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

Probable meatpuppetry, solicitations for paid editing, edit warring by Queenplz

In this ANI, I describe multiple suspicious conduct issues surrounding the Wikipedia editor, "Queenplz".

On 9 April 2020, a discussion thread was created in an Asian nationalist subreddit called "Asian Identity", in which multiple users, including one who claims to have been banned from Wikipedia, solicited help to edit Wikipedia articles, which they said were being edited by white supremacists.

Google archive of suspicious Reddit thread:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2JLU3Pb2MFEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Removeddit archive of suspicious Reddit thread, in which usernames are visible:

http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

^ As we see in the link, the creator of the thread wanted help regarding a dispute between Qiushufang and Gun Powder Ma. And in the comments section, one user solicits help regarding the Genghis Khan article, because he is banned from Wikipedia, and in his opinion, the "physical appearance" section in Genghis Khan's article makes him seem like a "white dude".

A couple of hours after that Reddit thread was created, Qiushufang began making numerous edits on the "physical appearance" Genghis Khan article:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200410231336&action=history

On April 11th, YMblanter undid the damage Qiushufang did to the article, and promptly locked it:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200422014441&action=history

On April 11th, the account "Queenplz" is created:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Log/Queenplz

His April 22nd user page reads:

"Hi, I'm from the U.S and I enjoy researching about history and genetics. I promise to make a much more better efforts in contributing to wikipedia by doing extentive research and allowing everyone to review it. My goal is to present research findings to end controversial disputes in the most useful way. One of my dream is to have a source of income from wikipedia, it would mean a lot to me."

Queenplz's first edit was an edit request (again, Ymblanter had locked the Genghis Khan article) in which he casted doubt on reliably sourced information about Genghis Khan's physical appearance:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=950250931

Ever since then, he has persistently made POV edits to the "physical appearance" section of the Genghis Khan article, all revolving around sources that mention his purported reddish hair and blue-green eyes. It is clear from his edits that Queenplz is disgusted by this info, and desperately wants to make it go away; in spite of the fact that it is reliably sourced.

I propose the following:

1.) Queenplz is the individual in the reddit thread who claimed to be banned from Wikipedia, and solicited help from others to edit the Genghis Khan "physical appearance" section, and has indeed received helped from meatpuppets in attempting to censor the article.

2.) Queenplz may be receiving financial support in order to continue his edits on Wikipedia.

3.) The coincidences of his registration just hours after the reddit thread and the edit war, his obsessive focus on the Genghis Khan article from his inception, and also his solicitation for financial support, are all extremely suspicious. The odds that he is not the individual in the Reddit thread who admitted to being banned are exceedingly low. If we assume he is that individual, Queenplz is an unidentified ban evader. If we assume he is not that individual, we must assume he is one of his meatpuppets.

With such marks against the character of Queenplz, can there really be any doubt that his presence here is contraindicated? - Hunan201p (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others. This time he reported me because I reported him of doing neutral point of view (and original research) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

Unable to answer the questions I asked of him six times he decides to report me again.

Hunan201p accusations are ridicolous and always over the top, he has a strong history of edit warring and edit dispute with many editors, even against many admins and respected ones (if you want I can show a long list of disputes, arguements, threats, reports he made on admins and respected editors). He has threatened and reported respected editors and admins before but since this is about myself, I would focus only on myself.

The first time was here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang/Archive

First time he accused me to be a sockpuppet of Qiushufang , he also accused me of being Huaxia, by using his out-of-nowhere evidence of aznreddits, which I have no idea what he was talking about.

To me is very strange, he claims I was Qiufushang or that I was working for him, if that's the case why my 1st and 2nd post against him is suggesting that removes all the pictures he posted. Qiufushang was blatantly helping Hunan201p by providing evidence of pictures of Mongols with red hair (or redder than typical) with blue eyes, I removed the edits of Qiufushang and than all of sudden he reported me as his sockpuppet ( the disccusion can be seen in sockpuppet investigation ) and past history.

All his accusations about Aznreddit nonsense was already mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation of Qiufushang

Second time, he reported Shinoshijak, accused him of being warriorcreaterfighters, and later tried to link me up with being him (Hunan201, also didn't informed me), result is I'm not related to the user. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive

This time is the third time, he nows accuses me of being something else ONLY BECAUSE I reported for him for making many neutral points of views (including original research) edits on the Genghis Khan physical appearance. He cannot answer the questions I asked him for 6 times, because he knows what is he is doing is indeed original research and neutral point of view.

Why are you trying to do the same thing in the first sockpuppet inveestigation. You already accused me of being a meatpuppetry/sock puppet of Qiufushang and the others.

There are several articles about being paid to edit for clients, companies. So I edited that on April 22nd, had no idea I wasn't allow to edit it on the user's page, as I now that it encourages editors to compete.

Please stop making false accusations with such a ridicolous claim, your known for reporting everything that opposes your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others." < - This ia false. Queenplz has never been cleared of meatpuppetry, only of physical proxikitybto Qiushufang. Callanecc [1]| inconclusively closed the SPI investigation] after it received almost no input from any other admins for days, and encouraged me to post more behaviorval evidence.

Another mark on Queenplz's character is that he failed to properly notify me of his noticeboard discussion that he mentions above, but failed to provide an accurate link for. As he admits, he never notified me on my talk page of the complaint he filed against me. Another user actually did that for me, days after it was filed. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to look at this, because the talk page of the articles is several screens of mutual bad faith accusations, and all users ping me apparently thinking I am going to take their side. I can not really even understand what all of this is about.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to add, Hunan201p is engaged in an edit war on Genghis Khan. At least five artcle reversions in 24 hours.

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

I just placed a 3RR warning on their talk page [7]. I have also placed a warning on the article talk page[8]. I also warned another editor that they might have surpassed 3RR in that same paragraph. It is just I am not sure about that at the moment. Hunan201 is also on the edge of once again violating 3RR on the Yellow Emperor page

1. [9],
2. [10]
3. [11]

It looks like El C has now locked down the page (Yellow Emperor) - [12], [13]. I am uninvolved and went over to the Genghis Khan talk page and edit history to check things out based on the opening complaint. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Hunan201p has been blocked twice recently, both times for edit warring - on January 26, and January 29, 2020 [14]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Community Sanctions on pre-1800 Chinese and Mongolian History

I honestly don't know where to begin with this mess. There are too many new accounts and the issues are popping up on quite a few pages across the area of pre-1800 Chinese history. To even try to sort this out, I am proposing that we impose standard community sanctions on pre-1800 Chinese and Mongolian History. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose That's an absolutely massive span of history. It's a bit overkill for what seems to be focused attention on what looks like maybe 200 or 300 year span surrounding the Yuan dynasty, but almost solely focused on Genghis Khan and Yellow Emperor. Pre-1800s Chinese and Mongolian history covers at least 4000 years (Xia–Qing) of articles. There are serious issues here, for sure, but the scope seems too large relative to the current situation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  @MarkH21: Would you be okay with 1200 to 1400? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe. Can you give more examples of articles where there is frequent recent disruption? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  I may not be seeing the whole problem here. Wouldn't it be best just to deal with the edit warring as it happens? There was ongoing talk page conversation on the Genghis Khan talk page, although it was simultaneous with the edit warring. And then it seems a conversation began on the Yellow Emperor page after it got locked down. If it's just a couple of editors that are out of control, then I think it's best to just deal with their behavior. I haven't checked either page since, but I think it is kind of quiet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, maybe some sanctions on some pages. I just looked up this "new" editor who has Wikipedia lingo down for dealing with articles, and who has ripped through some articles claiming Fringe, NPOV, WEASEL and so on. See the contributions for the month of April [15]. Of course I guess the account was created on 7 April. If a 1RR was in place that might help. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Or even some kind of strong encouragement to discuss on talk page first before major edits and doing without the "FRINGE, NPOV, WEASEL, VANDAL and so on in the edit history. I don't know if that is possible. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  It seems to me that most of the disruption is at articles like Genghis Khan, Blond, Timur, Xianbei, and Yellow Emperor, solely revolving around the physical description of Mongolic and Chinese peoples. It seems to be a very specific issue that might benefit from some centralized discussion like an RfC. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  MarkH21 I think you have nailed it. You have defined the issue and I agree this type of editing will benefit from setting up RFCs. I wish I thought of that.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Unhelpful. This process just makes things more complicated. If users are absolutely violating policies and guidelines then they need to be blocked accordingly. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I understand the community sanctions sentiment, I think MarkH21 has defined the real problem and has suggested a workable solution. Of course, if there is something I'm not seeing just say so and that issue or those issues can be discussed as well. I don't have a problem with that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, disruptive behaviour, misuse of templates and harassment from User:AussieLegend

AussieLegend has become increasingly disruptive in his edits on the Sydney page as well as in his behaviour in general towards other well meaning editors. Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29. This started when Ashton 29 made some good faith edits on the page, to which AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring.[16][17][18][19][20] From this, AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence, which was disruptive in proper discussion and a direct misuse of templates[21][22][23][24][25]. This also fell under harrassement and stalking, as pointed out by Cjhard where AussieLegend stalked all of Ashton 29's edits including on pages he was not previously involved in and critiqued his edits and sent notice templates without any evidence to back his claims [26].

Furthermore, when I warned AussieLegend of his edit warring and behaviour on his talk page, he retaliated and once again misued a warning template, this time against me [27] without backing any of his false allegations and accusations. He then tried to threaten an apology from me [28][29] before once again retaliating and becoming disruptive in behaviour towards proper discussion by misusing a warning template against me [30]

Additionally, AussieLegend along with another editor have also been directing personal attacks against Ashton 29 and any other editor they disagree with. AussieLegend is noted for falsely and mockingly describing Ashton 29 as having "a temper tantrum" and that "he doesn't care" [31] as well as a personal attack against me by making false allegations without any evidence [32] [33]

To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage[34], to which he once again made another personal attack against me when i responded to this, by making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him [35]. - Cement4802 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised at Cement4802's actions. He has constantly been accusing other editors of making personal attacks while doing so himself. No doubt he has seen this edit by me where, at his own request, I started compiling a list of his various attacks on other editors, mostly HiLo48 and I. I earlier raised this discussion on this very page and notified Cement4802 even though he was only tangentially associated with the Ashton 42 problems at the time. His response was to set upon me in that discussion,[36] making baseless allegations that he continues to this day. Under the assumption that this discussion is going to be given as much attention as the other one, this is all I am going to say for now. If anyone wants more, I'm happy to post a lot more. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This incident is here on this noticeboard for one reason alone - the total absence of any effective Administrator response to the thread up near the top of this page titled - User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks. If an Admin has the energy to look through that discussion, and the one it was about in the first place at Talk:Sydney, they will see the mess this has come from. It needed much earlier Admin intervention, and that didn't happen. What's happening? Are the Admins all in quarantine? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the issues with AussieLegend on the Sydney article need to be in two AN/I threads, especially considering the block proposal already contained in the top thread. However, AussieLegend's behaviour recently has gone so far beyond the usual wikilawyering and stonewalling and descended into full-blown battleground behaviour, wikistalking and harassment. It might be best to close the dumpsterfire report up top and find a resolution here. At the least, AussieLegend should be banned from interacting with Ashton 29. Cjhard 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Aussie Legend has a tendency of edit warring, but then accusing others of edit warring. Anyone who accuses, him is apparantly a harassier or wiki-stalker. In my opinion, egos like his should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B99C:AC00:D17B:1AE4:C986:C0B3 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this is anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend That's a blatant false accusation to make mind you. Going by you and HiLo's definition, that's a personal attack - Cement4802 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What is false? Should I open an SPI case? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that I don't need to open an SPI case. The range has been blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend's full response; see summarized response below

AussieLegend's response part 1 I wasn't going to bother this but given Cement4802's persistent attacks I may as well, even if nobody reads it: Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29 - All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring - Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a {{citation needed}} tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently. Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#1) - He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred".[37] Instead of then discussing the proposed image on the talk page, he did as he normally does when something he adds is reverted, he reverted with the summary "But AussieLegend, you can still clearly see the memorial. Those who live in Sydney or who are familiar with the city will make no mistake in recognising what the image depicts, and it also gives an indication of the size of the Park and the memorial's proximity to the city centre".[38] To this day he has not attempted to discuss the image. He believes that he does not have to justify his additions and instead that others have to justify their opposition to his additions, as he demonstrated at Hobart when HappyWaldo opposed his addition of a montage.[39] Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#2) - This was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed. If anything, it was rather WP:POINTy in intent, as explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence - There is evidence for all the warnings added to Ashton 29's talk page. His various actions have been discussed above. without any evidence to back his claims - This one is actually a bit funny. If you look at Special:Contributions/Ashton 29 you'll see that he marks the vast majority of his edits as minor regardless of how extensive his changes are, so this warning was quite appropriate. He then tried to threaten an apology from me - The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines. misusing a warning template against me - The diff presented shows the clear indication I gave to not make a retaliatory warning. The warning that I gave was as the result of Cement4802 refusing to withdraw the personal attacks that he made on his talk page in the section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage - Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[40] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[41] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. Involvement in selection of images does not constitute support, as has previously been explained."[42] Cement4802 then chose to further manipulate the data by going back over 15 months and adding other names (one editor was added twice!) prompting me to post this, demonstrating his inappropriate manipulation. making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him - The diffs clearly show the opposite to what Cement4802 claims. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC) AussieLegend's response part 2 Now, in the interest of transparency, since Cement4802 has made some pretty silly claims, I present several diffs demonstrating his actions. He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29 (not that Ashton 29 isn't a problematic editor) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Claimed that he not attacked anyone and then threatened me [43] Accuse me of singling him and a few other editors out (?) when in fact nothing like that had happened at all [44] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[45] [46] Accused me of making a personal attack (again). [47] Posted "Several editors that i've been having disputes with over seperate unrelated articles, especially those political in nature, have decided that they'll use their personal grudge against me to come on over to the page to likewise target and harass me." on his talk page in response to Ashton 29. There's some level of paranoia there. If he's having disputes with other editors then maybe the problem is him, not all of them. He then made a false statement about an admin at WP:DRN - There was no admin and the volunteer said nothing about personal attacks. After that, he wrote "I've seen the constant harassement and attacks on your page coming from (talk), and all of his claims have been rightly refuted. It seems he also has a history of harrasement and sending out false, unsubstantiated claims if you look through the archives on his talk page, and i'd suggest that he himself is actually in violation of several wikipedia policies." More baseless allegations along with an indication that he has been wikistalking, in this case by searching through my talk page archives. That though is fairly minor. [48] Improper warning on my talk page. [49] More attacks and threats [50] Another accusation of personal attacks [51] Refusal to withdraw baseless allegations [52] Yet another allegation of making personal attacks [53] Manipulation of data to support his POV [54] Bold face lies rebutted here claiming that I had repeatedly removed names, when I did it precisely once because the inclusion was invalid, and accused me of edit-warring for reverting his initial, incorrect addition in the middle of someone elses post [55] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO. [56] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage. HiLo48 was quite correct in saying that is not true. As evidence I posted the following quite a while ago, That brings me to Cement4802's list, which does at least contain two possibilities, File:Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg and File:Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg. The subjects of these are both instantly recognisable worldwide, although the second is probably only recognisable because of the opera house. File:Sydney Opera House At Night 2.jpg is nice, but it's more suited to the opera house's article and might be misunderstood by the average reader.[57] [58] This is actually quite hypocritical as diffs show that Cement4802 is quite adept at attacking editors. [59] And we're back to the first diff where Cement4802 claimed he hadn't attacked anyone and then threatened me in the very same breath I do understand if editors think "TLDR". It's far more than I thought would be necessary. Sorry. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't commit to reading this lengthy report (or the other one pertaining to this dispute), but I would ask participants here to keep it tempered. Also, do we really need two reports about the same dispute? El_C 13:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need two reports, which was partly the point of my War and Peace addition. The first report has been sidetracked with squabbling since the very first reply, ironically by the editor who opened this section. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This has become absolutely absurd in its extensiveness and ongoing unresolved discussion. Yes, AussieLegend too frequently claims ownership on articles. He rapidly pounces on edits, as if he lays in the wait ready to undo your progress. It's frustrating, it's unwelcome and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I, and Cement4802 (and I guess other people now) will take this everywhere possible for mediation and resolution.Ashton 29 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This latest post by Ashton 29, who is still marking all of his edits as minor, is clearly a reaction to this edit where I changed an image in Newcastle, New South Wales (where I happen to live) to one that better represented Nobbys Head. The image I changed to was actually part of the city's logo at one stage while the other is a somewhat obscure view. Instead of discussing, as always Ashton 29 reverted so I have now invited him to discuss this on the talk page. Ashton 29's reaction is also likely the result of me making this edit that removed a significantly outdated image of the former Newcastle Railway station from a section already crowded with relevant images. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Folks, might I suggest making use of dispute resolution requests (like RfCs), while at the same time letting status quo ante versions remain in place in the meantime? Also, Ashton 29, AussieLegend is right about not marking significant additions as minor edits. El_C 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are getting at but after I opened the original discussion here Ashton 29 opened a discussion at WP:DRN, but it was closed because Ashton 29 chose to notify only two of nine listed editors and those two just happened to share his POV and which was WP:CANVASSING. The volunteer at DRN said in his close "moderated dispute resolution with ten editors is likely to be like trying to herd four cats, four sheep, a border collie, and a llama. The way to resolve this dispute that is most likely to be effective will be a Request for Comments."[60] Ashton 29 subsequently opened an RfC but with a very biased, non-neutral question that has resulted in editors supporting a close. I know what the problem is, but I'm not going to say it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, in such a fraught dispute, it's always best to agree on what the RfC question says in advance. I'm not saying run an RfC about what the RfC should say, but a cursory gauging of consensus about that could be a way forward. El_C 17:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unfortunately, Ashton 29 chose to skip that and just barrelled ahead with the RfC. It went from me saying "Forming the RfC question would be a problem in itself. It can't simply be "Should this article have a montage?" to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, yes, I agree that that RfC question is problematic. It certainly should not be editorializing the author's position. El_C 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So what are you going to do about it El_C? The fundamental reason for there being two out-of-control threads here on the one dispute is a complete absence of any earlier action by ANY Administrator. And this IS an Administrator noticeboard. Please take some action. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the matter of the RfC question has been resolved. El_C 00:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. And the problem is much bigger than the RfC question. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a volunteer. I help when I can. But I am not read in to this dispute and cannot commit to investigate it without a condensed summary. If there is already one, please point it to me, I may have just missed it. El_C 00:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no summary. It's a complete mess. And that's because it's all gone on far too long WITHOUT Admin intervention, DESPITE it having been brought to this page twice and to another Admin page I can't track down at the moment. And if you fail to do anything now, it will just get worse. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, if no summary is provided and none is forthcoming, my involvement is likely to be limited, I'm afraid. If there is an immediate violation that is particularly egregious, however, please feel free to report, here, or to me personally. El_C 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we have Administrator noticeboards? Aren't they for Admins to notice things? Why has no Admin been near the two massive threads on this matter here before you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, HiLo48. I presume everyone is busy elsewhere. Sometimes there is an acute backlog, especially when —not to belabour the point— it involves a lengthy report/s that lacks a concise summary. El_C 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, they only became long BECAUSE there was no Admin intervention. And you're not ever going to get an agreed concise summary on matters like this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not looking for agreement, necessarily. Any party may summarize. But this, for example, is obviously not concise enough. I'm looking for the broad strokes, with a few diffs attached for the most noteworthy items. El_C 01:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a look at the first three posts in the other relevant thread above - "User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks". It's right near the top of the page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, okay, I'll give those a read maybe tomorrow sometime. I just would have wished for a summary that takes the recent block into account. I mean, what else is there to do for the moment? But, sure, will do. El_C 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out the background. Ashton 20 was apparently blocked for this edit summary in an edit which adjusted the question in an RfC. I suggest that Talk:Sydney#Request for comment - 30 April 2020 and the following "Support/Oppose for a photomontage" section should be closed to allow a new RfC to be discussed—one with a clear proposal. It's not clear to me what support in the current RfC means, and it certainly would not be clear to an outsider (which is the point of an RfC) what the proposal is. It appears to concern whether this edit at Sydney should be retained (it was reverted). The edit changed the infobox from showing a single image to a montage of seven images. It's not reasonable to continue with the current RfC because someone supporting a montage might want two images, while another wants four, and others want all seven. An RfC requires a concrete proposal ("Should the article display the montage in this edit?") and a neutral question. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I did ask for the RfC to be closed at WP:ANRFC but the request was denied.[61] The RfC is not about this edit specifically. That was a bad faith edit by Ashton 29 who knew that there was an open discussion about a montage and that there was still no consensus to add one. The RfC is about adding any montage and whether appropriate images should be included. Of course, the problem then is determining what is an appropriate image. MOS:LEADIMAGE has been cited but generally ignored. Some of the images that have been proposed have been a hilltop, what appears to be a random building, a church etc, images that don't comply with the intent stated at MOS:LEADIMAGE. In all of the previous discussions (I think it's up to 7) when we get to the question of what images to include, the discussions go silent, which is why I recently raised WP:DEADHORSE. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If there remains problems with the RfC wording, I would suggest you discuss them on the talk page and work towards rewording them. You should not need an admin for that. You shouldn't even need a neutral third party for it. If you all cannot even come up with a suitable RfC wording by yourselves, I'm not sure if any of you should be editing that article or talk page. Clearly something has gone badly wrong. It's not like there are extremely complicated BLP affecting wording issues at play or this is something like that drug pricing mess. If most of you work towards coming up with a suitable RfC wording and 1 or 2 editors refuse to participate or are preventing any path forward, providing evidence of this when it happens will be more useful than simply highlighting that a flawed RfC was opened. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a completely valid suggestion and one with which I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately that was tried previously and failed miserably. Regardless, I'm happy to work toward that again. The situation cannot continue as it has been. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to post above

• "All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above." - You didn't use any evidence on the talk page to back your claims as to how Ashtono 29 was edit warring. If he indeed WAS edit warring (just as much as you were), a single warning would have sufficed. Possibly a second final warning at the extremes (which didn't really happen anyway). However, you felt the need to spam out an excessive number of warnings, to the point where you were posting warnings on his talk page for every edit he was making. You made no effort whatsoever to discuss this on his talk page, but rather you used your method of posting excessive warning templates in the hopes that it would stop all edits from him completely and leave the page in the way YOU believed it should have been.
• "Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently." - again, you made no effort to discuss these issues with the user on their talk page. It becomes an edit war when you constantly revert edits without consulting them on the talk page and carrying on making reverts regardless if you personally believe the user's edits were wrong or correct.
• "He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary..."
• "was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed." - once again, you made no efforts to work with Ashton 29 on his talk page and discuss these issues personally with him. Your edits were no more justified than Ashton 29's, and you were just as much in the wrong of making edits without a consensus.
• "The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines." - my edit warring template was entirely justified, your actions directly fell under the definition of edit warring, and your behaviour was disruptive to proper discourse and diplomacy with other editors. Also in contrast to your behaviour of spamming unsubstantiated warning templates, I posted a single, justified warning template in response to your behaviour, to which you retaliated out of spite by misusing another template on my talk page and making threats for an apology or retraction. This is not in line with Wikipedia's community guidelines.
• "Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[144] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[145] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. " - I simply added editors who were in support of the photomontage to the list, with evidence and backed up claims, to which you responded by manipulating the data and denying all evidence that was presented, in order to support your own agenda. You then proceeded to move the goalposts about who was allowed to be included in this list, which was never laid out initially, and was an action once again done out of spite in your disagreement with the facts presented and your desire to manipulate data so that it supported your agenda
  

Yet more personal attacks from AussieLegend I've decided to stay relatively quiet in this thread to minimise things from blowing up too much. However, in the several hours since this report was posted, here are a list of personal attacks AussieLegend, on this thread alone:

• "He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines" - another false accusation that falsely diminishes the credibility of my actions, without any evidence. This falls under the definition of a personal attack
• "He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29" - I'm not sure if it can get more personal than this. Saying that an editor is "a problem" is way out of line
• "this is (the) anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently (in reference to me or another editor who has replied to his comment)" - blatant name calling, referring to me or the other editor as a "troll" and blatantly making false allegations that I was indeed the IP address, with again no evidence whatsoever to back his claims.
• "This one is actually a bit funny" (in reference to my actions) - describing my actions in a mocking manner

To add to this, there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Section Break

It should be noted that this is a fairly succinct report, it's just been bludgeoned to death by the subject of the report. I have issue with TParis's closure of the previous report describing my report as 'failed boomerang attempt only supported by those close to Ashton 29'. I have no relationship with Ashton 29, I have never seen Ashton 29 on Wikipedia. The report, replicated in part here, concerned AussieLegend stalking Ashton 29's contributions and making reversions or tiny, unnecessary edits to Ashton 29's contributions on articles AussieLegend has never edited before. It's a serious issue of harassment, with clear, easy to see evidence. Cjhard (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's true, that would indeed be disconcerting. El_C 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reads more like a personal attack to me. I have been lied about many times in these discussions, but there's no point going into detail any more. That should have been addressed long ago. I'm still disturbed by the lack of Admin actions on things written on this Administrator noticeboard. Not the fault of the one Admin who has now responded, of course, but the whole Admin system. it's seriously failing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a personal attack without any evidence, is in itself a personal attack. You claim to be the target of various personal attacks yet here you are dishing it out. - Cement4802 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the edits by Ashton 29 on 30 April 2020 at Historic preservation shows three edits, each marked minor, and each adding a couple of thousand bytes. People who have persisted doing that (misusing WP:MINOR) have been indeffed. It's not reasonable to justify "stalked all of Ashton 29's edits" by presenting a diff of AussieLegend informing Ashton 29 that minor should not be misused. There is too much stuff above. Can someone please present three reasonable diffs showing that AussieLegend has stalked Ashton 29. If not, would anyone making that claim please strike it. Let's deal with one thing at a time and sort out the next issue after clearing up the stalking claim. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On pages AussieLegend had never edited before:

• Ashton 29 edits Queen Victoria Market:[62] AussieLegend 17 minutes later: [63]
• Ashton 29 edits Geography of Sydney: [64] AussieLegend 2 hours later: [65]
• Ashton 29 edits Wales House, Sydney: [66] AussieLegend 25 minutes later: [67]

Cjhard (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I formatted the above post. It's clear that AussieLegend is checking Ashton 29's edits—that is obvious from the former's comments at User talk:Ashton 29. The question is whether that is WP:HOUNDING or justifiable checking given the overall picture—the reason contributions pages exist is to allow others to check someone's edits. I don't know the answer to that—those three diffs could be seen as an overreach. However, the solution for that would be for someone (not an opponent) to discuss the issue with AussieLegend. I'm prepared to do that except that on the couple of diffs I've checked, AussieLegend seems to be correct. For example, I just searched User talk:Ashton 29 to see the first three sections where AussieLegend commented. I have not yet examined the background, but looking at the issues suggests a problem that fully justifies checking Ashton 29's edits. The sections are March 2020 (claim of attacking other editors); Disruptive image editing (claim of slow edit war against consensus); and April 2020 (claim of attacking other editors). Given that Ashton 29 has been blocked for 72 hours "for making personal attacks", the first and third claims may be valid. The second claim is very detailed—it really looks as if investigation would confirm the claim. Are you aware of that background and whether that claim is valid? Sooner or later, people have to engage with the underlying issue (article content or talk page behavior that might disrupt article development). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind; I have definitely been checking Ashton 29's edits. Whether I'm compiling a report for WP:AN3, WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or anywhere else for that matter, I like to be thorough so as to ensure that the case is completely covered and the person is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I was too thorough here for some people then I'm sorry, but I've never been a fan of the Salem Witch Trials type of prosecution:

She's a witch!

How do you know she's a witch?

She turned me into a newt!

A newt!?

I got better.

Ashton 29 has been editing problematically for a long time (several years!), refusing to respect the opinions of anyone else. I've detailed all of it in the first report so I won't restate it all here. The final straw that broke the camel's back was this bad faith edit, adding his montage to Sydney while there was an open discussion that he knew full well was active. His intent for this as disruptive was evident in the edit summary where he goaded other editors into reacting. That's why I went back through his edits, to compile evidence of his actions to present here, like this sneaky edit against consensus when he added an image that had previously been discussed and opposed on the talk page. He later justified the edit with ""that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people". So yes, I did check his posts to gather evidence that apparently was too much for some people to read. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A summary

My initial post in this section has been deemed too long so I have broken it into two parts. The first is a rebuttal of Cement4802's claims and the second is a list of diffs demonstrating his inappropriate editing and attacks (the attacks he claims that he never makes!).

A summary of the current situation is that, for a number of years, editors like Ashton 29 have been trying to get a montage added to the Sydney. The article is already top-heavy with images. Right now the article has 14,707 words of readable prose and 55 images including the infobox, or 1 image for every 267.4 words. For this reason, and that the images don't really add anything, a montage has almost always been opposed. When there has been some support for a montage, those supporting a montage have pushed for inclusion images that are generally obscure to anyone who is not intimately associated with Sydney, like File:Sydney (AU), Coastal Cliff Walk -- 2019 -- 2335.jpg. All of the discussions "fizzled out" at some point. In July 2019 Cement4802 started a discussion about a montage. That discussion fizzled out in August and restarted in December before going quiet in early January. A few days later, after some convassing,[68] discussion was restarted. The discussion has been on again-off again since then with virtually no progress being made. The pro-montage side has not attempted to provide any alternate images for use in the montage to replace those that have been ooposed and have discounted arguments citing MOS:LEADIMAGE, WP:TOURISTGUIDE etc without providing justification. At the same time, they have become increasingly aggressive in their attitude to other editors. Most of this has come from Ashton 29 but Cement4802 has been increasingly aggressive and this is where we are at now. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802

• Cement4802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the beginning of this report, Cement4802 made a number of claims, all of which I rebutted in the section titled AussieLegend's response part 1. I believe that Johnuniq's discussion above has adequately dealt with the lack of credibility in the claims made by Cement4802 (as defended by Cjhard) but I'd like to address two:

• He then tried to threaten an apology from me - On his talkpage Cement4802 wrote , in a section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!", "In fact, you have quite a long history of harassement, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and blatantly accusing other editors of actions without any substantiated evidence."[69] This claim, rather ironically, was made without any evidence to back it up. My response was "The warning that you left on my page was completely inappropriate as there was no edit-warring. If you believe there was, then by all means submit a report at WP:AN3. Either do that or remove the baseless allegations that you have made in the above post." No report was ever made at AN3, nor were the allegations removed. Instead, he responded with "please be mindful of the fact that you and another editor have been just as guilty of using personal attacks when you disagree with someone."[70] Again, Cement4802 has provided no evidence of these attacks.
• To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information - I've rebutted this above but if you check the diffs, you'll see how Cement4802 manipulated the list, adding editors who made no explicit claim of support.[71] He even included one editor twice.[72]

Cement4802 has persistently maintained that he has not attacked anyone, however this is not supported by the evidence. He even claimed it in his latest response here: there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence.[73] Clearly he did not bother to look at the diffs presented in AussieLegend's response part 2.

2. [74] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[75]

10. [76] Attacking HiLo48 by alleging HiLo48 made personal attacks

13. [77] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO.

14. [78] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage.

16. [79] Attacks me and then claims he makes no attacks.

Of course, at no time has he actually provided evidence to support his claims and has actually tried to avoid doing so,[80] something I felt compelled to comment upon.[81]

I hope this was not too much information. I can address Cjhard later. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cjhard

Cjhard's motivation for involving himself in this matter seems to have been a dislike for HiLo48 as evidenced by his first post.[82] Prior to that there was no involvement in the discussion at Talk:Sydney and he seems to have focussed on me because I share Hilo48's opinion on a montage. One of his earliest edits at the discussion was to support a montage,[83] but then he claimed to be uninvolved.[84] After that he attacked me on Ashton 29's talk page, after I'd warned Ashton 29 about marking all his edits as minor,[85] and then warned me on my talkpage.[86] After that he posted the "failed boomerang attempt" here,[87] all within the period of 1 hour. After that he suggested hatting a section at Talk:Sydney,[88] which I suggested he should do,[89] but he hasn't. He did attack me here, without any evidence, twice. (That's 142 words. Is that still too long?) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A wall of test

-EEng

• The reason neither side is gaining traction in this dispute is because you all keep posting walls of test. Seriously, I wrote WP:ANI Advice for a reason.--v/r - TP 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Seriously? The summary that was asked for was only 241 words and the section on Cement4802 was only 472 words. By comparison, WP:ANI Advice is over 1,400 words. You do realise that you don't have to read both sections if you don't want to? If you think that's a wall of text I'll summarise it for you in a length that might suit you better: "Nobody can agree on a montage, pretty much everything Cement4802 has said can best be described as utter bullshit and the diffs prove that he attacks people!" That's only 26 words. Is that short enough? Should I include some pictures? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm giving you advice on how this board works. But, go ahead, mouth off at me. Let's see how effective that makes you.--v/r - TP 15:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • If what I wrote is too long then you need to rewrite WP:ANI Advice because a lot of the advice there is effectively pointless. For example: Only include some diffs - including all relevant diffs is a waste of time, don't explain anything, but if you do make it short enough so that nobody will be able to understand the context. And so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @AussieLegend: Should I include some pictures?...How about a montage?  ;) ——SN54129 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • That would probably be too many images. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

From TP "...you all keep posting walls of test" Firstly, I'll assume you meant "text". Secondly, that's a completely provocative and pointless comment, of the kind that leads me to respond with "BULLSHIT!!!!", but this time I'll just say, that's a lie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

These outbursts will only lead to a no-action pox-on-both-their-houses close. In fact it's probably at that stage now. Participants can earn points for the future by constructively working at Talk:Sydney to close the current RfC as unhelpful (a support or close outcome would not give a clear outcome) and devise wording for a new proposal (see my suggestion above). I suggest also keeping evidence (off-wiki please) for a future report. Feel free to ping me if any of the significant issues raised above by either side are repeated (for example, flagrant abuse of WP:MINOR after a warning will get action). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: How do you propose we get the RfC closed? I've already asked at WP:ANRFC and the request was denied. Based on the years of argument about the montage, I don't see anyone on the pro-montage side agreeing to close it. I'd do it myself but I'm involved and even if I did, I expect that the close would be reverted by Cement4802 of Cjhard, even if I cited your comments here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I closed the RfC and created Talk:Sydney#Drafting an RfC to ask if an RfC should be held and what question would be asked. I added the page to my watchlist and will attempt to keep contributors focused on content issues. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Does lying about the behaviour of others count? That's what my immediate preceding comment says. Do you call mine an outburst? Or should I let a blatant lie stand without defending myself? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

HOLY FUCK. I thought this dispute was dumb when I first read it. Now people are actually arguing that someone pointing out that it's quite likely a reason this dispute is being ignored was because of the walls of text posted is "lying"? Someone please close this discussions now. It has well and truly, completely and utterly jumped the shark. There is almost zero chance for a resolution short of someone doing something stupid, obvious and simple enough to earn themselves a block; when the participants not only cannot see how those very long posts are making outside involvement likely, they accuse people of lying for pointing it out. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The bit I objected to was "...you all keep posting walls of test". The word "all" made it a stupid generalisation, and simply wrong in my case. So yes, it was a lie. If someone wants to calm things down, they need to be a lot more careful with the words they use. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [90] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48: One of the dumbest arguments I've heard in a while. My involvement in this thread is dumbdone I had considered offering to help in coming up with a consensus wording for the RfC. No longer. There is zero chance I would want to be involved when I'd have to interact with you. Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

And that's been the problem here all along. If even one Admin had intervened early in either of the two threads, none of the massive drama would have occured. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Two admins just intervened. You called the first one a liar and told the second one that the first one was a liar. I do not think this will encourage a third admin to intervene. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: The original discussion was open for almost a week before any admin intervened, during which time Ashton 29, Cement4802 and Cjhard's aggression increased as did HiLo48's and my frustration over inaction, while we watched discussion after discussion closed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I'll remind you that HiLo48 is not the subject of this ridiculous discussion, I am. I'd be happy for it just to be closed at this point and, quite frankly, I'd rather you not go anywhere near Talk:Sydney because neither you nor anyone else deserves to have to put up with the crap that is dished out by the likes of Ashton 29, Cement4802 and Cjhard. Previous discussions there have been heated but have always just died a natural death. Since January though, the attacks from this "cabal of editors with the same aggressive attitudes and propensity to lie" have become vicious and not something that anyone should have to put up with. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Serious, polite and simple question. Why did it take so long for any Admin to intervene at all. This IS the ADMINISTRATOR noticeboard after all. And please don't use excuses about size of posts, etc. If that truly is a problem, it only became so after many days of Admin inaction. So why so long? HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: It genuinely seems to be the length. Within 24 hours of posting, this thread already had 22,000 characters of text (not including links and markup), including several responses from El C, requests for a condensed summary, and the closure of the other thread with admin action. The longer and more complicated an issue, the longer you should expect it to take the administrators (who are volunteers and busy) to address concerns here. This is especially true if the discussion between the concerned parties is active and constantly increasing in length.

If you were an uninvolved editor, how long would it take you to carefully read: all of this thread + all of its linked diffs + all of the previous thread + all of the previous thread's linked diffs + all of the relevant discussions at Talk:Sydney and other articles? — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There was another thread on effectively the same topic, several days earlier. It went for many days without Admin attention. That approach of ignoring by Admins made that thread and this thread worse. This wasn't a new topic. It desperately needed someone to intervene quickly. This isn't about too many words. It's about lack of attention. The too many words came later. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You are being disruptive, noisy, and unhelpful. You behaviour is incendiary and could only earn you a timeout. Admins are volunteers too. They are not paid to sit here and read thousands upon thousands of words of bickering to determine who is right and who is wrong. And with half a dozen walls of text authored by two participants, including one written in the first few hours after the thread was opened, it is small wonder that only a couple of admins have bothered to comment here at all.

With this level of bludgeoning, it would be easier to issue week long blocks to each editor that has contributed more than 1000 words of text to this thread, and another week for every 500 words contributed above that. At the very least, a good few weeks of peace and quiet would follow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't hurl threats. If you won't address what has been written in BOTH the relevant threads, please just tell us how we can get Admin attention to threads BEFORE they become verbose disaster areas. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Offer a concise summary of the problem, evidenced by a few select diffs, whilst avoiding all unnecessary commentary and particularly anything that can be perceived as an attack, aspersion, or incivility. Refrain from arguing with respondents, which is not to say 'do not reply', but keep any rebuttals calm and brief. Answer - also briefly - any good faith queries. Wait patiently. Basically, the opposite of both this and the previous thread, whose opening post is as long as the lede of any featured article, which I can assure you are much more worthwhile reads. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I started neither of the threads. I was a target of abuse in both (including from Admins), so I joined in, but by that time I obviously couldn't change the ledes. I know your advice is well-intentioned, but it doesn't really help those of us who didn't commence the threads but who who were named there. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If there was a clear imbalance between the two warring sides the issue would have been resolved a long time ago. By "imbalance", I mean one side clearly conflicting with policy or guidelines and the other not, or one side having just a couple of activists versus a significantly larger number on the other. The reason admins have not resolved this battle is that admins have no special tools to resolve a balanced conflict—one side is edit warring and clueless and abusive, and so is the other. I'm not saying the sides are equally out of line, but no one has produced a diff showing a clear imbalance, except for one diff of an abusive edit summary which immediately resulted in a 72-hour block for the author. I imagine there is more than one article involved, but I have only noticed Sydney. The way forward, as I wrote above, is for participants to earn points for the next round by behaving impeccably and hoping the other side slips up. Rather than extending this, it would be better for there to be helpful participation in the discussions at Talk:Sydney regarding the future of the RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just today there have already been 800 words posted discussing why it was too long to read. By comparison, Cement4802's initial post was 357 words. There's some irony. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, FWIW I've read your summary and read Cement's post, and read this section. But since I am unwilling to read how many other thousands of words there are in the other 5 sections I don't feel like I can wade into the dispute in the way that it demands so I just sit back in hopes that Johnuniq, who seems to have done that reading already, is able to bring this to some resolution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no way I have read all that stuff! I'm just trying to focus people on the future and am watching Sydney and Talk:Sydney for developments. I'm hoping participants can agree on an RfC question then conduct an RfC in an orderly fashion with a subtle hint that it would not be a good idea to be disruptive. For some reason, there is little enthusiasm for discussing the RfC at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is sadly typical of the dispute. Just when it looks like we might be getting somewhere, everything goes quiet. Cement4802 and Cjhard have both gone MIA and Ashton 29 has been quiet since he was blocked (that block is over). If they don't return soon, in a few months it will all start again. @Barkeep49:, thankyou for taking the time to at least read what you have read. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest proceeding with the Talk:Sydney discussion: formulate an RfC and run it. If wanted, ping me to open it once a consensus for wording has emerged, but wait at least 24 hours from now. Also, ping me if this or a similar issue arises in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Will do! --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This was going to basically be the advice I was going to offer (got busy last night elsewhere). I'm not sure what happened in the interim that Aussie got blocked for disruptive editing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't get my own thread? :( Cjhard (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User: 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A/High Speed 2

Clear case of incredibly disruptive editing, accusing editors that are trying to maintain the neutrality of an article regarding a politically controversial topic of being astroturfed. The anon doubling down on the accusations after being warned shows a complete lack of respect for the rules of civility. Sceptre (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor 'Sceptre' changes referenced text giving no reason why. He also deletes text in the open forum talk page he does not like. He should be banned ASAP. He is not conforming to the ethos of Wiki at the best. I suspect he is a paid astroturfer - HS2 Ltd released figures of many £100,000 for internet activity. He has an agenda for sure. This form of behaviour cannot be tolerated in Wiki, giving Wikipedia a bad name. Irrespective he has to banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m still chasing up money from Ferring Pharmaceutical after they gave Jo Swinson a time machine and told her to change her party’s policy four years ago, you think I have the time to do another astroturfing job? </sarcasm> (also, not for nothing, but of the three common singular third person pronouns, you go for the worst one…) Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have done NOTHING wrong, you are making out I have. Sceptre is changing the article, deleting text with refs, giving no reason whatsoever. Also he is deleting sections of the talk page. Deleting open discussion because it does not follow an agenda? This is totally unacceptable contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Sceptre is clearly at fault, not me. he must be banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sceptre: Is there is a reason it seems you're reverting the IP unambiguously? Their 400kph seems to be supported by a source and many of the other edits seem to just be editorial choice of language. @2A01...A754: Quit with the accusations of being a shill. That will get you blocked. Sceptre is not a paid shill. They are personal attacks and personal attacks may be removed from talk pages.--v/r - TP 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  (ec w/TParis) IP, you would be better off taking the discussion about the merits of Sceptre's edits (or any others) to Talk:High Speed 2, but please don't accuse people of astroturfing. We have a guideline called Assume Good Faith, which editors are expected to follow. It's also worth pointing out that Sceptre has a very long track record in this community; it's unlikely in my opinion that somebody would make 75,000 edits over 15 years in a variety of subject areas just to cover up an agenda regarding a railway line which hadn't even been proposed when they started editing. I respectfully suggest that you're more likely to get a result if you calmly and concisely explain on the talk page what content you feel should be added or restored along with the relevant references. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sceptre's 75,000 edits are meaningless, it is what he is doing now. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that this IP range has a track record in incivility and disruptive editing which earned a 72-hour block, and is without doubt the same anonymous editor moving between IP addresses. I have no particular feeling either way about these recent edits, but the accusations of "astroturfing" and generally insulting language ("salivating train spotters") should be noted. Cnbrb (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly editors are receiving more uncivil commentary from this IP user (who switches IP address each time). Anyone who disagrees on an editorial point is repeatedly being called a "fanboy", "astroturfer" and a "trainspotter". Som recent diffs:

• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• [94]

Despite the incivilty, attempts were made recently to accommodate the IP's editorial concerns with an RFC (10 March 2020). The IP editor emerged from a block to insert a snide remark about "train spotters salivating". Everyone's been very patient and several have attempted to engage in dialogue, which is proving to be a waste of time and energy. This has gone on long enough. Given the a track record in incivility and disruptive editing I would like to request that the IP range be blocked.Cnbrb (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Total nonsense. I do no change IP addresses. It is the one that comes out. Wikipedia has a reputation of being hijacked by groups with agendas. That has clearly happened on the HS2 article.

The article was being hijacked for sure. It was far too pro HS2, not being balanced. Anything that they perceived that the article was not putting HS2 as some sort of rail saviour was changed radically or deleted. It was not just HS2 fanboys obsessed with trains, I quite rightly suspected astroturfing. The only uncivilised attitudes I got were from you and your other sidekick. BTW, over the years I have contributed about 15-20% to the article - a substantial chunk. The fact remains that free speech was severely compromised on the talk page and text deleted with references without reason in the article. Strangely I ever saw you object to any of that.

I have doubts about you, attacking me openly when it is clear I have done NOTHING wrong. The person under the spotlight is Sceptre, not me - he was the one deleting sections in the Talk page and text with references without any reasons given. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:585B:E861:9475:ED9B (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I strongly suggest you take retract your earlier statement accusing Sceptre of being a paid editor: I suspect he is a paid astroturfer. Second, stop calling people "fanboys" and "obsessed." Those are personal attacks.

Finally, there is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Comments may be removed from Talk pages if they are not directly related to editing the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate Article creation by Onceinawhile

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

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain Jalut
• Talk:Well of Harod#Common Name

On 22 March 2020, Onceinawhile moved (without any discussion) the article Well of Harod to 'Ain Jalut. At that time, he was apparently quite ok with the content of Well of Harod under the name of 'Ain Jalut. This undiscussed moved was contested and undone by Shrike on 7 April 2020‎ , and subsequently, a discussion ensued on that article's talk page regarding the common name, the result of which was to keep the name Well of Harod. Unable to get his way in that discussion, Onceinawhile came to an existing article - Ain Jalut - which was a redirect, and created what is essentially a duplicate of the Well of Harod article there, moving much of that article's content to the former redirect. when I objected, he edit warred his version back in. This is a blatant attempt to get around the result of the previous discussion. Onceinawhie should be sanctioned for this, and this article returned to a redirect. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Ain Jalut. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There was quite disruptive creation of article by Onceinawhile it was pretty clear that he will have no majority to move the article to his preferred tittle so he created this WP:POVFORK --Shrike (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Meh, use AFD, will be deleted shortly. Use AE if you really think sanctions are in order. Looks more silly than malicious though. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The user is not some newbie he knew very well what he is doing --Shrike (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, in addition, he went and changed many redirects that used to go to Well of Harod to `Ain Jalut. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• The reason for Well of Harod and Ain Jalut to have separate articles is that modern scholarly opinion is that they are not the same place. This was the outcome of an investigation of the sources at Talk:Well of Harod. The only thing disruptive around here is this report. Zero^talk 06:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, It really doesn't matter if a biblical well of harod is different place what matters is that the WP:commonname of place known as Ain Jalut is Well of Harod and the original article was about that place. The creation was disruptive attempt to circumvent the move procedure Shrike (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable, and not disruptive, to have two articles for two locations. The names of the articles are subject to discussion like everything else, but article creation does not need consensus in advance. Zero^talk 08:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is an AfD, would seem the best place to sort it out would be there.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

500/30 ARBPIA enforcement request

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

---

Hi, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain Jalut there has been a revert dispute about whether an IP with an edit history of 5 edits should be able to participate. Per WP:A/I/PIA IP editors are not allowed to edit at articles or discussion pages which relate "to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted". The article under discussion is about a place in Israel named Ain Jalut in English and Arabic, which was the place in Palestinian history where the Mamluks defeated the Mongols; those who propose the deletion of the article believe it overlaps with the Biblical / Hebrew concept of the Well of Harod.

Please could an admin come and take a quick look before things get out of hand?[95] Onceinawhile (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This page had nothing to do with The Israeli-Arab conflict, and it is instructive to see this discussion to get a better understanding of what this disruptive editor is trying to do here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the attempt to get an opposing editor a topic ban,[96] and now the support of what could be a sockpuppet.[97] Personally I see these as perhaps the best indicators that this topic is related to the PIA area... Onceinawhile (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ain Jalut, and the 13th century Battle of Ain Jalut, between the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and the Mongol Ilkhanate, has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. Israel was created nearly 700 years after that battle. This is way outside of PIA. The Well of Harod is also not part of PIA. It's an Old Testament thing. "PIA" is construed broadly but not so broadly as to cover everything from the Old Testament or everything that ever happened in the Middle East. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but this AfD is about names. Names are a core part of the conflict, as established by numerous sources: “This paper deals with the symbolic role of place-names as expressions of ideological values. Names are symbolic elements of landscape that reflect abstract or concrete national and local sentiments and goals. In the case of Israel, the selection of place-names has become a powerful tool for reinforcing competing national Zionist ideologies. Implicit in this competition are two major Israeli placename themes: the message of essentialism or continuity, and epochalism or change. Essentialism is expressed in Hebrew placenames and in a variety of other symbols that project Israel as the sole heir to the Holy Land. In this context, Biblical and Talmudic placenames are reintroduced or reinforce the bonds between the Jewish community in Israel”.[98]

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@El C: could you please reconsider closing this on the basis of my last comment (I started writing this before you closed it). There is no doubt at all that the AfD is motivated by this element of the conflict. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the dispute spilling over to ARBPIA-related arguments. Please do not re-open or add to closed reports, that is not how WP:CLOSECHALLENGE works. El_C 16:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Retaliatory SPI?

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

---

Please note this possibly retaliatory SPI report filed by Onceinawhile against JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, which was closed as "Unrelated". The supposed sock, Infinity Knight, last month AfD'd an article created by Onceinawhile, which was Speedily Kept. The appearance is that Onceinawhile feels that anyone who disagrees with them must be sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Filing SPI requests on suspected socks is normal practice and Once gave a valid reason for suspicion. (The only reason I don't file SPI requests is that my sock detection skills are negligible.) The case was dismissed, so be it. It isn't clear why BMK thinks that reporting someone for exercising the right of every editor is a good idea. Zero^talk 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The filing made no sense whatsoever, as the discussion on the SPI made clear. Reporting a possibly retaliatory SPI is a good idea because, if true, it's disruptive, and, in this case, appears to be in line with Onceinawhile's other reported behaviors. Why do you think that it's a good idea for an admin to make excuses for an editor's bad behavior simply because they may both be on the same "side" of a contentious subject area? I would think you'd be better off, having expressed your opinion at the AfD -- which is, of course, your right -- not continuing to put your personal reputation on the line for the apparent bad behavior of another editor, and allowing the processes here and at AfD to take their course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I was also disturbed by this comment you made on the AfD in question, in which you blew off the comment of an IP who registered an opinion opposite from yours. Is this how admins are told to treat IPs now, telling them "IPs who come along and don't even bother to provide reasons should of course be ignored"? I was going to overlook your remark until you chose to involve yourself further in this matter with the snide comment above. I think you are too personally invested in this dispute and need to back off from it, since it seems to be provoking to you to behavior not becoming of an admin, frankly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, blowing off the IP at the AfD is beyond the pale, even more so for an admin. Thankfully, the IP responded with a reasonable rationale. I may be a bit biased, as I edited as a dynamic IP for nearly a decade, but I was never blown off so callously. I hope Zero takes this to heart. Regarding the SPI, it was thought to be legitimate enough for a CU to perform a checkuser on it. So maybe it's a wash? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Have to agree with Bison X here. If the SPI was without merit or "filing made no sense whatsover", then a check should not have been performed. Apparently User:TonyBallioni felt there was enough to warrant a check. Maybe because of ARBPIA concerns, I don't know. Ultimately I find it hard to imagine that a single SPI, which had enough merit to warrant a check, is enough for any action. If there is evidence of a pattern of such alleged retaliatory SPIs maybe there would be something to discuss, but no evidence for that has been presented. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Dormant account comes out of nowhere to suggest an AfD on an article the other isn’t a fan of, they have similar ES features, and both are commenting on an AfD as the only two that aren’t opposed to it. Not enough to block, but I think enough to check. They 100% aren’t the same, though.

I thought the SPI was a bit weird being so late, but my reason for running the check anyway was that InfinityKnight looked a lot like a sock, and if they were and were one that is only used on occasion, there was potential for future disruption, so a block would be justified to prevent that. We normally don’t file SPIs this late, but the circumstances were suspicious enough that I thought using the tool might be useful. It was in that it told us they weren’t the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not fault Tony for running the check: he clearly evaluated the information he saw and went from there, as a CU should. However, the filing of the SPI by Onceinawhile could still have been an retaliatory move even if there was reason to check once it had been filed - it all depends on what Onceinawhile's motives were in filing it. This is especially the case given the time lapse.

The point here is that Onceinawhile's cumulative behavior has been questionable, and while probably not worthy of being sanctioned at this time, it is troubling enough that Onceinawhile ought to take some time to reconsider their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: you wrote the following: "The appearance is that Onceinawhile feels that anyone who disagrees with them must be sockpuppets"; "in line with Onceinawhile's other reported behaviors"; "Onceinawhile's cumulative behavior has been questionable". Please be specific on what evidence you base these aspersions. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is no need for administrative attention, then there is no point for this discussion. It would have been better to have talked to Onceinawhile directly if you had concerns over their behaviour. And and I stand by my point, there's let reason to worry too much about this one SPI when there was sufficient concerns to merit a check. I'd note that you've provided no explanation for how your claim "The filing made no sense whatsoever" reconciles with the fact that there was in fact, and it seems like even you agree, sufficient concerns to merit a check. Whether or not all of what was said in the SPI "made sense", clearly some part of it did otherwise there would not have been a check. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the SPI was created by me on 21:39, 2 May 2020‎. Jungerman then opened the above ANI against me at 21:52, 2 May 2020 and then nominated the article for deletion at 22:24, 2 May 2020. Perhaps @Beyond My Ken: could clarify his accusation here on the basis of this timeline. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I opened the Afd at your suggestion. what sort of game are you playing here? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

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

ARBPIA matters belong on AE

Regardless if I was wrong with my assessment of the article falling under ARBPIA, we generally discourage ARBPIA matters spilling over to ANI. AE is a better forum for that, so it's best brought there, to that structured place, rather than having a freeform discussion here. I have no objection to reopening this dispute there. But here, it is a problem. El_C 13:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there are wider issues that are not capable of being dealt with at AE. That AfD is a microcosm of all that is wrong in that topic area – involved editors with a well-established POV !voting in highly predictable ways are able to dominate arguments, or least force them into no consensus positions that prevents any change (on any given AfD, RfC, RM etc, I could predict with at least 95% confidence how at least ten editors from the topic area would !vote). Every single editor from outside the topic area who has commented on the AfD so far (and who can probably be assumed to be unbiased) have come to the same conclusion, but this context is rarely taken into account by closing admins (who won't be familiar with the respective POVs of the involved parties). This is one of the reasons I virtually gave up on editing in that topic area. Number 57 10:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I also gave up on the topic area for these same reasons. Now I dip my toe into this article, and I'm already in an edit war, with an admin, who tells me on his talk page he doesn't have to follow BRD because it's not a policy, and that my revert, not his addition, was the "bold" edit in the cycle. Editing in this topic area is unbelievable. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, That was a recent arbcom case about the area it shame that you and User:Number_57 didn't submit evidence --Shrike (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, tbh I have no faith in arbcom, or AE or ANI or anyone else, fixing this. I sat out PIA4 after being very disappointed with the Poland case that preceded it (I think we had like four arbs at that point). Maybe this year's much larger committee will do better, but I don't really get the sense that there is either the interest or the will to make a structural change for the better. The only structural change for the better that can be made in PIA, as with AP2 and EE and all the other highly problematic DS areas, is to TBAN like every editor who is active (about 5-10 editors I think), which was done once a while ago in some other topic area (I forget which), but a "group TBAN" will be impossible to get consensus for, anywhere, from anyone. In Race and Intelligence, things have improved recently, but only (IMO) because 3+ editors were TBANed and/or blocked, one at a time, and it took a months of evidence and megabytes of discussion, and those editors weren't protected by cabals. I am resigned that Wikipedia's coverage of Middle East topics will never e anything other than a battleground for a few editors with strong political views to endlessly fight with each other. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the notion that ANI can better address ARBPIA disputes than AE is a fantasy. Otherwise, ANI is not for aimless venting. El_C 15:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, with respect, this is the right page to discuss chronic problems. We can't have that discussion at AE. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

When that discussion never leads to resolution, and just amounts to aimless venting, then no, not for the ARBPIA topic area. El_C 16:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, El C is right notihng will happen here the only mechanism to deal with global problem is ARBCOM Shrike (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's not going to be an ARBPIA5 so soon after ARBPIA4. The Committee is likely to just refer anything outstanding to AE, which is still the venue to submit any potential ARBPIA violations. El_C 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) The problem is that solving the problem I refer to above will have to involve something quite radical – such as only having admins familiar with the topic area and its regulars close discussions, banning the regulars from !voting in formal discussions like AfDs, RMs, RfCs etc, or somehow separating out the !votes of the regulars so that closing admins can see what uninvolved (and probably neutral) editors think. I would be pleasantly surprised if any of these were implemented, but realistically, I doubt ARBCOM would be willing to go that far. Number 57 16:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, I think simple matters can be dispensed with outside of AE. Not everything ARBPIA needs a full blown AE report. Sure, someone can open an AE action, but not everyone is familiar with AE and an admin shouldn't close an ANI report when there is a clear behavioral issue. Another issue that is common is whenever there is a new editor, right away that person is tagged team and assumed to be a sock and harassed by questions of "have you ever edited before" or "what is your other Wikipedia name?" These should not be allowed to happen and it has been going on for years. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

ARBPIA disputes almost never end up being "simple" — we have kept it out of ANI for all these years, so I don't see why we should change that now. Some of us remember the endless ARBPIA threads on ANI — a path we do not want to tread on again. No thank you. El_C 13:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: But what are the chronic let alone intractable, problems? All I see in this thread is some silly complaint over whether or not it was appropriate to create an article after trying and failing with an RM, and and even sillier complaint about an alleged retaliatory SPI where the CU felt there was enough to warranty a check in part because of the persistent problems in the area. For the first one, the obvious answer is it's complicated whether they should have created the article, but it doesn't matter much since it can be sorted out at AfD. For the second one, the answer which I've provided is that even if it is, it's not worth worrying about in this case as a single instance and given that there was enough to warrant a check, and frankly it's almost going to be impossible to find good evidence anyway.

If this was not an ARBPIA case, it would be an extremely clear cut case of "WTF are you bringing this shit to ANI?" since there's clearly no cause for action here. If things need to be handled different because of ARBPIA concerns and we need to be much more aggressive in shutting down editors for what are at worse minor issues that would not normally require administrative attention, that seems to be all the more reason to use AE. The only exception I can think of is a very simple case where an admin will issue some sanction and there will be no complaints or concerns from anyone else about such an action.

I personally stay away from the area, not because of what other editors do but because I have strong personal feelings about certain things which I feel means I am not a good fit so I have no real idea what is going on other than the odd stuff which I see here or read elsewhere or on those few occasions I do fit a content discussion. But still I can't help but agree with El C for the reasons I've outlined. We should not be making exceptions to the norms of ANI in precisely what behavioural problems we will take action against, if there is need for that then AE is a better bet.

I'd note if there are problems with that AfD, it's unclear to me what this has to do with any of the complaints in this thread unless there is a claim that the creator was aware of the problems with AfD and was taking advantage of it. But it's likely to be impossible to find any real evidence that was the intent. And further, even if we were to sanction the editor over it, we're missing the forest from the trees.

If there are problems with AfD in the area, I'm not sure how we deal with it. Arbcom is one possibility although others above seem to disagree. AN (not ANI) is another possibility. But that needs to be a focused discussion on the specific problems at ANI with appropriate diffs etc presenting the evidence and probably some proposal for significant change e.g. a number of blocks or other sanctions or limitations, rather than a discussion over a single editor creating an article or opening an SPI.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The chronic/intractable problem I referred to is the one N57 describes above. There is more to this dispute than what's in the above report (and yet more that's happened since)--this report was two small slices of a wider issue--and for my part I'm still contemplating whether and where to raise the wider issue. (Not in this post-close thread.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive forumshopping by Nehme1499

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

---

Nehme1499 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a highly disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPing exercise at CFD.

In a nutshell:

• On 20 April 2020, Nehme1499 opened Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions, proposing renaming 3 categories
• On 3 May 2020, that discussion was closed as keep
• Only 40 minutes later, Nehme1499 opened 3 new CFD discussions, to discuss each of the categories:
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_central_defenders
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_fullbacks
  • WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#Category:Association_football_wing_halves

The full history, with diffs, is below. I came here to ask for the new discussions to be closed, but while I was drafting this post, the relevant discussions have just been closed by User:JJMC89.

But please can some uninvolved admin administer to Nehme1499 whatever the current favoured sanction is for those who waste of lots editors' time by trying to WP:GAME the system?

The history:

1. [99] 15:23, 20 April 2020: Nehme1499 creates the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions
2. [100] 00:57, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 closes that discussion as "keep".
3. [101] 00:58, 3 May 2020: Bibliomaniac15 list the categories at WP:CFDW#Retain, so that the bot will untag the categories.
4. [102]: 01:17, 3 May 2020‎ JJMC89 bot III untags Category:Association football central defenders
5. [103] 01:37, 3 May 2020‎ Nehme1499 retags the category for a new CFD
6. [104] 01:39, 3 May 2020 Nehme1499 creates this new discussion.

In other words, Nehme1499 waited only 40 minutes after the closure of their failed nomination before trying again. (That's why the bot removed the new tag; Nehme1499 acted so fast that the entry hadn't even been removed from WP:CFDW#Retain).

In that new nomination, Nehme1499 didn't even mention the fact that there had been a previous nomination by them of exactly the same proposal had just been closed, let alone link to it ... never mind explain why they brought the same proposal back to CFD after only 40 minutes.

Nehme1499 did this with all three of the categories which they had previously nominated unsuccessfully. None of them mentioned the previous CFD, but all of them mentioned un-notified, poorly-attended discussions on a WikiProject talk page, with links obscured so that many editors missed them. And then Nehme1499 let the discussion run for 18 hours without mentioning the previous discussion.

I don't recall ever seeing such blatant forum-shopping in my 14 years at CFD. I wanted to AGF that it was an error made through lack of competence, but Nehme1499's enthusiasm for links to the WikiProject discussions makes AGF unsustainable: Nehme1499 knew well the significance of linking to prev discussions when they thought those links might help their case, but omitted the links which would have exposed their attempt to WP:GAME the system. the ruse was spotted only 18 hours later[105] by GiantSnowman.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• PS After leaving the ANI notification for Nehme1499,[106] I spotted this exchange where User:GiantSnowman challenged their attempts to game the previous CFD discussion: User talk:Nehme1499#CFD_-_Category:Association_football_positions.

Nehme1499 has made over 25,000 edits in nearly 7 years, so isn't some clueless newbie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I am very concerned by Nehme's actions here. They re-listed the original CFD discussion when it was clear 'do not change the names' consensus, and only reverted (and then grudgingly) after I raised it with them. They then started new discussions immediately after the previous discussions were closed unfavourably for them. GiantSnowman 09:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I also note that their reaction to this discussion was to simply remove the notification... GiantSnowman 09:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

and then grudgingly - my exact words were: "I have no issue in closing reverting the nomination". I don't see how this can be interpreted as "grudging" behaviour.

their reaction to this discussion was to simply remove the notification... - I remove all bot-based notifications from my talk page, be it in this specific instance, or for having nominated an article for GA. Regardless, I only keep user-written messages on my talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: the ANI notification which I posted on your talk[107] was not made by a bot. It was a human edit by me.

That's only a minor distinction, no no consequence. But it is surprising to see that when the rest of your disruption is under scrutiny, you add an assertion as fact of something demonstrably false which you could easily have checked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me rephrase "bot-based notifications" into "notification-based messages". Basically, any notification where there is no further discussion to be had on my talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• It does seem poor to re-post the CfD nomination a short time after it had previously been closed. I spent time looking into the validity of the proposal, when it seems it should not have been re-nominated, but at the very least the re-nomination should have referenced the original. That does appear to be underhanded. Eldumpo (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's time for me to explain what has happened from my point of view. Let's start from the beginning. I was browsing through Category:Association football players by position, when I noticed three categories that, in my opinion, needed renaming: namely, Category:Association football fullbacks (from "fullbacks" to "full-backs"), Category:Association football wing halves (from "wing halves" to "wing-halves"), and Category:Association football central defenders (from "central defenders" to "centre-backs"). What spurred my intent to move these categories was the recent discussion on the WikiProject Football talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Full-back or full back?) regarding the correct manner to write "full-back".

So, I started the discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Category:Association football positions). Now, since 7 days had passed, and only one person (@GiantSnowman) had commented, I decided to relist the discussion in order to get more comments. GiantSnowman promptly let me know on my talk page that re-listing one's own nomination "is entirely inappropriate". The closing procedure states: "After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion.", so I didn't think that re-listing a discussion where no consensus was formed (or rather, where only one other person was involved) would have been a concern. Regardless, I reverted my re-list and wrote "I have no issue in closing reverting the nomination". I don't really see the "grudge" GS is talking about.

At that point, I asked on the WikiProject Football talk page what their thoughts were regarding these moves. Four people (excluding myself) commented, and all agreed (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Player positions categories). However, the previous CfD (with only 2 comments) was still going on, so I waited for it to conclude. Once the discussion terminated, I re-nominated the categories once again, however this time bringing to attention the WikiProject discussion. And here we are.

Regarding @BrownHairedGirl's comments:

• with links obscured so that many editors missed them. I simply piped the discussion link into "WikiProject Football" as such: WikiProject Football. I'm used to piping discussion links in talk pages, so to be accused of "obscuring" the links (with the implication being that my intent was malicious) is simply ridiculous.
• attempt to WP:GAME the system. Let's talk about this. I firmly believe that each person should be involved in their own area of competence. Ergo, someone who's an expert in medicine, and is clueless on (association) football, shouldn't be giving their opinion on the latter's discussion. And vice-versa. If five users out of five in the WikiProject Football talk page discussion supported moving the categories, there must be a reason. Sometimes having "third-parties" (ergo, people who's area of competence is not football) is good, but not in this situation. Also, being accused of "gaming the system" is laughable at best. Gaming? For what purpose? So I can sit on my throne and gaze at my creation (that is, having added a hyphen to "fullback")? Doesn't it seem a bit pedantic?

This is all I have to say about the matter, for now. I hope my comments have cleared up the situation. If there are any more comments, or issues, I'll be glad to explain my point of view. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Nehme1499: Thank you for commenting here. However, your responses only strenghten my concerns.

1. Taking an admin role of closing or relisting a discussion started by yourself is a non-no, other than when WP:CSK applies. WP:INVOLVED apples applies to any editor performing admin functions whether or not they are an admin.
2. Having opened a discussion at WP:CFD, your decision to open another discussion at the WikiProject was blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. What you should have done was to post at the WikiProject a neutral notification about the CFD discussion, e.g. by using {{cfd-notify}}. Instead, you chose to have the discussion in two places, which is a breach of WP:MULTI.
3. Your decision to open fresh CFDs immediately after the first one closed was also blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. You were asking the community to keep on discussing the issue until you got the answer you wanted.
4. Having open the fresh CFDs, you compounded the blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping by failing to link to the previous discussion. The result was that several editors (including me) wasted a significant amount of time on discussions which were procedurally closed as soon as your forum-shopping was exposed.
5. I accept that your failure to provide clear links to the WikiProject discussions may have been the result of incompetence rather than malice. Whatever the cause, it impeded the discussion and wasted the time of other editors. It's sad to see that even at this stage you don't acknowledge the problem.
6. There is no policy basis for your statement I firmly believe that each person should be involved in their own area of competence. Ergo, someone who's an expert in medicine, and is clueless on (association) football, shouldn't be giving their opinion on the latter's discussion.
   The en.wp policy is that decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and there is no policy giving extra weight to self-proclaimed experts. Editors who have such expertise can demonstrate it in discussion by reasoning and evidence, which you signally failed to do. Instead, you misrepresented the WikiProject discussions, and posted "evidence" in the form of crude searches which multiply failed to observe the guidance in WP:Search engine test. Your did not demonstrate your expertise; you on the contrary, you made a bunch of assertions were either evidenced or demonstrably false.

I had hoped that you might come here and say something to the effect of "sorry, I screwed up multiply, and have learnt from this; sorry for wasting everyone's time". If that had been your response, then this ANI thread would almost certainly have been closed as "lesson learnt, no action needed".

But instead you express no regret for the time-wasting and disruption, you openly mock the concerns as laughable at best, you give no indication that your forum-shopping approach will change, and you assert your own personal view of process over long-standing core policies. And that sarcastic remark about sit on my throne and gaze at my creation is fairly contemptuous too.

I don't see how anything short of sanctions is likely to prevent a recurrence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BHG is completely correct that the expertise comment is a total non-starter. When taken too far, it’s literally one of the WP:WIAPA main points:

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?"

— MarkH₂₁^talk 20:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't ever recall seeing a discussion at cfd closed as 'keep' and then being relisted within even a month (never mind 20 minutes). It is certainly disruptive and a waste of editorial time. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_20#Category:Association_football_positions was listed at WikiProject Football (by Giant Snowman), gained no support and 2 opposes. As a footballer, I don't care whether it is centre-back, centre-half, central defender, with or without hyphens or spaces, and I expect this indifference is not restricted to me. Oculi (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Reading thru this, with only basic knowledge of assoc. football, I see an editor who saw an inconsistency with the articles and the cats. The articles use hyphens, the cats. do not; I have no idea which is correct or if there is a divide on usage. The CfD generated minimal participation, all against; the WP talk page had very low interest, all in favor. None really cleared up for me which way is correct and why. That tells me either this needs a more in depth argument and discussion before any proposal is made, or no action is needed due to indifference.
  I then see an editor who wants to fix it and fix it now, without regard to protocol, and I see other editors very much invested in protocol. I don't think sanctions are needed, but I think understanding the other person's approach would help. This appears to be a one-off dispute rather than a continued disruption, correct? Nehme botched the relist, and maybe screwed up the forumshopping, but is there really more to be done here? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I was just waiting for an uninvolved editor to express my thoughts. Did I mess up with WP:FORUMSHOPing (of which I just found out the existence)? Yes. Did I mess up by re-listing the discussion so quickly? Now I found out, yes. Is this whole thing necessary? No. As @Bison X pointed out, I was just trying to "fix" something as soon as possible, in order to have my mind clear and move on. What I didn't account for were the whole rules and protocols that went with this. It's obvious that what I have done won't be repeated again (regardless of whether I believe I was in the right or wrong). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Nehme1499: your response to concerns expressed here about your conduct has been to laugh at them ... so no, it is not in any way obvious that what [you] have done won't be repeated again.
  If you give an assurance that you won't do this again, then we can consider that. But so far you have chosen not to give any such assurance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I assure that what has happened in these past few days won't be repeated in the future. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to assure people of your good intentions, then evading responsibility ("what has happened" rather than what you did) and using the passive voice ("won't be repeated") isn't a good way to go about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please tell me that you are joking... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am not joking at all. I am asking you to demonstrate your good faith by using simple, direct words rather than evasions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a small piece about the situation. I don't think sanctions are necessary at this junction, because I don't think this has been a repeated behavior (as far as I know). However, @Nehme1499:, the reason why BHG has been so stern with you is because there was a profound lack of transparency in your dealings. Any time you want to discuss about an issue, it's on you to make sure people know all the discussion that's been going on about that issue, whether or not it helps your case. It's on you to centralize the discussion in one proper place according to established procedure, using neutral notices on other talk pages/WikiProjects to let others know about where that discussion is taking place. When you failed to do that, it exposed that you were fixed on some course of action that you think is right and needs to be done that way at all costs.

Those of us who have been on Wikipedia long enough know that such a mindset can only lead to major hurts down the road. The relisting too fast thing may be a violation of guidelines (that doesn't bother me personally), but the lack of transparency is a violation of what it means to build consensus. That's what she wants you to acknowledge, and what I hope you would acknowledge about this current situation. bibliomaniac15 19:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bibliomaniac15. Transparency is crucial to consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, if anything Nehme1499 has always seemed pretty grounded to me, he likes a natter, nothing wrong with that. There are a hell of a lot of policies on wikipedia, I wouldn't expect any one to know ever policy inside out, that's ridicules, I think you could of brought up this on his talk page. I don't see this as a real issue for ANI. Govvy (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I would expect an editor's of Nehme1499's experience to be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. It's also WP:COMMONSENSE not to just hammer away asking the same question until you get the answer you want. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You shouldn't assume that every experienced editor knows WP:FORUMSHOP. I didn't even know about that one till last year!! It's always good to have common sense, I am pretty sure Nehme1499 knows now what he did wrong. The other problem I see is you're going in to too much detail, keep things concise and to the point. Too much detail can put a lot of experience editors off from even trying to help. I read through above and I still think you have over-reacted. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated unsourced edits

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

---

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

This editor refuses to respond to my descriptive edit summaries (here, here & here), my personal pleas as well as warnings on their talk page by repeatedly adding unsourced questionable info, specifically unsourced dates. Examples of these disruptive edits can be seen here, here, here, here & here. While English may not be their first language it seems clear to me that they are able to communicate but have chosen not to. I have been extremely patient with this editor as can be seen on their talk page but it's becoming obvious that they have no intention of discussing these issues with me, nor do I think they have any intention of reliably sourcing their edits. Please could a willing admin cast an eye. Robvanvee 07:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is acceptable but in the interest of having an admin address this concern, I am repeating my request. Please could an admin take a look. Robvanvee 11:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robvanvee, we had a similar, but less clear case recently, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Persistent_edit_warring_by_Koavf. In a nutshell, creating (a) discussion(s) on the article talk page(s), and inviting the disruptive user to the discussion(s), can be an alternative approach, as described in the essay WP:DISCFAIL. In this case here, however, the persistent addition of material openly taken from user-generated sources like Discogs (red entry at WP:RSP) made the decision easy. Enforcing a proper discussion with someone editing on a mobile device can be challenging. The indefinite block will make sure that the user properly addresses the issues and learns about the edit warring policy before being able to return to editing.

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

That will be my go to method from now on. Thank you very much for your helpful explanation and assistance with this issue ToBeFree! Robvanvee 13:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Anytime. Thanks for the kind feedback and the report. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Ashton 29 is back from his block and hasn't learned a thing.

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

---

Just when you thought it was safe to go back to ANI....

Right before he made the personal attack that got him blocked for 3 days, Ashton 29 made a change to the montage at Newcastle, New South Wales. That in itself wasn't a problem. It was after I replaced one image with a more appropriate version,[108] Ashton 29 reverted without any attempt at discussion.[109] Being used to this sort of editing by him, I reverted to the status quo and invited him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.[110] This was less than 2 hrs before his block so he obviously had no opportunity to discuss. Subsequently, another editor modified the montage and then an IP reverted to Ashton 29's montage.[111] For reasons that I'm happy to explain I suspect that there may be some sockpuppetry involved so I reverted that edit.[112] A little under 16 hours after release from his block Ashton 29 reverted to his preferred montage again, of course without discussing.[113] Instead, he went to Cement4802's talk page and attacked me.[114] Given that he wasn't specifically blocked for edit-warring, I thought it better to bring it here than taking it to AIV. Any opinions on how to resolve this? And no, he hasn't posted at Talk:Sydney. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You're both blocked for a week to give us a break from this feud over who owns articles about Australia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Good block. Wish I'd had the gumption to do it.--v/r - TP 13:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. This is a bad block and punitive. I see no evidence AussieLegend was edit warring; he was actually seeking consensus on Talk:Sydney. Using week-long block to silence editors does not a good admin make. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring today. It's not much and ordinarily it wouldn't result in a block, but I think this is a case where the editors in question have gone at each other one time too many. That said, a week is probably too much. One of the editors is just coming off a 3-day block; the other isn't. They shouldn't be given equivalent block lengths. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I daresay it wouldn't take more than voluntary 1RR from each involved party to get the blocks lifted (without mindreading NRP, of course). SERIAL^# 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: There has been back-and-forth editing, but AussieLegend didn't violate 3RR. Returning to status quo ante isn't edit warring when there's a discussion ongoing. And yes, a one week block with no policy violation and no warning is irresponsible. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This didn't just come out of the blue; did you read the epic thread above?-- P-K3 (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is partly a response to the epic bickerfest mentioned above. I don't care if someone wants to unblock them. What I personally would look for is a promise to stop bickering, complaining to admins about how the other person dared to change an image in a montage, and reverting each other while hypocritically ordering each other to "go to the talk page". And, yes, reverting someone's edits in the name of restoring the "status quo version" is still reverting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I did read it; it's a content issue and AussieLegend was blocked alongside the other editor involved because the admin corps, faced with a long, complicated thread, only has the ability to enforce silence. AussieLegend made a bunch of reversions but that's ok if it doesn't violate 3RR on a single page. All the while, he made efforts to come to consensus. My point is, if AussieLegend didn't violate 3RR or NPA, he didn't deserve to be blocked without warning because the admin corps can't be bothered. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: "a bunch of reversions but that's ok if it doesn't violate 3RR on a single page" - No it isn't. See WP:EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: You are mistaken: "here is a bright line known as the three-revert rule ...says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". You should re-read that and not take a cop-out that you can call any reversions EW. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: From WP:3RR:

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached.

— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Edit warring without violating 3RR often isn't okay although I make no comment on this particular instance. 3RR has never been intended as a right, the policy page explicitly say that. Also I'm fairly confused what efforts were made by anyone to come to consensus. Talk:Newcastle, New South Wales has not been edited since January. [115]. As I always say, if a content dispute arrives here and the talk page is empty, that often means everyone involved has failed and no one should be at ANI. The Sydney stuff sure there has been a lot of back on forth discussion on all sides which hasn't been particularly productive but whatever is going on there doesn't excuse anyone from failing to discuss whatever problems are at the Newcastle page resulting in back and forth reverts. Someone needs to be the bigger person and just initiate the bloody discussion and stop expecting the other editor to do it or nothing is ever going to happen except a clear cut edit war. Fights over who should initiate the discussion are IMO some of the lamest sort of fights there are on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've posted this on AussieLegend's talkpage: I'm not sure I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that a block was warranted here, and I'm sure that no one wants AussieLegend to stay blocked for a week. However, rather than my unblocking unilaterally, let's see if we can move forward constructively, by my asking AussieLegend if he'd be willing to modify his approach to these issues if unblocked. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fair to put the onus on the blocked editor if the block was excessive in the first place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The block can be excessive but Aussie could also need to modify his approach. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The message being sent to Aussie is 'we probably made a mistake in blocking you for a week, but we won't fix our mistake unless you do what we want.' That's not okay. Yes, Aussie should change their approach. No, that's not a reason to keep an excessive block in place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No mistakes were made. Aussie posted walls of rants on this noticeboard and demanded someone do something. When he was asked to be succient, he mouthed off at everyone who bothered to even take a look. This is the third thread discussing disputes he's been in in less than a week. Whether or not he's a long term editor, his behavior has contributed to the disruption. If he put his ego aside for one minute and opened the damn talk page discussion himself, instead of directing his "opponent" to do it in edit notices, and stopped reverting, he wouldn't be blocked and only Ashton would. That's the situation as it currently stands. The block is a good block although NRP apparently leaned heavy on length but it's still within administrator discretion. Other admins saying "I'd have done less" doesn't make it wrong.--v/r - TP 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really mind the position you're taking, even if I don't fully agree. It's fair to say that Aussie has handled this situation poorly, even if I wouldn't say he's met the threshold for being blocked. What bothers me is that some admins are dubious about the block but still want to put the onus on the blocked editor to rectify the situation. Either the block was good or it wasn't, and if it wasn't then the onus isn't on the blocked editor to make it right. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

One week is on the long side, but opening this report was mind-blowingly ill-considered and has well passed the point of being disruptive. I've seen people get indeffed for being "time sinks". Cjhard (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued mass changes against consensus

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

---

75.145.78.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their mobile device 2601:1C2:4100:EC0:494F:A99B:31C8:61B8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for some reason keep changing RCA --> RCA Records in the infoboxes of several David Bowie and related articles. This goes against consensus at Template:Infobox_album#studio. The IP never responds to requests on their talk page. This has been reported to AIV a few times, and the user is temporarily blocked, but usually returns a week or so later to make the same edits. Is there any additional action that can be taken to avoid us having to change these back every couple weeks? Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now blocked the two IPs for one month each. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment and continous vandalism

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

---

• Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Harassment against me and vandalism by removal and change of content per POV; intentionally creates in-text sandwiching of images (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images). Has been sufficiently warned, user is disrespectful in a harassing manner and made personal attacks, refuses to engage in discussion prior to implementing changes and persists on unconstructive edits. User has been blocked before and has a history of vandal-like activity. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I noticed Urabura sometimes addresses you in Polish, Oliszydlowski, on the pretense that you will understand it better (though there's nothing wrong with your English that I can see) — and, perhaps, also so that the admins won't understand, though that is unspoken. We do have access to translation tools, though, and Urabura's secret Polish message here to Oliszydlowski means in English, per the Bing translator: "I will write you in Polish so that you can understand better. Man you have something wrong with the psyche, you started this discussion yourself and you attack me, and now you write that I am attacking you and that you do not want to discuss. Do you have schizophrenia?" Questioning another user's mental health is utterly inappropriate. I have blocked Urabura for a week for egregious personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 00:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

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

Slow moving edit war at Order of the Golden Fleece

• Order of the Golden Fleece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure what's going on, but there's a slow-moving edit war going on at Order of the Golden Fleece that may need some outside eyes. I don't have enough background to assess the situation, but I also don't want to go in there and exacerbate a problem that would be better diffused by someone with more background knowledge. Eyes would be useful here. --Jayron32 18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the last edits:

The user editing them from an Austrian IP address is swapping the order of everything, always with the Austrian point of view first. The Habsburg branch is NOT NECESSARILY more legitimate as it was not the originator of the order (the House of Valois-Burgundy was). The order is not property of any family, and keeps changing according to the throne that has been granting it (Spain for the last half a millennium). King Charles II gave all his succession rights to Philip V, a Bourbon, passing the Grand Mastership to the kings of Spain (regardless of the house).

If that were not enough, Austria is a republic, Spain continues to have a constitutional monarchy where the Order of the Golden Fleece is officially recognised.

Furthermore, the fact that all the constitutional monarchs (Queen Elisabeth, Emperor of Japan, Kings of the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Tsar of Bulgaria etc...) are knights of the SPANISH ORDER of the Golden Fleece undermines the Austrian.

Lastly, I can see where the IP user is coming from when he says the Austrian order has continued with its tradition of granting the fleece ONLY to Christians, whereas the Spanish hasn't. This however does not mean the Spanish order has developed into an order of Merit per se. If you look at the members, all except 4 are/have been/will be kings (certainly not merit, but condition of royal birth).

With all this being said, I don't intend to not include the Austrian branch, which has absolutely got arguments in favor of its legitimacy, but it is bluntly evident that the article should follow an order of relevance, and so the Spanish branch should be the first mentioned. Throughout history, I'm certain the Spanish branch has been the "most desired" and most recognised (Duke of Wellington, Napoleons, British Royal Family etc...) whereas the Austrian has been granted mostly between the Habsburgs and the minor Germanic princes (which by the way doesn't make it better or worse, its simply a fact).

--Cantabrucu (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hallo!

I think there are some mistakes about the order:

For one thing, the order belongs exclusively to neither the Spanish throne nor the Habsburg throne. The order had its own statutes when it was founded. At the end of the War of the Spanish Succession there was a discussion about who could take over the order. According to the statutes of the order, the rights came to the Habsburg house. The new Spanish royal family did not want to do without it and continued to cultivate the order. In any case, the Habsburgs took over the archive and the treasure, in particular they also took over the rights to Burgundy in accordance with the peace agreement. Since then there have been 2 branches of the order.

The Spanish branch then had some breaks in the history of the order in the 19th and 20th centuries, because the order was apparently not lived continuously during the Spanish Republic. Austria, for example, is now also a republic and has legally established the Republic of Austria that the Habsburg Order of the Golden Fleece has its own legal personality and that the Habsburg family is currently entitled to the award.

The Spanish branch has developed differently from the Habsburg branch, which refers to the original statutes and lives in the sense of a knighthood. For example, the Spanish branch honored the fascist Franco. According to the literature, the Spanish branch has developed into a bare medal of merit because the knights' community is no longer cultivated accordingly.

One can always argue about the historical and current importance of the members, especially when one considers that the Habsburg family ruled the Holy Roman Empire for a long time, then an empire, while at many times Spain was not a royalty. It is also interesting that there are historically and currently members who belong to the two branches.

It is not an Austrian, Spanish, Habsburg, Bourbon, Burgundian or Dutch view - no, it should be a scientific one. It doesn't matter whether the one aristocrat is first or second in the article. The source of information and scientific literature on the subject are decisive for me. In principle, of course, the order in Spain as well as in Central Europe is particularly relevant. Whether Spain or Central Europe is more important is not my issue.

In any case, I tried to supplement and edit the article according to my sources in order to pursue the Wikipedia project further.

Greetings from Corona Vienna - stay healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.154.68.98 (talk • contribs)

• This conversation needs to happen at the article talk page, and also needs resolution BEFORE either of you edit the text again. Please continue it there. --Jayron32 12:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Aust church.

T*U (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• At this point I think we need an Arbcom case on all topics beginning with Aust -- Australia, Austria, australopithecus, austerity. If problems continue we'll expand to auspicious. EEng 12:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: How about pro wrestler Austin, Stone Cold Steve?--WaltCip (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Jayron32! I have done so at the talk page, but this IP user keeps editing the article. Cheers. --Cantabrucu (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm semiprotecting Order of the Golden Fleece for one month since we can't get any of the various IPs to comment on the article talk page. Will leave a note on the talk page and perhaps whoever is behind the IPs will open negotiations there. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:AFD/USA

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

---

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) CJK09 (talk · contribs)

Earlier today, North America aka NA deletion sorted Scott E. Langum at Deletion sorting United States. Langum is from Spokane, Washington. He works for the United States Senate. US deletion sorting says quite clearly- 'Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.

Langum is from Washington state. It is very clear that is a state of origin. So he would only go at Washington state deletion sorting.

NA wrote the guidelines for the page. They are his word for word. Check here[116] There is an edit war occurring at the page, I admit. He keeps attacking me with claims of WP:OWN.[117] [118] But NA is ignoring the very guidelines they wrote. WP:DISRUPT anyone if an editor can't follow the guidelines they wrote?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why have you violated 3RR and why are you forumshopping? The AN3 report remains outstanding. El_C 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. Both editors I'd come here before the AN3 report....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The AN3 report was submitted at 14:18 — the ANI one at 14:21. Fair enough, I suppose there could have been an overlap. Still, WilliamJE has been partially blocked for violating 3RR. El_C 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note – I have already initiated a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page, Here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the editor who drafted those guidelines understands the intent behind those guidelines? We're supposed to follow the spirit, not the letter, of rules here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, your ownership of that page is single-handedly making a deletion category that could be very useful, near useless. It shouldn't be necessary to watchlist 50 state deletion categories (most of which I don't care about) to see the federal/national-level stuff (which I do care about). It's pretty clear in this case that the article subject is relevant at a federal level, not a state level. No one cares that he was born in Washington, it's completely irrelevant to his career. CJK09 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• • You're hysterically funny. Here you are arguing[119] ignore all rules is what is going on then you're saying above the editor knows the intent. Which is it, an interpertation or IAR? You can't argue both....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Take your pick. Either one works and I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive. NA1K knows the intent of the policy that he wrote, so he feels justified in ignoring the letter of the law in this instance. Makes perfect sense to me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Apart from the forum shopping, it is clear that a liaison to the United States Senate should be sorted not just in the category for the state he grew up in, but in the USA category as well. --MrClog (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Again, not forum shopping. I posted here 3 minutes after NA posted at AN3. I said both here[120] and here[121] what I was planning to do....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note – The report to the Edit warring noticeboard resulted in WilliamJE being blocked from editing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America page for two weeks (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have that page in my watchlist and I am a member of the deletion sorting project and I think this is one of the lamest edit wars. I think Northamerica1000 and CJK09 should have started a talk page discussion before adding it back. During a dispute, the status quo version is preferred per WP:QUO. But also, William shouldn't have continued editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• I like William and have justifiably defended him on several occasions in recent months. But William, you need to dial it back on this one. This so very much not a hill worth dying on. I agree with NA1K that a federal politician is more relevant to the nation as a whole than to his home state and I don't care at all if the letter of the policy says otherwise. Even if NA1K is 100% wrong, it really doesn't matter. It's just a delsort page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang topic ban proposal

(Not sure if I'm allowed to do this as an involved party. I've been away from Wikipedia for awhile until very recently. Feel free to remove this if inappropriate.)

I propose a topic ban for User:WilliamJE, prohibiting edits relating to categorization of XfD discussions, due to persistent disruptive ownership behavior. CJK09 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@CJK09: WilliamJE is currently blocked for their 3RR violation. In the thread above a history of "persistent disruptive ownership behavior" hasn't been established; is a TBAN really necessary at this point or can we wait to see what happens when they are no longer blocked? VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE's block log is getting long. Is there a pattern here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, 7 edit-warring blocks (3 in the last two years) for one user is pretty striking. I can’t tell how much of the disruption is related to XfD sorting though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Close this discussion the user has been blocked for editwarring by El_C. There is no reason for a topic ban.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  @SharabSalam: The editor was only partially blocked by El_C from editing a single page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Both editors are guilty of edit warring -- see [122] -- and should stop. If they don't an admin should give both a time out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ban" message from German WP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pattern of Making Unexplained Reverts

• NomanPK44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NomanPK44 continues to make unexplained reverts of those edits that have been carefully explained by the editors who he reverts. Starting with this example from February which was a POV revert of this explained edit. NomanPK44 continues to engage in this type of disruption,[123][124][125][126][127] even after having been warned that he must WP:COMMUNICATE others and avoid making unexplained reverts. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 01:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The disruption appears to be taking place on articles obviously related to India and Pakistan, and you've already warned the user of the relevant DS in the past, so maybe take this to WP:AE? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not worth it. He is currently editing but ignoring this complaint. This is more of a general issue than proficiency in editing a particular subject that's why I reported here. After all same admins who observe AE also observe this noticeboard. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

See this edit Kleuske (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for UPE and NLT. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The threat notwithstanding, the sourcing for the controversy section referred to by the blocked editor is not ideal. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Historic Hotels of America

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

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

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

Other examples are e.g. the Omni Berkshire Place, New York City, where the sole link says things like "The event planning team and tech team will work together to make sure everything runs smoothly on the big day and even be available the day of, in case anything should go awry. Best of all, free WiFi is modernly available throughout the historic Manhattan hotel.", or Dunhill Hotel ("Known for its gracious, personalized service, The Dunhill Hotel offers a boutique hotel experience in the heart of Uptown Charlotte."[128]), or ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There will be no boomerang or anything else, because we do not sanction editors for bringing up legitimate concerns. The reason that a number of people have agreed with Fram above is not because they are some sort of a cabal, but because they understand the proper sourcing of articles. Let's be clear about this - you were previously banned from creating articles for three years because, according to Arbcom, you had "a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant" And with some of these articles, you're now doing this again, except this time it's worse because they're often not NRHP locations, which means there is no presumption of notability at all. These are how some of these looked when you created them [129] [130] [131], and some of them are still stubs with no obvious notability. I mean, that's pretty much "placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant", isn't it? Obviously I'm not saying that all of them are like this, but far too many are. My suggestion is simple - that you not create any more hotel stubs based purely on sourcing from the HHA and that such stubs clearly explain why they're notable buildings. Then we won't be back here again. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: The problems also seems to be that this user is autopatrolled and that their articles are therefore not subject to review by NPP, which is why many of these articles are not either tagged or nominated for deletion. --MrClog (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doncram just taking the piss now?

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

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

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

So, instead of using one promotional source, we now have 4 of these, and still not a single neutral, reliable, independent source about the actual hotel. Why not use, oh I don't know, the complete book on "Seattle'Historic Hotels"[132] instead? Really, how hard is it to use good sources instead of this shit? Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• DrKay has already removed Doncram's autopatrolled rights. [133] Mysticdan (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of sources to Mayflower Park Hotel - there are more out there, it's definitely a notable building. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

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

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

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

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

Proposal 2

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

---

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 09:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support This one I already support - an article sourced only to the subject's website and/or a marketing organisation is a draft, and shouldn't be in main space until someone has replaced the promo sources with proper ones. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Girth Summit above. Deor (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - yes, it's embarrassing having these still in main space. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Also necessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support These articles, while possibly notable and expandable, are not fit for mainspace in their current states. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I was going to add that they should be checked for new sources before moving, but on second thought, I really think Doncram should be responsible for that if he wants the articles to be moved into mainspace. Cleaning up his own mess, in other words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

some responding

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

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

It seems important to me now both:

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

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

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

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

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

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

At 2020 South Korean legislative election

User:Willisuh seems to be WP:NOTHERE, and given the narrow focus of their previous edits (mostly dealing with South Korean politics), which rely on biased language and, sometimes, misinterpretation of sources and potential OR to, seemingly, push a point; they also appear to be a WP:SPA. As a mostly uninvolved editor with the current dispute, I ask if there is ground for action here? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Having started the discussion about the material in question on the article talk page, it does seem that they are only really here (currently) to push what appears to be a fringe viewpoint via a mixture of WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation. However, I'm not sure any action is required unless they start trying to readd it to the article. Number 57 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

This person edits from a shifting IP address, but these recent edits[134][135] are likely from the same shifting-IP person [136] reported by @Ponyo: in the past.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An especially ludacris situation.

-Cjhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues at Adam Riess

• Adam Riess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m porting a complaint I got on my talk page here - I haven’t had time to go through everything since I’m on my phone but the IP editor, who claims to be Adam Riess, is extremely irritated about a back-and-forth happening between them and another editor on Adam Riess.

Dear Wikipedia

My name is Adam Riess and I am an American Astrophysicist and winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the accelerating Universe and Dark Energy.

I recently noticed that there have been two efforts to “vandalize” my wikipedia entry

1). A user name BattleOrc (who I understand to be (Redacted)) has been putting in a section called “Controversy” about his teams work denying the existence of dark Energy. They are free to have their own opinion, but they are fringe and my bio entry is not an appropriate place to air their grievances and dispute with the Nobel Prize.

I have removed this section and explained why in the comments but BattleOrc keeps restoring it.

2) A section on the Calan/Tololo Survey seeking credit for the Nobel work. The Calan/Tololo Project has its own wikipedia entry and that is the appropriate place to discuss it. Not my bio entry.

I have removed this section (writing as 130.167.171.156) but BattleOrc keeps restoring it.

I consider these attempts to settle scores or air grievances in my biographical entry in appropriate at best and libelous at worst. My bio entry should be simple and to the point and not have sections on other people’s diatribes, respectfully.

I kindly request that my entry is “frozen” so that it can’t be edited again by BattleOrc.

I have no clue what to do with this, but the two involved editors are BattleOrc and 130.167.171.156. I’ve seen people trying to remove info about themselves before, but this feels a lot more complicated and I’d really like some insight as to how this would get handled if not just in the article’s talk page. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I've redacted some info due to WP:OUTING concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thank you for that - Being on my phone I didn't get a chance to read it as thoroughly as I should have. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• I semi-protected Adam Riess with a note requesting discussion on talk page. If someone could double check that I did not just protect libel, that would be helpful. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 05:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I read both of the articles cited and didn't see any actual criticism (Riess' work was only mentioned once in each, and only in passing). I've gone ahead and removed both for being, at the very least, WP:OR violations, and mentioned it on the talk page. Morbidthoughts had already moved the other piece of offending material for not passing WP:RS. Hopefully this is the end of it. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The criticisms from Subir Sarkar and coworkers are certainly not "fringe" though they are a minority view, but clearly they shouldn't be included without secondary sourcing. This is easy to find, but that discussion belongs on the talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth, I read the articles also but do not feel it's original research. The statements are verified as they discuss methodology and suggest an alternative explanation to the evidence of dark energy. Scientific colleagues will rarely directly criticise each other. The question about whether they belongs in the article is more about whether it's WP:UNDUE and belongs in an article about the expansion of the universe and dark energy than Riess even if it's his life work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vax campaign

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

• [137]
• [138]
• [139]
• [140]
• [141]
• [142]

This user appears to be on a personal campaign to whitewash anti-vax-related articles. I think they should be topic banned promptly. Normally, I would bring this through WP:AE, but I am in no mood to deal with this kind of nonsense during the pandemic and think that this may need to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

jps (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Admin note/note to closer - I closed this discussion early as I saw a unanimous consensus in favour of a specific topic ban and assumed no chance that that consensus would migrate in another few hours. However, Barkeep49 has correctly pointed out to me that early closures are not allowed for ban discussions. Someone else should close this at the appropriate time, and since the spirit of the policy is to allow 24 hours for all interested community members to see and comment on the discussion, that it be allowed to run a full 24 hours from this timestamp. I apologize for my error and the inevitable confusion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for anti-vax arguments but we do need to be careful about using "conspiracy-theorist" in wiki voice in any BLP. This is especially true in the opening sentence. I'm generally uncomfortable with categories/also see links like Quackery, Snakeoil and conspiracy theorists in any BLP. In most of these cases I would personally argue the tags are likely correct but I don't think we should use them in something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The facts presented by the sources should be sufficient. The changes of categories from conspiracy to whistle blower is total BS. We don't have to use value laden labels but we shouldn't go the other way either. Springee (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It is only when all available reliable sources identify a person as a conspiracy theorist that the identity is asserted in Wikipeida voice. WP:ASSERT is basically the guide here. I have seen many sources which identify the people in question as conspiracy theorists. I have seen none which reject that characterization, even implicitly. There is no need to dance around this. I am sympathetic with the idea that there might be more, shall we say, felicitous ways of getting across the information. Feel free to workshop that. But this is rather beside the point from the campaign that is going on here documented above. jps (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JGabbard: Why are you pushing this? And in the middle of the worst pandemic since Spanish Flu, no less... Anti-vaxxation conspiracies have been long-debunked to the point of being a meme on the internet, and even if they weren't, we go by what reliable sources tell us. In the actual medical and scientific communities, there is no such controversy in relation to vaccinations. Please take the time to look over WP:Verifiability, WP:CS, WP:Advocacy, and WP:NPOV. Do not edit based on your beliefs, but what is verifiable. If there was a vaxxination conspiracy, which there isn't, it certainly wouldn't be from doctors/researchers with measly grant money (no pun intended). DarkKnight2149 15:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per jps; upon reviewing their edits, this isn't a borderline case, this is someone who clearly doesn't care that they're violating policy to whitewash false and dangerous pseudoscience. Rashid Buttar literally claimed that Anthony Fauci's lab created COVID-19; JGabbard removed the "conspiracy theorist" category and replaced it with "whistleblower". They have no business editing in this topicspace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on pseudo/fringe science, COVID-19, and AP2. JGabbard has previously been topic-banned from US politics. JGabbard is making controversial edits to a number of areas, not just this:

• [143] apologia for Chuck Woolery's claims that Marx and Lenin were Jewish; introduces "Lenin was one-quarter Jewish" but the cited source says "As for Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, his own Jewish background is even more tenuous. While he did have Jewish roots, these were distant and not at all known by his Bolshevik compatriots or his Soviet subjects."
• Edits noted above re Buttar and Mikovits (covered by discretionary sanctions on both pseudoscience and COVID-19)
• [144] Unsourced laundry list of WP:PEACOCK terms in Liz Crokin (also AP2, since she has been a noted QAnon supporter).

It is my impression that on the rare occasions JGabbard steps outside his habitual preserve of popular music, it is to Right Great Wrongs™, most of which are not wrong at all. Guy (help!) 16:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (and last-straw notification for indef). I am in complete agreement with jps that there is no need to dance around the niceties of this debate. These subjects are not labeled as conspiracy theorists merely because they have doubts about the safety of vaccines, but because they propose the existence of substantial conspiracies, involving large portions of governments of countries all over the world, the scientific community, and pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, "vaccine overload" is a nonsense concept, and calling it is a form of iatrogenic injury is comparable to inserting Bigfoot into the article on primates based on claims about its skeletal structure. A topic ban is warranted. BD2412 T 16:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, anyone who disputes that Buttar or Mikovits are conspiracy theorists, clearly hasn't been watching social media lately. Buttar especially: not just Covidiociy but 5G bullshit, chemtrails bullshit, anti-vax bullshit, Bill Gates bullshit and plenty more. And YouTube have taken several of his videos down as a result. Guy (help!) 17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Someone who alters articles to say in Wikipedia's voice that COVID/5G claims are "yet unproven" when they previously said "false" needs an topc ban at the very least. I am actually tempted to indefinitely block them until they accept the topic ban and promise not to pull a stunt like that again. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• These edits are egregious violations of our policies and blatant advocacy of dangerous fringe POV. More than a topic ban is needed. Jgabbard has proven they are NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Temporarily neutral - I'm leaning Support per NorthBySouthBaranof and BD2412, but I want to be fair and give JGabbard a chance to explain themselves first. If the user can't give a compelling reason for why they shouldn't be banned in a timely fashion, I am changing my vote to Support. DarkKnight2149 17:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Support topic ban on vaccinations, non-fictional diseases ("fiction" meaning movies, comics, etc), and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. DarkKnight2149 17:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• The fact that the American National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and British Vaccine Damage Payment exist at all is a clear implication of iatrogenesis. Those programs provide compensation to victims of vaccine damage, and also provide pharmaceutical corporations with immunity from liability lawsuits when their products are demonstrated to cause harm, all of which is conveniently swept under the rug because of the "no-fault" clause. It is a thing, and needs to be addressed honestly on Wikipedia. All of my other edits above are based on WP:BLP, to avoid defamation/smears. My edits are all in good faith, in sincere efforts to promote both truth and objectivity. - JGabbard (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • These programs are public and report their cases and the outcomes, which is the opposite of anything being "swept under the rug". There are no secret settlements or NDA clauses here. That, however, has nothing to do with the nonsensical concept of "vaccine overload". As for BLP concerns, BLP only requires that characterizations be reliably sourced, which is not in question here. Your response, however, makes your intent more questionable. BD2412 T 17:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is enormous difference between the possibility that scientists may make a mistake, which has become ever more slimmer as science develops but is recognised by those agencies, and the conspiracy theories that you are following by denying that their proponents are conspiracy theorists. Just follow reliable sources, rather than the warped opinions of such people. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • JG, the fact that those programs exist is not proof of iatrogenesis. In large part those programs exist because, at the societal level, it makes more sense to pass a law and set up a fund rather than let every provider and pharama company play jury roulette each time someone claims to have been harmed by a vaccine. There was legitimate concern that pharma companies would get out of the vaccine business if they faced hugely expensive lawsuits every time there was a correlation between a vaccine and a bad outcome. I'm not going to vote on the tban but I would strongly suggest stating that you will back away from this subject and work through the consensus process else it looks like the topic ban will be inevitable. Springee (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I concur with Springee. At this point, such a statement is the only thing that would cause me to recede my vote, and even then, we would need a final warning for an automatic topic ban if you go back to what you were doing before this report. DarkKnight2149 17:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• This response does not give me comfort. Changing a category on a page about someone who peddles G5 myths from 'Conspiracy theorist' to 'American whistleblower' seems entirely inexplicable. I'm happy to accept that these edits were made in good faith, as JGabbard asserts, but if that's the case then the lack of judgment is too poor to be editing articles in these areas, so I would support a TBan from this whole area. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, Covid-19 and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef. JGabbard, all the good faith in the world and attempts to defend what you mistakenly believe to be "truth" cannot make up for your blatant edits contrary to RS. Such edits violate NPOV by placing your editorial opinions above what RS say, and citing BLP as an excuse doesn't help you at all, because properly sourced negative content is not a BLP violation. You are NOTHERE. -- Valjean (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, Covid-19 and conspiracy theorists, broadly construed. This isn't close. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, Covid-19 and conspiracy theorists, broadly construed, for all of the already noted reasons. Not entirely opposed to a full site ban given that they have standing topic bans already, and thus is showing a propensity for pushing debunked information and other falsehoods across other aspects of Wikipedia. At the very least, this sort of ban should also come with a clear last-straw admonition as well. --Jayron32 17:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, COVID-19 and conspiracy theories, broadly construed. --MrClog (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per everyone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I guess, but pseudoscience is a DS topic. Why doesn't an admin just ban them from the area? Natureium (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on vaccinations, COVID-19 and conspiracy theories. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am hearing all of you and your concerns, and appreciate your constructive criticism. I truly am here to help build the encyclopedia, as I believe the preponderance of my contributions indicate. I will back away from this subject and will also commit to working much more through the consensus process in the future where applicable. - JGabbard (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Relisted - see my note above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thank you for reopening. I think the fact that the editor has stated they will step away from these sorts of edits and has promised to take things to the talk page should be sufficient to show they understand the issue and the problem has gone away. They now have all the needed warnings and admins can tban them if the problem come back. I'm saying this not because I think their edits were improvements but because bans and blocks are meant to be protective, not punishments. I would prefer to err on the side of not acting. Disclaimer: I have not interacted with this editor in the past and I don't edit in the area of vaccines... and I think the Panic Virus was a good book. Springee (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, fair. Guy (help!) 17:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reiterate previous support Just noting that my support for the TBan still stands despite JGabbard's stated intention to leave the subject alone (which I believe was made in good faith, and they intend to abide by). I encouraged them on their talk page not to let this bother then, and to continue the good work they do in musical areas. I'm not looking to be unduly harsh to them, but the diffs above convince me that they shouldn't be editing in this area. It can be tempting, despite good intentions, for someone to creep back into a subject area that interests them; I hope that a formal restriction would act as a curb to any such temptation, helping JGabbard to stay focussed on the areas where they do good work. If it's not necessary (because they don't want to edit in the area), then it won't be a hindrance; if it's a hindrance (because they want to edit in the area), then it would be necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I cannot AGF in this instance that the editor will keep their word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban broadly construed. Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech where nutcases get equal time with reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Taunting by "retired" user

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

---

Several days ago, Dudewithafez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly known as "KazekageTR", went on a massive WP:CANVAS spree of about 40 Turkish users to back him up in a dispute regarding a picture of the Armenian Genocide in the Turkey article [145]. Several of these users responded, and the article had to be protected as a result of their edit-warring. I filed a thread at ANI [146], at which time KazekageTR asked to change his username to "Dudewithhafez" and then "retired" [147], presumably to avoid a block. Today it seems he has decided to come out of "retirement" and is taunting me on several talkpages [148] [149] [150]. Khirurg (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In the last report, despite his massive canvassing in Turkish to Turkish users on en.wiki, this editor did not even get a warning. It is no coincidence why he feels so brazen about it. Dr. K. 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that is over now. Indeffed. El_C 22:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El C. Dr. K. 23:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on "Attraction to transgender people"

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

NOTHERE and likely a sock account

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

---

Oh, deer! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

Wolfagain1 who has reactivated his account after nearly 1 year appears to be a sock and a case of NOTHERE per these edits:[151][152][153] By "his sock" he is claiming that VQuakr is my sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I asked him to come to talk page and do not remove references. His history shows that he is active only in Pakistan-India related pages and just add hate content and also remained blocked for edit war. Wolfagain1 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Do not remove references" even if the content is problematic? How come you don't want to reply on talk page but resort to personal attacks? You are engaging in a typical WP:NOTHERE behavior. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

:Listen dear! I did try to reason with you on talk page but you are not responding. You are adding/removing hate content in the favour of one country. You can start a fan site for India but when it doesn't suit you, or the references are not in the favour of your ideology, you simply start removing the referenced content. Wolfagain1 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Duck block. Will continue discussions on the editor's talk page. Lourdes 08:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

American Politics and COVID-19

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

---

Do we consider that conspiracy theories around COVID-19 (notably the Plandemic conspiracy video) have sufficient overlap with politics that editors subject to AP2 topic bans should not be editing them? Guy (help!) 08:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• No JzG is likely asking this to use this as grounds for getting me banned. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I'd say that falls within the 'broadly construed'. (Don't want to be a process wonk, but shouldn't this be on AN rather than ANI?) GirthSummit _(blether) 09:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, maybe, but you get more input here, and there's an ongoing incident. Guy (help!) 09:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, ah, OK, I now see what you're getting at. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what is political about Plandemic. Seems more likely that it should fall under the Pseudoscience restrictions. What is the link between AP2 and Plandemic? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's part of he politicking coming from certain political groups on the COVID 19 spectrum of political disorders. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what is political about Plandemic

So a video whose central premise that a Federal government conspiracy led by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci (you know, a government official) is working to actively endanger the health of the U.S. population is NOT inherently political? You have to work extra hard to reach that conclusion. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it falls under the political field, broadly -- or normally -- construed. I note that this article and associated ones were launched by User:Eternal Father, who is already under an AP2 topic ban for promoting garbage political reporting. --Calton | Talk 11:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes - It's unfortunate, but anti-science and pro-conspiracy are planks in the Republican Party platform. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree 100% Glen 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes indeed - It appears that every aspect (origin, containment, economics, demographic impact, election impact, citizen rights, health insurance, deficit, corruption, pseudoscience, governmental reach, states’ rights) is heavily politicized. O3000 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - But wouldn't that be up to enforcing Admins' discretion, one way or the other? Does this kind of thing have to go to ARCA? In practical terms, most of the political part of the topic is likely to have other markers that clearly relate to American Politics, so that it may not be necessary to tie the virus to AP. SPECIFICO talk 12:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not necessarily - it would depend on the specific material being discussed. For example, the idea that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab would not fall under AP2 since it's not about US politics. In looking at the Wikipedia Plandemic article I'm not seeing where it says this was related to what would normally be AP2 related items. <Edit> Looking at the article in more detail I see the federal labs part, that would qualify as AP2. Conversely, a discussion of the "suppression" of the video would not. </edit> Discussions of the lock down are more likely to fall into AP2. Clearly any discussion of the government's roll (real or imagined) would have to be AP2. However, a discussion of the impacts of the lockdown on ABC Corp or DEF Eatery would not. A theory that GHI Pharma invented the virus to make money would not fall into AP2 since it doesn't alleged or involve US government actors. General comment: I find discussions like this troubling. We should not be trying to use the bureaucracy of Wikipedia to silence voices that are saying things we don't like and that is exactly what this looks like. If an editor is problematic in this area then why not apply a COVID-19 topic ban? Finally remember the question really being asked. Guy's question can be a very slippery slope. Even if the video was 100% AP2, the complete COVID-19 topic should NEVER be 100% AP2 as that would preclude discussing it's impact on a car plant in France or on sales of Ferraris. Springee (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, actually the idea that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab absolutely is US politics. It's a conspiracy theory pushed by fringe right wing media in support of the Trump anti-China agenda (e.g. it's prominently promoted by Epoch Times).

  In a normal universe, batshit insane conspiracy theories are separate from politics, but we don't live in one of those. Guy (help!) 13:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, no that is not US politics per se. If someone from Australia says it was a Chinese lab and cites a British tabloid how can you claim it's AP2? That doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory but it does take it out of AP2. This is why the context should be considered. Additionally, just because it was promoted by the Epoch Times (or any fringe source right or left) doesn't mean it was AP2. This is the sort of scope creep that we shouldn't allow. I'm assuming we already have COVID-19 discretionary sanctions so why should we stretch AP2 to cover this? Since you are the nominator, what problem are you trying to solve here? Why aren't existing policies sufficient to address the issue? Springee (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Usually but not always. Administrators will have to make a judgement call here. I don't think it's going to be a clear cut tie. I largely agree with Springee's view. Administrators will have to make a decision based on the context of the edit in question.--v/r - TP 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  TParis, Yes, that is reasonable. Guy (help!) 13:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, of course they do, I don't know why it's even a question. Perhaps not all COVID-19 conspiracy theories have originated with American politicians (debatable) but absolutely each and every one has been used by an American politician for purely political motives. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that none of these theories have developed outside of the US policy debate? That seems a very US centric view of things. Yes, the conspriacies become part of politics very readily but again, this seems to be a case of stretching AP2 to cover something that should be covered separately. For example, is the anti-vax movement under AP2? Why would we consider a conspiracy suggesting that big pharma created COVID-19 to sell vaccines to be an AP2 topic? Wouldn't that fall under the anti-vax area instead? Springee (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  We should consider a conspiracy suggesting that Big Pharma created COVID-19 to sell vaccines to be AP2 when it's repeated by the President as an attack on his political opponents, and when those attacks inspire white terrorist militias to show up to state legislatures and shoot security guards at department stores, yes. It also falls under the pseudoscience DS. I am Canadian, btw. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is the slope I'm worried about. If a COVID-19 conspiracy is mentioned in context of actions of/by various parts of the US government then yes, AP2. But why would it be AP2 if it's in context of say a Canadian or Australian article/incident? Trying to pin the murder of a security guard on comments from the President is again a big stretch. Given the impact to the US and the world due to the virus and subsequent actions by governments around the world there is going to be a lot of politics involved in all this but we really need to be clear and take this as a case by case basis. Again, what problem are we solving? Springee (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, whether or not something develops outside US politics doesn't really determine whether it is currently a part of US politics. The problem here is a pretty common one: a subset of the hyper-partisan right wing has taken it upon itself to defend Trump by doing whatever they can to undermine the scientific consensus on COVID-19. In the same way that climate change denial is now inextricably linked to US right-wing politics, so is COVID-19 denial. Guy (help!) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Is it really linked that way or is this just your perception? Again, you are suggesting that anyone in say the UK who suggests conspriacies associated with COVID-19 is somehow related to US politics. As the editor who proposed this, what problem are you trying to fix. Where is this a problem that requires such a blunt fix? Springee (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, a lot of the UK right have a strong overlap with the US right. Farage, for example, or Paul Watson, or Carl Benjamin. So: "why not both?" Guy (help!) 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Then why not change AP2 to US+UK politics? You haven't answered what problem this proposal is solving. Why do we need to make this change? Do we have an example? Springee (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Because there's been no need for UK-specific sanctions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. At the risk of lighting a fire under Wikipedia's effort to combat systemic bias, all roads lead to the U.S. on this one, and specifically the orange man who seems hellbent on condoning if not facilitating these theories. Definitely AP2.--WaltCip (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - (note I opposed this proposal above) What problem is this going to solve? Do we have example cases where this expansion of AP2 has been shown to be needed? As a general rule I'm against expanding things like AP2 without some clearly stated need. I'm not seeing that here and JzG, hasn't said why they feel it's needed. This is a case where context should make it clear if something is or isn't AP2 so why are we stretching AP2 into something that seems quite unnatural? Springee (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because he's asking this for the sole purpose of attacking me. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Depends It's unfortunate, but anti-science and pro-conspiracy are planks in the Democratic Party platform. Though it depends on the specific conspiracy if it is related to AP2. I would suspect most would be but could see some not. PackMecEng (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, really? which anti-science and pro-conspiracy policies are part of the Democratic platform? Guy (help!) 15:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Trump is a Russian agent, a fetus isn’t a human, nuclear energy is bad, etc. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Those are called "opinions" (OK, the Trump one is a bit wacky, but hey). Science doesn't take a position on any of those things, unlike things like "climate change doesn't exist" or "sexual orientation is a choice". Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• What about holistic medicine? PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• ish This lunacy is not restricted to US politics. So in fact any one banned from politics should be so affected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no The pandemic is worldwide of course. I do not see it as solely an issue involving American politics. I disagree that a TB from AmPol should lead to a ban on editing articles related to the Virus.--MONGO (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• It Depends Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The goal should be to allow anyone to edit. Only as a last resort should we be locking it down. Not everything is about the US, even if JzG thinks so. If an Australian minister in government has a theory about something is that now an American Politics subject area? What about a French minister? I read about how the Japanese government is planning some restrictions on stuff due to coronavirus with regards to China. Is that now covered under AP? If it's AP then it's AP, if it's COVID-19 then it's COVID-19. We have DS on both, no need to apply an AP ban on COVID-19 unless it applies to all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• So it depends on context, but generally no, as the virus itself is independent of the government's response to it; the stimulus bill would be political, and part of the quartine, but the science and medical aspects of the disease are independent of the political reactions. Eternal Father (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Most of the time, but not always After all, the simpletons who watch a 5G-causes-COVID/Plandemic video and say "yup, that all makes sense" are going to be worldwide; if a pronouncement on it is made by, say, a politician in Australia and someone puts it in their article, that clearly doesn't apply to AP2. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• But very few politicians who are anywhere close to power make such statements except in the US. It is only there that the emphasis by people with power has been on looking for someone else to blame and promoting the injection of disinfectant as a cure for COVID-19. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes with minor exceptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Note: unless there are objections, I intend to close this later today or tomorrow with the conclusion that the subject matter is generally covered by AP, but leaving the actual decision to invoke its DS in individual articles to administrative discretion — as TParis notes, based on the context of the editing in question. El_C 13:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated COYVIO

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

---

While سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ has a number of editing issues, the most prominent one is that he is frequently restoring WP:COPYVIO on Battle of Chamb,[154] and claiming that he has "changed the content",[155] while the mass copyright violation continues. Attempts to mentor him about copyright violations have been futile so far.[156] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

A revert was missed as the copyright material is still present in the article history ([157]).

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

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

Change to all our welcome templates

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not surprised to see Moxy disgruntled, but I'm disappointed to see that this was already closed so quickly by the single sysop out of any on Wikipedia I'd consider most WP:INVOLVED with me (due to a recent unrelated matter), and that that sysop has subsequently reverted not just the changes I made turning the welcomes into wrappers, but what looks like it may be my entire history of template edits, including many from months or years ago that appear to have zero connection here (e.g. [158]). Given my extensive backlog, I have no clue what sort of errors or downgrades that might be reintroducing, but I'd expect that there will be plenty. There was no need to revert on such a massive scale so hastily given that nothing was broken, and the rollbacks are unquestionably doing more damage than whatever objections there might be to the wrapperification. I hope that it will be possible to fix this all up without too much effort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!

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

---

Over at The Federalist (website) the user has (in essence) engaged in I did not here that. At dispute is this edit [[159]], on the grounds that not being newspapers make them opinion pieces [[160]]. They have been asked to stop now by me and one other user [[161]], [[162]], and on the article talk page by a third that they were wrong [[163]], this is their latest effort [[164]]. It is wasting a lot of users time to constantly have to say "but its an RS" every time they question it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Plainly a content dispute. Article protected for 4 days. Sort it out on talk, try dispute resolution, etc. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure DR is the right place as this is about user conduct, but I have launched it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I think that user will eventually end up at AE. Guy (help!) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, but at least at the linked article, they're making something resembling a good point. Not that I'm taking sides, I just think it looks more complex than Slatersteven is making it out to be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but rather than go to the DR page they left a note on my page about canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: An RFC has been started at Talk:The Federalist (website) § RfC: (Alleged) coronavirus pandemic misinformation. --MrClog (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Jose Calida

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

---

This article is in the news today [165] and experiencing a string of silly edits. Please can it be semi-protected.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Has been semi-protected. In the future the place to ask for this is at RFPP. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Chuckwick 2020 getting serious

Two months after the previous ANI report: User:Chuckwick 2020 - MOS:NUMERAL + no edit summaries, to which they never responded, Chuckwick 2020 remains uncommunicative despite half a dozen more warnings of various types. Though they occasionally make helpful edits, they continue pretty much daily with the same MOS:NUMERAL problems described before, e.g. [166], [167], [168], [169], etc. They've made several hundred edits in the last few months, and though they know how to make an edit summary: [170] they almost never do. Never used a talk page. You know when EEng talks about getting serious, it's, you know, serious... :-) --IamNotU (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)