they have a WP:COI and has also claimed that I accused them of stalking my private social media page to issue warnings that I stop editing the Linehan page. I have no idea which editor on that page it is who tracked down my private account and made the threats (although they were clear that they also edit there) and so never accused Wikiditm or anyone else of it. I merely stated that I will not be intimidated into not editing by it, whoever it is.

  The Linehan page is a mess and has been for over a year. A number of other editors have attempted to make it neutral and balanced, only to be overwhelmed by a group of about 10 people who are promoting an agenda rather than trying to write an unbiased encyclopedia article, and be bullied off the page. At one point, another editor assumed my sexual orientation and declared it a reason why I am "too involved' with the subject to edit a page about an Irish comedian. Every attempt to balance the article is reverted until anyone even trying to stop it from reading like a massive hit piece on a WP:BLP gives up. Ceoil, who has been regularly editing Wikipedia for at least 15 years, tried just hours ago to make it more balanced, but was promptly reverted, as always happens. The article only has "one direction", which is to give far too much weight to Linehan's views on a controversial issue and cast them entirely in a negative light. My pushing back has barely even made a tiny dent. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Lilipo. There is a very bitter history here, the subject is at pains to state he is a "Self-identification sceptic", which is a very different thing to "Anti-transgender activist". Also the article contains a number of unfounded allegations, mostly gathered on twitter and then fed through news feeds; I'm not so sure wiki is best served by becoming a collection for the like. To be clear, I don't particularly support Linehan's views (frankly I think he has dug himself into a hole), but I think they are being willyfully mis-represented here. That the revert warrior and blp avoiding complainant is pleading that they are attempting to maintain "balance and accuracy", is rich to say the least. My opinion...content issue, not for AN/I. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In all of my edits I have made sure to cite relevant sources and give equal weight to both sides where possible, using quotation marks to most accurate summarise the views being expressed. This is surely the definition of balance and accuracy. If he has been misrepresented in some way, then it would make sense to have a discussion about this on the talk page surely?Wikiditm (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Patently false as you are both cherry picking and coatracking. You definition of "balance and accuracy" is frankly deluded, and though we cant fish, I suspect there s wholesale socking also at play. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. From my perspective I have indeed been trying to maintain an article which is readable, accurate and balanced.Wikiditm (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Re coatracking, would be in fovour to trimming the section down to facts, and not having quotes from every blogger ever. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If people feel the section needs to be trimmed down then I'd be very happy to do some of that work. It is entirely true that my mindset throughout, though, has been to maintain a balanced and accurate page. It seems very wrong to imply that I'm acting in bad faith when I'm just not.Wikiditm (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Many editors have attempted to "have discussions about this" with you on the talk page, Wikiditm. You simply refuse to answer for months if you are asked for proof of claims you make (such as your claim that a "consensus was reached" on using the biased "Anti-transgender activism" as a subject heading to represent his views), and when we begin a discussion without you, you ignore it and edit the page the way you want anyway, then revert anyone who tries to make it even slightly more neutral. Pretending now that you merely want to talk about it on the discussion page is disingenuous, to say the very least. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If there can be a civil discussion on this topic on the talk page that would be great. The claim that "many editors have attempted to have discussions about this" with me is false. There haven't been any such attempts. The talk sections on specific edits all just dissolve into abuse and allegations from yourself against any editor who disagrees.Wikiditm (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You have sabotaged every civil discussion by bypassing it and simply making the changes you want before any consensus is reached. You know this. And if you were genuinely trying to make the article neutral and balanced, you would stop doing things like using a tabloid web site that is engaged in numerous legal disputes with the article subject as your main source, and then deleting information from legitimate newspapers like The Spectator on the basis that they lean 'conservative' and you don't like that. Or including negative comments about him from transgender people who disagree with him but deleting any mention of sourced newspaper articles by transgender people who agree with his views and saying they can't be included because they are his supporters. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A lot of this is misplaced grievance, and a lot of it is untrue. I hardly ever use PinkNews as a source - that's an ongoing argument you have with one of the other editors of the page. I have never deleted information because it came from The Spectator - I merely cut down the number of citations for a statement from an unwieldy 4 to a more appropriate 2, and happened to favour The Times sources over The Spectator. I have, in no instance, kept one viewpoint and deleted the opposite. I always make sure to include both sides, where possible, using quotations where I can to accurately summarise their views. Finally, I have never said that his supporters cannot be included - I've quoted his supporters in a number of relevant places!Wikiditm (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For context this is an article with massive longstanding issues including WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:ATP and WP:NPOV. Frankly, some of the editors piling up these tendentious, garbage sources just to bash Linehan are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. So I am not surprised that Lilipo25 has run into aggression and petulance while trying hard to keep things on an even keel. I tried hard to improve it myself a while ago but ultimately had to self impose a sort of topic ban, deeming it a "lost cause". It's a shame because the article subject is a very notable comedy writer. That he sometimes debunks trans lobby extremism on Twitter probably merits a couple of lines at most. When high quality sources are out there it's ridiculous we shun them to crowbar in fringe blogs from the very shrieking loonies who fueled much of the nonsense and bad feeling in the first place! Yes, I'm looking at you, 'PinkNews'. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is accurate. If you view Linehan's television writing as his main claim to notability, and his anti-trans activism as just something he occasionally does, then I can understand why the article would appear to be a coatrack (it gives roughly equal coverage to these topics). However, the writing he did way back really isn't why he is notable today. If I google Graham Linehan the first page brings up 2 results relating to his writing work, 2 results which are neutral (such as his wiki article) and a full 6 results related to his activism relating to trans people. When he is interviewed on radio or television, there are frequently no questions about his writing work, with the entire interview devoted to his views on this issue. If someone hears about Linehan and wants to find out more, it is almost definite that they heard his name in relation to the transgender debate and wish to find out more. The article is right to reflect that. That said, this feels like a content issue which would be better discussed on the talk page of the article.Wikiditm (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This response is full of your personal bias about the subject and not encyclopedia-worthy facts. Trying to prove that he's mostly notable for this controversy because "If I Google Graham Linehan, the first page brings up..." , for example, ignores the fact that the Google algorithm tailors search results according to each user's search history and page visits. What comes up for you when you google his name is at least partially reflective of what you spend time reading and searching for; it isn't what comes up for everyone. And saying "if someone hears about Linehan, it is almost definite they heard his name in relation to the transgender debate and are looking him up to find out more about that" is clear evidence of your editing bias here: you in fact have no idea how or why people hear about Linehan or why they might visit his Wikipedia article, and using your personal opinion of why they must have heard of him to make the article mostly about that is simply not good encyclopedia editing. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This example was from a clean google search. It has nothing to do with my previous search history, and I never really search for related topics like this. It seems you are still assuming bad faith and hidden agendas when there are none - please stop! Yes there will be an element of subjectivity around what is considered notable, but the examples I gave above are good a reason as any - google searches for Linehan lean heavily towards his views on the transgender debate, his media appearances give almost total coverage to his views on this topic, his twitter account is devoted to it. This isn't my personal bias it's just reality. Every metric you might reasonably look at ties his name to the transgender debate first and his former job as a comedy writer second. Even despite this, I have actually cut a lot of material from the article over time, and kept it reasonably concise, a shorter length than is given to his writing work. This is why I don't consider it a coatrack.Wikiditm (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Wikiditm, you are impossible. Dramatically crying out for me to "please stop!" as if you have been deeply wounded by my pointing out the simple fact that Google searches do not yield the same results for everyone? Declaring that to be "assuming hidden agendas"? Would Google be part of this deep conspiracy, then? Honestly, this is more textbook gaslighting and so typical of what you do whenever you are challenged. You have not been hurt here. You are not under attack. You are not a victim. If you can't handle someone pointing out any facts that contradict your claims without these dramatics, perhaps you need to take a breather from editing. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, this is from a clean google search. If you do the same search incognito you will get the exact same results. I'm not gaslighting you. If you have a fact that contradicts something I've said above then please, by all means, share that! That would be much preferred to endless accusations of bias, agendas, etc. which are not productive in any sense.Wikiditm (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You use this endless cycle of declaring that you have been attacked when you have not and then playing the deeply wounded victim as a means of bullying other editors into giving you your way. I have given in to it repeatedly because it is so difficult to reason with you when simple facts cause you to declare that you have been "accused' of things that have not been said and put on these silly "oh, please stop! please!" performances in hopes an admin will see it and think you're being picked on. Honestly, it's just exasperating. Your google searches do not yield the same results as everyone else. It doesn't matter if you claim they are "clean" searches: everyone else does not start from the same place you do. I realize I am now asking for another round of you swooning in agony over that fact, but there it is. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you log out of google, bring up an incognito tab, and search for Graham Linehan, you'll get the exact same results I got (with possible variation due to location differences). These are twitter, wiki, spiked, imdb, guardian, daily mail, irish times, independent and pink news.Wikiditm (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Again: everyone else does not start from the same place you do. Enough. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The point being that this is, in no way, biased. It is not affected by my search history, as claimed. The constant allegations of bias, even about something as clearly neutral as this, hampers any attempt to establish what our approach should be.Wikiditm (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone else does not start from the same place you do. when googling. They therefore do not get the same results you do. You have no way of knowing what they have seen about Linehan or why they are looking him up on Wikipedia and shouldn't be making assumptions that it is "almost definite' that they are there to read about his views on transgender issues. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think characterising me living in a different location to you as bias is pretty absurd. Of course I don't know why someone may hear about Linehan, but what I've suggested is a number of neutral ways to assess that. A clean google search of his name gives mostly results relating to the transgender debate. Interviews and media appearances with Linehan over the last few years have been almost entirely devoted to this issue. If you look at his twitter feed it is entirely about this issue. For these reasons, I think it's reasonable for this issue to be given a decent amount of space in the article. Your response to this has, once again, just been to accuse me of bias, make allegations about my search history, and not offer anything constructive. If you have an alternative, reasonable way of determining that this coverage is undue, then say it! Just pouring on allegations of bias obviously isn't going to convince anyone.Wikiditm (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Characterising me living in a different location from you as bias" - HUH? What new gaslighting nonsense is this? I don't know where you live, nor do I care. That has nothing to do with the search history/kinds of pages used in the past that other people have on their computers which affect their google searches and give them different results from you. And I have made no "allegations about your search history", either. Not one. Oh, you know all that. You don't think I said any of that at all. You're just hoping an admin won't read the whole thread and will just see your comment and think it happened. Just more performing as a victim. You are relentless. Honestly, I hope some admin *does* read this whole mess and for once, someone can see how you use gaslighting and fake claims of abuse to bully other editors into giving you your way. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, clean google searches are not affected by search history or pages used in the past. That's why they are called clean. To do such a search, you can log out of google, open an incognito tab, and search for "Graham Linehan." You'll get the same results I got.Wikiditm (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As I responded above three times: everyone does not start from the same place you do. Despite pretending that this meant I was accusing you of bias for for not personally living with me (sigh), you know quite well that it means everyone else is not doing a 'clean search' from an incognito page. In fact, almost no one is. And as I also explained repeatedly, this means they would not get the same result you would get doing a search from an incognito page, since the google algorithms would be affected by their individual search histories and page use. And this means that you cannot extrapolate what information everyone else would see in a google search of Linehan's name from your own incognito search. And no, I am not asking you to live with me. I promise. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anything stated here makes google search a bad measure of notability. I'm not saying that everyone will see the same results when casually searching for Graham Linehan. I'm saying that a clean google search for him produces an abundance of coverage of his contribution to the transgender debate. This is one of the reasons I give to show that the section on this topic has due weight within the article.Wikiditm (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "clean" google search at all: "It’s not possible even for logged out users of Google search, who are also browsing in Incognito mode, to prevent their online activity from being used by Google to program — and thus shape — the results they see. Duck Duck Goose says it found significant variation in Google search results, with most of the participants in the study seeing results that were unique to them — and some seeing links others simply did not." https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/google-incognito-search-results-still-vary-from-person-to-person-ddg-study-finds/ OK? Can you please just let this go, finally? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see what your point is here. You began by saying that my arguments were full of personal bias, and still haven't really said why or what is wrong with them, now linking to Duck Duck Go advocacy articles which isn't really relevant at all. If you are truly saying that I should have searched with Duck Duck Go instead of Google then I'm happy to do that. In fact, the argument is even stronger then as DDG brings up even more articles on the transgender debate than google does! https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graham+linehan Wikiditm (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I just don't know how to respond any more. I really don't. You've just spent hours and hours making this "clean google search" argument at me over and over, insisting that in incognito mode, your browser history has no effect upon results and therefore your search on Linehan's name is unbiased and so making the article mostly about his views on one controversy isn't negatively slanting it. So I show you a study that proved that isn't true at all, and you pretend you can't understand what the point is and that I wanted you to use Duck Duck Go instead and that I never said what was wrong with your negative slant on the article at all and this is just so irrelevant you can't even see why I would bring such a thing up. I recognize every one of these tactics from Gamer Gate - deflect, act pained and wounded, pretend not to understand what the woman with facts is saying and make it sound like she just makes no sense, then say she never made the argument that you've just spent the last day arguing against at all and shake your head like she's crazy. It's gaslighting in the extreme. I know that you're trying to goad me into losing my temper so you can cry victim and get me banned. Here, Wikiditm - here's a different study from Vanderbilt University, not involving DDG, that found the same thing, that Google still links to your browser history in incognito mode: https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/ OK? Please stop now. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If the issue is that clean google searches aren't really clean, then just replace the word google in my argument with DDG or whatever search you do consider clean.Wikiditm (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• And with that, I officially give up once again.Girth Summit I hope you will at least be able to skim this mess. As usual, Wikiditm has worn me down with their usual cycle of pretending I have abused and accused them, then crying out pitifully for it to "please stop!" in hopes of appearing the bullied victim. And I give in because such gaslighting is impossible to reason with.If you find that I have in fact abused Wikiditm, do what you will. I have tried to make the Linehan article slightly less of a hatchet job, but I have largely failed. I don't have time in my life to spend all day every day defending myself against Wikiditm's claims. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's certainly some evidence of whitewashing in this article. Linehan is not a "self-identification sceptic" however much he'd like to call himself that (also, it's a term with practically zero hits, so it's WP:OR anyway). He's definitely an anti-transgender activist though, he's even described himself as running on online campaign "against trans activists". The Stephanie Hayden section that is being removed repeatedly is probably the most notable of his escapades - it was the first ever deadnaming lawsuit and was far more widely covered in the mainstream press that most of the others in that section - it also resulted in him having a police warning. Indeed, since most production people don't want to touch him because of his views, it's probably the most notable thing that has happened to him in the last few years, so it's certainly not undue. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, no indeed. He's a TERF, though, and adjacent to a few TERFs in the UK and Ireland skeptical movement. Guy (help!) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed. I think I mis-read that he was actively "anti-trans", rather than anti trans-activism. Either way, not a part of the page I will be revisiting, though I am very much interested his his comedy career. So maybe will limit myself to the first half of the article. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Saying he is "against trans activists" and leaving out the rest of what he has said is exactly the sort of biasing of the article that is the problem. He has repeatedly said that his problem is not with trans people, but with trans activists who he feels bully women and shut down debate whenever they try to raise issues like trans inclusion in women's sports or women's changing rooms. The mention of the Stephanie Hayden lawsuit is another example: you do not mention that Hayden dropped all charges against Linehan, or that he disputes that he ever received any police warning at all (he has stated he spoke on the phone with an officer who asked him to block Hayden online after he already had, but was never given any official citation). Putting these things in the article without the rest of the information is creating bias with half-truths.Lilipo25 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    • We go by what reliable sources say. In the case of the police warning, it was reported that he had received one (telling him not to contact her at all) by the BBC, ITV, The Times, The Guardian, etc. Indeed, he even managed to call her a "misogynist" again in the statement he gave to the BBC confirming it. Yes, she did drop the charges, but that was later. If you want to find another heading for the "anti-transgender activism" section, please suggest it, but "self-identification sceptic" is an unsourceable nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't know why "that was later" has anything to do with leaving that out; it has already happened now. Reliable sources have also reported, since the lawsuit was dropped and the gag order lifted, that there is no record of a legal citation being given to Linehan over the incident with Hayden, but that keeps being removed from the article.A number of editors have indeed suggested many neutral alternatives to "anti-transgender activism" but they are immediately reverted every time by Wikiditm with a note saying there was "consensus" that 'anti-transgender activism' is right. However, I have asked repeatedly to be shown the discussion where this consensus was reached, as I can find no evidence of it, but Wikiditm will never respond to that. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Could you show the version of the article with those reliable sources in, please? I did try to look, but it's difficult to find with you and others persistently inserting and removing material. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
          • So, that's a "no" then? Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'd suggest a quick skim of the page would show plenty of evidence of what Wikidtm has outlined, Girth Summit. Here are some recent diffs: incivility; accusing Newimpartial of wikistalking; accusation of bias; allegation of off-wiki stalking/threats; accusing Wikidtm of removing part of my edit (they hadn't). Not sure what the solution is - I see 1RR is being discussed below, but I don't see how that will solve anything. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bastun, thanks for providing the diffs - that certainly makes things easier. I think that Lilipo25 would be well advised to make sure that they keep their talk page comments focussed on the content, not the contributors or their motives. If they feel they're being harassed or stalked, that should be brought up here, with diffs presented as evidence; accusing people of abusive behaviour in a talk page discussion isn't on. Having said all that, I'm not sure it is quite as bad as Wikidtm has presented it - it's far from ideal behaviour in what is clearly a tense discussion, but I'm not sure I'd characterise it as 'freely throwing insults', or as bullying. Moving forward - Lilipo25 seems to be saying above that they intend to step away from the subject, perhaps if there are more eyes on the discussion and more editors getting involved in the page, it might be possible to move forward slowly? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes this sounds positive. There are a decent number of editors on the page currently (I think?) but more would always be welcome!Wikiditm (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Girth Summit Sorry for the confusion - I was saying I give up trying to defend myself on this page, not that I will stop editing the Linehan page. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Girth Summit my earlier ping to you didn't send, so sending again. I don't plan to stop editing the Linehan page; I meant only that I gave up trying to defend myself from the accusations here.. As I said, I received messages on my private social media days ago from someone identifying themselves as another of the page's editors and warning me to stop editing there or they would see I was banned permanently. I have not accused anyone of being the person who did it, as they refused to reveal their Wikipedia user name. I said I wouldn't be intimidated off the page, and I meant it. If I leave now, that tells whoever did it that stalking and threatening any editor who disagrees with the negative slant of the article is effective. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    Lilipo25, OK, understood. I'm sorry that has happened to you, it is reprehensible behaviour to attempt to intimidate somebody off-wiki. Please be aware that there are steps you can take to report that sort of thing privately, these are outlined at WP:Harassment. If you are going to continue to engage on the talk page, please be sure to keep your comments focussed on the content that is under dispute, and avoid commenting on what you perceive other editors' motives to be. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Girth Summit, I thank you for your comments. You have been kind, so this isn't aimed at you and I know I probably shouldn't say it at all but I'm going to anyway because it should be said somewhere: there have been a great many tactics recycled from Gamer Gate (gaslighting, tagteaming, men pretending they just can't understand women's arguments at all, etc.) still in use on Wikipedia, and I wish that there was some recognition of that instead of just telling us to be nicer. It has been exceedingly difficult for female editors on Wikipedia to make any headway whatsoever even on articles that concern women's rights or its supporters, as we are constantly told that we must be more accommodating and deferential to the perspective of others, while they must never be expected to consider the perspective of women on women's issues because that means women aren't being inclusive. Being scolded and treated like you're crazy by a group of men who just ignore your facts and point of view and revert any edit you make can be maddening, but speaking too harshly in reply means more gaslighting, scolding and reporting while they throw their hands up in the air and act like they just can't understand why you aren't being nicer. We are badly outnumbered and more so all the time and it is beyond disheartening. It is incredibly hard not to join most of the other women editors and just quit.Lilipo25 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

      Lilipo25, just to be clear, I didn't know until just now that you were a woman - I see that you have declared that on your userpage, I'm afraid I hadn't looked at that. I don't know the gender of any of the other people participating in this discussion. If I have given the impression of scolding you and telling you to be nicer, I hope you can believe that I wasn't doing that because you are a woman. I do appreciate your frustration, but I do think that if everyone made a determined effort to stay focussed on the content, discussions would be less unpleasant all round. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

      Girth Summit You didn't at all give that impression. As I said, it wasn't aimed at you. The complainant has continued this same behavior on this page for nearly 24 hours now, though, without being told to stop by anyone. It's the same thing women deal with on the Linehan page (and others) constantly from him and other male editors and that leads to finally snapping back, even though we know that's exactly what it's designed to get us to do: extreme gaslighting, first proclaiming to everyone they can that we've made false accusations we haven't, followed by impassioned pleas to us to "Please stop!" what we haven't even done and sorrowful declarations to each other that 'nothing can be done', then when we try to say that we never said that at all, pretending to misunderstand again and replying to something else we haven't said and arguing that, then shaking their heads and pretending we're just crazy and they just can't understand what we want at all, if only we'd just say what the problem is, and then starting all over. It's the Gamer Gate Playbook, designed for men to bully women off a site/out of a group while skating clear of any violations themselves. And it would be great if admins would begin to recognize its use, because it's both very vicious and very effective. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was an unexpected turn, for sure. I guess for the record, I should say that I'm not a man? I also didn't know that Lilipo25 was a woman, which is why I used "they" to refer to her previously. My complaint has nothing to do with gender though, and is entirely to do with conduct.Wikiditm (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My bad. I've been so careful to use the neutral "they" for so long just in case and I didn't realize I hadn't in that comment. I tried to fix it so you wouldn't feel misgendered, but NewImpartial put it back. Mea culpa. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I added strikethrough to reflect your intent, per the guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(I have no idea how to do proper indenting when there's a mix of asterisks and colons being used. This is a reply to Lilipo's comment of 15:49). Wow. I'm... at a loss. I don't think I've ever edited anything related to Gamergate. I don't think I've ever revealed my gender on here, but I could well be wrong about that. If I had edited anything related to gamergate, I'd hope that - like on the Lenihan article - my contributions would be WP:DUE, verifiable to reliable sources, and would satisfy WP:NPOV. When I am accused of bias on here, it's generally me being accused of left-wing liberal bias. Accusations such as those you've laid above - gaslighting, conversations about you, and so on, really need to be backed by diffs. I've seen one example in Lenihan-related discussion where an editor was accused of doing something they hadn't, and I supplied the diff here earlier. It was you accusing Wikidtm, so... I guess there's that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from my perspective, there are three, quite distinct, issues:
• Harassment, especially off-wiki harassment, is a serious matter, and should be handled according to the procedure set out at WP:Harassment.
• We all need to try to be WP:CIVIL; inpugning the motives of others, unfounded accusations of stalking, and accusing others of uncivil behaviour without the support of diffs are all serious violations of civility.
• The main issue I see specific to Lilipo25's edit history (not limited to my interactions with them) is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, seemingly originating in a failure to recognize the perspectives of others and resulting in a strong conviction that they have a uniquely correct take on article NPOV and the correllary belief that editors who disagree with them are motivated by bias, along with an unwillingness to accept consensus in talk page discussions.
• My preference under these circumstances would be for Lilipo25 to have additional opportunities to practice taking the perspectives of others and to learn to contribute constructively to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd have to take issue with "uniquely" - the talk page shows plenty of us agree with Lilipo25 but gave up after being harangued by edit-warring ideologues. The rest of your comment is opinion-based and resembles pretty much what you are accusing Lilipo25 of! Namely incivility not backed by any diffs. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I am careful when (rarely) I refer to the actions of specific editors and when (more often) I make comments of general application, and would advise you to do the same. The only specific comment I have made here about Lilipo25 concerns BATTLEGROUND tendencies, which I think are illustrated well enough here at ANI. If it is necessary to provide additional diffs, however, I could certainly oblige.
    • As far as the number of editors supporting Lilipo25's positions is concerned, I know it can be more than one editor at a time, but the number of supporters and opponents doesn't seem to affect their own sense of self-certainty. Your own position hasn't been expressed on the Talk page since the middle of last year, so I'm not sure how germane that is to the most recent discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If a diff is needed about BATTLEGROUND escalation and inCIVILity, I propose this diff, which says It's the same thing women deal with on the Linehan page (and others) constantly from him and other male editors and that leads to finally snapping back, even though we know that's exactly what it's designed to get us to do: extreme gaslighting, first proclaiming to everyone they can that we've made false accusations we haven't, followed by impassioned pleas to us to "Please stop!" what we haven't even done and sorrowful declarations to each other that 'nothing can be done', then when we try to say that we never said that at all, pretending to misunderstand again and replying to something else we haven't said and arguing that, then shaking their heads and pretending we're just crazy and they just can't understand what we want at all, if only we'd just say what the problem is, and then starting all over. Lilipo25's willingness to say this about the behaviour of editors on the Linehan page - who were mostly not men and none of whom have engaged in any "gaslighting" that I can see - is a perfect example of why this editor has to stop making such distorting, hostile, and unCIVIL assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Lilipo25 is refactoring their comments. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of refactoring. I wasn't aware we couldn't edit our own comments and didn't want Wikiditm to feel misgendered. Sorry, won't happen again. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • NewImpartial, I tried to not even respond to your attacks on me here because I know from experience that you will just keep escalating, even following me to other pages, but you just kept escalating against me anyway even when I didn't even respond to you at all! Let me just say that I'm not sure you want to make this a battle of the BATTLEGROUND escalation diffs (or of undeserved 'self-certainty', for that matter), because you have at least as many as I do that could be added here. I would prefer not to have to deal with more of this from you at all, thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Your response here to my (rather mild) commentary on your lengthy diff rather illustrated my point, I should think. That is a lot of BATTLE in your fairly terse quip. And I don't think I've escalated in responding to you, even once. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

1RR Proposal

• I propose a one revert rule on the article for 3 months. One revert, per editor, per day to encourage discussion.--v/r - TP 16:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I definitely support this, though I don't know how often this rule is "broken" currently (it is a relatively slow-moving article). I also fear the issue around the talk page being so abusive currently would remain.Wikiditm (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Indeed, it appears it would be broken not at all. The problem isn't with speed of reversion. This is just a content dispute with guidelines implications, in line with Black Kite's observations. The solution lies elsewhere than XRR. --Bsherr (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a conduct dispute, not a content one. I feel if the conduct was improved then any content disputes could be adequately addressed on the talk page, but at the moment this is impossible.Wikiditm (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment if this is necessary, wouldn't it be easier for an uninvolved admin (can this be you User:TParis?) to just go ahead and place 1RR on the article rather than us !voting here? Unless I'm confused, this is already possible by following the WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page norms i.e. placing {{Ds/editnotice}} either for GG or BLP, and one of the purposes of having DS is to make it easier to get things under control by removing the need to establish community consensus for a restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  In any case, I have given Wikiditm, Lilipo25 and Newimpartial discretionary sanctions alerts for the GG area. So 1RR aside, the discretionary sanctions process can be used for any concerns over these editors editing if it is needed in the future. As always, this alert was not issued because of any identified problems with their editing, but solely because they seemed fairly active in the article talk page recently. I did not alert Bastun the other one I identified as fairly active, since they still have an active BLP alert which seems sufficient for this article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I do? What's an active BLP alert, and how do I know I have one? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is an active BLP alert, and you know you've revceived one because it's on your talk page. ‑ Iridescent 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. Perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best. But for clarity I mean that you meet the 'awareness' requirement under the WP:AC/DS#aware.aware system for BLP discretionary sanctions, as you were alerted within the last 12 months. (It was July 2019 IIRC.) BLP discretionary sanctions would cover the Graham Linehan article. For these others, they did not seem to meet any of the awareness criteria AFAICT. Any alerts or participation at AE were too old. I therefore gave alerts for GamerGate discretionary sanctions, as this also covers gender-related disputes or controversies and people related to it, as per the header on Talk:Graham Linehan, and also it seemed to better deal with what generally resulted in dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. Forgive my confusion - that alert is in last year's talk page archive. Also, given who had placed it there, I have to confess I almost certainly didn't follow the links at the time. I'm aware of the BLP discretionary sanctions, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with Bsherr that it won't make much difference if a one revert rule is put on the article, as the problem is a content dispute and not speed of revision. However, I am not strictly opposed to the rule and if an Admin thinks it will help, don't have any strenuous objections. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I also think this is a blunt tool. But can't think of a solution either. From reading in dept in the last few days I am now inclined to think both sides were acting from good faith positions, ie Wikiditm, I am now sympathetic to your views, but still with Lilipo25 overall. I wouldn't be sanctioning, but would certainly remind all that antagonism will get no one anywhere. To note I realise I am not innocent here, but stopped following Leninan on twiter about two years ago in exasperation, and now basically agree with Black Kite above. And will heed my own advice. This is a content dispute, though a fugazi if ever there was one. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Block review request: User:Agenciamonterrey blocked by User:Rosguill

I'd appreciate it if I could get additional admins to weigh in on my block against this account. The account's name itself is a pretty clear violation of our no shared accounts policy. It appears to be affiliated with this talent agency. The account appears to have been engaging in undisclosed paid editing at Draft:Armando Molina, Festival Rock y Ruedas de Avándaro, and possibly more. If others endorse this block, we're going to need to go through their editing history and look for more cases of abuse. However, what's making me request a review for this case is that they've been around since 2014, and their edits have received warnings (albeit warnings unrelated to COI/UPE) from other admins (although I'm not sure that they were necessarily admins at the time) who do not appear to have taken any action regarding the username or likely paid editing, possibly due to a lack of Spanish-language comprehension. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's kinda weird to block someone four months after they were last active, but in this specific case I'd have to agree it was the right move. The username is a blatant violation and while they seem ot have some specialized knowledge on subjects where our coverage isn't great, they do also seem to have a pretty serious COI. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've now gone through all of their contributions. They appear to have been pretty systematically promoting a whole bunch of figures associated with Festival Rock y Ruedas de Avándaro and 20th century Mexican counterculture. For better or for worse, many of these subjects do appear to have been significant figures in Mexican culture, so in some cases I've just tagged the pages with the {{upe}} maintenance template, although for some of the less notable looking subjects I've gone ahead and moved the articles to draftspace. As for the four months old bit, that is unfortunately the length of the NPP backlog right now. It looks like they also made several analogous "contributions" to Spanish Wikipedia, and I also noticed an account that seemed to be promoting the same topics on Russian Wikipedia. At a minimum I'm going to hop over and let the Spanish project know and it looks like they've already been blocked over there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWN behaviour

I recently made some edits to the Cyberpunk 2077 article. These edits were minor and hardly cause for controversy; I simply sought to correct a grammatical error by breaking one sentence into two as I felt it was unclear what the subject of the sentence was. This edit was soon reverted by Cognissonance, who claimed that the original version was better. I tried to rewrite it to be more acceptable, but he claimed that there were no errors at all. I then posted an explanation on his talk page and he responded with the following:

Your edit sucks, that's why I undo it. You talk about problems in sentences, but frivolously repeat "team" and "CD Projekt", which makes the paragraph much worse. The lead has been copyedited by several people who do good work and I don't undo those edits.

This, I think, is a clear case of ownership behaviour. He is dismissive of edits that he disagrees with and clearly suggests that there is a group of editors who are allowed to edit the article if he deems their work suitable.

This is not the first time that I have encountered such behaviour from Cognissonance. While working on the Tenet article, I attempted to rewrite parts of it, only for Cognissonance to revert them. I found that the only way to make changes to the article was to first of all post lengthy explanations (such as this and this) on the article talk page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying repeating the same words over and over is good prose? Cognissonance (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems a little premature to be bringing this issue here. It's copy editing, folks — let's try to find a good way to word the paragraph without launching attacks on either side. Looking at the diffs, everyone here seems to be operating in good faith, and the level of tension seems higher than the situation calls for. I'd suggest further discussion, perhaps bringing in a few outside voices if needed, but I don't see anything to do here. In order to consider this WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, I'd need to see further evidence of repeated reverting of minor edits or reverting of minor edits that are more unambiguously an improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Are you saying repeating the same words over and over is good prose?"

First of all, that's a mistepresentation. My edit used "the team" three times in two sentences. I later edited it so that it was only used twice and you still reverted it.

More to the point, the original version contained a complex, compound sentence. It had three possible subjects and problems with its clauses and phrases. So, to answer your question, yes I am saying that it's good prose—when the alternative makes little grammatical sense.

"In order to consider this WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, I'd need to see further evidence of repeated reverting of minor edits or reverting of minor edits that are more unambiguously an improvement."

@Sdkb: in that case, there's this, in which he insists on reverting a copy-edited section because it had previously been copy-edited. There's also this, where he characterises edits as disruptive for no apparent reason. Granted, these edits are a little old, but I feel there is a pattern here—reverting edits almost on sight and needing lengthy explanations as to why minor edits are necessary. I feel that fits WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which says "an editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article". I think it definitely fits the last point about implicitly claiming the right to review changes to an article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:AOHA

I wish to report the WP:NPA and WP:AOHA by the User:Romartus Imperator. He left a warning on my talkpage without citing any incidence or evidence which violates NPA and AOHA. I do not recall ever having come cross him. He is a newly created account. I have made no wikipedia edits to any article after his account was created on 2 May 2020. This makes me suspect that this might be the sockpuppet "User:BFDIBebble aka JJFuego" who resurfaced as the user "Romartus Imperator" with the purpose of attacking and harassing me. Please read the evidence here and pay special attention to the section A and C. Please ban/block him for the unprovoked and unsubstantiated WP:NPA and WP:AOHA behavior.

There is already a separate active suspected sockpuppet investigation against him. Since the "Sockpuppet investigations" do not take action against other violations, I am filing this investigation request here. I have left a message on his talk page to inform him. Thanks for volunteering your time to keep wikipedia free from socks and troublemakers. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that the "warning" left by Romartus Imperator was his first edit, as I have stated within my May 08 2020 SPI against them. KevTYD (wake up) 17:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Grudge by Admin User:Buckshot06

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

---

By this edit: [32] User:Buckshot06 demonstrates that he continues to hold a grudge against me, presumably for this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Block and unblock of Mztourist, this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06 and this: Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam#Move of DAO section to Embassy of the United States, Saigon. Is this acceptable behaviour from an Admin? Mztourist (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for your note, Mztourist. My 'grudge' is your repeated unwillingness to accept in any form or fashion that North Vietnamese sources are able to be reliably used for any casualties/numbers purposes, as far as I can tell, whatsoever. It was their war as well, and after 55 years I believe that at least some of what they write consitutes reliable sources.

Yes, I believe you are unacceptably WP:OWNing the Vietnam War articles, biasing them against acceptable and reasonable use of assessments from Vietnamese sources *half a century* after the war ended; yes, I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view; and yes, I will happily provide further examples of your WP:OWNing behaviour at any appropriate forum.

The only reason why I have not filed an WP:RFC against your behaviour is that I do not have the energy to fight with you on this.

Trust this makes my grudge or grievance against your behaviour over Vietnam War related articles clear.

The Embassy/DAO business is closed. Reliable sources back enough of your side of the argument, though, as always anywhere, the Ambassador is the personal representative of the President and the head of the Country Team (see [33]). Buckshot06 (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow that's a very frank admission that after 2 years you continue to hold a grudge/hound me. I have said before that you are unfit to be an Admin and the diff above and your comments reconfirm that. Mztourist (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, section 15 above on this same page, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_doesn't_care_about_MOS_edits,_but_reverts_them_on_the_basis_of_being_"unnecessary_changes", regarding your WP:OWNERSHIP, has just been closed with the verdict that Mark21H was rightly frustrated with your behaviour. He and I have the exact same issue with you, something along the lines of WP:STONEWALL. This frustration both of us feel is completely legitimate given that WP operates by WP:CONSENSUS. Do you not see that? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As an Admin your behaviour should be beyond reproach, rather than trying to solicit support from MarkH21 in your grudge against me. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There is no requirement that admins (or other users) like you. Holding a grudge is not, in any way shape or form, actionable. Bringing non-issues to ANI, however, can easily be seen as disruptive behavior, which is actionable. I strongly suggest you drop the stick. Kleuske (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the diff, unresolved earlier ANI and User's statements above indicate a "chronic, intractable behavioral problem" and ANI is the appropriate forum. Mztourist (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You are free to believe that. Kleuske (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Holding a grudge is, in fact, disruptive per WP:GRUDGE and WP:HOUND. Now, I'm not at all familiar with this particular situation and have no opinion of who is in the right here, but I would caution against assuming innocence just because someone has adminststor status. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but it does happen. DarkKnight2149 17:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want to nitpick, but those do not actually address holding grudges, but the incivility, harrassment and unwillingness to compromise resulting from it. You can hold grudges all you want, just don’t act on it. Kleuske (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(e/c)I read thru the the AN, ANI & TP links provided by the OP. The AN link (from 2018) is good background, showing Buckshot made a block that was undone and they should now consider themselves involved w/ Mztourist. The ANI link (also from 2018) is really a wash: some editors dug into Mz's background, found nothing, while nothing really came of Buckshot hounding anyone. The TP link shows two editors in a contentious debate, some changes were made, sources were requested but now they have been provided on the talk page.

I don't see anything unbecoming of Buckshot, they seem to be showing restraint and not using the tools at all (i.e., they are acting in an editor capacity only). I see Mztourist being forward with their actions, and, as in a recent ANI, it is looked upon unfavorably. This particular instance seemed to be working itself out on the TP, no? The requested refs were provided, can the discussion continue there? If not, maybe request a WP:3O or have someone from the Wikiproject mediate. I don't see what can come from this report being on ANI right now. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Ufology sprawling edit war

I am bringing this edit war here because it has erupted across multiple articles and multiple editors are involved; it overwhelms the WP:AN/EW mechanism (as well as me).

The articles (that I know of) are:

• Ufology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• USS Nimitz UFO incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Efforts on my part and others to defuse the Ufology situation failed, some warnings were issued on user and article talk pages (though not systematic, I am afraid), and the article was recently locked for a few days. But within hours of the lock expiring the warring restarted.

Involved editors, on one or more articles, and broadly in order of aggression and deafness, are:

• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also signs themself jps and claims to be a professional WP:EXPERT.
• Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Driverofknowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turns out to be a sock — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are not as one might suppose straight believer vs skeptic but more nuanced PoV stances over things like the precise scope of the article and which aspects of scepticism to emphasise (The situation is not helped by RS which have internal inconsistencies). There is relatively little maliciousness here, just durn stubborn-ness on this particular topic. I'd like to suggest a lengthy topic ban on all ufology-related pages, failing that account blocks. Also a reversion to the last stable version of each article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I object to any lengthy topic bans imposed on me. I have also been of the opinion that there might be a couple of socks in amongst us miscreants listed here. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I feel all parties bare some blame here. So I would agree any sanction must be applied to all of them with out prejudice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add Steven to the group of miscreants, and apply some sanctions without prejudice to him. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What? When was the last time I edited that article? Talk about tit for tat.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact my biggest crime (and I am gonna do it again) is to ask for full page protection and a reset to before this kicked off.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, you haven't been edit warring. Neither have I. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No in the sense of breaching 3RR no, but you have reverted back to a version that is contentious, that does not have consensus despite the fact the page had been locked over it. What did I do?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies I was looking at this [[34]] which was of course before the page was reset, and looks like the current version that has been edit warred back in [[35]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Now what have I done?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean...this reaction by Roxy is a disgrace. Steelpillow has attempted to mediate all the time and (although we have often disagreed) he is the only participant in this mess (besides me, but WP:MRDA) that has consistently attempted to de-escalate, compromise and contribute positively to discussion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Involved comment: Thank you for opening this report Steelpillow. Your attempts at mediation have been very much appreciated. I am afraid this is beyond mediation though so I agree it was time to open a report (just look at the shameful attack by Roxy the dog above...what a disgrace).

I think the situation is untenable and denotes a systemic issue. I have been dedicating substantial time to editing those pages and the process has been extenuating. Never had anything similar in over 10 years of editing various wiki projects. I'm afraid dealing with the incessant warring requires an unjustifiable amount of time and patience. If I wasn't in quarantine those users would just degrade those articles unabated and no other users have the maniacal patience required to deal with them. At this point I'm only occasionally editing and most of the time pushing back against constantly unsourced WP:POVPUSHing with no respect for the WP:5P.

Those users are ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mostly), Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (never edits and just reverts and attacks) and LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (much less aggressive and reasonable than the other two users). With constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting. Almost 90% of my edits is reverted by those users. That's when I start a discussion on the talk page and mayhem ensues. Sometimes a third party arrives and is able to bring the discussion back to reason. But usually the discussion is so sprawling and filled with WP:PA that no-one bothers with it. In the mean time the page remains defaced as I consciously try to avert more warring by waiting for more editors to step in.

Some of those user's ban logs prove they are serially unable to contribute to Wikipedia in a WP:CIVIL way. [Link to off-Wikipedia harassment of opponent removed. Gtoffoletto, have some sense, don't post links like that again. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).]. This must stop.

There have been several recent ANI reports against those users: [36] [37]

I have raised those issues myself once already and asked for admin advice/help on how to handle this. I was blocked for WP:FORUMSHOPping and asked to never ask for help regarding those users again [38]. I've tried collaborating with those users but I believe it is impossible.

Honestly I could go on for hours as this is spectacularly widespread and documented but I think I've made my case. If more is needed just ask and I will provide it.

A couple more pages that show this unstoppable tendency to turn wikipedia into a WP:BATTLE (this list could be much longer):

• Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• To the Stars (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Ufo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a colossal waste of time and effort by multiple editors and is degrading the encyclopedia. The discussions are never regarding sources. This is always just a revert competition with no respect for others and guidelines at all. Some Admin must unfortunately take the time to review in depth this situation. It is the only way to fix this once and for all. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I see one editor was a sockpuppet. I would recommend using whatever tools admins have to verify all users in this discussion. Some of them have been accused of "sockpuppeteering" in the past and their alignment in space-time across wiki is highly suspect to me (just a hunch). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose SPI is not a fishing expedition, and while there may be an element of tag teaming it is only to the degree of users who agree on certain topics will tend to edit the same way (as Ironically me and guy are at the moment on certain topics).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Thank you for the additional page links. Unfortunately, being for the most part reasonable is no excuse for warring behaviour on the articles themselves. My suggestion of a temporary topic ban is so that you can cool down and reflect on that lesson, I have no wish to see you disappear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Nimitz and TR articles are very close to hoaxes. There were no "incidents", just three videos (called "Gimbal", "Go fast", and "FLIR") from airplane radars. The History channel got a hold of them in 2017 and made one of those stupid TV specials with retired pilots saying silly things like "There is no known aircraft that can stay aloft without generating a heat signature" (uhh it's called a helium balloon duh). The videos that purport to show "unexplained" phenomenon have all been very well explained years ago. Now that the Navy has "officially" released the videos in 2020, interest is renewed. This is a topic where we need to be careful to stick to real science sources and avoid pop science and primary sources. As it is now, these articles come dangerously close to perpetuating a hoax. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich and am very tempted to topic ban Gtoffoletto from all UFO-related articles for persistent tendentious editing. AFAICS, jps is defending real science, while Roxy only seems marginally involved in these wars — not sure why he's listed above, unless I've missed something. Also, Gtoffoletto, linking to ANI reports on your opponents, and even to off-Wikipedia attacks on them (!), as you do above, does not show you in a shining light. Are you aware that anybody can open an ANI report? Everybody who edits controversial articles, and everybody who has been here a long time, is likely to have some ANI reports against them. Both the discussions of Roxy that you link to [39][40] were quickly closed without action, one of them with the comment that the report "was an astoundingly bad idea". Please don't poison the well with such stuff. It won't work. Bishonen | tålk 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

• Bishonen, regarding applying a topic ban to Gtoffoletto — I was thinking the same thing. Too much pro-WP:FRINGE promotion, to say the least. El_C 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• I unfortunately must agree with El_C and Bishonen that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO topics, broadly construed, is likely in order. Such a topic ban would prevent both continued disruption on the listed pages and, if this "style" of editing was to continue, harsher sanctions. This editor has consistently displayed a clear pro-fringe WP:CPP, as mentioned elsewhere in this report a lack of WP:AGF, and it has all come with a strong dose of WP:BLUDGEON (for example, here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• A couple of hours ago I thought I'd edited here to agree that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO related topics is a good idea. Unfortunately something happened and all that I left was an edit summary (and I presume a space or it wouldn't have saved at all). Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich and others you are all invited to edit those pages. I understand some of you don't like those topics. But those pages are not my opinions. My opinions are irrelevant as well as yours. We only report sources. And I am very careful in my sourcing given the delicate topic. If you don't like what the sources say that's not my problem. I am not perfect and sometimes the sources I present are disputed. That's how wikipedia works. If the sources I use are not appropriate you are invited to dispute them in a civil way. Saying those pages are "hoaxes" is your opinion and that is also irrelevant to wikipedia. I have personally started and written most of the Theodore Roosevelt page. It has 29 reputable sources. Please tell me which of them are not appropriate for Wikipedia and I will be the one to remove it immediately. I also would like to ask what other editors that have participated in editing those pages think regarding the fact that the "blame" for this should be placed exclusively on me Steelpillow Slatersteven and others? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I never looked before, but now that I look and I see that both these articles have one editor as a primary author, it all makes more sense how we got here. I don't want to argue the content dispute at ANI, but, just as one example, the "GOFAST" video mentioned in USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents shows a helium weather balloon. One can use the information on the video (altitude, airspeed, etc.), and do some basic trigonometry, and determine that the object on the video, despite the name "GOFAST", is actually moving at wind speed (20-40 knots), and the only reason it appears to go fast is because of parallax effect. Yet, in our article, none of this is mentioned. The words "balloon" and "parallax" aren't even in the article. The articles present the controversy without at all presenting the explanation, making it seem like these are UFOs, when they're not.

  Here are some sources explaining these three videos: [41] [42] [43] [44]

  These two articles should be merged into one, because they are not reported in RSes as two separate incidents; rather, RSes cover the three videos as one topic. I have no idea what we should name that one article ("Pentagon UFO videos"?). Then they need to be rewritten to remove all of the primary sources and all of the "so-and-so speculated that..." speculation reported in the popular press. And the debunking content needs to be added in. All of that is content dispute stuff to be discussed elsewhere. I will go tag the articles and start a talk page discussion. I'll leave the conduct issues to others to discuss. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Update: I've tagged both articles {{fringe}} and {{merge}} and started a discussion at Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents#Combine and rewrite to avoid fringe. Also, I find comments like "I understand some of you don't like those topics." and "You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco" un-collegial; we shouldn't speculate on other editor's motivations or knowledge. Focus on edits not editors and all that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither "side" had (to my mind) adhered to policy and both sides have edit warred. I was not aware wP:fringe was a justification for edit warring, but nor is wp:npov (which also does not trump fringe, but then fringe does not trump it). This is a case of too may people thinking their view is the only right view. As to mergers and content discussion, this is not the place for that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that we should not be taking sides in a content dispute. Being right does not justify edit warring. Check out the many edits and associated discussions and you will see that ජපස has been blatantly pushing their own particular skeptical PoV on the grounds that they are an WP:EXPERT, for example writing"Speaking as someone who professionally studies UFOs and is not a ufologist", while simultaneously trying to impose overly-pedantic and faintly tortured content such as qualifying "Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)" with "...by people who believe they are worthy of study" and then trying to stick with it in the face of a clear consensus against, as in this example restoration. So please let's not go demonising or exonerating editors based on their content PoV but judge them all equally on their editorial behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict: @Levivich: You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco. It's a complicated situation that requires careful review of what happened and no gut reactions. I'm sorry but hasty comments like yours without reviewing the material fully are not helpful and may be used to distort this process.

In any case, this is not the place to discuss the article content. I welcome your sources (CNET is not much of a source but it's fine) and would gladly add them to the article. However please do not include your original research but only statements supported by sources. I also think GOFAST could be the first of the three videos to be explained. But that's irrelevant. That's how wikipedia works. Sources. Not original research. I'm glad you want to participate in editing this. I've been trying to "recruit" more editors for months. See you on the article page! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, you won't if you're topic banned, which is what I am weighing right now. Some of your responses above do not inspire confidence that you understand what the problem is — that you even understand that there is a problem. Which is not a good sign. El_C 19:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This comment, I am very aware of Mick West's analysis and am talking with him on Metabunk on the flaws with his explanations. Please join us there if you are interested in the subject!, is concerning. Metabunk is a website where these videos have been analyzed/debunked, and Mick West is one of the leading debunkers, and is interviewed in each of the four sources I posted above. I'm not sure exactly why arguing with our sources' sources concerns me, but it just seems inappropriate for an editor to edit an article while simultaneously trying to influence the RSes that the article is based on. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Done. I have topic banned Gtoffoletto indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to UFOs and ufology, broadly construed, with an invitation to appeal the ban in three months' time. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

This is so profoundly wrong that I won't even appeal it. I'm abandoning Wikipedia indefinitely. I have lost faith in the project. No wonder the number of users is constantly declining. What an utter disappointment. This Kangaroo court is a disgrace. I will wear this ban as a badge of honour. Goodbye. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have edited my page with a full statement and placed this ban as the first item. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Best of luck in your future endeavors. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Bishonen. I'm glad to have missed this but FWIW I endorse that action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So, the consensus here seems to be that we have eliminated the fringe pushing lunatic (me) with an indefinite topic ban, while the other poor victims were "just defending science", are totally absolved and deserve another barnstar. Quite a stark difference from what the users actually participating on those pages (Steelpillow,Slatersteven) have proposed and the original report. I'd like some direct comments confirming this by the admins involved (or others?) if possible: Bishonen, El C, Johnuniq, Doug Weller to have this very clearly on the record. The other users reported are among the most active on Wikipedia in the world (source) while I am just an occasional editor. This makes me irrelevant while their actions have long-term and significant impacts on the entire project. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: this ban is not about consensus. The sanction I placed was my own decision per the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience that you were alerted to in February.[45] You may want to reread the alert, where it is explained that "Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic." They're called discretionary because any administrator may impose them at their sole discretion. That's what I did, impose your topic ban at my discretion, not per consensus here on ANI. (If consensus had been in question, it would have been a "community sanction" instead of an ArbCom discretionary sanction, and I would have waited for a stronger and clearer consensus — for instance, waited for El C to speak more strongly.) I was indeed encouraged to see El C, Doug Weller, JoJo Anthrax, and Johnuniq agreeing with me and adding their own points (that's three admins and an experienced editor). I'm a little surprised to see you imply that I should have paid more heed to editors involved on the UFO pages (Steelpillow and Slatersteven) than to uninvolved admins/editors. Usually, at ANI, uninvolved experienced users who cast a critical eye on the situation are of more help than are the involved editors who continue their original dispute. The purpose of bringing a dispute to ANI would normally be precisely to get the benefit of those uninvolved critical eyes — not so much to see a continuation of article talkpage disagreements.

I'm very sorry the ban has upset and hurt you, Gtoffoletto. Of course I'm not surprised — it's very natural. :-( But I felt I should do it nevertheless, to protect article quality and to protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors. That time and patience is IMO Wikipedia's most precious resource, and I've seen too many editors burn out and leave when it runs out. Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: thank you for clearing up the type of ban and for expressing your sympathy. It gives me hope for your future work on Wikipedia.

In this case my opinion is your suggestion and application of asymmetrical punishment construes a grave injustice and reflects poorly on your judgement as an admin.

While my opinion is easily discredited by the fact that I am the interested party I would point out that the complete lack of discussion regarding the other users' behaviour (despite the report being primarily about them - as evident by the fact that I am but one in a list of users and not the first in order) while not unexpected (quite the opposite given past events) is reason for concern.

Although consensus was not needed you have clearly received it by several other admins and I respect that (consensus is a terrible way of handling justice. Bias is inevitable, this is why effective judicial systems have removed or abolished Jury trial, but I digress). So I would like those Admins that have expressed their opinions to state clearly and for the record that they believe the other users should not be treated equally as me and that their behaviour is above reproach.

Also: your reconstruction of Slatersteven and Steelpillow's involvement in the discussions is incorrect and shows your continued misunderstanding of the facts at hand. Of course they shouldn't be the judges here. But they are primary witnesses in a complicated matter and for the most part have just observed the mayhem unleashed by the users, so they are as neutral an observer as we can expect here. They are also very experienced editors (they also appear on the list of most edits in the history of Wiki).

I believe you didn't take the time to review this case appropriately, as I was afraid would have happened when I asked an admin to take the time to review in depth this situation. This story with me has been going on for months (as you and others know) but those behaviours have been documented for years. Those users are not rookies that make naive and obvious mistakes. They are very prominent and experienced users that know very well how to disguise their edit warring and POV pushing behaviour. I know you are well aware of their ban logs as some of those blocks were made/removed by you. This required a thorough review and a cool headed decision. Not a hasty and partisan judgement by admins that clearly like and support their friends.

Your statement protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors is exactly the issue here and the reason I have now lost faith in the long term prospects of Wikipedia. It goes against Wikipedia's foundational philosophy in such an astonishing way I wonder how an admin could ever say something of the sort. It should exactly be the other way around. WP:NEWBIES should be awarded much more leeway than highly experienced editors and admins who have a responsibility to steer the project responsibly. This bias towards sanctions every time someone dares to raise an issue with an experienced users and their friends is worrisome. As I have reported, several AN/I reports have been made about those users in the last period alone. They have all been quickly dismissed. I am sure dozens would emerge if not hundreds if we reviewed the archives. Those users are damaging the project and their unconditional defence without reviewing the facts by Wikipedia's admins is a disgrace and is causing long term harm. I've never been involved in Wikipedia's conflict resolution before (in over 10 years). I hope this is an isolated case or no wonder the number of editors is declining and the project is dying.

As always: I don't care about myself. My ego is sufficiently huge already so I don't need to be right here. I have been trying to handle the abusive behaviours of those users as best I could. I have certainly made mistakes and accept it (I totally agree with the assessment by a user above that I tend to WP:BLUDGEON the process sometimes and this doesn't help). I make mistakes. Like everyone. I've wasted my time to argue with those users in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I tried everything. I asked for help and was reprimanded and blocked for it. Apparently I still failed. No big deal. But my involvement in Wikipedia is not about me. It is driven by my belief that this project can contribute positively to the world.

Allowing once again such active editors to continue their work unabated and emboldened by their clear support by so many admins will damage this project in the long term. Maybe it is already too late (I believe so unfortunately and hence my stament on my Wiki page). But we will see by the replies by the admins to this thread and their statements for the record regarding the other users. I hope I am wrong. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. on a final note: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.. I remember a time when this pillar of Wikipedia was important. Apparently not so much anymore. Apparently it is fine for those users to just edit articles as they see fit with their insane opinions with no sourcing since they are "defending science". Whatever that means... science is not an opinion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, if I thought it fitting, I would have topic banned you myself for the reasons I outlined above. But at the event, Bishonen used her discretion to do so immediately. I can't say I disagree with that decision, but myself, I would have waited for your reply to my comment — even if the likelihood for the needed introspection on your part seemed low, as it has been absent throughout this discussion. Which again, was not a good sign, I'm sorry to say. El_C 10:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, Gtoffoletto. I've received e-mails pointing out that you are violating your topic ban by continuing to attack opponents here at ANI. They're not wrong, but I have felt, so far, that you're entitled to some venting after what must have been a shock (the topic ban). After your long post above, with further attacks, I think it needs to be enough, though. You are allowed to appeal your ban, and to ask questions about how to do that. Not to vent and go on the attack any more. I strongly advise you to post any requests or questions related to an appeal on your own page, as they don't really belong on ANI. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

I am not appealing the ban. I don't care that I am banned. My quarantine ends tomorrow and I don't have this much time to loose. I am proud of my work and think it is an incorrect assessment. I created one page on en.wiki USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. 70% was written by me [46] and it has resisted rigorous reviews by other users I assure you. I will watch the page and be curious of what changes will be made there in my absence. I will use that to learn how to improve my work but so far users have not edited it and the page has a B assessment. Apparently those contributions are to be avoided and are disruptive: so be it.

But this discussion is now not about any of my work. I am not editing any page regarding the topic ban you have just imposed. I have no idea of who you are personally in contact with via email but that is worrisome (why the secrecy?). Do not attempt to frame my comments as what they are not. I am requesting that this discussion is carried out as an equal investigation of the conduct of ALL USERS involved. Not just a witch hunt against me. The report states clearly that (emphasis mine):

Involved editors, on one or more articles, and broadly in order of aggression and deafness, are:

• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also signs themself jps and claims to be a professional WP:EXPERT.
• Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}}

Since I am now topic banned and the other users have received no attention in this discussion (on the contrary: they were praised as defenders of science) I wish to have a clear statement by the admins involved that the behaviour of the other users is justified and encouraged. This report was not about me. So until that is done this judgement is incomplete and I will follow it closely. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I suggest you step away from ANI and ignore it entirely. If you have no interest in appealing your topic ban, continued interaction here will likely be looked on as tendentious, and could result in a block. Also ANI looks into all participants, not just the ones being accused, so saying the report "wasn't about [you]" is irrelevant. Just walk away and leave it be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

These must be some frustrating articles to work on, due in no small part to shoddy and sensationalist reporting, Times and Post in particular. Nimitz was listed on the fringe noticeboard four or five times, but it's really just a topic that WP is not going to be able to cover well. Something to keep in mind if handing out sanctions. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology proposal

As this is 6 of one half a dozen of the other I suggest setting the page back to this [[47]] (and resetting back to pre-edit war days on the other affected articles), No edits without consensus (on all the affected pages), and a firm warning to all users to play nice in the topic area. I am not sure I would want to see anything more right now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was tried and Ufology locked for a period. It failed. Why would it work better this time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say locked I said No edits without consensus. It of course would also have to be enforced. No lock just a strict DS which means if you do not get consensus you get a sanction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It was reverted by the locking admin. See also clear warnings such as this. Nothing like that works on these guys, they just sneak back to whatever they convince themselves they can get away with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Gtoffoletto, do not try to cast aspersions by linking to off-Wikipedia harassment of editors, such as you did here. I have removed it. If you do something like that again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen I apologise I wasn't aware it was not appropriate to link to outside resources. Is there a relevant guideline regarding this? It didn't seem "harassment" to me and I found it curious that such a source existed regarding a user. In any case I am not casting any aspersions. I am directly stating that those editors are not constructive editors as I have stated above. I think their block logs and frequent AN/I reports are sufficient proof of long term disruption. But I am not the one that should judge this in a fair way. This is just my personal opinion from personally interacting with them for months. If this is what wikipedia is and the level of civility you accept then so be it. I disagree, but I will continue my work patiently and interface with them in accordance with my more stringent interpretation of the five pillars of wikipedia. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, Gtoffoletto, you've been here twelve years, IMO you should know better all by yourself. But if you need a special guideline for not bringing outside harassment into Wikipedia, you can read Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. I'm going to charitably assume that when you call a blog devoted to attacking jps a "resource" [sic], it's because you were writing in a hurry and not weighing your words. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen:: the blog isn't "devoted to attacking jps". It's devoted to cold fusion http://coldfusioncommunity.net/about/ That's one article about him and I think it makes valid points and proves this user has been disruptive for a while. I didn't see any egregious attack or harassment but if you think otherwise the case is closed for me and I apologise. It was not my intention to publish harassment in any way. I will also read the guidelines you linked to educate myself better. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: If you think that blog by Abd ulRahman Lomax is in any way trustworthy for documenting anything that might or might not have happened on or relating to Wikipedia, then your judgment is very very faulty. It's not really devoted to cold fusion at all, it's devoted to Lomax, and Lomax's claims should never be taken as trustworthy reliable, about anything. Oh, and the "Infusion Institute, Inc" is essentially just Lomax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I'm sorry, I misspoke. It's only the page you linked to that's devoted to attacking jps. Do you have any comment on having referred to it as a "resource" (and a "source", to boot)? Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

The actual reason for the blog post was failure to promote fringe theories on Wikipedia, jps having been one of the editors in the way. This is unfortunately similar to the complaint posted on Gtoffoletto's user page about Wikipedia and its reputation. The policies are more to blame than the editors and that's not a bad thing: it's what permits Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information (which has often been praised, so not a threat to its reputation)... It is true that Wikipedia had a previous explosion, in users and articles and that more attention eventually shifted to quality when coverage existed in many areas. The bar is higher than in 2005 in relation to reliable sources and verifiability and coverage of biographies, politics and pseudoscience. In this case, from a WP:WIKIPROPHET POV, an eventual topic ban unfortunately seemed unevitable to me (a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude was obvious since the first WP:FTN noticeboard discussion and this persisted). Leaving Wikipedia for good in the face of the ban is your choice, but only asserts a disinterest in the encyclopedia in general (fine, but a topic ban at least preserves editing privileges to allow other opportunities; I've seen some edits in relation to the Covid crisis for instance). —PaleoNeonate – 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thank you for your interest. I am extremely interested in seeing Wikipedia succeed. Or I wouldn't be participating in it and dedicating time and effort to it. However I don't think what I have witnessed here and in the last few months will lead to the long term success of this project. It will die off and only obsessive users like the ones reported above will contribute to the project with their unsourced opinions. It won't be an encyclopaedia for many by the many. And I am not interested in that. I won't be associated with whitewashed garbage and with a community that treats people without respect. I have observed admins do this and joke about it with their friends. And once that happens: the project is lost. You realise how many people have access to wikipedia and the internet nowadays compared to 2005? Global Internet usage. The fact user counts are stagnating is an obvious sign of failure and decline. I'm a management engineer and entrepreneur. I work with online services and startups. I read this data all day. This project is dying. I always wondered, but now I know why. I had never seen such a dark side of Wikipedia in over 10 years.

My edits are always thoroughly researched and sourced. I have NEVER in my Wikipedia history posted a single sentence that was unsupported by sources. I challenge anyone to dispute that. That is because I believe strongly in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sometimes those sources are disputed which is fine and the content is removed. Sometimes my summary of what the source says is disputed which is also fine and it is corrected. This is what wikipedia should be about. Not personal opinions or bullshit crusades by some users to promote their personal ideals whatever they may be and however widespread they may be. The introduction of special rules regarding WP:FRINGE is totally understandable. There is no official Wikipedia policy I am in disaccord with and that I don't strive to comply with. Or I would have proposed to change it. But the SAME STANDARDS must be applied to all. Sources are still needed and not opinions. Calling out FRINGE has become a trump card in all discussions to silence the other side and to justify any behaviour. This is madness and what the admins above are allowing with their actions.

Some users and admins are falsely depicting my editing style and beliefs in an attempt to protect their friends. This is also unacceptable to me. There is a lot of talk and little WP:DIFFing in this witch-hunt against me. I have consciously done all in my powers to prevent edit warring in the face of chronically disruptive and bullying editors. I started almost all the discussions on those pages as anyone can see. I don't believe sufficient proof has been presented that I should be topic banned apart from this confirmation bias by several users. But I don't care. I won't appeal. If my contributions are not valued and discounted so easily. If nobody defends my contributions. Then they have no value. I don't expect anyone to rush in my defence. But I would have preferred a fair trial. I don't think I got that. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been topic banned from all pages and discussions related to UFOs. This discussion is related to UFOs. Please do not post here again. You will need to find another website to express your thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat regarding libel at the BLP noticeboard

An ip address apparently representing Piers Robinson, a UK academic posted a complaint at the BLP noticeboard that the Wikipedia article about him was libellous, and stated that "Unless action is taken to resolve these defamatory claims, I will be forced to consult legal advice." Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NLT: Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. I was recently criticized by several admins because of my tendency to apply uw-nlt to some legal threats, even blatant ones, rather than immediately block. And this is a blatant legal threat. The user can still address and query their talk page, if they so wish. El_C 20:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no criticism of El_C's block. But on the wider subject, and not in reply to El_C, instead of reaching for the block and telling people to send an email to a volunteer mailing list, it can sometimes be fruitful to look at the article. They have made their complaint, quite clearly and specifically. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, zzuuzz, I see now that I have misread the indent. El_C 20:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, good block. Guy (help!) 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per DOLT, has the issue actually been reviewed (obviously the block itself is fine)? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard for personal attacks.

Over at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Piers_Robinson, an article subject has posted concerns regarding the page about him. Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) has used this as an excuse to criticize the BLP subject for having advocated (off-wiki, and not for wikipedia purposes) for a reference source that Wikipedia has decided is not fully up to its standards. This criticism is not relevant to the issue at hand. When he has had this pointed out to him by myself and by Zaereth that this is inappropriate and a BLP problem in itself, he has repeatedly restated the same attack. Not only would this ridiculous attempt to paint the subject badly be inappropriate anywhere here (Wikipedia standards apply to Wikipedia, and are not intended to be used to judge the world), but it is particularly heinous to stage a pointless attack on someone who was seeking our help and was already feeling damaged by Wikipedia.

I ask that the editor's comments be stricken (and am fine with the striking of my responses with them), and that at the very least they be warned about future such action. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The user was not "seeking our help" they threatened legal action, which is a clear violation of the WP:No legal threats policy for which they were promptly blocked, so NatGertler's characterisation is disingenuous. I asked Nat Gertler to WP:drop the stick, and said in retrospect that I would not write the sentence again. I agreed with both Piers Robinsons issues with his article over at Talk:Piers Robinson, which I will quote: (For his occupation in the infobox being described as a consipracy theorist) "Even Alex Jones occupation is not described as a conspiracy theorist [in the article infobox], so it's probably not appropriate." "I don't think it's wise to make that leap [that he was fired for promoting conspiracy theories] . While he left the university after that controversy, theres no explicit evidence that this is the direct cause, which is crucial for BLP, even if inference suggests this is likely the case." In retrospect I might change "is likely" to "might be" if I had written the sentence again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, asking for inappropriate material to be removed from one's page is seeking help, even if one includes threats of legal action if it is not done. You told me that I should WP:drop the stick because I was the only one who chimed in.... but when someone else chimed in to support my concerns, you didn't drop any stick yourself, but repeated your attack (at the same time that you were saying that you would not do it again.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware of your point of view that it was inappropriate. The reason I asked you to drop the stick is that I didn't think there was anything more productive to be said between us, you had made your opinion clear and I had mine, and it was necessary for other contributors to share their opinions. I responded to the other user because I felt that the person deserved an answer, which I had already given you. Piers Robinson isn't exactly some falsely accused angel either, he has suggested that COVID-19 is a biological weapon, which is described by The Times as a conspiracy theory so this claim is backed up by reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so now you're using ANI to irrelevantly attack him as well. Got it. (Could we have some admin input please?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that no administrator has chimed in is because this isn't a serious incident, no defamatory statement was made. The administrators noticeboard is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.", which this is not. Ultimately I stated that I wouldn't have made the comment again and that should've been the end of it. I had cordial interactions with you editing the Alan J. Cooper page with BLP concerns, and it disappoints me that you are behaving like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I have added the BLP discretionary sanction to the article, which allows any admins to impose sanctions at their discretion. El_C 10:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

POV-pushing & failure to engage in discussion by IP range

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

---

IP addresses in the range 2600:1700:8B60:CA00::/64 has been editing Daniel Rodimer, with edits such as these and adding an old picture like here, while refusing to discuss at the article's talk page or their own talk page (see here). Please block. --MrClog (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, the IP is now trying to have their talk page deleted under U1. I already clarified U1 does not apply to user talk pages, but they insist and readded the csd template. --MrClog (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I declined the request, explaining to the IP that wasn't possible. El_C 00:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Vague but legal threat

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

---

• [48]

With reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkktpkirij Elizium23 (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not that vague at all. lblocked. El_C 10:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User:The Official Lebanese Air Force - Making threats and legal threats

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

---

Hi, The Official Lebanese Air Force is making legal threats "editors who wants to play with us can cause them to go to jail" see User:The Official Lebanese Air Force, plus promotional/shared use account with WP:COI issues "We are the official Lebanese Air Force Editors" - see User:The Official Lebanese Air Force/sandbox. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked; I wonder if this could be related to another username I blocked, User:The Official Chinese Government. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elie El Hajj. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

CIR, IDHT

I’m already at 4RR, so I am already open to sanctions, but there are issues at Cabinet of Turkey. Mulayim adisert (talk · contribs) changed the intro to a kindergarten level description, which I deemed “not an improvement”. I opened the discussion on the talk-page, pinged them, alerted them on their talk-page, but to no avail. The user seems not to be interested. I do have the impression there is a strong pro-Erdogan POV involved. Kleuske (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a Erdogan fanatic. I am against him. However, How did you get it out of the table? It's comic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulayim adisert (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, Mulayim adisert, neither one of you should have violated the 3RR, irrespective of your contention that the changes were an improvement, or not. El_C 10:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I know. That’s why I opened with it. Mea culpa. Kleuske (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I also don't think "kindergarten level description" is optimal language. As for 3RR, I'll refrain from sanctioning you, but indeed, you know better. As for Mulayim adisert, they are a very new user who may not have known about edit warring and 3RR. I have now issued the pertinent warning to them. Hopefully, article talk page discussion will otherwise amicably resolve the dispute. El_C 11:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, a better description would have been "broken English with incomprehensible sections". The Cabinet of Turkey, chaired by the President in Turkey and established that all ministers come together and take decisions.? I don't think Kleuske should even have been warned there - there's an obvious language/CIR problem. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure the new editor didn't know this, but I've just noticed that the new version was an obvious non-free image violation with all those copyrighted images as well... Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I thought the changes were solely about the table, but I see now that isn't the case. Still, this also could have been reported after 3 reverts for the same effect. El_C 13:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have and could have punched myself after realizing I was at 4RR. I also should have been more clear about the problem. I did not spot the non-free image, though. Kudo’s to Black Kite for that and thanks to all for pointing out what I should have. Kleuske (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

IP block evasion, trolling over Arbery death article

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

---

Per prior action taken on this noticeboard against 63.155.99.218 they are back using an alt IP to continue their bad faith arguments at 63.155.55.188. Koncorde (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week for continuing to engage in provocations. El_C 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Eshaan11

• Eshaan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eshaan11 has a history of bad page moves (full log), some of which include:

• Deafblindness → Being Deaf And Blind
• Color photography → Colour Photography (they were warned about US/UK spelling stuff after this one)
• Color → Colour (Color)
• Kim Jong-un bibliography → Kim Jong-un biography (the article really was a bibliography, not a biography)
• Jay Sadguru Swami → Page deleted (and a couple others along with this, a misguided attempt to delete a page out of process (and permissions), causing a bit of a mess to clean up after)
• ABACABA pattern → Abacabadabacaba pattern (I gave them yet another warning after this one and asked that they use WP:RM for any further moves they wanted to perform due to the ongoing disruption)
• Fan labor → Fan labour (but just yesterday, this was done, another US to UK spelling one, no indication of the request to use WP:RM instead)

At the very least, I think a WP:TBAN from page moves is warranted at this point. There's been no indication from the user that they understand the issues involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The deleted edits are not very promising. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should create a new version of Wikipedia in British English at https://gb.wikipedia.org (mobile at https://gb.m.wikipedia.org) where people will read and write Wikipedia Articles in British English.Eshaan11 (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Eshaan11 Regardless of the merits of that idea (which I think is a poor idea, but that's for another place) you must follow guidelines on this version. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Call me by my genitals

This is just getting pathetic. But since user Davey2010 implied that he wants to take it here to this forum, I’m more than petty enough to oblige. I know he is upset that he didn’t get the obsequious appreciation he wanted so badly from me. My opinion on the article is the same as it was from the beginning. I’m sure we can disagree on it. Oh well. If I have struck such a nerve then maybe they need time out. What’s next? “Cunt”? Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Your section heading is not a bad song title. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies, sure, but what genre? Dawnseeker2000 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • It's all "pop" to me. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • A good song title for these folks, perhaps? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • "How do you like your punks, Madam, Industrial or Hardcore?" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• OK Trillfendi, I'd drop this if I were you. That AfD is indeed headed for a keep, and Davey2010 did some good work; your behavior there is less than collegial, to put it mildly, and is saturated with bad faith. One can fault Davey2010 for "speedy keep" and for the (ubiquitous) "BEFORE wasn't done" (I've heard that one a thousand times), but you blew this way out of proportion. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I really don’t care whether the article is kept or deleted in the end. What I do expect is the same equilateral plane. People would trip over themselves racing to my talk page if I called someone a dickhead. So all this because I didn’t bow down and kiss their boots for finding an off brand IMDb? The 8 people who view the page aren’t missing anything. Trillfendi (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• A quiet reminder of what one comment using "Cunt" can do. Multiple editors banned, restricted and bad press for everyone on wikipedia. Davey has to do better in expressing himself and Trillfendu should go about their way too. It's not worth the angst, just saying. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• When writing the heated response I did actually write cunt .... but then felt that was a bit much and knew it would get me blocked, Also Trillfendi no I wasn't looking for any appreciation, I was simply stating the work I did and that I wanted people to actually look at the work that was put in before randomly coming to the AFD and !voting Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 14:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly why there are countless think pieces on why Wikipedia is a sexist sewer system and why women don’t bother getting involved. Trillfendi (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Trillfendi, I'm sorry this happened to you and I don't mean my comment as a criticism to you. It was inappropriate for Davey to post it, I was just suggesting you don't associate yourself around people that have that mindset. It may have been spur of the moment, it also could be a reflection of true sexism but best to not declare the gender wars is all I was saying. People get next level nuts and it wasn't a fun experience to experience or watch. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Davey2010, when you're in a hole, stop digging. "Twat" already is not OK, and now you just sound like a **** who calculated their insult so as not to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies, That didn't come out the way I wanted - I was actually expecting to be blocked for the twat comment alone, –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Erm - I'm not sure that calling someone a twat is any better than calling them a cunt - they're equally offensive to my ear (in other words, I'd say either of them to a friend in jest, and I'd expect a punch in the mouth if I called someone either of them with a straight face). That was about as uncollegiate an AfD discussion as I've ever seen, and it doesn't reflect very well on either of them, but at least Trillfendi was commenting on the content when they said the article still looks like shit. Davie went straight from there to a direct, foul-mouthed personal attack - I think that taking a (brief) moment to think about that, before offering a fulsome apology, might be a good step. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not going to get into the AfD dispute, but I'm disappointed by that comment, Davey2010. That you say "I was actually expecting to be blocked for the twat comment alone" means you knew you shouldn't have said it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

At that time I was deeply hurt and offended over essentially being told my work was shit ... that's how I perceived it so in that moment I wanted to say something equally offensive back, I wished I hadn't called her that but at that moment as I said I was so hurt and offended over that comment, –Davey2010^Talk 15:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest just apologizing without the rationale. Your feelings are legitimate too but the best way to make this better is a mea culpa. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously inappropriate but mitigated by Davey removing the comments 10 min later before anyone responded to it. special:Diff/956092070 Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• There's a lot of needless condescension in this comment. Sure, there aren't any insulting names, but the effect was still to insult and infuriate the target. Seems totally uncalled for and we shouldn't be surprised by the response it elicited. Mind you, that doesn't excuse Davey, but I feel like's he getting too much of the focus here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Said condescension wouldn’t have happened without Davey 2010 persistently claiming I never did a “Before” and that I should have “saved” the article myself, smiley face. Since he so-called watched the article so long, he could’ve done it years ago (and if this is the result, it still would’ve warranted a deletion proposal in my opinion). Trillfendi (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Yes, that is the kind of thing that bothers me too. That's not to excuse what Davey2010 said, but there are better ways to start a mitigation process than ANI, especially if one's hands aren't clean either. Davey, I really don't understand what you were thinking. Saying something in anger while expecting to be blocked, that's a zero-sum type rationale. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I sort of didn't want to be blocked and at the same time I didn't care .... Yeah it doesn't make much sense to me either..... –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• The meaning of such words varies enormously according to the culture and the context. The context here is that Davey2010 and Trillfendi are seemingly not personal friends and come from cultures where swearing is treated rather differently. I remember in the 1990s when the American CEO of the organisation that I worked for in London visited and simply couldn't bring himself to utter the name of the play that he wanted to see one evening (it was "Shopping and Fucking") so had to get a very young worker to take the phone from him and say what he wanted a ticket for. While I'm on anecdotes I'll mention the co-worker that I once had (whose previous job had been as a marine engineer at a Glasgow shipyard), who would address everyone, including his boss's boss, as "cunt" - if he didn't then you knew were very much in his bad books. The point of this all is that people should recognise that some words that may not be quite so offensive to them are extremely offensive to others, and so should be avoided when addressing anyone directly unless you know the person very well. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  What Phil says is true - Brits don't use these words as gendered insults. I don't tend to call many people cunts or twats, but if I did I would be far more likely to use them against a man than a woman. It's not like bitch or cow, which would be used exclusively against women - cunt/twat are general purpose insults. I think Davey was being obnoxious, and reckless given that he's in an international environment where words like that have subtly different connotations, but I don't think he was being intentionally sexist. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW When I celled her that word I was actually calling her stupid/an idiot which still doesn't make it okay, I genuinely did forget it means something else, There was certainly and absolutely no sexist intentions at all on my part none at all, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yep, Phil's right about usage in many parts of the UK, and until relatively recently I didn't realise that these are words that are used as very offensive gendered insults in the USA. But, once I learn that words or actions can be grossly insulting in a different culture, I don't use them in the presence of those of that culture (or anywhere, ideally, lest I slip up and grossly insult someone inadvertantly). I don't insist that *my* culture and usage is the right one. (I mean this generally, not just with regard to this specific incident.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Before anyone else attempts to use the cultural differences excuse, I'm going to K.O. that argument. Davey2010 is an experienced editor, he knows English Wikipedia users come from all over and that his words could be perceived differently. If he really "did forget it means something else" then why did he also say he knew it would get him blocked? Anyway FWIW Davey, you're not the only one who has had unpleasant interactions with this user. Despite the baiting, you're still responsible for your actions and what you say, so own them, don't try to blame it on someone or something else. Best to avoid and ignore this type of person as much as possible. Sro23 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Because I called someone a dipshit once before and nearly got blocked over it so I knew twat (in the idiot sense) was 10x worse, I completely agree with that we're all responsible for what we say and do but at that time having my work basically called shit deeply hurt me and so I wanted to offend that person back, It may sound stupid or childish but at that time that was my mechanism for dealing with it, I regret using that word but unfortunately the damage has been done and alls I can do is learn from this and deal with it in a much better way that doesn't involve expletives. –Davey2010^Talk

• • "Cult'ral diff'rences, my arse". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Sro23, I agree, and Davey2010 should be blocked for such vile conduct. The fact that some people here, admins included are defending his words are strange to say the least. He even says he knew the words are bad, to quote "I was actually calling her stupid/an idiot which still doesn't make it okay" forget an IBAN, but that when an editor brings this to the community's attention, the first post is from an admin making light of the situation is not the way Wikipedia should be seen and I think looks really bad for CIVIL concerns and for those female editors who may think their concerns about editing here aren't taken seriously. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Just for the record, he was blocked on May 6th for personal attack violations. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair so was Trillfendi[49]. –Davey2010^Talk 18:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, please don't misuse inflammatory overstatements such as 'vile'. You aren't helping. Trillfendi dished it out but couldn't take it, so she came here. It's not appropriate for you or anyone else to make this a gender issue. Also, I don't see anyone defending Davey's words; some of us are simply trying to see the situation from all angles. It's called fairness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, I'm not misusing inflammatory overstatements. I think calling someone a "cunt" or "twat" is vile. It's a personal attack. Calling someone an "asshole" is also a personal attack, telling someone to "fuck off" is also a personal attack, but I don't think it's vile and we shouldn't tolerate it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Different cultural standards. I see no difference in calling someone a dick, a twat, a cunt , or an asshole, nor are those gendered insults around here either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, this is starting to look like harassment. I'm pretty sure there are other things you could be doing. But while I'm here, genuine question, re the "twat" comment being said to a female... what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? We are happy to link to WP:DICK when the occasion arises, regardless of gender. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Dick" isn't as offensive as "twat" for the same reason that "cracker" isn't as offensive as "nigger". Insults directed towards underprivileged/oppressed groups are worse than insults directed towards privileged/oppressor groups, because the former is "punching down" and the latter is "punching up". - Dangit "Crackerdick" Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} Esq. 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  A racial slur and someone calling someone "a twat" is not a valid comparison. Racism is wrong on all levels. Calling someone a twat, is no where near as bad as racism. Cassianto^Talk 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Er...in your opinion. "Dick", to me, is more offensive than "twat". Are you now going to tell me I'm wrong and you're right? Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, for aforementioned reasons. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me what I should and shouldn't be "offended" by, based on what you find more or less offensive? Cassianto^Talk 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm answering your questions (what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? and Are you now going to tell me I'm wrong and you're right?). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So I'm wrong for thinking "dick" is worse that "twat"? Who the hell are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't be finding offensive? Cassianto^Talk 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, you seem to be operating under moral relativism, under the notion that "offense" is simply a matter of someone's reaction to something. Hence your oft-repeated statement that offense is taken and not given. You are wrong. Wrong in an objectively-provable way. What makes something "offensive" isn't the moral sensibilities of the listener. Something is offensive because the meaning behind it is morally wrong, in an objective way--that's what makes it an "offense". Why is calling someone a "twat" offensive but not a "dick"? Because of the meaning behind those words.

When we say someone is a "twat", a "cunt", a "pussy", or any word that refers to female genitalia, we are comparing that person to a woman. A "twat" is someone who acts stupid, like a woman; a "cunt"is someone who is unpleasant like a woman; and a "pussy" is a coward, like a woman. And it's the "like a woman" part that is offensive. Because not only are you calling the other person a twat, but you're implying that women are twats, or cunts, or pussies--i.e., that they're stupid, unpleasant, and cowardly. This is offensive. It's morally wrong.

It's especially morally wrong when a man calls a woman any of these words. Why? Because men subjugate women, and have subjugated women for all of human history, right up to the present day. A man using a synonym for vagina to mean (any of) stupid, unpleasant, or cowardly, is a continuation of that subjugation. Hence, it's morally wrong. Hence, it's offensive. And if you don't think it's offensive, that is, itself, a continuation of the subjugation. You should be sensitive enough to realize that using a synonym for vagina like "twat" to mean "idiot" is an offense to women--all women--and you should not do that.

Why isn't "dick" equally offensive? Because men have not been subjugated by women for all of human history. We say "dick" to mean that someone is unpleasant, usually in an aggressive way, like a man. We're saying men are aggressive and unpleasant. And guess what? They are! Women are not stupid, unpleasant, or cowardly, as a group of people. But men are aggressive and unpleasant. Men are the ones who subjugate women. Men are the ones who start all the wars in this world. Men are the ones who use synonyms for vagina to mean various character flaws. All of this is dickish.

And it's also dickish for you not to realize it. I hope you do now. So don't be a dick, and realize that insulting someone by comparing them to a woman, is offensive. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so you're virtue signalling to the gender gap issue. Thought as much. Just so you know, misandry is not a substitute for misogyny. All prejudice is wrong. And it's people like you, Levivich, who make twatish comments like that, who increase this divide. Cassianto^Talk 06:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• "And think of the donkeys!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, re the below, this is starting to look like harassment. I'm pretty sure there are other things you could be doing. But while I'm here, genuine question, re the "twat" comment being said to a female... what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? We are happy to link to WP:DICK, when the occasion arises, regardless of gender. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Having a rough day? PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • No, you? Cassianto^Talk 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Nah, it has been pretty nice out and thinking about going for a walk soon. PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
        • What a great idea. Cassianto^Talk 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          Just a quick follow up. The walk was indeed lovely. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          Good for you. Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          Cassianto, just to answer your question, some people find words which target them for some intrinsic part of their identity to be more offensive than general-purpose insults. I'm sure you can think of words that are used to target black people, homosexual people, etc. Twat can, in some circles, be broadly synonymous with fuckwit, arsehole or whatever, but in different circles it would be a gendered insult, intended to belittle someone because of their sex, making it more offensive. I don't think that Davey was using it in that sense (which is not to say that I think it's in any way OK that he used it at all). GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

          • What about "Dick" being ok to direct at males? Nobody seems to want to answer this. Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

            Cassianto, for myriad reasons surrounding swearing culture, it's pretty broadly understood, at least in North American dialects of English, that "dick" is a much lighter swear word than "twat", "cunt" etc. (and even in British and other dialects, my impression is that while certain slurs involving female genitalia are considered less obscene than in North America, they're still considered more obscene than their male counterparts). You can find many a research paper that tries to untangle why this is the case if you search for "misogyny and slurs" on Google Scholar (most guesses are long the lines of "due to power imbalances in society"), but for our purposes it's enough to understand that they simply are by virtue of usage a more severe insult, the same way that "fuck" is understood to be more severe than "damn", which in turn is more severe than "dang", and the same way that all of these terms are less severe than the n-word that you can't even get me to type out for the purpose of this explanation, despite there being nothing in the immediate semantic value of these words that inherently makes getting fucked worse than being damned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

            Your forensic explanation is all very impressive, but it still all boils down to subjectiveness. It you play with fire, you get burnt. And that's what happened here with Davey. Someone called his writing "shit", so they are fair game when it comes to an equally offensive retort. Cassianto^Talk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Rosguill, I typed out an answer, but you said it better, so I'll ditch it, except for this bit. Cassianto: you are welcome to call me a silly dick (or cunt) any time you like, because I like and respect you, I will understand what you're saying (and what you're not), and it won't cause any tension. They aren't inherently problematic. If they're used in a different context, between people in dispute, or with folk who genuinely find them offensive, then they become a problem. So, if one doesn't know the other person well enough to know how they'll respond, they should be off the table. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

            • I've said it before and I'll say it again: offence is not given, it is taken. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones...". Cassianto^Talk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

              Cassianto, offence can be offered. I've seen some offers it would be hard to refuse. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

              No it can't be offered, and that's not even what I said. I said offence can't be given, only taken. It's about time people owned their self-made offence and not made it everybody else's problem other than their own. Cassianto^Talk 06:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Davey2010 removed the offensive comment after 10 minutes and before anybody replied.[50] That makes it really superfluous for Trillfendi to make an ANI song and dance about it. I'm glad Trillfendi's report brought out the charming "Shopping and Fucking" anecdote from Phil Bridger, but that's the only advantage of it. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

Just dropping in here from the American South, never knew that "twat" had that connotation. ~ HAL333 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm from the U.S. West Coast and Northeast and everyone I know, including my elderly mother, knows that twat refers to a women's genitals. And in a negative way. But I know in the UK it can mean "idiot". If someone directed the word at me, in either meaning, I would find that an insult. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would recognize "cunt" as much more vulgar and a reference to female genitalia. ~ HAL333 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m guessing not many people here saw Easy A. Trillfendi (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, but I do like Emma Stone. ~ HAL333 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 and Trillfendi: interaction ban proposal

Davey also went to my talk page an hour or so ago to explain the "twat" comment, but I was up to no good IRL and couldn't respond right away. I give him credit for owning up to how awful that comment was especially as it was directed at a user who identifies as female. If he was here trying to defend that comment he'd be blocked right now and some of you would be griping at me instead. Nonetheless, both of these editors were just blocked for a disruptive argument on an article not at all related to this one; the thread is still on this page. Now, mere days later, they're dragging their drama around the project with them. Separating them with a sanction will be better for everyone than piling on more blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, stop it at this level and level the Iban. Strongly warn Davey about continued personal attacks, sexist or otherwise. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. I don't know Trillfendi at all, but I think I know Davey2010 reasonably well from his contributions over the years - and I think the recent unfortunate interactions are out of character. I'd prefer to resolve this specific incident and then leave the two of them to reflect on how they could interact better in future, with an interaction ban a future option if that doesn't work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That was tried, less than a week ago and here we are. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • A week isn't long - still part of the same stress event. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • No it is not. I suspect if we try it your way we will be back here again in another week. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Maybe, but I see no great tragedy in that. We should be after the best result, not the fastest one. (Anyway, the likely outcome seems clear, so you really have nothing to gain by badgering the very small minority opposition.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Over there on Talk:Billie Eilish, all I said was a third RfC was unnecessary Instead of doing 3 RfCs on this in 5 months, why don't we just leave the image alone. Now just yesterday, he made a discussion saying the same thing.... So I was told to “fuck off” (twice) over something he came to the same realization on (common sense) 4 days later. The problem is himself. Should I have not called it idiocy in the edit summary? Sure, but it pales in comparison. Who’s fault is it that he feels the need to behave like this? His. And if he felt editing that show’s article was a waste of his own free time he could’ve waited. But I’m the twat or “that other word he planned to call me then acknowledge how ridiculous this is before settling on twat”? Why would or should I be “grateful” over his contribution to an article I initially proposed for deletion? I’m supposed to just acquiesce? On both occasions, if it were the other way around I would expect an ANI on myself too. What happened to standards. Trillfendi (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

If you don't call editors work shit they don't react with anger and frustration - You could've said "The article is still poor" or failing that said nothing at all. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC) If you take Wikipedia so seriously that you get upset that you weren’t given a cookie, medal or some flowers for edits, that’s for you to unpack. If you were secure enough in your own abilities you wouldn’t care either way what I think anyway. Copying and pasting edit summaries and leaving a table half empty is not groundbreaking. If you want me to withdraw that AfD, withdraw that pointless RfC while you’re at it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC) LOL are you for real ? ..... i never asked for a cookie or a medal, I simply object to having you call my work shit, I never give a toss what people think unless it's someone calling my work shit when I've spent 2 hours on it ... then I care quite a lot. Then again you've probably never sourced an article in your life so it's no wonder you seem to think it's preposterous that I give a shit about that comment, Nah the RFC can stay thanks .... it's a procedure thing. –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Sir you’ve been here 9 years, yet I’m the 6 (going on 7 this month) Good Articles just in 1 year... but I can’t source? You just sound bitter. Trillfendi (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I guess you two should get it all out of your system before this closes? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support They were both swapping provocative taunts back and forth -- calling someone a "twat" is uncivil -- using ANI as your private toy weapon is a big waste of everybody's time. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve probably been called over here for worse. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny, that's what I thought ANI was for. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I feel it'll only be a week before we end up here again, Not saying I'd make the same mistake but given the squabbling with the Billie Eilish RFC I feel this is something that's going to crop up again and again so setting an IBAN should hopefully stop all of this squabbling. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as this has gone on too long. GiantSnowman 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems like the best outcome for all concerned parties. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, they've convinced me. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support They need it. -- puddleglum^2.0 19:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, (all the rage at the moment), only in the absence of old fashioned "mutual public apology", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I hate ibans and regard them as gotcha traps. Please don't let's have one over this storm in a teacup. These are troubled times. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
• Support, but I don’t think it’s enough. Comments like this by Davey are such an egregious violation of NPA that I can’t believe there’s even room for debate. I don’t care how much you’re baited or taunted, there’s no excuse for crap like this. Get ahold of yourself. I’d have blocked you had I observed this in the wild. (I don’t say this as a threat, but as how I handle this when I come across situations like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I see the benefit of an IBAN here. I'd rather just give Davey2010 a short-term block for gross incivility, especially since they expected to receive one in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• I can't believe this is even controversial. Davey called a woman by a totally unacceptable, female-specific insult, in both the edit and the edit summary. I can't believe Davey wasn't immediately given a short block for a personal attack. I can't believe the edit and edit summary haven't even been revdel'ed yet. What is wrong with us?-- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't disagree that Davey's actions were unacceptable, but I don't think he necessarily intended it that way. If I were to be in the mood to call someone a twat, I wouldn't bother to check if they were female. -- a lad insane (channel two) 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Davey can't pretend he doesn't know she is female. He was "in the mood" to call her by the second-ugliest female-specific insult he could think of, hoping he might get away with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wrong, I didn't call her "the second-ugliest female-specific insult" ... I called her an idiot. –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As the choices here were literally “cunt” or “twat”, one could have just sufficed at idiot. Trillfendi (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh for fucks sake, knock it off and quit digging.--v/r - TP 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I say this as someone who isn't exactly predisposed to liking Davey, but I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. From my experience of Brits using "twat" (mostly BBC television shows), they don't use it as an attack on women. Shame on him if he was making a sexist insult, but I don't think that was his intent. ~ HAL333 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict x2) And Davey can't pretend he didn't call her what he called her. In both the edit and the edit summary. This is Wikipedia, we don't buy the "alternative facts" defense here. We don’t buy the “but Mommy, I didn’t know it was a bad word” defense either. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  A lot of swear words are distanced from their literal meaning. I don't think he's saying it wasn't a bad word, it was and that's not a great thing to say on Wikipedia. But I don't typically consider the literal meaning in a cuss-storm. Is calling a guy a bellend, or a dickwad, sexist? -- a lad insane (channel two) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  And still more men rush to his defense. All I can say is, if a male editor here can call a female editor an “ungrateful twat” and totally get away with it, it’s no wonder we have so few female editors here. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Did you just assume my gender? ~ HAL333 01:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, with a name like "Hal", I did assume your gender. Same for a user calling himself a "lad". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  The username is a reference to HAL 9000 (as in Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer). By default computers don't have a gender. ~ HAL333 04:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  @HAL333: The "I'm Brit so it's okay" defense is weak and pathetic. He'd have to live in a box to not know what he's saying. And if that's the case, WP:CIR. Really, really, fucking tired of hearing that excuse on this project. It's a global project. Get your shit together or get off (the generic "you", not you specifically).--v/r - TP 03:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  That's an unduly harsh response to someone who is simply attempting to assume good faith. Those of us who don't believe Davey had sexist intentions are quite understandably pushing back against that interpretation of his words. I appreciate that you disagree with our interpretation, but please don't misquote us as claiming that what Davey said was 'okay'. It was still a personal attack and thus not okay. It's just that there is a clear difference between a PA and a sexist PA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Like I said: global encyclopedia, box.--v/r - TP 03:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Fine, I'll lay it on the line. I don't use the word in question and don't know anyone who does. Before this thread blew up, I did not know the specific definition of the term, although I did know that it was used an insult. I've been editing here constructively for several years. Are you going to CIR block me? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Some of us believe Davey is telling the truth, some of us don't. There's no unanimity of opinion on the matter. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Um, in what sense is this a matter of whether we "believe he is telling the truth" or not? Do some of us believe him when he claims he didn't say it? Is that now one of those "post-truth" statements? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  No, it's a matter of whether he's telling the truth regarding the intention underlying his usage of the word. As in, some of us believe he was intentionally using it as a gender-specific insult. Some of us believe he was using it as a synonym for 'idiot'. Given that the latter usage is common in the UK, which is where Davey resides, I am inclined to believe that he was using the term in that fashion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair, there are several words in this category which are highly offensive female-specific insults in American English, like Cunt and Twat, but more commonly used for males and a bit weaker (and even used endearingly among one's "mates", in the former case) in British English. But regardless, Wikipedia has no place for personal attacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I’m half of this proposal I can’t delegate in an unbiased way, but if this were to take place it should be one-sided as he is the one who finds a reason to lash out. I don’t go rummaging and foraging through his page contributions (we know it’s vice versa) nor actively go looking for trouble. Yet I’m convinced he even watches(d) my talk page. Trillfendi (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• As someone born in the United States, I legitimately had never connected "twat" as being female-specific. Regardless, it is NPA, and thus entirely unacceptable, as are, unfortunately, many of the comments said here about this issue. Vermont (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support, and a 31-hour block for the offending conduct, because, c'mon man. BD2412 T 01:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support if it'll cool things down. ~ HAL333 01:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I didn't have an opinion when I first read this earlier today, but the bickering that's gone back and forth between the two of them since this has started just leads to this logical conclusion. The only reason question is, what's the over/under on when we're back here for one of them breaking it? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support and also support everyone calming down. After all, it's not as though he called anyone a cunt, surely. serial ^# 04:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - After seeing the personal attacks, I'm tempted to support a one-way IBAN. But those are rarely workable and I think I'll leave the proposals to those who have followed the conflict from the beginning. But seriously, "I don't give a flying toss what you think you ungrateful twat"? @Davey2010: I have seen enough of your contributions in the past to know that you are better than this. Both of you, please move on. DarkKnight2149 05:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, if the two users continue to take advantage of the IBAN not being instated yet by attacking each other here (as seen under "Extended content" above), then I think a temporary block should be instated on both parties until this thread has closed. DarkKnight2149 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In each context, it’s he overreacting. Completely overreacting to me (politely!) stating the pointlessness 3rd RfC in 5 months then turning around to agree that we need to stop making those. It’s psychotic. Overreacting to the derelict article. Frankly I’m more-so offended at the idea of Wikipedia including such leftovers than the sexist ribaldry itself which will inevitably go unpunished. And then resorting to inanity like Then again you've probably never sourced an article in your life so it's no wonder you seem to think it's preposterous that I give a shit about that comment. because I simply explained how it got here? So I should be blocked for responding? I was initially blocked, understandably, for calling his behavior idiocy in an edit summary. User Boing! said Zebedee claims this is out of character for him so why is he now acting like IPs? Trillfendi (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:R koiwai

User has been making disruptive edits then not assuming good faith and being uncivil to other users, accusing me of hounding for just a simple civility reminder. Ed6767 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, English is not my first language, so please excuse me if some of my messages are hard to understand. Please refer to my talk page to see what happened. The gist of it is I was making good faith edits, when other users started to revert mine with no explanation. I told them to look at my comments.

1: TheImaCow claims not to have seen my comments on the talk page of the article before reverting my edits. Fair enough.

2: TheImaCow left a warning on my talk page AFTER I replied to the previous warning by User:Muffin of the English who first reverted the article, explaining my edits, actively choosing to ignore what I said there. I also engaged User:Muffin of the English on their talk page and they admitted that they were wrong in the matter, so no problem there.

3: AFTER the comments on User:Muffin of the English's talk page where they and I were discussing the changes, which led to a suitable resolution, TheImaCow put up a barnstar commending User:Muffin of the English for "fighting vandalism" clearly referring to me.

4: I replied to 3 and TheImaCow also ignored this.

5: I engaged TheImaCow in the same way that I did the other two who were reverting my edits. The other two were civil and we easily reached resolutions. It speaks volumes that TheImaCow is the one exception, where they say I was "wasting their time", and I somehow ended up being hounded by User:Ed6767, who was not even involved with the article to begin with. As such I voiced and would like to again voice my suspicioun that User:Ed6767 might be a meat puppet of User:TheImaCow.

Also see things User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you! which like Barnstar User:TheImaCow put on User:Muffin of the English's talk page obviously refers to me. Both User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767 seem to be using this sort of thing to game the system and indirectly attack targets by not actually naming them, but it is obvious what they mean (Barnstar came immediately after reverting my edits, this thing coming now).

User:Ed6767 is now also attacking me by accusing me of "disruptive edits" here and so I would like to request that you look how I changed the article in question, as well as other articles to see if this is founded or a personal attack against me.

User:TheImaCow seems to be very proud of fighting vandals, judging by the things they have on their user page, and I would like to voice my concern that they might be over-zealous and be attacking innocent editors. I doubt that I am the first person to have been subjected to this sort of behaviour.

In regards to User:Ed6767's claims on this noticeboard above:

1: I never made disruptive edits, this was something I was being subjected to. I was trying to edit the article, but every time I tried to make an edit I would get a notification that someone else had reverted it. I am new to Wikipedia and was first not aware of how to get my edits back (I thought the part on top was mine) and I ended up losing a very large amount that I had written (that would have made the article twice as long as it was) as a result. I hope you understand how frustrating this is.

2: Not assuming good faith is something that, again, I was being subjected to. I explained my edits to begin with, but they were still reverted. I then posted further explanations in the talk page of the article and other places, but they still reverted my edits with no explanation, ignoring my comments in multiple places.

3: Ed6767 is accusing me of "being uncivil" for saying they are hounding me, but they have indeed been hounding me, on User:TheImaCow's talk page, on my talk page, and now here.

In any case this affair has left me very sick and I shall no longer be editing on Wikipedia. I put the admin notice up on my talk page because it seems fair to assume that others might have been subjected to similar mistreatment from User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767 in the past, and you might want to investigate. To be honest, they feel like trolls.

User:Ed6767 also tried to flaunt admin status as a way to bully me into silence: By starting this post with fake accusations on this noticeboard, and by previously using statements such as "you've already accused an admin" on my talk page. Is being an admin a free pass to harassing innocent parties for no reason?

Furthermore, it feels like starting this post on the admin noticeboard was also an attempt by User:Ed6767 to intimidate me into silence, but when I spoke up instead, he tried to close the discussion instead (see below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R koiwai (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The only explanation User:TheImaCow has offered after the fact regarding their accusing me of vandalism is "every time I see someone undo vandalism, I give them a Barnstar. So I rarely read what's on the talk page" and that he used a tool to accuse me and did not actually look. In other words he is admitting that he does not bother to look before accusing others of vandalism.

All of this is easily verifiable, so I can only assume that User:Ed6767 is hoping that nobody would look too closely. All of the claims starting the post on this noticeboard are blatantly false.

I had originally intended to work on Kyoei Toshi (the article where this whole affair started) the way I had on The Next Generation: Patlabor but my time and willpower to do so was taken away by these people, and they have even seen fit to make a big deal out of it here, probably because they want to get me banned or something. This really is nothing short of harassment. And I should like to point out that after disrupting my edits, they have done nothing to contribute to the article in question.

I would like third parties to assess this incident and judge if TheImaCow and Ed6767's actions are the sort that are to be condoned by Wikipedia. R koiwai (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Quoting TheImaCow below Ed6767 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I hate to say it, but slowly, I feel fooled.

• 1: On this page. That's definitely not an attack when I speak my mind and it doesn't match yours.
• 2: The warning on your page. What does it have to do with this? I can explain it again. I've seen your edit with the"See Talk Page" summary. Then I went to the talk page of the article and there was nothing. Then I reversed your edit. If you had just written... I don't know... "See your talk page," then I probably would have gotten to go to the muffin page. But you didn't, and then how would I know?
• 3 "timestamps on the other two clearly place your's after." What do you mean? Which edits?
• 4 I acted in "bad faith"? It's bullshit, I promise you. (as well as me "attacking you", and doing "meatpuppetry".)

And now: Thanks for wasting my time. TheImaCow (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lmao, since when was I a meatpuppet here? Nuts claims. I was simply reminding you to be civil after seeing your comments in recent changes. Ed6767 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

All right, I'd like to clear up a few things.

On the second point, I didn't even see your talkpage when I issued the warning. I used a tool called Huggle to undo your changes, so one click there undoes the displayed edit, and the user who made the edit gets a warning. (here's how it looks like)

On point 3: Almost every time I see someone undo vandalism, I give them a Barnstar. So I rarely read what's on the talk page.

On point 5: I didn't tell you this was a waste of time until you said you were done discussing it. That @Ed6767: is a sock puppet of mine? Why, what makes you think that? It's stupid. And that's "secretly attacking targets." That's also bullshit. He gave me this goat because he liked the way I handled the problem (I think). Stop throwing around your random theories now.

If anyone says anything to you, it's always "he attacked me!11!1!" That's just bullshit, nobody attacks you here. That I can't improve the article, well, I don't know anything about the article. [ATTENTION! My opinion comes now] I feel sorry for you that you don't want to go on Wikipedia anymore, but I think you have only yourself to blame. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: Think this is getting a bit silly now, should I close this discussion? User already said no longer going to edit so not completely sure what could come out of this. Ed6767 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: I have no problem with that. TheImaCow (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheImaCow: Ok, thanks. Ed6767 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see the harassment of me by Ed6767 and TheImaCow addressed by third parties, in particular Ed6767's actions on this noticeboard. The reason I said that I am no longer editing articles is because I do not feel safe doing so on Wikipedia after being harassed to this degree. R koiwai (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@R koiwai: Due to your blatent and groundless accusations, TheImaCow and I are not going to address this further. This is now a matter for the admins, any further action will be addressed by them. Thank you. Ed6767 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I listed TheImaCow's actions above, and Ed6767's fake accusations on this noticeboard above. Everything I listed is easily verifiable. R koiwai (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@R koiwai: Do you mind if you stop refactoring your previous comments? I am sorry you interpretted my message that way, however, you did leave a message on ZimZalaBim's page calling their decision "very disruptive", the same message you copied and pasted many times. Leave this, and drop the stick. 19:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

^ This statement is another blatant lie. I used that message twice, on the two users who reverted my edits AFTER I started discourse with User:Muffin_of_the_English, and as you can see clearly, the messages request that the person look at the discourse instead of disrupting my edits. User:ZimZalaBim immediately said that he would. There were no problems at all in reaching that conclusion. R koiwai (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just plain silly now, I'm out. Admins, ping me if anything acutally comes out of this. Thanks. Ed6767 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out again that Ed6767 has failed to address a single thing I have stated, all of which are easily verifiable as fact, choosing to instead to dismiss everything with statements like "this is silly", despite being the instigator of harassment against me. R koiwai (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Obvious Evlekis-sock in need of a quick block

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

---

Doctor Cook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis (see edits to my talk page) and needs a quick indef with the usual extras (i.e. indef plus removal of talk page access and email access, as always with Evlekis...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed by Sro23. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Constant Edit Warring on Eric Weinstein

There is a section on Eric Weinstein that essentially says that the article's subject gave a talk about a new physics theory and that nobody came. The information is sourced from two sources, one of which is a blog. There is nothing about why this event is notable. It is actually quite odd and out of place and is currently the most prominent part of the article. Two editors, user:Bri and user:JzG constantly revert anyone who removed the section. However there ostensible reason for keeping the section is not even internally consistent since they essentially are stating that both the theory is notable and the fact it is not notable is notable. I asked them to add context to it if they want to keep it but so far all they have done is reverted. I am not sure if they just want to embarrass the guy or something since the article's subject does seem to assoicate with figures who are controversial among certain segments of the population.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg: This is a content dispute that should go to the talk page first. At worst, this would go to the edit warring noticeboard rather than here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The dispute has already gone on for a while on the talk page. The pattern seems to be that two frequent editors essentially keep responding with versions of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The fact that they are both frequent editors and the people who disagree are occasional editors who like me only become involved one at a time means that they do not need to come up with more substantive arguments. Also, while it has been about 13 years since I have edited the site enough to be "in the know," I still seem to recall there being no hard and fast rule that edit disputes can not end up on the incident noticeboard without exceptions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it can be brought here, I just don’t think that this is the appropriate venue right now.

The talk page discussion that I opened about this in January stalled, with Guy suggesting RfC. I never bothered with it after they stopped responding though, and just left it. It might be easier for you to just open an RfC now to resolve this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21, was that the one where you characterised the section, supported by multiple reliable sources, as unsourced?

Frankly, this article is an abject failure for WP:PROF - the only thing for which he is notable, according tot he article, is coining one Orwellian term. Guy (help!) 20:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: No, the section I opened was about the reverts (1, 2) that undid two separate edits:

1. Removal of unreferenced BLP info (his birthdate, birthplace, and undergraduate education)
2. Removal of the "Physics" section on the basis of undue WP:PROMINENCE

I never said that the "Physics" section was unreferenced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that based on Guy's comments on the talk page this feel like a violation of the wikipedia policy on hit pieces. I don't think the guy is especially notable either truth be told but the comment "Now, if you want to argue that if that's the best we can do, he's not notable, and the article should be deleted, I might well agree. But we're not in the business of hagiographies of fringe figures," seems to indicate that after he failed to get the article deleted he was intent on making thee subject look like a buffoon.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, the situation is pretty simple. Some people want to have an article, but there's basically nothing to write an article from, because he fails WP:PROF. When we find something that has more support than most facts in most biographies, but which paints him in a less than flattering light, people want it removed.

So: what is he actually supposed to be notable for? What has he done other than coin a synonym for special pleading? Guy (help!) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You have already lost the deletion argument on the afd. I may very well have voted for delete but now you are still trying to argue innocence during the sentencing phase. Google his name, there is not one mention of this theory or this conference in the first two pages of hits. Most of the hits have to do with being interviewed on podcasts or his time working with Peter Thiel.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JzG: Just to comment, but I didn't remove it in January because it paints him in a less than flattering light. It was almost the opposite; I thought that the section raised his fringe theory to a greater prominence than I think it deserves, which is none. It's an unscientific theory. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Well, this is a content dispute, but I will say one thing - If you believe that the "talk about a theory that no-one came to" section is a BLP issue, it's also the only thing raising him to even borderline notability, because the few decent sources that actually are about him in the whole article are supporting that section. I would say the options are "leave it there" or "remove it and send the article to AfD". Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Subject's notability is debatable. He is known to those who know him from his time in academia, is known outside academia for completely different things, and each side of this quasi-notability is hard to reconcile for people who know only the other. He is not, for example, a cranky author of pseudo-physics, but it's easy for people opposed to IDW (whatever that is) to seize on the the physics or economics work and misrepresent Weinstein as a loon. Which is what currently lives in the article: the section on Physics is a hit piece that editorializes and falsifies its own sources. It is not particularly notable and should be scaled down in tone and content proportional to its actual importance, which is low. Or remove most of the article and leave the IDW meme coinage (whose own notability is questionable). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Herantifastory and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

See basically Special:Contributions/Herantifastory which speaks for itself. WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA all apply. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Posting about how Wikipedia's Featured Articles have been functioning de facto as a source of military propaganda has led to immediate backlash and intimidation by white supremacists. Wikipedia's Featured Article Candidates (FAC) page outlines a specific procedure by which to post one's support and objections. After following this procedure to post my objections to several military articles, the user Eisfbnore deleted all of my procedurally valid, if long-winded objections, and attempted to intimidate me with a warning on my talk page using completely irrelevant editorial language, which obviously did not include reference to the FAC policy for supporting and opposing nominations. This type of censorship is dangerous and unacceptable and I ask the community to ensure that they are not able to censor others in the future.

After referring to white supremacy as what it is—on my own talk page no less—another user, Deacon Vorbis tried to intimidate me on my talk page, saying that I'd attacked Eisfbnore personally and threatening me with deletion, then searched through my edit history and trolled my submission to the Wikipedia Village Pump resulting in the section being shut down before any non-trolls were able to comment. White supremacist is not a slur—are there truly people out there confused about what is? I ask the community to delete the white supremacist user Deacon Vorbis ("Well, I, for one, welcome our new white westerner overlords"), and disable the account of Eisfbnore.

I beg the community to reopen my section on the Village Pump page so that we as a community can seriously address Wikipedia's status as a de facto source of military propaganda. There has not been a single month in 2020 with less than 5 Featured Articles on white, western military subjects, and we owe it to the world, to victims of war, to people of colour, and to our integrity as Wikipedians to address this misuse of Wikipedia's homepage.

I ask white Wikipedia contributors not to weigh in on issues of white supremacy in order to make space for and centre the experiences and views of people of colour. Herantifastory (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you can add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, even after so few edits. There's no evidence this editor is willing to have a conversation on these topics while complying with community expectations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Case in point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked them per WP:NOTHERE. At best this is someone who is thinking they are here to right great wrongs. At worst it's trolling with a caricature of someone with these beliefs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I bet it's the latter. --MrClog (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's my bet too. Some weird James O'Keefe type of bullshit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User:112.213.210.94

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

---

Anonymous user claiming that Rowan Atkinson is going to die this year. Like, WTH?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARowan_Atkinson&type=revision&diff=956121267&oldid=925603053

This individual has a history, too - compare the other contributions made at 112.213.210.94 with the ones made at 112.213.208.70, which is also addressed to Southern Phone Company, Moruya, New South Wales, Australia.

Again, it's not for me to comment on this individual's state of mind or background, or indeed their command of English. But if they're going to continue violating WP:NOTFORUM on talk pages for coronavirus articles, and in addition claim that Mr Bean (or, indeed, *any* famous figure) is going to die this year, then with all the respect in the world, I think the whole range of IP addresses should be blocked, rather than just 112.213.210.94. And for one month at least, too. Klondike53226 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support block I knocked on wood for the man who is a bean. ~ HAL333 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• 112.213.210.94/22 blocked for three months - everything from that range this year has been from that individual. Acroterion (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Acroterion. Klondike53226 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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