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

Editor continually editing against consensus

Vjmlhds had continually made changes to the List of WWE personnel against the established consensus. The WWE currently has multiple brands, Raw being one of them, and 205 Live (for cruiserweights) being a division under the Raw brand. Vjmlhds keeps making changes to say it is its own brand and not a division, yet when asked for support from a WP:RS they give vague answers or provide a youtube video to someone calling it a brand. The WWE's official 10-K does not list it as a brand, only Raw, SmackDown and NXT. The cruiserweights tour as part of Raw, not on their own. The championship that they say is the championship of that brand, clearly is referred to as being on the Raw brand for the cruiserweight division, see [1]. Despite being warned about this and being informed that professional wrestling is under general sanctions here [2], this user continues to not provide any evidence of their stance and continues to make the same changes [3] and [4]. As you can see from their comments here [5] their argument is to just let it be, and they are doing their own thing. There is nothing verifiable that they are their own brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is still going on? I made a similar thread in DECEMBER 2016! He got one last warning in that thread, then got a block and editing restrictions by community consensus four months later[6]. Outta WP:ROPE. Enough's enough, we can't keep coming back here for the same issues. Episodes like this are why pro wrestling articles are under sanctions right now.LM2000 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow I never thought to look at their block log until now [7]. They have been blocked numerous times over the past 10 years, and multiple times for edit warring on the exact same page this is about. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Galatz said right thing about this issue, I'm also facing same thing regarding Keeping/Separating Raw and 205Live Cruiserweights, Even at the time I appealed protection for 3 days but didn't work, Before protection I added the tag of Confusing and Unclear, several times Vjmlhds reverted, this turned to an argument at my talk page, I just called sock edit to see how I got reaction by Vj, Me? I got 2 warnings for removing talk page messages and closing discussions that again results in initiation of arguments again and again. Second, Vjmlhds is not only the user, another user I'm gonna report is IP user 32.213.92.177 who also continuously doing same edit-warring as Vjmlhds did.CK (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll make life real easy for everyone...if the 205 Live issue is causing this much consternation, I'll back down. Not worth the hassle and the fuss. If this were 2 years ago, I'd probably be on Def-Con 1 about now firing hellfire and brimstone...these days, not so much. Win some, lose some. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I think this should be close now that Vjmlhds has agreed to back down. If he/she does anything like this in the future, a voluntary Topic ban at the very least should be considered. JC7V-constructive zone 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

After 10 previous blocks for the same thing? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor appears willing to cool it down. And I said 'at the very least' if he/she does it again which does not mean a slap on the wrist should he/she mess up again. 'At the very least' is like saying 'sentenced 10 to 20 years' meaning it's the lowest action that should be taken. I think with 10 blocks, a block if he/she breaks their word is more in line with what I was thinking. JC7V-constructive zone 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've heard that way too many times from this editor. We have no reason to believe him, he made these same proclamations in 2016 and 2017. He has already been given his last chances has continued the same behavior in the exact same disputes. For the record, the List of WWE personnel article should have more restrictions on it as well.LM2000 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

LM2000 After being banished to Wiki Siberia for 4 months like I was last year, trust me when I say I'm done as far as this issue goes...I don't need to go through that again - truthfully, I didn't think this issue would go as far as it did. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Firmly disagree with this decision, as does the majority. The weekly program and the talent involved along with the person who runs the brand and co-runs the company calls it a brand. This needs to stop. Gala has a personal vendetta. That's all it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Also: Gala is incorrectly framing this as going against the majority. The majority (check the talk page) want it changed, two people argue against it. NXT UK does not deserve a roster section if 205 doesn't have it's own when both are listed as separate brands on television and press interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@32.213.92.177: Firstly, a consensus is formed based on the quality of the arguments presented, not a simple count of votes. For example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The B-Team (professional wrestling) which had way more keep votes than delete but got deleted due to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity of the votes. You claim 205 Live is called a brand in a press release, so please provide it. Provide any WP:RS, not random youtube videos of passing mentions on TV, that support your stance. Seriously provide even one. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Random Youtube videos" is discrediting something that shouldn't be discredited. When the person RUNNING THE COMPANY calls it a brand, that's kind of key, no? On TV, in press meetings, etc. Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live. https://www.wweperformancecenter.com/#!/journey

I've given numerous examples of different branding for the brand, I've given numerous examples of Triple H, the guy who runs 3/5s of the brands in the company, outright calling it a brand, I've given numerous examples of talent involved calling it a brand, I've given numerous examples as to why it /is/ a brand. You change the goalpost because you have some weird hard on with keeping it with RAW. That's it. Stop moving goalposts. It's unbearable at this point. They have a GM, they have exclusive call ups, they don't appear on RAW, they're not Main Event or a B show, they're their own brand and are regularly called that. The /only/ argument you have is that WWE.com hasn't updated the roster page completely. But if that's all we're using, then NXT UK shouldn't have a section either. Oh, and numerous credible websites like WWENetworkNews.com, PWInsider.com, etc. regularly refer to them as a brand too, likely because the second in command of the entire company does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

I am not moving goalposts. You don't read the information you are posting, to show that it doesn't support your case. For example, you stated Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live. https://www.wweperformancecenter.com/#!/journey yet that is not true. It says Check out the many Superstars who came through the Performance Center before making their mark on Monday Night Raw, SmackDown LIVE and 205 Live. This is clearly discussing TV shows not brands. I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY to see why secondary sources are preferred because you are drawing a conclusion based on what is said, there is nothing that directly mentions a brand on that website, yet you have concluded it does. You cannot do that with primary sources, you need a WP:RS to analyze it and draw that conclusion, yet you have been unable to provide any that does. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You've moved the goal post many times since the discussions initially began, many of which mysteriously disappeared from the talk page. Curious. The issue is everybody who has an understanding of the company and listens to Triple H's press conferences know it's a brand, but it's something a few people (namely yourself) with a vendetta against the brand for existing wants to stop it from being acknowledged. It's very odd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

Nothing on wikipedia can disappear...perhaps you just got caught in a lie and are trying to weasel out of it? I ask you again and again provide a source that calls it a brand. The fact that you cannot proves that it isn't. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's my $.02 as far as all this goes. Back in 2016/2017 when the previous block happened, I was practically begging VJ to back down. At the time, his editing attitude was rotten and I supported a temporary ban. However, when he is focused, he has done some of the best editing work that I've seen. If memory serves me correctly, he received a 3 or 4 month ban and a warning to stop editing his own talk page during that time. He was told to remain civil for a period of time following the expiration of the ban as well as a no tolerance revert rule for a period of a few months. I haven't seen him do anything to violate this since his return. It appears he wipes -- not archives -- his talk page once in a while when there is a dispute of some kind. He may have a block history, but I haven't seen him be uncivil or draw any lines in the sand this time around. I oppose any ban whatsoever this time around. For what it's worth, I disagree with his stance on how the rosters should be listed, but it doesn't mean he can't argue his point. Kjscotte34 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

RESPONCE TO Here's my $.02 as far as all this goes LOL Another Sockpuppet gonna exist to clarify unsourced trivia that 205 Live is separated from RAW. Triple H Just took the names as RAW, SD, 205, NXT, UK so what if he takes, so what if CWCs are now appearing on RAW on television but seen in House Shows of RAW, It doesn't mean to argue the same trivial f****king junk here. It's officially cleared that there had been no official announcement made by WWE, not even tweets not even on website that they're separated. Infact Triple H is just a COO not E or chairman of WWE and WWE official source is not even old or glitch that had been accused for being old or glitch, Either official websites are not yet updated and have still old data will still be sourced EK SE EK BOSDIWALE BETHAY HUAY HAIN YAHAN EK HI BAKWAS CHERE JATE HAIN KAMINAY! Is this a strip club that money has thrown by mentioning currencies sign or it seems to be bribing done by Kjscotte34, Requested to one of fellow wikipedians to stop bribing for confirmation of source, if a content that is found unsourced is unsourced and cannot be sourced in any exchange or by bribing money. CK (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoa. Did you just accuse me of being a sock? Let's take a look at your history, and see what we have. Wow. Numerous blocks, some of them for sockpuppetry. Now, let's look at mine. Nothing. Autoconfirmed user. Longtime WP editor. In fact, the only edits that I have in common with VJ are the wrestling ones. He mainly edits Cleveland area stuff. I love in NY and edit stuff concerning NY. Keep stretching though, I needed a good laugh to begin my Friday. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Another $.02 (concerning challenged material): I keep seeing things that causes wonder. ""Random Youtube videos" is discrediting something that shouldn't be discredited. When the person RUNNING THE COMPANY calls it a brand, that's kind of key, no? On TV, in press meetings, etc. Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live.", and a website that contains "www.wwe", and if I read this right it gives an answer. To me there are too many arguments that this person or that said or stated something referring to "members" or leader, owners, etc... of WWE. An argument that seems to support that because a primary source states something there is grounds for inclusion. To me the inquiry should be where in reliable published sources" does it state the claims being offered. If these articles are so heavily sourced with Primary sources, or assertions of verbal proof (youtube, live TV, or other) then this seems to be a problem when challenged:
• "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".
  • It goes farther to specifically include "published source".
• Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.".
  • Restoration of material
• "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.".

There would also be concerns when regarding a BLP, as well as original research concerning the verifiability policy:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

The reason we don't count votes rather using consensus: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", understanding that article or local consensus, even "ignoring all the rules", "...cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.".

I am going to posit that we cannot use "claims" made on live TV or youtube as reliable sources (if challenged), certainly when not published, because it is in violation of a host of policies, guidelines, or even broad community supported essays if not in contradiction with any policies and guidelines. ---- Otr500 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and you can see here [8], I summarized that the WWE's official published position is not a brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

32.213.92.177 while there is an active conversation going on here about his actions, and multiple people have explaining the same thing to him here, is continuing to make these edits against the established consensus, see [9]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this? The IP user is still making these changes with the discussion happening here? [10] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? This user has announced they will no longer by WP:CIVIL so I would appreciate an admin taking a look [11]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I said I'd no longer be civil with user Galatz because he is insufferable. He keeps reverting changes. When asked for proof, we'd regularly supply it. When saying it didn't fit into the guidelines, another user supplied proof that did indeed fit into the guidelines. Instead, he has a vendetta and keeps fighting it. He asked for it in writing from the company - the company put it in writing and he still fights it. If the person in charge of three brands says it, they say it on TV, and the website itself says it, on top of all the other branding I've pointed to numerous times, then he's just fighting for the sake of it. At the very worst, they're a talent exchange ala Smackdown and ECW in the late 00's, and they had separate rosters then too. – unsigned post by who-knows-who — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

• Now are we ready to simply eliminate all coverage of "professional" wresting? EEng 02:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  @EEng: in typical fashion you are attempting to turn the conversation about yourself and your "agenda" rather than trying to actually be helpful. Didn't your parents ever tell you that if you have nothing useful to say, don't say anything? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  I speak for the vast majority of editors who are sick and tired of these idiotic wrestling arguments showing up at ANI. "It's a brand." "No, it's a division!" "No, it's a brand!" "Is not!" "Is too!" Who gives a shit? Grown men prancing about in tights and masks. It's almost as dumb as arguments over music genres, except they don't end up here nearly so often. EEng 18:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Who cares whether or not if you care about the amount that it comes here? Its a notable topic that belongs on Wikipedia regardless of your feelings about the topic. If you have something constructive to add, add it. Otherwise shut up and stop making everything about you. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I clearly don't care for Galatz very much, but he's right here. This has nothing to do with you and your childish detest for something.

• 32.213.92.177 So basically you are saying that another wikipedia policy, WP:CIVIL does not apply to you? Scroll up and read the multiple people who explained to you why what you provided does not conform with wikipedia policies. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There is now a source that works within the guidelines, so denying that with older sources is just arguing for the sake of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

@32.213.92.177: I suggest you familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies regarding sourcing. It is very clear you do not understand them. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80

Contaldo80 has a very aggressive style of editing. As he states on his user page, he has been called a "one-issue editor," and his talk page shows multiple bans [edit: I mean blocks, not bans], 3RR violations, and other warnings. He is clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people, and whether he is right or wrong he shows multiple types of WP:Tendentious editing. I have tried to work with him, tried to reason things out on talk pages, and tried to use WP policies and guidelines when making arguments. However, it usually comes down to WP:IDL with him. He has been dismissive of others who have tried to counsel him as well. Below are difs of some of his more problematic edits. He has even vandalized my userspace with taunts here and here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs on: One who accuses others of malice/ One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[12] [13] [14] [15]

Diffs on: One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Diffs on: One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

Diffs on: One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[44] [45]

• From his talk page: " I've been called a "one-issue editor". It's true that I feel passionate about improving knowledge on how gay (and bisexual) men and women have made a contribution to history - small or big, good or bad. The issue of homosexuality in particular has often been hidden in the past - a lack of understanding, fear of persecution, religious intolerance. But it is there if one looks hard enough for it."

Diffs on: One who never accepts independent input
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

Diffs on: Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues&diff=853858552&oldid=853858126[

Diffs on: General incivility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]

Diffs on: One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[77]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancua (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Response:

Assertive editing to ensure that editors are abiding by agreed guidance and in good faith is not the same as "aggressive". It is also not correct to state that my talk-page shows "multiple bans". I do state on my user page that I have been called a "one-issue editor," - that doesn't mean I am a one-issue editor, nor that there is anything wrong with being a "one-issue" editor interested in improving coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia (provided this is done in the correct way). And I have experienced a great deal of hostility in the past from editors motivated by religious enthusiasm. I don't like the accusation that I am "clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people" - I'd like some evidence to support that claim. I'm not going to be drawn into that and as aside I'll note the fact that it is an established fact that the Catholic Church has led the execution, exclusion and torture of homosexuals for centuries (so I have little to prove in that space).

I have provided material on articles which both sets out the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church in a way that can be seen as both supportive and critical - in fact it is neither, just a desire to be even-handed and neutral. Therefore it is disingenuous to suggest I am partisan or bias WP:Tendentious editing. Instead I would suggest that an examination of BrianCUA's edits will reveal not one single edit that could put the Catholic Church in a "bad light" (it is not up to me to enquire as to whether BrianCUA is a practising Roman Catholic or an employee of the Catholic Church - although if it's the latter then that would imply bias). Instead BrianCUA has been keen to include only material that suggests the Church is "kind" to people that are gay and "loves" them (which I think distorts the historical reality if one is to be truly even-handed). I happily engage with other editors in a constructive manner if they present genuine workable ways forward. None of the issues raised above suggest violation of the rules; and I'd like examination of any faults I have committed to be taken alongside those of BrianCUA - who can, regrettably, "give as good as they get". Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the reported party have a response that isn't a wall of text? The reply above is too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Without commenting on the validity of the complaint, I observe that the wall of diffs is from Briancua ([78]), the initial complainant, and not the respondent. Contaldo80's response is just the two paragraphs above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"User:TenOfAllTrades - Thank you. That just illustrates how walls of text do not clarify the issues and are hard to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have mixed views on this. Contaldo80 is in many ways a good editor in the Catholic-sphere on the project: he is able to call out the whackjobs we get in this area (which I definitely appreciate. Our Catholic historical content is really bad and helping it not get worse is a good thing.) At the same time, I do find his style overly aggressive and he isn't trusting of anyone who he thinks may have a bias in the area (for example: me, even though I think anyone who is familiar with my editing on the topic knows that I generally stick to the 17th century and do my absolute best to get rid of the POV stuff sourced to crap sources. I have also never revealed my religion or lack thereof on-wiki, and my interest in this topic area is purely historical on-wiki)
  Nick and I have also had to warn him on this article about violations of the harassment policy by demanding users out themselves: making demands to know their employers and and religious affiliations. He eventually stopped that, but it shows I think a pattern of defensiveness and ownership of the article in question.
  How do we deal with this? Maybe an IBAN, though I don't like those. I wouldn't like to see a TBAN, because he does do good work, but that may be needed because of the aggressive behavior here. I'd personally prefer we close this with a warning to him to have a bit less zeal and be more civil, but that depends on how he responds to this thread going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, BrianCUA, I haven't looked at anything specific (I have that page on my talk mainly in case a slow-burning edit war breaks out so I can use request protection at RFPP), but for any topic this contentious, and on a talk page that is effectively populated by three people (you being one of them), I'd highly suggest treading with caution and taking this to WP:NPOVN or a similar dispute resolution venue to get more eyes, rather than just make bold edits and revert. So, that's a warning to you as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. It's a fair comment, and I'm sure there have been times when my actions and edits have not been what they should be. I have requested outside voices on several occasions (see here, here, and here, for example.). Unfortunately, there has been limited response from them, which lead to this complaint. Your warning is well noted. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni for making some kind comments in suggesting I am generally a "good editor". That's actually much appreciated. Often I wonder if my work is noted or appreciated at all, so it's nice when someone says I have made a difference - even if it's in a small way. To be honest you've hit the nail on the head in that I can be "defensive". This is not generally the case with most articles I edit but it can rear its head when dealing with articles that align homosexuality with religion. Why you may ask? Because we know that in this world religion and gay rights don't mix well. Over the years I have come across a number of editors who get carried away with "religious zeal" (and some of them I have strong grounds for believing were clergy and thus suggesting a genuine conflict of interest). Mostly these individuals mean well but are obvious because they edit out material that can be seen to be critical of a religious organisation, teaching, or individual and that speaks too openly about homosexuality (a topic that has suffered for centuries from being pushed into the corners for fear of causing awkwardness). Personally I think it's right to include material in an article which can be regarded as presenting religious thought or practice in a "positive" light (provided that the approach is neutral), and to avoid material that is derogatory, misleading or unfair. And I can point to many instances where I have done that - look back at my edits. But at the same time there has to be a genuine desire to work towards a balanced and accurate picture - and where that is evident in the approach of editors then my record shows that I happily engage. Therefore yes I can see that religious organisations often talk about "love" and "respect" for people that are gay - and it's right for articles to refer to this where appropriate. But at the same time if the reality (backed by the evidence) shows a less than ideal picture then it is right to make this clear. You cannot begin to count the number of articles where an editor has come in and removed material relating to homosexuality (despite it having supporting and verifiable evidence) simply because it doesn't fit into their world view. The endless vandalism with spiteful homophobic comments - everyone will have encountered these. So I think it's unfair to say my style is "aggressive" - as that suggests I am being unreasonable. I don't think I've ever knowingly included inaccurate material nor shown deliberate bias. And I like to think I have helped to improve the quality of articles. BrianCUA and indeed other editors don't like that I challenge inclusion of material (rightly in my view) that is too "rose-tinted" in terms of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. In terms of the current complaint I can't see that I've violated 3RR or have been abusive - perhaps you can argue I've lacked civility in some instances where I've lost my patience. If that's the case then I am contrite and accept the appropriate discipline. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally I'll give one recent example of where I think BrianCUA is keen to present a narrative overly sympathetic to the official position of the Catholic Church. In the article on "Dissent" I - and another editor - have questioned the over-emphasis on protests by gay people against the Church - disrupting Mass etc. BrianCUA has been determined, however, to suggest this activity has been significant and to give it a profile I simply don't think it deserves in relation to more notable material. But in the spirit of compromise I have gone along with this to a degree, leaving the material in. However I questioned a source cited that was by a gay activist group called ACT-UP whose website had recorded a testimony by an individual that they had thrown a Eucharist host to the floor. BrianCUA has been determined to say that a gay activists therefore committed "desecration" in doing this (a highly loaded term and presenting the idea of a Church under attack). I asked for a second neutral source to provide better comfort with the ACT-UP source as I had reasonable concerns about bias - is there another source that says the eucharist was thrown to the floor? BrianCUA has simply added back in the contentious material that had been questioned and added a second source from the New York Times as justification. This does not, however, mention the host incident at all - and suggests that some parishioners saw the invasion of the cathedral as an "act of desecration". Now this is where I start to worry that we are slipping into partisan editing, and failure to address genuine editorial concerns. I would normally challenge this point but won't for the time-being while a complaint is being formally investigated against me. The edit can be found here: [79] Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Back in May, this editor accused an IP user of being my sockpuppet without any evidence here. They also reverted edits by different users to the same content on this same article a total of 5 times. It was not all within 24 hours, and therefore not technically a violation of 3RR. But it still shows a very aggressive style and a total lack of concern for consensus. Throughout early 2017, he deleted massive amounts of information on Salvatore Cordileone 5 times without even a substantive edit summary, three times not bothering to write on at all. See for yourself in the edit history. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a violation to accuse someone of being a sock-puppet? In any case my comments were "I would encourage user 32.218.32.56 to set out their arguments on the talk page in a mature way - particularly to address concerns that they are not acting as someone else's sock-puppet". I did not accuse that anonymous IP or being a sock-puppet - I raise the point about having concerns that they suddenly appeared out of no-where to intervene on the article. I most certainly did not accuse you of being the sock-puppet - unless you think this was an obvious link to make? Regarding the Cordileone article I did in fact engage on talk. You will recall we got a third opinion that agreed with me that the material you were trying to include was not appropriate. If you had a substantive complaint to make against me at the time then you should have made it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty obvious link. Regarding whether or not it's a policy violation, at the very least it's a poor tactic to substitute ad hominem commentary for substantive argument. IPs often edit sporadically and frequently don't show up on the talk page. That doesn't mean they're socks. For the Cordileone article, yes, we were eventually able to reach a compromise on the talk page. But it first involved multiple highly inappropriate reverts by yourself followed by admin intervention. Basically, what we are responding to here is a pattern of high-handed aggressive editing and talk page discussion, which I think evidently exists based on the material that I and others have brought forward. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 - a look at the interactions between you and me shows that you have behaved no differently than me. I regarded your edits as no less "inappropriate" and your approach determined to push forward a particular perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted fewer times than you, and all of my reverts were accompanied by relevant edit summaries. Many of those reverts simply involved undoing reverts made by you which weren't explained at all. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

He has made similar accusations against others. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual hat boxes

-EEng

That's hardly an accusation. But it was odd as that anonymous IP appeared from no-where to make a number of edits to revert material (without justification or engaging on talk). Then disappeared back into the ether. That to me is questionable and disruptive behaviour.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've taken the liberty of collapsing the wall of diffs into individual hat boxes. No comment on the substance of this report. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional example:' In addition to the wall of text above (I apologize for that - I wanted to be comprehensive), here is one discrete example of the type of behavior I am talking about. Contaldo was bold and edited Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues to take text out of one section and combine it with another. He was reverted, however. Even after being asked to follow WP:BRD multiple times (here, here, here), he continues to revert and insert his preferred version. In fact, he has challenged other editors to explain why the original version should remain before any edits can be made to his preferred version. This has happened on multiple issues. In addition, if you look at the talk page, you will notice there are multiple sections in which he discusses this. Again, this is a common practice. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was reverted by you. I then asked you repeatedly why you thought the suggested changes I made were problematic. You never responded. I raised reasonable concerns that you had created a section up-front which veered towards polemic, and looked extremely odd in an article that concerned politics. It also lacked balance. I moved related material together to provide a stronger narrative and better contextual flow. I don't think you liked it because it "muddied the waters" and suggested the issue was more nuanced and less up-beat than originally presented. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that I didn't explain my reasons. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential solutions: There is some evidence that Contaldo80 might be beginning to learn a lesson. He was recently reverted on Raymond Leo Burke. Instead of rereverting the entire edit with an irrelevant or snarky edit summary as he would have been accustomed to doing, he made a compromise edit with an explanation and then opened up a talk page discussion. His edits there and in this separate section have been civil. Personally, I'm hovering between two potential options. One involves giving him something like a provisional restriction lasting 6 months stating that he cannot revert the same content more than twice, no matter how much time has passed. The second is a warning that future repeated and aggressive reverts could result in this action or a block, and that more uncivil talk page commentary in the future (like this comment from less than a month ago, not sure if this was already linked or not) could result in a block. Basically, this would give him another chance before imposing any major sanctions. This would be consistent with WP:Rope. I myself am leaning towards it. Any thoughts? Display name 99 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he is. He must be monitoring my contributions because just yesterday he weighed in on an AfD discussion regarding an article I wrote with a "Strong Delete." I went back 1,000 edits and the only other time he has been active there was when an article he wrote was proposed for deletion. (See also the taunts in my userspace.) --BrianCUA (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." It's not obvious to me that on the article you refer to (and on which I have been previously active) my contributions have been partisan, a personal attack on you or designed to disrupt the discussion. Can I also express serious concern that displayname99 has actually now gone into that article and removed my contribution - despite the fact that he is not an administrator and I have not been found to have done anything wrong in this instance. I am starting to feel harassed and I think a number of editors are going well beyond their remit. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I have not removed your contribution. You obviously haven't looked carefully enough. I made a contribution in favor of Keep. I removed that largely because I didn't want to be accused of being canvassed or of having bias. Your edit is still there and I did not remove it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have to make an apology. And a complaint. You're right you didn't delete my contribution this article. You did, however, evidently follow my edits to that article page and argue for "keep" (presumably to counter my argument for delete). You then came onto this page to insinuate that I am hounding BrianCUA, when in fact you have arguably been hounding me. This is all becoming rather depressing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I eventually deleted my own contribution out of concerns that it could be seen as improper. The only questionable decision I made was to vote Keep, which I rectified. There is nothing left for you to complain about on that article. Display name 99 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That does show evidence of WP:Hounding. It's not smart for him to do because it obviously doesn't help his case. I'm not quite as interested in the taunts on your userspace because I'm primarily interested in seeing if his behavior has changed at all in the last day or two as a result of this discussion. In that case, the AfD comment is what's important. TonyBallioni, do you have an opinion here? Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect we seem to have ended up in a situation where two editors (neither of whom are administrators) are both deciding how contrite I am and discussing what discipline I should receive. Both of whom have clashed with me in the past and are hardly sympathetic - and both of who have displayed questionable editorial activity on a number of articles themselves and which does not place them "on the side of the angels". One is the complainant and the other describes themself on their talk page as a "traditionalist catholic" and has previously been sanctioned with an indefinite block that was only lifted after appeal. I do have a sense that I've ended up in a kangaroo court. I appreciate BrianCUA has bought a series of complaints/ grievances against me - these are wide ranging and mocking in parts ("righter of great wrongs" - presumably because I've made edits so improve coverage of LGBT issues?) I'm starting to feel that I am being picked on. I would value a proper charge (specific and serious violation of wikipedia editorial standards) being bought against me and then consideration of whether I am innocent or guilty of the charge based on an independent and impartial reading of the evidence. It is only fair then if I am found guilty of a violation that appropriate and proportionate discipline is administered. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure yet on where my read of this takes me, but I will say that complaining that the report here is mocking in parts is a fairly audacious statement, given the diffs that were provided of you taunting BrianCUA on his own talkpage about this. While my limited experience with you has shown you to be thoughtful and even-handed, I find those diffs especially damaging to the notion that you have been taking the high road and aren't being treated/viewed fairly here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about my being thoughtful and even-handed. Much appreciated. I try and accept I don't get it right. I think what especially wounds me about the language above around "righting great wrongs" is my sensitivity to homophobia. It feels like making contributions that ensure even-handed representation of LGBT issues is challenging the "mainstream" and that it's me taking on the world. I'm probably wrong in feeling that way (and I'm sure that's not how it was intended) but that's how it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, without really weighing in on the dispute here, I'm going to comment on your approach. To say that you sometimes feel like it's me taking on the world is a nice piece of succinct introspection. If you recognize that you feel that way, I also think maybe that means you need to give yourself a bit of a breather. Not quit, not "retire," but maybe take some time off, even if only just from topics that are clearly so close to your heart. I work in a field where people are pretty passionate, and I sometimes have to remind my staff that they not only do themselves a disservice when they allow stress levels to max out, but they also do a disservice to their projects. The same may be true here. Again, that's not a comment on your contributions, but rather a friendly attempt to point out that if you are feeling the way you described, you need to give yourself some time and space to breathe until you feel centered again, but for your own mental health but also for the betterment of topics/issues that are of such great importance to you. The only other thing I'll say on this topic is that while most other editors might not have such strong personal feelings about this particular topic, I can absolutely guarantee that you are not alone in your desire to see even-handed representation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never proposed a sanction against you. The various types of difs I provided are examples of WP:Tendentious editing. I didn't make up a category to mock you. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In your complaint about me you have referred to me as someone "Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV". I do not see how that relate to any existing editorial guidance. I am being mocked for "righting great wrongs" e.g. adding LGBT related material to articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that you want to add LGBT material. That's all fine and good. It's that you give it undue importance. For example, take your insistence that a section heading include the phrase "gay" or "same sex" in the section on marriage. You argue that somehow readers will understand the word "marriage" to include "divorce, fatherhood and family," but they won't understand marriage to include gay marriage. Somehow, to say otherwise, is dishonest (a frequent charge of yours) and you accuse me of "trying to hide away?!" something when I point out that WP:MOS calls on section titles to be concise. This is what I mean when I say that your arguments often amount to I don't like it.--BrianCUA (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's a fair assessment. Contaldo80, we aren't against you because you add information about homosexuality and the Catholic Church. The problems are aggressive reverting, talk page incivility, biased language on articles (in my opinion), and undue importance. You also don't get to delete sourced information simply because it isn't part of your pet topic. See here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of people who want to define "marriage" as "a man and a woman", I can certainly see where including gay marriage could be useful. Still, I think it would help if the user in question was a bit less fighty, and took the time to state their arguments in a calmer manner rather than lashing out. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

More stick chewing and forum shopping from Merphee

Just a couple of days ago a discussion on Merphee fell off the active discussions here. It failed to get properly resolved, largely because discussion was distracted by probably incorrect discussions of sockpuppetry. The earlier discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988#Problematic editing by Merphee.

I had let the issue go, until yesterday, when Merphee called me back to Talk:The Australian#Questionable source. Discussion recommenced there. He didn't like the immediate result. (Just a tad impatient methinks.) So he again went forum shopping, this time to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly, and yet again failed to tell anyone else about it.

Note that, while I have been criticised by some for my comments in this dispute, I had let this go. Merphee re-initiated discussions, explicitly asking me to comment and, surprise, surprise, didn't like my opinion.

There are many things about this editor's behaviour that bother me. Most are mentioned in the earlier thread. I see no need to mention them all here. The important thing is that he is still making trouble. And forum shopping, with no patience for resolution. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide some serious evidence through diffs for your serious allegations?Merphee (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neutrally worded posts on Noticeboards are not "forum shopping", but are an encouraged form of dispute resolution. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My concern is with the haste shown in taking the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly only hours after re-opening discussions, and in not advising other editors about it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Quite honestly my decision to take our discussion to the noticeboard (as we are supposed to do) was to also to get away from your unrelenting personal attacks and belittling. Anyone who reads the thread at Talk:The Australian could see that. Let alone all the other occasions you have personally attacked me.Merphee (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's no minimum time limit requirement for posting to noticeboards. And, while a notice of the posting would have be courteous, it is also not required. Reviewing the article Talk page, I do, however, find reference to DR generally, and RSN specifically, included in the following diffs, prior to the RSN post.1,2 - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks and constant belittling by HiLo48

I have been the target of ongoing and extreme personal attacks, bullying, bad faith accusations without evidence, constant belittling, hounding and harassment by User:HiLo48 and just want it to stop. I will start to gather diffs and other evidence but a good start would be looking at Talk:The Australian.Merphee (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I had resolved to avoid the Talk page where I have said something that you apparently now don't like. But you explicitly invited me to comment again. If you had not wanted my opinion, you should not have asked for it again. I do not understand your behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not what occurred at all at. However I seriously just want the unrelenting and extreme personal attacks and constant belittling to stop.Merphee (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Extreme personal attacks" are a serious concern. Diffs of these attacks and belittlings would help outsiders assess the proper response. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any personal attacks, except that possibly the insistence of User:Merphee that User:HiLo48 is conducting a campaign of personal attacks may itself be a personal attack. I see none of the alleged personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologise but I am at work at the moment. I will provide strong evidence through diffs later tonight if that's ok? This one [80] from today at Talk:The Australian was completely uncalled for if you read the thread under Questionable source. I was certainly not forum shopping and tried to word my post on the noticeboard as neutrally as possible, so the constant accusations about forum shopping HiLo48 makes here and on the talk page seem pretty unfair as it was not multiple noticeboards and I simply wanted to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions to help form a consensus.Merphee (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do see a focus on contributor, not content, and a failure to engage substantively; but "extreme personal attacks" seems to be gilding the lily. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My use of the word 'extreme' relates to the total period of attacks and belittling. Apologies but I will provide many more diffs to support my post here as I just want it to stop. I note also on the Talk:The Australian that the points I was trying to make have now been supported by uninvolved editors see this comment [81] which was also why I correctly and neutrally placed the discussion on one single norticeboard, the reliable source noticeboard, and tried to disengage from HiLo48. HiLo48 then went straight there and posted this comment [82] making further unfounded accusations of forum shopping.Merphee (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• If the alleged attacks are personal, extreme and unrelenting, then it should be very easy to provide convincing diffs, Merphee. Please do so as soon as your personal schedule permits. So far, I am not seeing the pattern of misconduct that you are accusing HiLo48 of. However, I will keep an open mind at least until you furnish the diffs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The example that you provide isn't a personal attack, and leads me to doubt your judgment as to whether you know what a personal attack is. Not all disagreement is personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

−

• I've not seen anything either. "Extreme and Unrelenting" seem a little overly dramatic. HiLo48 is being persistent as is Merphee, but what I see is a lot of talking past each other and lines in the sand being drawn. With regards to the content, I can certainly see HiLo48's point concerning The Australian, being Australian myself. I can't bring myself to see anything that is affiliated with Murdoch as anything but right wing. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have resolved to not post again here unless I see something patently wrong (apart from comments from Merphee, where negative comments about me are the norm). It's incorrect to label me as persistent. I had not posted at the Talk page in question for quite some time, and only did so yesterday because Merphee explicitly asked me to. I hope it's clear that is NOT an example of persistence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I will provide more diffs later tonight. My understanding is that constantly making big accusations like Forum Shopping and POV with no evidence and when I carefully selected my wording at the noticeboard is a form of personal attack? I also note that HiLo48's long quote and the 'essay' source I've questioned at The Australian has also not been supported by other uninvolved editors. Please see Talk:The Australian. Please also refer to this edit as evidence of that point. [83]. I have never said it was not centre right. It is even in the info-box. That was another accusation HiLo48 constantly made that i am trying to say The Australian is not centre-right and with no supporting evidence. Please refer to this diff as evidence to support my comments on that accusation.[84]Merphee (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Listen, Merphee, you better provide much better evidence than you have so far. Either that, or consider withdrawing your accusations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I will re-frame my accusation then after looking at the diffs I have provided here. Constant belittling and making accusations like Forum Shopping and POV with no evidence and only evidence to the contrary I thought was a form of personal attack. Calling me a "nasty piece of work" is what I thought was a direct personal attack. Constantly calling me a "liar" in discussions with others and with no evidence was what I thought was an attack. However I will provide more diffs later tonight after work if that's ok? I also have already recognised that the word 'extreme' was a little excessive and apologise to HiLo48 for that.However the "unrelenting" and "belittling" parts of my post here, I do stand by and will show evidence for later.Merphee (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Those words, that phrase, seems to be something of a mantra for you, Merphee. The only questionable comment on that talk page that I see (I may not have seen everything) is the [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=prev&oldid=853934530 "ANNOUNCEMENT", but I can see HiLo's point about forum shopping. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, it's worth checking via Edits by User, as Merphee has periodically removed posts: [85]. Or, even easier, start here [86] and click forward to each next edit. HiLo48 has been harassing Merphee on his talkpage despite requests to stay off it. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not been near his Talk page in recent days. And I don't believe anything I did there was harassment. I only responded to an unacceptable approach to editing. I also was avoiding the articles where earlier dramas had arisen, UNTIL I was invited back there by Merphee himself. I have already explained all this. Why are you so misrepresenting the situation? Have you not actually read what was written here? Have I upset you at some stage? You accusations demand specific examples, with full context. AND dates. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a little gem, which exemplifies your inability to have a civil conversation with Merphee: [87]. You both exhibit the same behaviors (with different writing styles), but neither of you can see that. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And it will be obvious to anyone who reads it that that diff requires context (reference to "last night", etc), which I requested you provide, yet you didn't. You are confirming all my views of bad Admins. Why do you do this? HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, I looked through all the diffs on Merphee's talk page. None of them are individually blockable, nor do they add up to anything. I didn't see a request to stay away, but I only looked at HiLo's edits (per your link); I did see Merphee continuously engaging with them. And this may be sharp, but it's not that awful at all. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said nor implied any of those posts on his talkpage were "blockable". In terms of requests to stay off his talk page: I would really prefer if you made comment on the talk page; As I said I would prefer to talk on the article talk page.; This is the third time I have asked you not to be on my talk page; you: HiLo48, you got a point, but so do they re:talk page. Kindly refrain. No response necessary but an eloquent silence. Thanks, Drmies; My requests for you to stop commenting on my talk page were real.; And here you are again posting on my talk page when I've asked you countless times to stop.; I will make it extremely clear now. DO NOT post on my talk page again.. On NeilN's talkpage: I kindly asked you multiple times as you know, to not post on my talk page but still you continued unabated. Even administrator Drmies asked you to stop. You continued. It is my talk page HiLo48. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.; HiLo48 obviously will not stop posting on my talk page so I feel pretty helpless here. I just hope HiLo48 hears your warning and stops doing it, now two administrators have asked him not to.; Straight away after your last warning and mine, they made two more posts on my talk page.; Just stop posting on my talk page.. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thought

How about you both stay off each other's talkpages, stop referring to each other, stop labeling each other, stop mind-reading, and go back to editing and focusing on content, not editor(s)? Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How about YOU pay attention to who has been doing what here? I have not been near Merphee's talk page for many days. Over that same period I had not commented anywhere about the issues now being discussed. This issue ONLY arose again because Merphee explicitly asked me to comment, so I did. Since then I have tried very hard to simply describe his problematic approach to editing. Posts suggesting we are equally at fault here are false, and quite unhelpful. I had resolved to not post again unless more false accusations were made about me. That comment was just such a post. The thoughts I have written about Administrator competence and objectivity on my User page are reinforced every time I come to a page such as this. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly HiLo48, if that is your attitude and you cannot see your own WP:PAs and repeated long-term pot-stirring, I agree with Tarage that an IBAN is in order. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And there YOU go again. It's as if you didn't read a word I wrote in my previous post above. I was looking for peace. Please try again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you refrained from capitalizing the word "you" and not make it the first sentence it might make your delivery a bit more palatable. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I would have preferred someone else be the one to re-open the case against Merphee, since they have constantly attempted to start fights with myself and HiLo48. My advice would be simply to ping the people who were involved in the now-archived incident discussion and make it clear that a conclusion has not been reached. It was absolutely derailed by sockpuppet allegations. @HiLo48: can you tell us the nature of the latest dispute regarding The Australian and anything that has happened since the last incident discussion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's all effectively in the second paragraph of this thread. Within hours of inviting me back to a conversation I had been avoiding, and getting responses he didn't like from me and another editor, he went forum shopping again. I regard that as disruptive editing. And a lack of patience. But I'm running out of energy on this, and I'm getting abused and having my behaviour misrepresented by an Admin, so feel free to do your best. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what the forum shopping stuff is about. Up until that part everything seems fine. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip you say "since they have constantly attempted to start fights with myself and HiLo48." Are you kidding? Could you provide evidence for that through diffs? You and I have had no contact whatsoever since Emma Husar! And HiLo48, you know that's not true and the diffs on Talk:The Australian tell a completely different story. I tried to discuss your edit with you and I made numerous attempts to clarify my two questions on the talk page and focus our discussion entirely on the content dispute and away from you continuing to comment on me. It should also be noted that I did not choose to revert your edit and get into an edit war but rather I decided to post a neutrally worded case on the noticeboard to get the opinions of uninvolved editors. I also gave you due notice I would be doing that. There is also a new section that onetwothreeip opened on the Talk:The Australian and I just commented as I genuinely want to resolve this through consensus.Merphee (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)  

The problem is, neither you nor HiLo48 can carry on a discussion without engaging in personal attacks. So the way I see it, is there are several options available to resolve this: (A) You both follow the bolded advice at the top of this subthread. DO NOT MENTION OTHER EDITORS, by name, reference, or using the word "you". It's hard at first and takes practice but it can be done; you can pretend you are a robot if need be. (B) We topic ban both of you from Australian media and whatever else you conflict about. (C) We institute an WP:IBAN between the two of you. (D) We topic ban you (Merphee) from Australian media or whatever the problem area is. (E) We block both of you. (F) We block you (Merphee), as the most disruptive (as agreed by several editors at this point) and least experienced editor. Something has to be done, because the endless bickering which you both engage in is disruptive and dysfunctional. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion on the Emma Husar article. @Softlavender: is it really true that HiLo48 has made personal attacks? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't like to say this, but after seeing Murphee's last post on the RSN board, something needs to be done. They do not seem to be able to control their political bias; it leads them into all sorts of hyperbolic and exaggerated claims, doubling down, then when called out, inability to provide diffs, deflection and diversion to another forum, or attempting to drop the subject. You can see it in effect in this thread, and at their posts on the https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#footer RSN ( see the post "The monthly)..it makes them extremely difficult to come to a consensus with. I would 'support' a topic ban on Political bias in Australian media and Australian politics for Murphee. I would have suggested this last time, but everything got derailed by the socking allegations, and I resolved to AGF. I no longer think this Curdle (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Merphee has a tendency to hyperbole, but it usually comes after bickering from Hilo48. I do not think there was anything amiss about posting on RSN; editors are allowed to do that at any time, for any reason, and do not have to give anyone notice that they have done so, and it is not "forum shopping" unless there are already other WP:DR in process -- all of which Ryk72 explained at the top of this thread. The problem with that RSN thread was HiLo48 jumping in immediately with personal attacks: [88]. So we can't judge the situation neutrally because, as so often before, HiLo48 has made it non-neutral by bickering. So the first step, in my opinion, is to stop the bickering from both of them. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the last post they made on the RSN- I had no objections to Murphee going to the RSN, although I did think it was a bit premature; I do object to him making quite frankly ridiculous statements about a fairly average magazine, then when being asked to provide evidence of their claims, promptly changing the goalposts and saying its about undue weight and returning to the original talk page! Its a constant pattern of deflection, and makes reasoned discussion almost impossible..We now seem to have settled on wording similar to what I proposed at the beginning of this whole farrago. I have a bad feeling this is going to be a constantly repeating pattern, but as noone else has chimed in, I guess I will once again try to AGF and hope to be proven wrong. Curdle (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought the thread was obvious enough but ok- do you not see what I see? being asked for evidence, Now says issue is about weight rather than source Curdle (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not see what you say is there. I do not see Merphee making quite frankly ridiculous statements about a fairly average magazine. I do see what appears to be a clear misrepresentation of their question at WP:RSN; and have called this out in my recent edit. I do see a fairly anodyne response to that. If there are other diffs which do show such ridiculous statements, then they need to be provided. I do not see any changing the goalposts. Our content does not have one set of goals through which it must pass, but many; it is not inappropriate to raise, about the same content, questions of reliability, of attribution, and of WP:WEIGHT; either concurrently or consecutively. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Curdle, in each instance, both on the RSN thread and the talkpage thread(s), it is the element of HiLo48 and his bickering that sets Merphee off; until HiLo48 interjects the bickering, Merphee is neutral. So it's fairly clear to me that HiLo48 is the causative factor. That does not excuse Merphee's losing it because of HiLo48's bickering or snide attitude, but it does mean they both need to stop reacting to, or even referring to, each other and/or deliberately making a conversation toxic because the other is in it. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Curdle your second version was quite different. I think we were able to reach a consensus because no one was attacking me and railroading my attempts to establish consensus at the noticeboard. HiLo48's version in the article was not acceptable in my opinion at least. By the way, I never "changed the goalposts" and included my concerns about undue weight pretty much from the beginning. The only constantly repeating pattern is me reacting to HiLo48's focus on me personally and not the content issues I raised. That's it. Regardless please assume some good faith in your interactions with me as I clearly compromised so we could reach consensus and am genuinely here to help the project, not harm it.Merphee (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Murphee, It really wasnt that different, you were just too busy bickering to read it properly. Mevermind its late, I'm tired, the thing is hopefully sorted and I keep getting hit by edit conflicts. I am done for today, happy editing. BTW Sorry about the formating Reyk72. I didnt see the little comments wedged in there.Curdle (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I made this neutrally worded edit [89] a while ago on the Talk:The Australian in a genuine attempt to reach a consensus and compromise but everyone seems to have ignored it. I have never engaged in an edit war and I do not attack other editors personally. But I do want the attacks on me to stop as they just lead the discussion away from a focus on reaching consensus.Merphee (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's a case in point. Discussion was proceeding fine and then HiLo48 jumped in with bickering and personal attacks. Discussion then proceeded fine without HiLo48 and a solution was reached. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Will you EVER pay attention to the truth here? I DID NOT jump in. Merphee asked me to comment. There is considerable difference. And the issue is now resolved. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, he didn't; read the thread: Talk:The Australian#Editorial disputes. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender - Nobody else here is attacking me here the way you are. I really did stay out of discussions in this area for several days before Merphee invited me back. You don't seem even capable of acknowledging that sequence of events. You attacks on me stand out. What have I done to upset you? HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender is not attacking you. Describing your (and Murphee's) contributions as bickering is not an attack, it's an accurate representation of many of your contributions. I suggest you take the advice proffered and stop interacting with one another informally, or it will be done for you by the community, because we all - and I include both of you - have better things to do. Fish+Karate 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as The Australian article page it seems Curdle and I have reached a consensus [90] and unless anyone objects Curdle will put in their suggested edit which seems quite reasonable to me and satisfies my concerns with the previous version.Merphee (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender and Ryk72: what are these personal attacks HiLo48 has made? I must say that Merphee has been this belligerent to virtually everyone they have come across in the last month or so, even people who they praise. It's absolutely not triggered by HiLo48, as was shown in the previous incident discussion about Merphee, which certainly was not started by HiLo48. Obviously Merphee dislikes HiLo48 the most, and for that reason I wished someone else were to restart this process. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Examples and threads and diffs have already been provided in this overall thread, and there are plenty more to go around. But first, how about you provide diffs for your claim that "Merphee has been this belligerent to virtually everyone they have come across in the last month or so"? Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the proof, I trust people are being honest here. What attacks has HiLo48 made? I'm only aware of them making what could be considered to be attacks against Merphee, only because Merphee doesn't stop talking about it. I point to the rampant incivility towards several contributors at Talk:Emma Husar and Talk:David Leyonhjelm at least. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick resolution?

Merphee, make a promise to have minimal and only low key interactions with HiLo48 for at least a year. It's an expectation and presumed that HiLo48 will not "use" that in any way. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this request/proposal, since both editors are clearly at issue; HiLo48 is the instigator here as he opened this ANI against Merphee in bad faith, with an extremely POV title, when all Merphee was doing was engaging in proper and normal WP:DR. We have already shown that Merphee behaves fine and solutions are reached when HiLo48 is not bickering or attacking him. He has stated numerous times that he has learned from the Emma Husar discussions and has not been disruptive like that since, except when goaded by HiLo48. The situation at The Australian was resolved amicably when HiLo48 dropped out of the discussion (not before bickering and leaving a personal attack against a third party however). Merphee was indeed quite correct that the extremely POV cherry-picked quote from The Monthly that HiLo48 inserted into the article violated NPOV and UNDUE. Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue for my suggestion. But I did want to fix a possibly mistaken impression from my post. Without repeating my comment below which gives more explanation, I was trying to come up with the bare minimum to resolve it, not reflect on the details of who did what. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the cited sequence of events directly below in the subthread "Here's how it went down" for an idea of why that wouldn't work. HiLo48 has been, and has continued to be, the one at fault from the very beginning of this situation. Softlavender (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's how it went down

Merphee removed an uncited, unattributed POV statement from The Australian that had been tagged for three years: [91]. HiLo48 went straight to Merphee's usertalk to harass him: [92]. Merphee added back part of the material he had removed: [93]. HiLo48 inserted an extremely POV quotation into the article: [94]. Merphee opened a neutral discussion on the article's talkpage about the POV quote: [95]. HiLo48's response was "Stop destroying the article" and he continued to deflect, bicker, and ridicule: [96]. Merphee correctly removed the quote and attempted to summarize it instead: [97]. HiLo48 reverted [98], and failed to neutrally respond to the issues Merphee brought up about it, instead bickering, casting aspersions, and making demands: [99]. Therefore Merphee engaged in WP:DR by opening a thread on WP:RSN: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly. HiLo48 falsely accused Merphee of forum-shopping: [100], [101], and then opened this ANI falsely accusing Merphee of forum-shopping: [102]. --Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose I-Ban between Merphee and HiLo48

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

---

• Support as proposer. Enough is enough. It's I-ban time. --Tarage (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as the target. Merphee has now changed his position on the main area of contention to a much more reasonable one. He is becoming a better editor. I do promise to ignore invitations from him to comment in future. It seems my mistake here was responding to a request from him to comment. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You were literally here last week with the same issue with the same user. Bullshit that you think this is over. You'll be back here in a week. --Tarage (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48 was not the person that started the last incident discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - if they don't interact then there are no problems and everyone lives happily ever after. But this way if someone instigates something in the future it's a short trip down the block-aisle.  MPJ-DK  23:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - this should be about Merphee, not anyone else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I support this if they cannot both agree to voluntarily behave as laid out in the bolded proposal I posted above, yesterday [103], which by the way is standard editing practice, otherwise known as WP:Edits not editors. --- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Nip this in the bud. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This report has gone in an unexpected direction, given that it was ostensibly a continuation of the earlier conversation about Merphee's behavior. In that earlier conversation, I see some goading by HiLo, but ridiculously over-the-top behavior by Merphee. That behavior was also all over his own talkpage during his recent, mistaken block for sockpuppetry. HiLo's no innocent party here, and I agree with Onetwothreeip that it would've been better if someone else had started this thread, but Merphee is clearly the problem editor. Grandpallama (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• SupportI'm ok with an interaction ban. I just want the extreme incivility to stop. It's not much to ask is it? Yesterday as soon as HiLo48 was out of the picture, we established consensus on The Australian article. And easily through compromise. Interestingly no diffs of my supposed disruptive behaviour since the last time we were here have been provided. This post here was opened by HiLo48 because I supposedly forum shopped, for neutrally posting a concise issue on the noticeboard, like we are supposed to do, and not edit war but that has been proven wrong. And secondly I didn't put a formal notice on the talk page but its been shown I did give notice. What else have I done since the mess at the Emma Husar article? Seriously? As far as my talk page I had to fight hard to prove and get unblocked within 24 hours from a false accusation of using multiple accounts. NeilN asked me to drop the stick after that mess, and I did. So again apart from being treated with extreme incivility by HiLo48 how have I been disruptive Grandpallama? Have you read all of the diffs that SoftLavender took the time and effort to post about HiLo48 commenting on my talk page just for starters?Merphee (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read everything, which is why I voted the way I did. Your rambling rantiness here about dropping the stick while again claiming extreme incivility just helps confirm my perception. Grandpallama (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Merphee has indulged in some serios bear poking and although HiLo48 could have been more temperate in his responses, I simply cannot see the level of "incivility" that is claimed here. I am very dissapointed to see an admin taking such a partisan approach towards the party that has actually borne the brunt of the civility issues. In my opinion Merphee is the guilty party here and is the one we should be considering sanctions against. HiLo48 should be warned to ignore to the provocations of edittors like Merphee who just seem to want to get a rise out of him. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've interacted on and off with HiLo48 since 2009, and we disagree on almost everything. They are refreshingly blunt (sometimes too blunt for Wikipedia rules) but don't harbor ill will or conduct personal warfare against editors....not even in the "refreshingly blunt" way much less the more common "clever Wikipedia warfare" way. It's always a discussion about the topic. I think that any personal fight is one-way and any restriction against HiLo48 is unnecessary to resolve it. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, so with absolutely no diffs, go ahead and indefinitely block me I guess. Terrific stuff.Merphee (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Alex Shih, may I ask why you closed this proposal after less than 24 hours? Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, at the moment there does not seem to be a consensus on whether one or both parties are at fault/not at fault in the main discussion above, which I think is the reason for the strong opposition here, from a number of editors and from one of the involved parties themselves. My rationale is that when a consensus is unlikely to emerge for a particular proposal, 24 hours is a arbitrary number that are not always followed (see the closure of the section below this one). In this case, minimising the number of sub-sections would allow people to return to a centralised discussion to find the resolution quicker, instead of having discussions sidetracked. Of course, I am always open to revert my closure/edits if people disagree with my rationale. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The only target opposing is the editor who opened this bad-faith ANI against the other for engaging in proper WP:DR which actually resolved the situation. The others opposing have mostly failed to read the very current issues at hand and are only citing their prior interactions with HiLo48 and/or Merphee. Neutral uninvolved editors looking into the situation have mostly !voted support. In my opinion it's not advisable to close down a discussion before all parties to the thread, for instance Ryk72, and other outside parties, have time to review it and respond. Softlavender (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose 24-48 hour block of [User:HiLo48|HiLo48]

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

---

-Support as proposer. HiLo48, you have attacked nearly every editor who has even slightly spoken out against you. This sort of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. To prevent further disruption of this process, I propose a 24-48 hour block so the rest of us can hash this out in absence of your constant assault. --Tarage (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I suggest someone delete HiLo48's inappropriate user page, which is currently supporting a slew of personal attacks against wikipedia editors as a whole. I have to question why someone who feels this strongly about wikipedia is still here three years after posting that nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have hopes things will improve. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment If an IBAN was established (as per your previous proposal) and both parties stick to it, a block wouldn't be necessary - the only ongoing issue causing disruption the current interaction between them. Girth Summit (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My issue is the disruption caused to the process of discussing this issue. Considering that HiLo48 cannot seem to stop attacking everyone and anyone I feel like a preventative block until the discussion has had time to materialize would be best. --Tarage (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see any attacks against other people in this thread - he's being a bit defensive/snarky, but I don't see anything abusive. If an IBAN was in place, perhaps with a TBAN for both editors for the specific page/s that caused the hoohaa (allowing others to work to a consensus on it), I expect all the disruption would dissipate naturally. Girth Summit (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue at the article in question is now resolved. Merphee has changed his position considerably. There is now nothing there to disagree about. Bringing the problem here has actually led to resolution. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"HiLo48 cannot seem to stop attacking everyone and anyone." Are administrators really allowed to make such ridiculous statements? I have defended myself against inaccurate statements, and received no response except more of the same. Administrators that won't actually communicate rationally are obviously not doing their job properly. I make no apology if anyone sees this comment as an attack. I guess it is, but it's not against "everyone and anyone". It's against someone who wrote something about me that was stupid, ridiculous, and just plain wrong. The sentence I have quoted at the beginning is surely far worse than anything I have said, and I think I have the right to point that out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage is not an administrator. Unless I am much mistaken, no one who has yet commented on this thread is. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Close

Peace seems to be restored between the two individuals-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

DanielPenfield and archiving

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § DanielPenfield and archiving

For a while now, DanielPenfield (talk · contribs) has been going around talk pages performing general cleanup while also setting up talk-page archiving in a remarkably eccentric manner with misleading edit summaries. He sets up archiving based on date, rather than sequentially, also adds an archive box advert, and sets up archiving on very small talk pages (far under 50K), all of which are highly unconventional for low-traffic talk pages. I despise his archive setup and revert it whenever it appears on my watchlist, per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However he's decided to start a revert war with me at Talk:Keyboard instrument. At the very least I would like him to stop reverting people when they undo/modify his archiving setup(I do archive cleanup too, but if someone reverted my efforts in this department due to strong personal preference/other compelling reasons, I wouldn't mind). More to the point, I'd like him to adopt a more conventional archiving setup and tone down his aggression regarding enforcement of it; if these discussions still failed, I think a block would be in order, but obviously not from me. He is well aware that I strongly dislike his archiving methods]], and I'm not the only one. Graham87 04:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your claim	My response
going around talk pages performing general cleanup	No, I don't "perform general cleanup". I assess articles for various WikiProjects since many WikiProject languish after an initial burst of activity. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising#Article assessment surpasses 5000, for example. If there are stale discussions, I set up auto-archiving. Note that unlike User:Graham87, I respect the archiving method already in use regardless of whether it's manual or automatic.
remarkably eccentric manner	If date-based archiving is "remarkably eccentric", then why haven't you suppressed the use of {{MonthlyArchive}} (created in 2008), {{Yearly archive list}} (created in 2012), and {{Yearly archive box}} (created in 2018) and used your adminship to permanently block their creators, User:Alanbly, User:Ytrottier, and User:BrandonXLF, from editing so that they can never violate your decrees?
adds an archive box advert	Despite your insinuation, I didn't name the parameter "box-advert". See User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis#Cosmetic parameters.
sets up archiving on very small talk pages (far under 50K), all of which are highly unconventional for low-traffic talk pages	As Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive pages states As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. If no one has responded to a discussion in three years, a reasonable person would consider that discussion stale.
I despise his archive setup and revert it whenever it appears on my watchlist	"Despise"? Should User:Graham87 remain an admin? And he wants people to believe that I'm the "revert warrior" despite his outright admission that he reverts on sight?
I'd like him to adopt a more conventional archiving setup	If, as you claim, there is a "single standard method for archiving", why haven't you deleted Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives? Why aren't you reverting, rebuking, and blocking editors who manually archive based on date (see Talk:Dick Cheney, for example)?
tone down his aggression regarding enforcement of it	I see--a double standard where you can write whatever you want in edit summaries, even to the point of issuing veiled threats, but I can't. Also, "enforcement"? If you want to criminalize the use of date-based archiving, shouldn't you first delete Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives, expunge all references to date-based archiving from Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival, and sanitize Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive_pages to state "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions."? Shouldn't you force User:Cobi to outlaw the use of any date-related formatting in the "format" parameter of {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}}?

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll mostly let this response speak for itself. However, I must note DanielPenfield's change to the header of this discussion, which I strongly disagree with (and will revert accordingly) because it misrepresents what I wrote (and I think it unseemly for someone involved in a dispute to make such a change). Also, I think date-based archiving has its uses, but mostly on very busy pages. Graham87 06:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Re "tone down his aggression". DanielPenfield had apparently misused/misunderstood an archiving bot, creating an unholy mess on multiple talk pages. Another editor had brought it up some ten weeks previously yet he was still misusing the bot so I gave him a nudge.

Despite my assertion that I was not competent to bot wrangle, his response bizarrely and sarcastically conflated me and the bot designer as responsible for the mess he had made, by not explicitly disallowing it. For remedy, he did not indicate that he would go back and fix what he had done, instead he had requested the bot designer to create a new task to do that for him. His conclusion further sought to transfer the responsibility to me by stating that I could have made such a request myself "way back when". Of course, I had had no idea as to how he had created his mess, and the "way back when" in question was some 3 hours prior.

No doubt DanielPenfield is a valuable contributor to the project but his manner does it a disservice. Captainllama (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Messing around with talk pages is irritating, but fighting to keep eccentric preferences on talk pages they have no interest in is disruptive, particularly when coupled with an inflammatory edit summary such as "defy His Majesty's decree". The correct response here should have been to back off—posting the above table indicates an entirely inappropriate approach. I support a topic ban although it would be more conventional to do that at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, I thought ANI was more for urgent matters ... I've now read the headers of both AN and ANI and I realise the difference now. I've moved this discussion here accordingly. Graham87 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who questioned this. I just brought this up on his talk page about two weeks ago about this method of creating a yearly archive on a talk page, which then added 10 years of discussions onto a single year of 2015. I assumed that this was done in error as this makes no sense. So, I fixed the archive and I was reverted by him with an edit summary of "undo unwarranted and gratuitous change of archiving method". I was a little shocked by that response, since all I did was fix his poor archive method, but then he reverts me with that odd edit summary. So, I reverted him and then left a note on his talk page questioning his reasoning. I then left some further examples on why his method makes no sense. His response was to revert me again with an edit summary of "restore date-based archiving over method completely inappropriate for low-volume talk pages". At that point, I left him him one final note and walked away. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've also had issues with DanielPenfield needlessly reverting my talk page edits in the past. Here are two examples [104] [105]. While he may not have felt that my edits were necessary, I had previously explained to him that I was making those edits as part of a project focused on clearing out a backlog. After another editor opened a thread on the talk page, DP never participated. To be fair, I believe he also stopped reverting my edits, but it was annoying to be repeatedly and needlessly reverted while doing largely thankless maintenance work. Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• This person actually said, "Should User:Graham87 remain an admin?" Well, DanielPenfield, since you're asking, fuck yes. It's funny how you are rubbing a whole bunch of our most valuable admins totally the wrong way, and I suggest you listen to them, and then follow their advice. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

DanielPenfield, apparently, you've learned absolutely nothing from this discussion. This archive method would have put eight years of archives onto a single year. How are you failing to recognize this? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

First another veiled threat. Now you're stalking me because I dare to use date-based archiving as described in Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You have shown a history for not using the correct archive method, so therefore it's completely acceptable to continue checking your archive creations. Can you explain how a date base archive makes sense here? Can you explain why putting eight years of discussions onto a single year makes any sense whatsoever? If this method created a year for each year of discussion (which doesn't really work on a low-volume talk pages like this, but whatever), that would at least make some sense, but this is just dumb. Please stop. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

He hasn't. See below. Graham87 06:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@DanielPenfield: I have the impression that if you setup a yearly archival method it's also your job to chronologically sort and archive threads in their correct year, or to let the bot do that if it can, rather than moving it all in the first year (WP:ONUS is not really about that, but it's a similar spirit)... Then as with anything, per WP:BRD to seek WP:CONSENSUS when reverted. The reason was obviously not "I don't like it", but, "That was wrong", or WP:CIR. —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• DanielPenfield, in your latest revert of me, in your edit summary, you stated "...you claim that you object to one archive containing multiple years and yet your switch from date-based to meaningless sequence number-based does exactly that..." No. Not even close. The sequential numbered archives are set up to put all the discussions that it can fit (by KBs) onto one archive. Once that fills up, it creates a new one. Rinse. Repeat. Depending on how active the page is, you may have ten years of discussions on one archive, or you may have a few months (see one of Jimbo's archives for example). Now let's take a look at our respective talk pages and the way our archives are set up. On your talk page, you have it set up by years and I have it set up by sequential numbers. At first glance, yours looks really good. In fact, I kinda wish I had set my own talk page archives up this way, because it looks nice, neat, and orderly. So, you have archives set up for every year dating back to 2012. If you click on any one of these, you see a whole year's worth of discussions on one page. That's great. That is until you click on your 2012 archive. This is where the problem lies. You have discussions from 2006, so now you have six years of archives showing on one single year. After you set up the archive bot, why didn't you fix this and create a new archive for each of those years? That's where your wrong, but that's your talk page, so you do what you want. If you want to keep up the date based archiving method on article talk pages, that's fine, however you need to make sure it's working properly. What's the point in having a date based archive system if your dates aren't accurate? With the sequential archive, there's no expectation of what dates you'll find on any one archive, but there is definitely one on date based. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose that DanielPenfield be topic-banned from any edits involving talk-page archiving, broadly construed, per his general intransigence displayed in the above thread. Pinging the people involved so far: @Captainllama, Johnuniq, Mike Rowe, Jauerback, Lepricavark, and Drmies: Graham87 06:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe an alternative could be temporary 1RR and formal admin warning to not setup archival unless specific criteria are met? Or just a warning for now. I would support the topic ban but at the next ANI discussion personally. —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Mild support. Seems like a reasonable solution. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. "Intransigence" seems like a good word for this disruption. He has been asked to stop and continues on, using snide edit summaries. Someone else can archive these talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support I just browsed User talk:DanielPenfield and it shows several sections where editors have raised opinions of poor judgment only to be met with inflammatory responses. For example, ClueBot III archive templates shows a brickwall lack of collaboration. Perhaps DanielPenfield is using the best archive method (I don't know) but fiddling with archives should not leave a trail of bitterness—it would be better if the pages were not archived. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support and facepalm. Talk about uncollaborative and unhelpful editing. Let's just hope this M.O. of "my eccentric way or else" despite multiple problems and multiple good-faith concerns and requests does not continue to carry over into other elements of Wikipedia, or we may be back here soon enough. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I've been flabbergasted by the need to explain this to him and the attitude in return doesn't help matters. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Being honest I was going to suggest this a week ago but figured things may improve .... unfortunately that doesn't appear to have been the case, As someone who routinely archives talkpages there's a simple method > Archive talkpage > paste bot stuff from WP:ARCHIVE > Add the talkpage header = Job done, There's absolutely no need for this pedantic behaviour and edit warring. –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Failure to communicate while keeping up questionable editing

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

This editor has been editing only astrology related articles but have been at it since September 2017 without ever responding to messages of other editors. The edits are often problematic. A block might be the only way to obtain their attention... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem like the editor has a habit of making substantive changes in the guise of grammar fixes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted all of this users' edits, because most had misleading edit summaries (like this[106]) and one lacked a summery. Tornado chaser (talk)

Would User:MER-C/payattention.js be useful here? MER-C 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: I imagine it would be and is a useful tool I might use in the future when cases arise. It has been added. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The misleading edit summaries are continuing [107] [108] [109] [110]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have left a final warning and clearly stated that they are being disruptive [111]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm yes, edits have resumed and still no sign of communication... —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

User:Jeffman12345 persistent block evasion, rapid disruption

• Jeffman12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been IP hopping and causing massive disruption to many pages. Many of his edit summaries are similar. We need an edit filter to circumvent his edits. Also, a lot of his edits appear to be done by proxies. funplussmart (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And yes, I do know about WP:DENY; I only posted this here because it needed the urgent attention of admins. funplussmart (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It may be worth considering an edit filter, but at this point just blocking the IPs as they appear may be sufficient. Even the densest vandals who do this recognize fairly soon how much of their time they are wasting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

About the edit filter, I requested one at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Jeffman filter. funplussmart (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OH yeah that one *yawn*. Thanks for requesting the filter. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Good. I've been blocking the creations in the meantime :-)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have noticed this as well. His "father" has been asking for him. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be getting quite a lot of his nonsense on August 12th of the Current Events Portal' Icarosaurvus (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

His latest favorite trick is replacing Wikipedia namespace redirects with some vulgar message. Patrollers seem to be picking them up pretty quickly, but special attention needed to these? David Brooks (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

IOnlyKnowFiveWords and United States presidential election, 2020

IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm tired of IOnlyKnowFiveWords's ownership and incompetence at United States presidential election, 2020. They insist on maintaining galleries of "potential candidates" and using (what I feel is) a ridiculous set of rules to include dozens and dozens of people. An RFC I opened on that page has not yet been closed, but I felt there was a consensus the existing state of the page was not good, and yet IOnlyKnowFiveWords continues their pedantic behavior; is it really necessary to note that gadfly Rocky de la Fuente is a candidate for Senate in 7 states? [112]. Or to include Cecile Richards based on [113] (which merely states she might run for any political office) diff but exclude Eric Swalwell diff (the Des Moines register saying he might run for President, as context for his speech at the Iowa State Fair)? And the gallery? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I mean, for the record, all I'm doing is upholding the rules that were set by consensus before I even started editing there. I didn't make any of these rules, I just follow them. They're posted in each category of the article. When someone adds a potential candidate with only one source when it clearly states that at least two are required to be included, I remove them. Similarly, I will undo any attempt to delete the gallery without a consensus. I've always said that if you don't like these rules, to obtain a consensus to change them, which you are already in the process of doing. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of the additions have now been removed, and the onus is on editors who wish to add material to seek consensus at the talk page, not on those removing it. So do not edit war to reinstate that material, but instead discuss it at the article talk page and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Just passing by to comment that one user has recently re-added the deleted content by threatening to report and ban anyone who dare to delete it ([114]). Checking from the user's contributions history as well as the page's history itself, it looks like they are one of those who had been adding more and more candidates to the lists throughout the past months. Impru20^talk 15:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment having dealt with "Consensus required" at Donald Trump, I don't believe it works that way. Removals as well as additions should find consensus, unless the material being removed obviously violate WP:BLP or something. Removing the statement that Donald Trump is running for President doesn't meet that threshold. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The material removed blatantly violated multiple policies, and consensus is not required to remove policy-violating material, so, yes, you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Article was a complete disaster

United States presidential election, 2020 almost entirely consisted of violations of CRYSTAL, WEIGHT, OR, SYNTH and POV. There doesn;t need to be a consensus for removing policy-violating marerial. I have removed all those elements -- not that I think for a moment it will last. It was truly a piece of dreck, and if the editor reported here is responsible for it, they should be blocked until after the election. Tjis is not someone's personal political blog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, in addition to big "Potential candidates" sections (based, at least as far as a brief inspection suggests, on any kind of media speculation the author could find), there were huge lists of... "The individuals in this section have been the subject of speculation about their possible candidacy, but have publicly denied interest in running". Thanks for the pruning, Beyond My Ken, I'll watchlist it too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going to object to the giant box for the pro wrestler "candidate", but then I remembered that Jesse Ventura was governor of Minnesota, and a bankrupt reality star is president of the United States, so I thought, "Who am I to judge?" EEng 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thank you. The Moose 01:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected

OK, I hate to have to treat people like children, but people are acting like arguing children and edit warring over this article. So I have fully protected it, and how long that lasts will depend on how quickly the participants can grow up, discuss it on the talk page, and seek consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that I withdraw all opinions on the content, and I've probably protected it at a state that I personally like least, but I don't care about that. All I care about is stopping experienced editors acting like disruptive ignorant newbies - come on, you *all* know that edit warring is not the solution! If any other admin disagrees, they are, as always, welcome to act as they see fit without needing my approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the article is under a "1RR, consensus needed to restore a revert". My edits, made consecutively, constitute a single edit for the purpose of counting reverts. The restorations of that material were all made without a consensus to do so, so they are all invalid, and in violation of the DS sanction.

I appreciate the protection of the article, which was appropriate, and understand that full protection is always of the "wrong version" (to someone), but in this case, the restorations were violations of Discretionary Sanctions, so an administrator should edit through protection to remove the material again to uphold DS and policy. Once there is a consensus on the talk page (if there is q consensus on the talk page) the material can be restored, but not until then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The restriction is: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." Your initial edit was challenged by Rhian2040, so consensus would be required for reinstating your removals. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the sanction is:

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.
• Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
• This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions: All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

The purpose of the sanction is not to protect the status quo version of the article, the purpose is to discourage edit warring. When two editors restored my reverts, they were violating the sanction. The edits should be reversed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CRP:

Editor1 removes longstanding portion of text; Editor2 reverts, re-adding the text; Editor1 now needs to gain consensus on the article talk page for the re-removal of the text.

Editor1 is you; editor2 is Rhian2040. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The purpose is indeed to stop edit warring, but what I meant to say is that in doing so the restriction favours the status quo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

But in this case the material removed was in blatant violation of SYNTH, CRYSTAL, NPOV, OR, and other policies, including, possibly, BLP. That changes the status of the status quo version, and makes the restoration of it inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be a separate issue. You were first claiming that consensus was required to remove your edits because your edits counted as reverts. While I don't deal with discretionary sanctions or revert issues much at all, I agree with Galobtter interpretation that this isn't a sane interpretation, nor is it supported by normal practice. If you are removing content some of which has been there probably for several months this is not a revert but an edit. I'm fairly sure this is how it would be interpreted at ANEW for example in a typical 3RR case. Therefore consensus is required to restore your edits as they have been challenged via reversion. As for your new point, no where does it say, "except when it's a blatant violation" of any of those. And I'm sure for good reason, otherwise when there is any dispute one editor will simply say it's the case and the purpose of the policy goes to hell. The only one that is relevant is BLP, since BLP trumps all others but it needs to be a clear cut BLP vio not just 'possibly'. Otherwise in cases where there are clear problems it shouldn't be hard to reach consensus there are problems and in the meantime the problems aren't so urgent that they are worth destroying some fragile peace. Note that I actually largely agree with your edits, but they are edits nevertheless and so they require consensus per the discretionary sanctions you quoted. Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The page probably shouldn't be full-protected indefinitely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Admin WOSlinker's bot-like editing

People with older pages on their watchlists will probably have noticed WOSlinker (talk · contribs) making a larger number of bot-like edits fixing incorrect HTML tagging. Their contribution history is full of such edits, rapidly making repetitive edits to a lot of pages. I asked them on their talk page on July 17 to get a bot account and SmokeyJoe did so as well on August 4, but they did not address these concerns but rather continued unabated, so I'd like some more input. I know WP:MEATBOT does not consider fast editing itself a problem but this has been going on for weeks now and is becoming really disruptive because I cannot filter out these edits like I could bot edits. Regards SoWhy 17:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• It’s true. Mentioned here: User_talk:WOSlinker#Human_or_bot?. User:WOSlinker is doing a lot of bot-like edits. Fixing old bad fixes to signature html tags I checked in some cases. He should use an alt-bot account to do these things. We can ask him to. Next a sledgehammer to crack a nut? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Noting the (recently) approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Ahechtbot covers many of the signature fixes WOSlinker does, and the at BRFA Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Galobot fixes similar errors for <s>, <b> etc, the same as WOSlinker does. WOSlinker probably should get a bot account for many of the fixes.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed. He should stop editing and either create a bot himself or have one of the many available bots handle it. If he continues to ignore requests, he should be blocked, admin or not, until he decides to participate with the rest of the community. Nihlus 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't have much of a problem with this FWIW, and would oppose a sanction that would require WOSlinker stop editing without a more thorough exploration of what's going on/what the options are. This thread only caught my eye because I've seen these edits recently, too. I've also had occasion to look at some old archives recently and find massive blocks of text struckthrough, smalltext, italicized, colored, etc. because of broken signatures. It's dreadful to try to read, so I consider these edits an unambiguous help. Yes it would be ideal if he/she created a bot, but that's pretty far outside of a lot of people's comfort zones. And if there's already a bot that could do this, then it's a non-issue. There are a whole lot of people that make tons of AWB edits or other kinds of semi-automated edits that many of us would rather not see in our watchlist, but as long as they're positive contributions I say just let them be. WOSlinker does tick the "minor edit" box, so anyone looking for a way to filter out inconsequential edits like those do have a way to do so, just like one could filter out AWB that way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• These are utterly and totally non-controversial housekeeping edits, and I consider this report to be a triumph of WP:BURO over WP:COMMONSENSE. I think this rhread should be closed without action, with the exception of a "Well done" to WOSlinker for improving theencyclopedia and mini-trouts to SoWhy and SmokeyJoe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: No one is arguing that the edits themselves are problematic. In fact, they are quite helpful. What is problematic is the way they are done, as I explained. Many people, myself included, use their watchlist to monitor pages for problematic edits. The more edits the watchlist displays, the harder it is to spot such edits. At the time of this comment, my watchlist displays 403 non-bot edits, 83 of which were made by WOSlinker. That means 20.5% of all edits I have to check on my watchlist are not worth checking (or, phrased differently, WOSlinker increases the size of my watchlist by 25%) but I have no easy way to filter those edits out because WOSlinker, despite multiple editors expressing concern, is unwilling to use a secondary account with a bot-flag to make those edits (which, as Nihlus points out, is quite possible). So no, this is not a WP:BURO violation because one of the reasons we have a dedicated bot-fag is that mass edits of the same kind should be relegated to bot-accounts because they can be filtered out, thus making editing easier for all involved. Regards SoWhy 08:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Your fellow editors who happen to be LGBTQXYZ robots would appreciate your avoiding use of such terms as bot-fag. EEng 12:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• People may not be aware of the massive WP:Linter project regarding a change to how pages are rendered and the need to make thousands of repairs. Is anyone suggesting WOSlinker's edits should not be performed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: I was one of the few people who began fixing linter errors, so I am aware myself. That being said, I used a bot (NihlusBOT, Task 2) because that is WP:COMMONSENSE. No one is saying these edits shouldn't be made; that actually hasn't been said anywhere in this thread. Nihlus 05:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  If they are running a bot, sure. If they are doing it especially manually or even semi-manually, then I do not see a problem unless the changes themselves are inappropriate (which no has claimed). Editors are not required to use a bot to make these kind of fixes nor should they be. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  The problem is explained above by SoWhy. This is often a situation that comes up with the users who have 500,000+ edits. They feel compelled to make thousands upon thousands of edits that could be easily handled by a bot. Using a bot allows people to ignore the bot like edits in their watchlists without sacrificing the ability to view other edits. Additionally, these users have a tendency to ignore concerns brought up to them by the community, and even then, feel that others should merely accept what they do. I mean, there are reasons cases like this have reached Arbcom's desk. Nihlus 05:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Likely related to mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy. This work needs done and their fixes seem good. No objection from me due to the circumstances. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Cluttered watchlists do not concern me and I do not find generalizing user characteristics (and arguing a slippery slope to a certain extent) to be helpful. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Cluttered watchlists obviously concern some people as demonstrated here. Just because you don't see it as a problem doesn't mean it isn't one for someone else. Nihlus 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • The tangible benefit of the fixes in question, by whatever means, far outweighs superficial lists. Furthermore, the concern of cluttered lists is on the same level as the inconvenience of having one's contribution history split between multiple accounts, except that the former is temporary while the latter is permanent. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• My edits are either fully manual (mainly the ones that are not editing font tags) or are using some search and replace (mainly the ones editing font tags) followed by manual checking to see if the page looks ok. I have reduced the volume of edits after the messages on my talk page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @WOSlinker: If the edits are mostly search and replace, why can't this be handled by a bot? Regards SoWhy 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Possibly "followed by manual checking to see if the page looks ok". Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  To reduce watchlist issues, I could edit just the archived pages for the next few months (which are generally not watched as much) and then look at the other pages after that if they still need doing. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @WOSlinker: Can you answer his first question? If the edits are mostly search and replace, why can't this be handled by a bot? Thanks. Nihlus 09:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Because it does not have to be. Editors are free to spend their time editing as they wish, without regard to efficiency, as long as it does not conflict with established guidelines or policies. Bots are complicated (e.g. they require some technical knowledge to set up) while the editor running the bot still bears responsibility for edits made that they have less control over and likely, at some level, ability to scrutinize. I would encourage WOSlinker to continue fixing as many of these nasty errors as they desire however they wish, and, in fact, I may join in on the endeavor. Those who feel this sort of work should be done by bot are free to complete it that way before those doing it manually get to it. They will likely outpace those doing it manually manyfold and clear the backlog quickly, hopefully, but doubtfully, with as much accuracy. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, a number of those edits can be done by a bot. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Then maybe you can agree to leave those edits to a bot to handled? Maybe Nihlus can help you with that seeing as they already have knowledge of similar tasks and a bot account? Regards SoWhy 12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just because something can be done by bot, does not mean it should or has to be. Alternatively, you could simply learn to cope with a more crowded watchlist or, if it truly bothers you enough, de-watchlist some pages. Quite frankly, the more and more I ponder such a complaint the more ridiculous it becomes to me; perhaps it can be chalked up to us all using our watchlists in vastly different manners. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Godsy: De-watchlisting pages kinda defeats the purpose of having pages watchlisted, doesn't it? The question I posit is instead this: If the same task can be done by a bot with the added benefits of the bot-flag, i.e. the ability to hide those edits from NPP and watchlists, why not do it? Or, asked another way, if one knows that a certain kind of editing bothers other editors and there is a way to make those edits that does not bother other editors, what is gained by not using that way? Regards SoWhy 18:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken and Nigel Ish make good points semi-regarding that question below. Additionally, if we start requiring traditionally appropriate edits to be carried out by bot, when will the "bot creep" end? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  We should never sacrifice accuracy because somebody complains about their watchlist! Such an idea undermines wikipedia. Close the thread and salt. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RichardWeiss: Where is accuracy being sacrificed? Nihlus 19:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  In not checking each edit. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• WOS should not be discouraged from fixing old font problems. Today I have only five such edits on my watchlist. WOS should be asked to create and use a WOSbot account to do these many rapid near-identical edits, even if they are done manually. These edits choke watchlists, and no one is seriously going to check them, which is why there is the Bot Policy, is it not? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the bot policy exists to regulate automation, not manual (or some semi-manual actions) at high speed or volume. That aside, I doubt the bot flag would be granted the alternate account of someone who does not wish to run a bot. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wants to do bot-like editing, but without bot policy compliant rigor, checks and justifications? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Manual or semi-manual work is not vetted that way. There is universal agreement so far in this thread that the fixes themselves are correct. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• WOSlinker is to be commended for contributing so much of his time and effort to fixing errors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  And I'll add that I've got over 18,000 pages on my watchlist and I haven' been overwhelmed by his edits. DuncanHill (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• While I also commend WOSlinker's contributing to WP's accuracy, I looked at a very small sample of edits and saw that the missing closing font tags were in other users' sigs, presumably entered with four tildes. @WOSlinker: Do you alert those users? If not, the infection will continue. David Brooks (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• My understanding of the purpose of having a bot policy is that (1) It helps to guarantee that bots work, (2) It helps to guarantee that the bot operator knows how to use the bot without causing disruptions, and (3) It approves the task that the bot is intended to do. I don't recall that part of its purpose was to force editors who have no interest or expertise in running bots to run a bot when the edits can be done manually. If, for instance, it was myself making the edits that WOSlinker is making, I couldn't write a bot to save my mife, and am not certain that I would be comfortable even running a bit if someone else was to write one -- this is why 99.99% of my edits are manual ones, and not even semi-automated. (I've been here for 12 years and I just added Twinkle about a month ago.) I really don't understand why the complainants would want to force someone to use a bot who doesn't want to run one, at the cost of not having the useful edits they are making being done. It's only COMMONSENSE for the task to be done with a bot if one is competent or interested in running a bot, otherwise, common sense says it's better to have the edits made rather than to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mife noun. A man-wife, common in rural Ireland and Scotland, also India, although most of India is rural anyway.[115]

So after all this time I finally understand when they say "I now pronounce you man and wife." EEng 05:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• WOSlinker should be commended for the work that they do and they certainly have my blessing to continue with this, I will admit I do dislike edits like this purely because I see it as "meddling" with old stuff but on the other hand from my understanding in years to come unclosed tags do, can and will cause a lot of problems so whilst I'm not a fan as such I'm still all for them doing this much needed work, Carry on I say. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm willing to suspend my editing of lint errors for a couple of months so that bots can do the work. After that, I'll come back and look at the ones which the bots have not done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Godsy and Beyond My Ken: You realize that WOSlinker uses a fairly advanced script, right? Writing the code like that is 90% of setting up a bot, so comments such as Bots are complicated and It's only COMMONSENSE for the task to be done with a bot if one is competent or interested in running a bot seem out of place and show a lack of understanding on your part, not WOSlinker's. Additionally, people have complained about a bot clogging up the watchlist, so I can assure you that having a normal user clog up watchlists is problematic. Again, we have bots for a reason. Nihlus 19:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was going to close this with mostly this comment, but leaving it as a note for discussion instead. As WOSlinker has "suspend[ed] ...editing of lint errors" this should be closed. WOSlinker should continue to edit freely and making these types of edits in general incidental to other edits or at low speed/low volume are in no way an issue. WOSlinker, I suggest you register User:WOSlinkerBot and file a BRFA for "manual" operations - assuming your task is "manual", "using webui" I'd be fairly supportive of a wide scope such as "High Priority Special:LintErrors" (of which there are currently over 4 million). Running with a bot flag basically eliminates the "flooding recentchanges/watchlists" arguments. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Many of these Lint errors make talk pages and the like unreadable - we should be doing everything to fix these errors as soon as possible - not whinging and complaining about it. Discussion on Village Pump Technical indicates that it is very difficult to get permission for a bot to fix these errors.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nigel Ish: Can I have a link to that discussion? Because I got my bot to make about 30,000 corrections, and it took no time at all to get it approved. Thanks. Nihlus 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Section_break_for_continuing_bot-centered_linting_discussion - note the statement by one editor that they tried to get Bot approval and gave up and from another editor that nothing moves fast with Bot approvals.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • So it's basically anecdotal and a task that was approved within a week. That is hardly a difficult process. Nihlus 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

So we had a user willing to do the tedious task of fixing a bunch errors, and willing to do an awful lot of it. But he/she did too much work fixing those problems (5 hours just yesterday, from the looks of it), so rather than ignore those edits or suppress minor edits on a watchlist until that job is done, we ask that the process be terminated so that we can watch those pages without fixing them, in the hopes that someone else will do the work in a way that makes it so we don't have to suppress minor edits or just ignore the edits. I get being frustrated when power users full a watchlist, but this is actually important stuff WOSlinker is doing. He/she isn't "fixing" hyphens and em dashes or removing spaces at the end of paragraphs, but making old pages usable. Unless someone is prepared to propose a sanction somehow, I would encourage WOSlinker not to slow down unless he/she wants a break for other reasons. If a bot comes along to do the same job, then there would be no need for WOSlinker to, but until then fixing pages is better than not fixing pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

fixing pages is better than not fixing page Better watch it, friend, that kind of talk can get you in deep, deep trouble in these here parts. I mean, it's not like we have a policy that says that improving Wikipedia outranks following rules, is it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur, though that is probably obvious from my comments above. WOSlinker deserves praise both for the work they have done and the outstanding level of civility they have maintained throughout the course of this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, I feel the same. The people complaining about this seem to have forgotten that one can simply suppress minor edits, and WOSlinker is undeniably improving the encyclopedia. I feel that those irritated by someone not using their preferred method to improve things (bots) should be invited to take time off, drink a cup of tea, and think about the fact they are complaining about someone making pages readable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps (assuming there's no real urgency) if he/she could just slow down and spread the fixes over the next month or so, people wouldn't feel flooded. EEng 02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  The sooner the pages are rendered readable, the better. I think we should accept as much of this work as they are willing to contribute; open the floodgates! — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  But are all the issues "readability" issues? I'm guessing the issues range from critical to mere formalisms. Why not prioritize them and spread out the lower priority ones at suggested. EEng 02:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  When I checked, I say yes, they are readability issues, but they are readability issues on pages without pageviews. It can wait a day or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Above, User:Xaosflux, 19:22, 12 August 2018, offers what I think looks like the most on-point suggestion. Create a bot account. Get it flagged. Do all the excellent edits without further bureaucratic delay. The compliance with bot policy, which includes for high speed assisted bot-like edits, is important for a number reasons. These include: double checking that the massive amounts of edits are indeed a good idea; not swamping old page watchers watchlists; providing a good example to other editors who may choose to follow WOSlinker's example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that may be the core of this issue. Do the actions in question conflict with or fall under the prerogative of the bot policy? Some users seem to think so while others do not. If WOSlinker wants to voluntarily do what you suggest, that is fine. But they should not be compelled to. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It seems to me this is approaching it from the wrong way. Wikipedia:BOTASSIST specifically says

        "Assisted editing" covers the use of tools which assist with repetitive tasks, but do not alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. Examples of this include correcting typographical errors, fixing links to disambiguation pages, reverting vandalism, and stub sorting.

        While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request; see Approval above. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, are more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes.

        Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired. They may wish to create a separate user account in order to do so; such accounts should adhere to the policy on multiple accounts. Contributors using assisted editing tools may wish to indicate this, if it is not already clear, in edit summaries and/or on the user page or user discussion page of the account making the contributions.

        No where does it say there needs to be consensus that there is doubt. It seems clear however that there is doubt, but enough editors that an approval request "should" be made. The BAG will determine whether the approval process is needed. I don't understand the point of the BAG if we don't trust them to make the decision whether bot approval is needed and are instead going to waste our time arguing on ANI whether it's needed. Especially when we are already telling people to seek approval when there is doubt, and there clearly is doubt even if there is no consensus whether there is doubt or whatever way you feel is the right way to express this situation. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

        • I'd note that I agree with what someone said above that while this opposition to seeking approval seems to be because it's an onerous process no real evidence seems to have been provided of this. In the discussion highlighted (now Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 167#Section break for continuing bot-centered linting discussion) the editor who is making these edits suggested it would not have been allowed in the past even though this goes against what the policy actually says. No evidence has been provided that I've seen of anyone actually tried before.

          The only evidence of someone trying seems to be recently and while I can understand that editor's frustrations, I also agree that one week and the evidence required doesn't seem that onerous. Maybe most importantly, AFAICT it remains unclear that the BAG will even feel this needs approval.

          Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for everyone involved. But at the same time, this doesn't mean I should accept stuff claimed without evidence. If someone actually tries and the process is unreasonable, I think we have major problems that need to be fixed so it would be good if this can be brought the communities attention since it's a major problem.

          But in the absence of evidence, I suspect more likely it's just a misunderstanding, like it appears the view that this would not have been allowed prior to RemexHtml replacing HTML Tidy is also AFAICT a misunderstanding. It would be better if anyone who wants to help realises that it's a misunderstanding since it means now and in the future they can help without this dumb fuss since they can avail the processes we have already created including to decide whether BAG is even needed.

          Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

219.88.78.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

---

Hello, I spotted this message on the recent changes list earlier today. Didn't understand it at first but it looks like ongoing harassment by a vandal attacking site members including Spike 'em and Blue Square Thing. Seems to be the same as 203.97.172.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a couple of weeks ago and probably 111.69.91.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too (on Blue Square Thing's talk page).

1726 English cricket season was vandalised by 203.97.172.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) but Blue Square Thing did some work on it afterwards. I think it still needs attention, certainly for a loose link, but I'd prefer an admin to look at it first as I'm not sure what should be restored and what shouldn't. Don't know if anything can be done about the IP addresses except perhaps block the one in use today. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

In general the edits on cricket season articles by the IP are reasonable in my view. A lot of these articles are really weak in terms of the ways in which they are written and are often no more that a bunch of stats. I've worked on a few of them, but it would be more likely to be a case of what should be removed rather than restored. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: okay, that's fair enough if you're happy with the end-result. The one thing I'm not sure about is this removal of text which has left the source name in there as a loose link. The text was sourced so should it be restored or should the name be removed too? Just out of interest to me as a history buff, is that piece true about the Riot Act being read at a cricket match? How reliable is the source? Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We've fixed that article now. Buckley is apparently a good source but the Dartford CC site wasn't good for that article. This leaves the question of vandalism by the IP, even if some of his edits are acceptable. Can an admin please take the necessary action? Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. Surprised to see this is still open with no action against the IP who has twice been active again since this case was opened. Please see this and [ https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_County_Cricket_Club_in_2018&diff=prev&oldid=854711168 this]. He has even resorted to "outing" by naming his target. I'm a little concerned that the target is so tolerant here and not taking direct action to protect himself and the site. Can someone please intervene and block the IP? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, blocked 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Q

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

---

After the user ignores the decision on the talk page and keeps reverting, how to proceed? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of User:PsychopathicAssassin and have blocked that person indefinitely based on a pattern of disruptive editing including edit warring, obnoxious insults, adding Good article tags to unreviewed articles, copyvios, use of unreliable sources, and so on. Several previous short term blocks did not end the disruption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Massive ongoing page-move vandalism

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

---

• Special:Contributions/AirplaneHijackHacker

This account has already been reported to AIV, but this is urgent because there is a massive mess ongoing. This account is going on a spree of page-move vandalism at the Damned disambiguation page (which I fixed) and Bad words and Bad words (disambiguation) (ongoing at the time of this post). Can an admin please help with the ongoing Bad words page-move vandalism cleanup? Several pages left behind from redirects from all of this have been tagged for speedy deletion as well. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this user while using Huggle. First off, I reported his username at WP:UAA because it may be seen as offensive. Second, he is in WP:AIV. Third, he is a suspected sock of User:SpicyCrazyJerk. I request an indef block. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by User:TonyBallioni. I think I've cleaned up the page-move vandalism that was happening at Bad words. Would like someone to check for me. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Should I start a Sockpuppet investigation to see if the user is related to SpicyCrazyJerk? Abequinn14 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No, there is one already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PornSexAssButtPiss. You can comment there. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Did anybody have an experience with User:Kalamarnica?

The user mainly inserts the template "Historical affiliations" (styled as a quote box) to the articles. I recently got dozens of such edits on my watchlist such as this or this. Whereas I believe there are issues with the info the user adds in these templates (it is not sourced, usually not derived from the articles, and I see some errors and also some selectivity), these issues could have been discussed. The main problem is that they have never been discussed in the first place, and I have never seen any consensus that the templates should at all be added in the articles. I went to the talk page of the user and found my own message left three years ago which the user simply ignored [116]. I left another one [117] which the user ignored as well and continued adding the templates. Today I got this edit on my wacthlist which, among others, adds unsourced info to the article, and I am not sure this info is actually correct. The user produced dozens of such edits per day and apparently never edited their own talk page. I would think a mass revert would be in order, but I am obviously interested in opinions of other users how this problem can be solved. Thank you for the advise.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, second submission

Originally submitted 3 August 2018, resubmitted on advice of admin Yunshui see: Can someone please deal with my ANI? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite numerous requests to get User:Qexigator to discuss his edits in relation to WP:UNDUE he has refused to do so. I took the matter to DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#"Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" section - WP:UNDUE) whose conclusion included:

• Qexigator's uncivil remarks in a passive aggressive manner discuss the contributor and not the contribution and amount to little more than saying the other editor is being disruptive however, there is no evidence of disruption.

and

• it's an uncivil and passive aggressive tactic to use your own words against you in this particular manner and is deflecting away from the actual argument...that it's undue weight to section off this small amount of almost unrelated content.

As a result I politely repeated my original questions and specifically reminded him to discuss the contribution and not myself diff. I also pinged other major contributors to the article to gather additional viewpoints.

In response User:Qexigator has now posted this:

• Given AGF, I am unable to see what is TVF's problem here. Contributors pinged by TVF, and others interested in npov editing of the content and arrangement of the article for the better information of its visitors, are invited to note reply above (in versions before and after TVF's invocation of "dispute" resolution) as sufficient for the purposes of improving the article. diff

again discussing me rather than his contribution and implying that I am not interested in NPOV, and in removing a thread (which he opened) on his talk page diff his edit summary says, rmv previous (TVF incursion). - definition of incursion.

Please note this matter was previously subject to a 3RR report: 3RRArchive372#User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale).

Additional info: These threads may also be informative Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#Avoid POV promoting campaign for a second vote and Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Genesis and branding of the Brexit and, as background to both of those, Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated: And now User:Qexigator is insulting me behind my back - an unduly uptight or humourless person (unlike the equable undersigned) might take offence, as if it were a "Personal attack" and persist with pointlessly vendetta-like conduct diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Just spotted this as well: Edit summary comment, in reference to me undue iteration diff. Definition of iteration --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said to you before, "deal with it." This disruptive multiple repetition of something admins clearly consider too petty to bother with makes you look foolish. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well Yunshui clearly feels that it should be re-raised, and I'm very unimpressed with some of Qexigator's comments as well (basically referring to every edit they don't agree with as "disruptive" or "not an improvement"); however, most of this is stale, including the edit-war, and Qexigator hasn't edited for four days. A warning not to belittle other editors and to discuss changes civilly would probably be enough here, I think. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Well, I concur with Roxy's common sense advice above. The other editors of the article evidently accept that the complainant's edit was not an improvement, and reading the entire series of comments in context and in sequence will make it self-evident that the complaint is groundless, there is no case to answer, the complaint should be re-closed, and there should be an end to the complainant's trouble-making conduct in further hassling the party complained of namely.... Qexigator (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party (Romania)

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

---

Please take a look. – Kaihsu (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added temporary semi-protection to the article due to the ongoing vandalism and disruptive editing. Kaihsu, what other issues need to be looked at specifically? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, @Oshwah: and me protect-conflicted, and I gave a one day longer protection. I can shorten it if judged too long.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Nah, your duration is fine. No big deal :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Shackleton edit war

My decision to lock Ernest Shackleton until consensus is demonstrated on talk, rather than blocking an edit warrior, is being called into question at Talk:Ernest Shackleton#July 2018 - Infobox wording edit war. Could another admin take a look at the article, and the EWN discussion I closed, and see if you think it's better handled differently? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• IMO, you should have issued an edit warring block to Mike Galvin and been done with it, instead of protecting the page against a single edit warrior editing against consensus. (Edited to add that a month protection is truly over the top here. If you wanted ot go the protection rather than blocking route, 24 hours to get people's attention would have done the trick, at which point you could liberally block edit warriors. Courcelles (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)) Courcelles (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  I would say protection is not unreasonable given that there were IP edits as well last week. I would probably still block the editor for overstepping 3RR and not protect the page at this point, though I am surprised nobody issues a warning to the editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  They were warned over this issue, last month. At this point I'm willing to issue a NOTHERE/CIR block to Mike Galvin. 30 edit accounts should not be causing this much disruption. Courcelles (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right. It is a pity since they probably intended to contribute to encyclopedia, but CIR seems to be a serious issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  If the consensus had been clearly defined on talk, instead of hammered out through long-term edit warring, I could have enforced that, but there was no single place I could point to and go "See, it was discussed and decided here". Lacking that, I was hoping we could settle it now, instead of leaving it open edit warring in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place. There was no intention to start an Edit War or to offend, but the word Ireland followed by the ridiculous qualifier, "then part of the United Kingdom" is not used in connection with, say, Oscar Wilde or Beckett, Swift, etc, etc - men largely associated with the UK/ Europe, despite being born in Ireland. The fact that pre-Independence Ireland was "part" of the UK (the term, Ireland, United Kingdom was not used, even then) is irrelevant to the subject matter, surely. Shackleton was an explorer, not a Prime Minister. Duncan Hill accuses me of being an "Irish nationalist".(?). Nothing could be further from the truth, but I do dislike blatant politicisation, which is all this is. The term has no correlation anywhere else on Wikipedia. With good reason, I imagine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Galvin (talk • contribs)

@Mike Galvin: you should post that to the article's talk page. If other people agree with you, you'll have consensus for your edit. Repeatedly reverting people is against Wikipedia's rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Constant distortion of Sikhism pages

Constantly articles related to Sikhism are being degraded and referenced content with large amounts of information removed like here by a select group of people. This account be people mixed up in the scheme. They try to keep any articles that progressed back to a previous "stable" state they say. All I would like is to either ban them straight or put a warning to no longer remove any referenced content if done again they will be banned. If they have opposing views to the content they are free to add them but this constant removing of referenced content with no punishments is unsettling.

Overall the simple history of Guru Arjan is being told as something complex and unagreed upon which does not match with any of mainstream British, Punjabi, Arab, or modern sources of Guru Arjan's simple martyrdom for the past 300 years. The user has made many degrading contributions to articles on Sikhism if more evidence is needed I can pull up more tell the pattern becomes clear. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Since the title of your ANI notification thread on Ms Sarah Welch's talkpage is Hope to ban this account soon, I submit that your edits and your behavior is going to be heavily scrutinized in this ANI thread. See WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Jujhar.pannu, I can see that you had some interactions with Ms Sarah Welch going back two years, but I don't see any evidence that you have tried to resolve any recent disputes before bringing the issue here. In fact, you've hardly edited at all recently. Am I missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• The complaint is at two levels. One apparently generic and long term, with "Constantly articles related to Sikhism are being degraded and referenced content with large amounts of information removed". Another is the specific allegation about the Guru Arjan article. I briefly address both and add a note from history:

• To the generic part, if I remember right, my first interactions with Jujhar.pannu go back to the Sikhism section of the Bhakti movement article about 2.5 years ago. As explained therein, Jujhar.pannu was removing scholarly sources such as here and showing a pattern of disruptive behavior. During a week of discussions, newly created accounts such as "Kigman fs" jumped in and started supporting Jujhar.pannu (some of these accounts got blocked or have been dormant since). I repeatedly asked Jujhar.pannu, with edit diffs, why they keep deleting peer-reviewed scholarly sourced content. I received no constructive replies, received only vague claims. The admins may wish to seek @RexxS: input as well, and he intervened, tried to understand and help the article with multiple posts back in March 2016. FWIW, RexxS reverted to my sourced version, concluded that Jujhar.pannu was indeed deleting sourced content, and expressed his concerns about the "edit-warring and sock-puppetry". After RexxS's comprehensive reply on the talk page, the article returned to an older stable scholarly sourced version. In summary, during the older dispute, Jujhar.pannu behavior was disruptive.
• To the specific part, i.e. the Guru Arjan article. It underwent a series of 22 edits in recent months by hopping IPs 2001:569:7cb2:7c00:*:*:*:* (from this to this) most without any edit summaries. These edits were also unusual in their rapid pace with some edits showing 1 to 2-minute gaps. I, therefore, reviewed the edits more closely. The edits re-arranged some long-standing content, added content from questionable advocacy group SPS-type sources such as SPCK, Delhi here. The substantial changes ignored the consensus reached previously on the talk page for the Martyrdm section with JimRenge, Apuldram etc participating. The IP's edits also added content such as "The Guru was made to seat [sic] on a hot plate, boiling water had hot sand poured on him" here which is inflammatory and unencyclopedic. There is abundant peer-reviewed scholarship on Guru Arjan's torture, and the article already summarized that aspect after talk page discussion, along with content in the quality sources such as this. But, we need to think a bit before summarizing gruesome inflammatory content and be confident that multiple peer-reviewed scholarly sources are stating something before we make an attempt to be WP:Comprehensive. The changes the IP made seemed not to reflect quality peer-reviewed scholarly consensus such as the fact that we do not know "how the Guru died" after he was arrested by the Muslim emperor (see Pashaura Singh (2005), Understanding the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan, JPS 12:1, page 39, Quote: "(...) early Sikh sources do not tell us much about the manner in which the Guru died and the causes of his death (...) whether it occurred by torture, execution, or drowning in the Ravi river"). For all such reasons, I reversed the edits in good faith.
• FWIW, admin Bishonen gave the following final warning to Jujhar.pannu in March 2016.

I am baffled by Jujhar.pannu complaint given their editing history since RexxS intervened in early March 2016. Jujhar.pannu made a total of 11 edits in 29 months including this ANI complaint (more if they have editing using IPs or other undisclosed accounts). Jujhar.pannu has not provided edit diffs and no recent attempts to discuss anything on an article's talk page with me or whoever is referred to with the "a select group of people" phrase in the opening lines of this complaint. I do not understand why Jujhar.pannu would "hope to ban this [my] account soon" or worse, "ban them [whoever along with me] straight". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: You would do well to realize that content creation is not privileged over content removal. Getting rid of bad content is just as important to building an encyclopedia as adding good content. Generally, administrators police editor behavior, and do not care whose version of an article is superior, or has better sources. Requesting that administrators use their powers to enforce your preferences and ban people who disagree betrays a deep misunderstanding about how Wikipedia functions. If you continue to edit with this attitude, you are going to have a bad time. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Main issue is removal of referenced high quality content not only by me but dare I say it hundreds of others.

Even the talk page of the article is filled with examples of these few who hold up progressing article changes. Easy for any true moderators out there anyone basically who supports Ms Sarah Welch should be scrutinized. The comments above here seem to come from people that link to Indian and Sikh Articles but besides Ms Sara Welch are not the main accounts responsible.

I am very open to discussing with anyone who has a positive outlook, is truthful in their editing, does not have a obviously distorting nature, is open to discussing points rather than criticizing me however sorry but I refuse to talk to such people how make false claims as it is a waste of time nothing they say is true. Eg look at the above quote that Ms Sarah Welch wrote where it says I wrote this "The Guru was made to seat [sic] on a hot plate, boiling water had hot sand poured on him" and compare it to what I wrote in the the article "He was made to sit on a hot plate, and had boiling water and hot sand poured on him." I did not add such content I know how to spell sit. @Softlavender: your tone of voice here is not acceptable. It is pointless arguing with people who should be banned. Wikipedia has a clear policy on people who remove referenced content. Administrators please do aid in this it would be a massively good deed and help out Wikipedia a lot. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

1. On 25 Julyopened a merge discussion, at which he is thus far the only supporter. I opposed the merge.
2. Earlier today he implemented his own suggested merge[118][119][120]
3. I reverted on the grounds that in the case of a contested merge an uninvolved closer should determine consensus[121][122][123]
4. Francis restored his own merge nevertheless[124][125][126]
5. I posted to the article talk page in the merge discussion pointing out the guidance at WP:MERGECLOSE and requesting that he seek an uninvolved closer at ANRFC[127]
6. Francis has since removed my post not once but twice[128][129]

I don't wish to rehash the arguments of the merge discussion here - regardless of the merits of merging or not merging, Francis' actions in this case were inappropriate given his involvement in the discussion. I would like to see the articles restored to their previous state pending an uninvolved closure of the merge discussion, and Francis reminded that it is not appropriate to remove comments from talk pages other than his own. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• There was never a proper WP:MERGEPROP, as tags must be at the top of both articles, and people need to !vote "Support" or "Oppose" for the proposed merger. Also, the proposal needs to be simple and brief (support or oppose rationales, or a "General Discussion" section of the merge debate, are places one can expound on one's thinking). This whole thing needs to go back to the drawing-board and start over from square one (hat or archive that old discussion). I have reverted FS and given him an edit-warring warning. Also, an uninvolved admin should probably close the next merge discussion, so there is no controversy or conflict. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• After fully investigating, I endorse Softlavender's assessment of the situation and their action: revert everything and start over with a properly formatted merge proposal. Francis Schonken has a long and troubled history of edit warring and combative behaviour. If it continues for whatever reason, he should note that in future, sanctions are likely come hard and without warning or discussion at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have also replaced Nikkimaria's comment on the article's talkpage, which FS removed twice in violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just out of curiosity, why did you leave 3 identical warnings on the talk page? One should have been enough. ansh666 03:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• They aren't identical. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I guess Ansh666's main point is that (and this is probably Twinkle's fault mostly) despite of the pages are different, there probably isn't a need for three straight edit warring templates. I don't use Twinkle, so I am not sure what is a better way; personally I would just to write it out manually in this kind of situation since Francis Schonken should clearly know that edit warring is not okay. Alex Shih (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)