Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A very good user (at times), but with a sizeable block log and a history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which based on this discussion from June is seemingly due to laziness/forgetfulness. And yet, he persists. I therefore propose a topic ban, broadly construed, from any edits related to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic ban: Regretfully, likely necessary. A quick review turned up another such edit [1] which I reverted for lack of sourcing. I attempted to verify the claims in the diff, but despite looking at the websites of the respective clubs I could not find any information which confirmed what Fodbold-fan was saying. There are a lot...and I do mean a lot...of editors who routinely change information on football and football-bio articles without any care in the world for accuracy. Sadly, Fodbold-fan seems to be one of them. User talk response such as [2] and [3] do not inspire confidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BLP topic ban This editor's dismissive attitude toward
  BLP policy is simply not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Hammersoft and Cullen328: given my comment below, and the way in which the rest of the discussion has gone (which you might not have noticed since originally commenting), I don't think we can say this editor has no desire for accuracy or that edits are unverifiable as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Switching to oppose for now. Although I haven't waited for Fodbold-fan to respond to Valereee's direct question, I will go out on a limb here. Support for an indefinite duration. The blocks were of an escalating duration a couple of years ago, and now we are back with the same issue. In the absence of demonstrating consistent compliance with core policies when editing Wikipedia articles, this topic ban is unfortunately necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) There are a number of reasons (which have been brought to my attention since my original comment) as to why I think we can provide Fodbold-fan with another chance. Firstly, Fodbold-fan has promised below on 29 and 30 July 2021 to include a citation for every edit and I think we should offer that user a chance to fulfil that promise. Secondly, I think we should formally review each of the blocks shown in the block log, as a matter of fairness. Thirdly, the edit which led to this proposal was correct, even though it was unsourced, as Fram has outlined below on 30 July 2021. Lastly, Fodbold-fan seems to be make valuable contributions and has in my view demonstrated he is capable of improving his style of editing. Although we know that that not all edits need to be sourced per se, and reversion is a great remedy, I think it is fair to expect Fodbold-fan to fulfil the promise made in any case. Since 2015, multiple users provided Fodbold-fan with feedback on their content not being reliably sourced, content being incorrect, content being improperly sourced, (lack of) use of edit summaries and use of the preview functions. I anticipate concerns will persist unless Fodbold-fan makes more of a consistent effort (which I believe the user is capable of, but as a result of habit, chooses not to). Rather than evaluating every single previous concern, it would be more productive if he proactively takes more care with his edits. This will resolve the risk of contentions arising. I would also reinforce Otr500's comment below dated 30 July 2021, as well as Robby.is.on's comment of the same date. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay please last chance, from now on I will add source to every little edit I do. I promise. You will see. Please Fodbold-fan (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many last chances have you had? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I promise this time will be the last. You will see. Fodbold-fan (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The two edits given as justification for the topic ban were unsourced but correct. The edit that Hammersoft couldn't verify was easily verified from e.g. here or here. We should thank them for their edits, not topic ban them. Football project editors mostly do a wonderful job, but have had similar issues in the past with a very heavy-handed approach towards editors who add correct information but don't source it to their liking. While it of course is better if editors add good sources while dding information, it still is better that they improve articles and add correct but unsourced information, than that they don't improve these articles at all.
  Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Fodbold-fan is a very productive editor and has been for a long time. I would find it sad for them to be topic-banned. That said, they need to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and their dismissive statements towards sourcing were very disappointing. I'd be willing to give them one "last chance". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to block people for adding unsourced but correct information to BLPs, then perhaps they first need to change the policy? There is no requirement to only add sourced material to BLPs, unsourced additions or changes are welcome if they are uncontroversial (and correct of course). If they are regularly incorrect in what they add, then we should have a discussion about that: but topic banning an editor (and worse, blocking them 3 times already) over what is perfectly acceptable policy-wise is the wrong approach. Instead, GiantSnowman (and others) should stop blocking people for making correct and policy-acceptable edits.

There is no excuse to ever add unsourced material to any article, and certainly no such thing as policy-acceptable unsourced edits so long as Verifiability remains a policy. Unsourced edits are worse than vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing policy-encouraged and policy-acceptable. Unsourced edits are perfectly acceptable. That's why it is verifiability, not verified. Obviously it is much better to add the source directly, instead of waiting for it to be challenged and only then to add one, but that's just best practice, not some absolute requirement which is blockable or which is somewhere policy. And your addition "unsourced edits are worse than vandalism" is just silly.

Fram (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Unsourced edits are unacceptable. We tolerate vandalism, but it is easily corrected. Unsourced edits often require expert attention. Usually, unless we can identify the original source, they have to be removed, because without the source we cannot verify that they are not a copyvio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support per "Comments on change of !vote below": Per Fram and GiantSnowman's "A very good user (at times)". Words of wisdom or consideration: This editor is apparently a subject
  last chance line could be dangerous. @Fodbold-fan: You seem to indicate you are through playing with fire. I notice you revert but apparently, add content on some edits ( here). I haven't looked at how it is customarily done but I consider a reversion to be just that. I would think adding content and reference(s) should be noted as such in the edit summary for clarity. In the scheme of Wikipedia creating articles is normally considered a great thing and in that regard, you seem to be doing "great things", however, and especially concerning BLP's, it is dangerous to add content without sourcing when you have been warned. At present, you stand a chance of being topic-banned. Unless you have some alternative area I would think you would want to protect this. I cannot give a good defending argument concerning your block log. I can just add that this "slip up" was the first in over two years and maybe that will be considered. Maybe because there was a source in this instance there could be some saving grace but I hope you do realize the gravity of the situation. Being a prolific editor does not give a pass for disregarding policies and guidelines. Good luck, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding change of !vote made by Otr500 (talk · contribs)) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose because there is no rule requiring edits to be sourced. I would support such a rule, but it very pointedly doesn't exist. That's why there's a BLP rule requiring it for controversial edits; because other kinds of edits don't have to be sourced. No sanctions without evidence of actually violating policy. Also, the one diff in the OP was not unsourced; almost all of that edit was sourced by Soccerway, which was already in the article; the only part that wasn't was the "the deal was never made official" language. I actually agree with requiring edits to be sourced but the remedy is reversion not sanctions. If we want to sanction editors for persistently adding unsourced material we first need to add the requirement to policy. Levivich 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:BLP requires All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It does not matter if the edits are "controversial". If the material Fodbold-fan is adding is regularly being challenged then it is unacceptable for them to simply supply sources once it is challenged. They need to be adding the sources when they are adding the material since clearly whatever they are adding is "likely to be challenged". BLP further requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but that doesn't seem to be the issue here since the problem is Fodbold-fan violating BLP by failing to add sources for material likely to be challenged rather than contentious material. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I don't think "likely to be challenged" means "we have a project where a few of the most active editors will challenge any BLP material if unsourced", but "if the unsourced material you add is unlikely, or negative, or otherwise likely to be challenged for any reason apart from simply being unsourced, then you should source it. Otherwise it is circular reasoning / self-fulfilling prophecy. For me, the issue is not (or less) with someone adding correct but unsourced material (and the editors wanting the topic ban have not indicated that this is about incorrect material at all), but with editors routinely challenging this (and blocking editors!) to uphold their standards which are higher than what enwiki policy requires. Policy should not be misused in this way, the lines you quote are not intended to be a catch-all which can be used to wikilawyer. Otherwise we could better replace them with "all BLP material must be sourced and will be removed if not, and editors failing to do this will be blocked".
      Fram (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • These edits are not likely to be challenged and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. No one has challenged the accuracy of the two edits diffed here. I am hard pressed to think of an edit that is less likely to be contentious or challenged than what team a pro athlete or coach plays for. This is very easy to verify, "vanilla" stuff. It'd be a whole different story if these were controversial or inaccurate edits. ("Controversial" is shorthand for "contentious or challenged or likely to be challenged.") Levivich 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Our rule is that all material is likely to be challenged. Sports web sites have short half lives. After a short time material becomes unverifiable. Adding a reference may help preserve it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • "Rules" made up by a local project (or by one member of the project?) are not a reason to sanction or block editors, and the above "infractions" to that ignorable rule are not from such typical sports websites but can be found in news sites as well.

        Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

        ]

• Oppose per Fram and Levivich. Unsourced material is only bad if 1) it is unsourceable and not merely for being unsourced. Which is to say, if it can be easily shown that a source exists and could be added, that is not a violation of BLP or any other policy. And 2) it is contentious or likely to be challenged. The lack of a source itself is not sufficient grounds for challenging. It must also, in some other way, have a problem, such as being unlikely to be true, harmful or negative in someway, etc. etc. Wikipedia policies are not couched in mandatory "if this, then that" statements, they require nuance and prudence when applying them, and to ban and/or block the OP for this seems heavy handed. I would encourage them to source their edits better (as they should have learned, it makes some people get unnecessarily confrontational when they don't), but unless such information is legitimately contentious, we shouldn't sanction them for not doing so. --Jayron32 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're forgetting copyvio. Without the source, we can't verify that it was not copied. I've had to remove or rewrite whole articles because they were unsourced. And I'm not forgetting how Fram challenged material that was both properly sourced and that they knew to be true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio is a complete red herring here. And if you for some reason would like to use this discussion to attack me, then at least have the decency to include some diffs of what you mean. Otherwise please remove the statement per

    Fram (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• @
  Fram: @Levivich: Rather than just focusing on whether policy permits unsourced edits per se, we probably should also consider the background of issues raised with this editor in particular. My understanding of the history here is that part of the reason this editor was blocked was due to the content being inaccurate and/or (as Jayron32 puts it) unsourceable. While it is clear to me that Fram is saying the diff example at the top of the thread is not one of those occasions (that the content was merely unsourced), and therefore all of you are saying it was permitted under policy, it is unclear to me whether you are all saying this of the previous edits and blocks which you are calling heavy-handed. I mean, there is little point in us saying we shouldn't have sanctioned an editor like this for unsourced content unless we have examined the background of those previous sanctions and the extent of the feedback that the user was provided, as we are not ones for discouraging best practice either. If it turns out that the block log is prejudicial, we can then at least reach a consensus on that and why. If it isn't, then perhaps something else needs to be said for completeness, along the lines of what Otr500 has said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ncmvocalist GS's blocks of Fodbold-fan were among the blocks discussed at GS's arbcom case, in which both Fram and I participated. Levivich 19:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Fodbold-fan, can you explain why after nearly 64K edits, you're still adding unsourced info to Wikipedia? I find that a bit astonishing. Why in the world don't you just source your edits? You clearly must know how. —valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close of some kind See comments on on change of !vote. I do not see a blockable offense here. I did not look into the past block record just that it exists. An arbcom case was mentioned but no links were provided. I do not know if any blocks were appealed which is an editor's right. I opposed this because sources were found which means in this case there was NOT "unsourcable" content involved. What I do know is there were three blocks for adding "Persistent addition of unsourced content" (by the same Admin) and now this one. I hope this does not evolve into the questioning of these blocks. If ONE was because of adding content that could not be sourced this is potential harm. Future edits can be considered "contentious or challenged" as they have been.

WP:CHALLENGE

: All content must be verifiable. 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 that directly supports the contribution. and Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

In this case, with this editor, it does not seem to be a stretch for any to acknowledge that any unsourced contributions are "likely to be challenged" and need to be sourced especially on a BLP. I believe the editor is aware of this. This means that failure to do so could be inching towards possible claims of tendentious editing. This is evidenced by the This page in a nutshell and the lead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

Considering these things it is not unreasonable to require that sources be provided by this editor without trying to knit-pick if this may be applicable to all editors. This editor has agreed to this. If this editor", Fodbold-fan (pinging for notification), wishes to contest any of this (is there any undue duress?) I will support such contesting. However, none of us are "court-appointed" so I would like to suggest this be closed as resolved with the editor agreeing to provide sourcing for material, specifically in this topic area. I would like to add a note of caution moving forward with regards to concerns of "heavy-handed" (editor versus editor/Admin involvement) in this area. If "anyone" has deeper concerns that can be addressed separately -- Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Otr500: Just on your comment about the block log, the relevant arbcom case finding is here, where the administrator was found to have wrongly blocked other editors for "persistent addition of unsourced content" (in the same period as his last couple of blocks of Fodbod-fan). The evidence in the case included reference to the blocks of Fodbod-fan but the finding did not explicitly name this editor, instead naming two other editors.

To the extent that I have referred to reviewing blocks, they wouldn't be about administrator, as the case already finalised remedies which were relevant to incorrectly blocking editors; rather, the block review would be for the limited purpose of deciding how it would affect our views on editing restrictions for Fodbod-fan specifically (because unlike other discussions, I think it would be wrong for us to take the block log at face value in light of that case).

In the meantime, I agree that this thread can be closed on the basis of the agreement provided by Fodbod-fan. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure why editors are justifying the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs and the (and being generous here) frankly blasé attitude to sourcing requirements, just because I am involved and have blocked the editor in the past (the last time being 3 years ago), despite other editors also raising concerns about edits and other editors having blocked the editor as well over a period of the last 6 years (although admittedly clean for 2). Do you really think so little of me? Cool. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• GiantSnowman, I certainly do not "think so little of you". In fact, I think it commendable that you "aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people". Two years is a long time.
  WP:BLPREMOVE (#1) includes "unsourced or poorly sourced" and gives latitude for an involved Admin to block: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. This is for "clear cases" and includes provisions for "less clear cases". I think the evidence suggests that if the subject does violate the BLP content sourcing policy requirement again that more than a topic ban be considered. What can be considered tendentious editing? "Expecting others to find sources for your own statements" and "This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals". -- Otr500 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I would add that it appears that Fodbod-fan is complying with the promise made in this thread, but if issues persist, any proposal for editing restrictions can promptly be revisited at that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500 and Ncmvocalist: except of course edits like this yesterday - no source provided for the changes, no edit summary to explain the changes, no indication as to why the changes are correct etc. GiantSnowman 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on change of !vote: I reverted the content as unsupported and left talk page comments. I am flabbergasted, to say the least. Part of my defense of this editor, as well as some others commenting above, is the two-year lapse and the promises. That was rendered null and void with the addition of unsupported content while this ANI was ongoing. My

"rope" offered. This seems to cross flagrant disregard in leaps and bounds. The editor has commented "Dude, please stop your harassment. I don't have time to put sources in every single article, but if you look it up, you see that my edits is legit. You know me by now too. Otherwise, I will quit editing." This is clearly a stance of "I will not add sources" (even though I promised) because it is other people's job to verify my added content

.

There may be two camps on a necessity to add sources because some feel it is alright if the source is out there somewhere. I do believe there is evidence that expecting sourcing, backed by policy, can be required. The above assumption of good faith would be that the content was verifiable. This goes deeper towards

Failure or refusal to "get the point"

.

I now Support (rationale per above !vote) a "topic ban" but also suggest this be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If the editor does not quit as indicated that editor can simply bring these editing habits elsewhere. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your revert. I don't know why you (and GS) think this edit was unsourced. It's sourced to Soccerway, which is already cited in the article. Levivich 13:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did FF not simply add an edit summary saying 'as per Soccerway' in that case?

wP:CIR. GiantSnowman 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Or look at this edit, which uses this website as a source (in the edit summary only, not the article, but whatever). The changes to the article are to update the Waitakere United stats, add playing for Forrest Hill Milford United (no stats), and add playing for Northern Rovers (with stats added). The only thing the 'reference' supports is this player playing one game in May 2021 for Northern Rovers, and that's it - nothing about Waitakere United stats, nothing about Forrest Hill Milford United, and nothing about Northern Rovers stats. Is that acceptable? GiantSnowman 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first question, I could have sworn we had this conversation two years ago and it went like this: yes, edit summaries are useful; no, we don't revert or sanction editors for lack of edit summaries; plus it's bloody obvious that the edit was updating stats that were already referenced to Soccerway, plus plus you in particular of all people know this. Your view that lack of edit summaries = CIR does not have consensus. Or to put it another way, while ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries, if I have to choose between the two, I'd rather have an editor update articles (accurately, per sources already cited) without an edit summary than not have the editor update the article at all. You really have to accept that this is the consensus, even if you disagree with it. I would support a rule requiring edit summaries, but first we get consensus for that requirement, before we sanction anyone for violating it.

As to your second question/edit, everything in this edit was sourced to a source already cited in the article, National Football Teams. The only thing that wasn't sourced by NFT (Northern Rovers) is sourced to the Northern Rovers website source. So it's all sourced as far as I can tell (and accurate). Levivich 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• GiantSnowman, this is indeed the root cause of the Arbcom case of two years ago revisited: you (and a few others) owning football articles way too aggressively, and imposing your rules on other editors (but, apparently, both then and now, a lot less strictly on yourself). Would it have been better if Fotbold-fan had used the edit summary "quick clean" to make their edits? Or is this fundamentally the same as what you are trying to get then topic banned for, now that you are no longer allowed to block them over it (but still use those bad blocks as justification of the topic ban now)? Or this?
  Fram (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Again - a huge difference between content sourced to an in-line reference and an editor using one of many external links and asking us to try and work out which one. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

assuming good faith can be helpful in understanding that the content change is more constructive than not. If the content was actually inaccurate or actually unverifiable, then that is when you have something to be concerned about. Just my 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Man, GS, Fram's comment prompted me to take a look at your recent contribs. Look at these reverts, each of which you wrote in the edit summary "no source," but each of which was sourced by a source already in the article, Soccerway: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (all of these have since been reinstated). The worst part is, these are all the winners of major championships. You know this is sourced to Soccerway! You're just being

  WP:POINTy

  by reverting this as "unsourced" when you damn well know that they are in fact sourced. You know because this is one of the things that was brought up at the arbcom case. You've got to stop doing this.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "stats per Soccerway": [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. These are exactly the same as the edit you complain about, except that you use an edit summary "stats per Soccerway." Well, the omission of that edit summary doesn't make it "unsourced" and isn't grounds for reverting an edit. That why I say you know that these stats-updates are sourced by Soccerway and that Soccerway is already in these articles, because you do the same type of work, updating statistics.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "clean up": [18] [19] [20]. These, again, are the same types of edits as what you're complaining about: they are sourced to a source already in the article, but you don't say that in your edit summary. There is no functional difference between an edit summary "clean up" and a blank edit summary. You have zero grounds for complaint here.

  What really drives me nuts about this, from one content editor to another, is that you're totally losing sight of the point of what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. I mean I'm a bit besides myself that you took out correct, relevant, up-to-date, sourced information (that an athlete won a championship) because you've had this years-long fued with some editors over edit summaries. Talk about putting your own needs above the needs of our readers! Come on, man. See the light here. Don't corrupt our articles because you're mad an editor for not using edit summaries. Levivich 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you use one Jonathan Lewis diff, but not the one where I managed to find a source for the content. Funny that you say "these edits have been reinstated", but not "they have been reinstated after sources were found and added".

For the avoidance of doubt, I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from. Contrary to what you say there is a huge difference between that and not using any edit summary and it's a pity you can't see that.

You clearly haven't been reviewing my contribs properly, because in this one I clearlyy add a reference, and in the other clean up ones I am merely updating/cleaning the article that has already been sourced in-line - not using an EL and making other editors guess where the info is from.

Oh there's no feud or anything like this, please don't ABF. Just a desire from me to improve Wikipedia - including sourcing content about BLPs!!! It's s shame that yours and Fram's hatred views towards me colour your vision. Would you be as defensive if any other editor had raised concerns about unsourced content being added to to BLPs? Absolutely not. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was never unsourced. It was always sourced to Soccerway or National Football Teams, two of the standard sourced used in footy articles for stats. You keep saying "unsourced" but that's just not true. You say "I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from," but above I linked to several diffs where you, yourself, updated stats with the edit summary "clean up," which does not indicate exactly where the information was coming from. I don't hate you but I am concerned about how you've been treating some editors, like Fobold Fan, for years. I'm also concerned that you refuse to grapple with certain truths, like: the sources for the edits were in the article when the edits were made; you were previously sanctioned by arbcom in part for this; you made articles worse (removing that an athlete won a championship) over this. To me, these are serious issues and I'd like you to pay attention to them. Like, agree to

WP:Drop the stick. Levivich 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Last thing on this because I have better things to do with my time (like, I don't know, improve and add references to BLPs!!!) than argue with Fram and Levivich. But - it is possible, and it wouldn't kill you - to say both "hey, GS, why not AGF a bit more" and "hey, FF, why not use edit summaries or try to make it clearer why you are making changes and where your information has come from". The two are not mutually exclusive. See ya. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I said edit summaries are useful and ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries and I would support a rule requiring edit summaries. Of course I think FF and everyone else should use edit summaries. But that wasn't what this thread was about when you opened it: you only mentioned unsourced info in BLPs. Would it kill you to admit the info was in fact sourced? Would it kill you to admit you do the same thing (update stats without saying what the source is in an edit summary)? It doesn't matter to me if you admit it or not, but it does matter to me that you stop reverting people for adding information without a source when the source is already in the article. Levivich 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, where is the evidence that the transfer was present in the external link (Soccerway etc.) at the time FF's edit was made? i.e. where is the evidence that the external link had already updated to reflect the transfer and that therefore is the source used? Sometimes they take a day or two. Interesting. That is all. GiantSnowman 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with GiantSnowman. It's clear there's no consensus here, and there's reason not to enact a topic ban. But, neither should we simply declare there is no problem and move on. A clear message needs to be given to FF that their behavior is not what we expect. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @GiantSnowman: Ok, let's put your differences aside and consider this in a different light. We now know this is an instance of content arising from an existing source; the bizarre fact that it was cited under "external links" prior to Fodbold-fan editing the article doesn't mean the article was better prior to Fodbold-fan's edit. Sometimes articles will have a handful (or more) of sources cited in the entire article - with all of those sources seemingly attributed to one particular line in an article, when in fact they form the basis of other information in an article. That doesn't mean an update should be reverted automatically or is somehow less beneficial.
• From experience, we all know for a fact that many unregistered accounts (fans of football or otherwise) will take the liberty of updating information without providing an in-line citation, whether within the text or in an edit summary. However, if the information is accurate, verifiable, compliant with NPOV etc, it is implicitly accepted that update is undoubtedly an improvement to the project even if policy might allow a revert. While we might like the content to be further updated so that external links are specifically listed under references, or for each update to be attributed to a separate in-line text citation, that is not always necessary at that point by the editor who made an update (noting the article was originally sitting like that for who knows how long). Given that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standard you are expecting seems to be higher than what the project requires sometimes. That higher standard you would like in articles can be a good thing if it is used constructively, but forcing it on others can be offensive, disruptive or harmful.
• Another way to think about it is that not all editors are good at (or enjoy) copyediting, referencing and so forth. Fodbold-fan is an editor who clearly enjoys updating the accuracy of Wikipedia articles on football(ers) based on verifiable information; that is the earlier step of improvement specifically. The next level of improvement might be increasing in-line citations to the source or moving the sources to a references section or copyediting or building more content just as Fodbold-fan did. That next level of improvement can be boldly completed by you or any other editor too.
• If you are saying Fodbold-fan is not abiding by an agreement and the content is inaccurate and/or unverifiable (or something along those lines), restrictions might need to be considered. But the idea of sanctioning an editor for not completing the next level of improvement doesn't sit right with me; does it really sit right with you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other situations where an unsourced addition is a plus for Wikipedia. Quite often I see where a topic-expert who doesn't often edit Wikipedia put something really good and key in. I see it on my watch list, check it out and then source it. So with their unsourced addition they did an important service to Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back just because I have been pinged - FF has admitted they messed up, asked for a final chance, and made a concerted effort to improve (even if it is still, in my eyes, not good enough). However, based on everything, a topic ban is probably not suitable at this time. But, as Hammersoft says, other editors pretending there is nothing at all amiss with FF's edits is extremely damaging. GiantSnowman 18:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, a good editor (who could improve some of their editing habits) was threatened with a topic ban by the admin who already blocked them incorrectly three times, panicked (understandably) and promised whatever was wanted to avoid the fate that surely seemed to await them. They perhaps have since learned that the demands made by that admin were unreasonable and not supported by everyone, and that said admin already got into trouble for similar actions in the past (including with this very editor), and finally that said admin shows a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in this regard. And no, this is not "hatred" for Giantsnowman, but serious disappointment that an otherwise good admin and editor has such a large blind spot when it comes to this, and that the Arbcom case, while being followed to the letter, has not changed anything in their view on the underlying issues, which are not seen as sanctionable by many editors (nor by policy). They believe that the football project has some (presumably unwritten) rules beyond policy ("everything is likely to be challenged", "young players are kept even when they have no GNG notability, just in case they later become notable") which overrule general Wikipedia-wide consensus, and that mistaken belief needs to be discarded.

Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no policy against adding unsourced material, and rightly so. If challenged it must be sourced or removed. If the particulars of this are making the situation unusually problematic, then some action may be warranted. IMO if not, not. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman prefering style over content?

Having just seen an edit by GiantSnowman on my watchlist, I get really concerned about their preference of style over content. Here they cite the MOS as a reason to remove the birth and death place from the first line of the article. Fine, I suppose (I haven't checked the MOS), but the result is that the information is completely removed from the article. How this improves the article or enwiki is not clear. Similarly and also today, at a soccer article, they reverted[21] correct, more recent information because the older version had their preferred style. And when they are not reverting to impose style over content, they are reverting because their searching skills fail: this from today ("nothing listed at https://www.ascolicalcio1898.it/index.php/news or on Google?") is baffling, the news is all over GNews[22] and was posted at the club website a few days ago: [23] (search for Botteghin, or directly at [24]). I don't know what the reason is for all these errors, but as all these are from today only, it is becoming a real problem. Protecting the integrity and correctness of enwiki is one thing, actively making it worse again and again is quite another.

• Sigh. right, here we go.
• This was using MOS - in cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove.
• this I acknowledge that the stats update was valid (I have now restored) and I did intend to correct that, but simply forgot, and hold my hands up; the rest is all stylistic.
• Regarding Bottenghin - as per my edit summary, I searched the club's official news page (no entry listed) and on Google (no entry listed), and so reverted the information about a BLP on the basis that I could not verify the information. In situations where I can verify the unsourced information added by other users, I do - see this also from today, which Fram conveniently overlooks.
• Overall, I am unsure what sanction Fram wants or what they hope to achieve by posting this/following me around? If an editor I respect thinks I've done anything wrong, or could do anything better, I am all ears, otherwise I'm going away again. GiantSnowman 11:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove." No, you don't. There was a reference directly after the birth-date brackets (not even at the end of the sentence), to an RS[25], which clearly states "Born Tilburg 1755-05-19" and "Deceased Amsterdam 1820-11-30". I have no idea what more you could possibly want. So you somehow "missed" that reference, even though it was clearly there? Just like you "forgot" in the second case, and found "no entry" in the third case, even though they are trivially easy to find? As for "following you around", I noticed this because you out of the blue edited

No, I didn't see the info in the ref on Adriaan de Lelie, but I see it's there so re-added. Perhaps if the article was properly written and referenced in the first place it wouldn't be an issue? I fully accept I'm not perfect (I'm probably one of the few editors who is well aware of that) and I'm always looking to improve my editing, so thank you for raising it. It's a shame you could not do so on my talk page and instead came straight to ANI. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the problem is the article, that's why you couldn't find the info when it was raised here, and that's probably why you claim that the Botteghin info was not available on the club website and on Google even when I gave the direct link to it here. I brought it here instead of on your talk page because it is a continuation of what started this very thread, your insistence on imposing some rules without caring for the more important issue of whether the facts were actually right and up-to-date. Heck, one of the three articles I gave above was one where you previously "improved" the article by reverting Fotbold-fan[26], thereby removing the country of birth from the infobox, and changing the correct "2019" for the U-19 team to the incorrect "2019-", even though as a 21-year old he obviously no longer qualifies for the U19 team. The more I look at your edits, the more cases I see where you make the article worse. You probably have excuses for all of them, but we already had an ArbCom case for your heavy-handed and incorrect "rule" over football articles (and others), and the same issues were raised in this discussion already, so the "you should have first come to my talk page" rings hollow.

Fram (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, 21 year olds are eligible for the under-19 team. I am not sure of the exact regulations, but I know for under-21 level players born after 1 January 1998 are eligible for the 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (so players up to age 23). See all the 21+ at 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship squads. GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS either take me back to ArbCom or leave me alone, thanks. GiantSnowman 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are trying to prove that 21 year olds can play for the U19 teamby pointing at the U23 rules? Perhaps you could just have checked the

Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What's the excuse for [28]? The club website[29] just happened to change between your edit and my revert[30] 32 minutes later? Do we really need to check every edit you make now?

Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, my God, the website was updated in between me checking it and you then stalking my edits (which you claim you are not doing, though you clearly are). The last Wayback entry from February 2021 confirms #13. Do you want me to email the club to ask them to confirm?! Can somebody please tell Fram to leave me alone and start AGF? GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This from '1 hour ago' confirms the new squad numbers. It is therefore clear that somebody at the club has been updating the web profiles this afternoon, and Benda's happened to be updated in between my review of his profile and yours. Or are you going to still claim that I, for some unknown reason, am lying? GiantSnowman 13:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Fram is proving is that you make just as many mistakes as anyone else, yet you hold others to a different standard. Levivich 13:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't stalking your edits, you made an article I created worse. I am now, during an ANI discussion about your edits, actually checking your edits. It is the onl way to find patterns of problematic aditing and to see whether things improve or not (hint: they don't). Your latest defense seems to be "the website was changed when the IP edited, was changed back when I reverted, and was changed again when Fram reverted". Which looks comparable to your defenses for the other three problems from today I listed, i.e. "not clearly sourced" (er, it was), "I forgot", and "not on Google or the team website" (again, er, it was, very clearly).

Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

No, my explanation is that the IP has read (somewhere) the squad number had changed (likely on Twitter); I checked the profile and it had not been updated; you then checked the profile slightly later and it had. No more or no less than that. AGF

And no, there is no problematic editing. The issue at the heart of the matter here is, actually, "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content added by other editors, and not always getting it quite right". Fine. Like I've said, I'm always looking to improve editing, and tbh would have received concerns much better if they had been raised at my talk page rather than you running straight to ANI. You saying "oh well this was at ArbCom a few years ago so that's why I didn't bother talking to you directly" is pathetic; the real reason you are posting at ANI is in the hope that I get in bother again.

PS I'm not going to reply here again, if anybody else has concerns then feel free to raise them with me on my talk page. Funny that (to date at least) nobody else has. GiantSnowman 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 5 issues mentioned in this section was about "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content": apart from perhaps the last case, the other four were perfectly sourced bits of content that you removed (directly or as a revert) because you fucked up. Trying to still frame this as "trying to reference" stuff and at the same time asking that people AGF with you doesn't work. That you would have reacted better when contacted at your talk page seems dubious as well, as you made these poor edits after the problems with your editing were again highlighted in the above discussion, and you have declared that you don't respect me anyway. Neither the location nor the identity of who reports issues should make any difference in how truthful you respond (it may change how patiently and civil you reply, but those are wholly separate from the facts). Again and again here, you have tried and failed to put the responsability for your errors elsewhere ("not on Google", "not sourced", "but the U23 regulations say"...). I hope that, when you can sleep and reflect on this, you will actually change your approach (both towards editing/reverting, and towards replying to concerns).

Fram (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

On the lines of civility and errors, I raised these polite concerns with this user only a few days ago, to be met with these terse replies. Basically creating a biography of recently deceased people, and citing their year of birth directly from another language WP. Probably been going on for quite some time before I raised it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hello Lugnuts, I wondered when you would pop by. To clarify - I didn't say they were referenced to other Wikipedias, I said they were referenced at other WPs - big difference. Sources present (usually, but not always - some was my own Google searches) on the other WPs that I simply forgot to include on the one-line stubs here. Was the information correct? Absolutely - the only issue was that there was no source present to verify the correct information, which according to Fram et al is actually acceptable anyway??? (I disagree, and now make sure that all relevant sources are present in the stubs). Regarding civility, you're the one who used edit summaries like this, entirely inappropriate. Regarding errors, here you say that the issue has "probably been going on for quite some time" (my emphasis); but here you say it is a certainty? Which is it? Either way has the issue arisen again since you raised it with me nearly 2 weeks ago? Anyway, kudos, you dangled and I bit and responded, so I'm going away again. PS still waiting for editors I haven't had run-ins with to raise valid concerns... GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid concern. "I simply forgot to include" the sources? Really? I guess it's all OK, if you know the info to be correct, without anything to

WP:V it. Very poor all round from you with sourcing and civility. And by "run-ins" you mean someone raising a valid concern on your talkpage which you took offense too? Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, when I (IIRC) supported sanctions against you when you were recently at ANI? Remember, when you were creating hundreds/thousands of poorly sourced, non-notable stubs? Therefore brave of you to have a pop at me in relation to sourcing... GiantSnowman 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, rather than bickering - you raised an issue, I reflected and changed my editing. Any such issues since you raised it? No. Grand. Move on. GiantSnowman 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off the back of one conversation into another about some disagreement. Really, this is a storm in a tiny little tea-cup. Seems pointless to say anything else. Feels like a complete over-reaction to me. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share Fram's concerns about GS favoring the MOS over content. With this edit he used the summary "birth/death place not in opening brackets -

MOS:BIRTHPLACE" but instead of moving the information to the correct place he deleted it altogether. Presumably he would say it was unsourced, but the birthplace of Veliko Tărnovo Province, Bulgaria was sourced in the article [31]. The village of Dzhulyunitsa wasn't, but that specific detail could have been removed instead of throwing it all out. I only noticed this because it was on my watchlist; given GS's edit count I'm sure there will be more examples. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, where is the direct reference saying he was born in Dzhulyunitsa/Veliko Tarnovo? The source you have provided is not cited next to (or even near) the birth place, it's cited only to the 'career record'. Are you saying that I, or any other editor, needs to check every single source on an article before challenging/removing any otherwise seemingly unsourced content about a BLP? And if you had concerns about that edit 2 weeks ago, why not raise it with me at the time? GiantSnowman 22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If by direct reference you mean inline citation, there was not one, but I feel to see how this material was contentious. If you feel it necessary to completely remove the fact that a Bulgarian sumo wrestler was born in Bulgaria, then cite BLP, not MOS:BIRTHPLACE - that was a misleading edit summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you - and I will make more of an effort to re-locate the content (if sourced) rather than just removing. GiantSnowman 09:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to own up here - I did not check the 35 references or 2 external links before making this edit, I trust I will be informed why I have done wrong. GiantSnowman 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS, can I make a frank suggestion? Why not just stop patrolling for a while? Let's face facts: you don't enjoy it and you're not good at it. You're not good at interacting with a bunch of different users you don't know, especially new users. You get frustrated, everyone else gets frustrated, and it's been like this for years. You're not suddenly going to become this super patient and diplomatic person who is great at teaching new users how to edit better. You've repeatedly gotten into trouble for how you patrol, even since the arbcom case. And how many times have you taken a user to ANI and hit a brick wall? Your judgments in this area just don't match up with the community's judgments. You think things are disruptive that others don't think are disruptive. Why not just do something else in the topic area besides patrolling other people's edits? There's a lot of other things to do. There's no need to watchlist and monitor ten thousand pages and deal with that much frustration. Let others with more patience do the patrolling. It'll be better for everyone that way. Levivich 13:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next time don't pull any punches, Levivich. EEng 04:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't patrol per se; the majority of the articles in question are either on the front page (which I do review on a daily basis) or on my watchlist. I'm not going to change that, thanks. I will, as I have already said, make a more concerted effort to take on board many of the concerns raised. Perhaps (and I genuinely mean this in the nicest possible way) if you/Fram/Lugnuts stopped trying to give me "advice" I wouldn't get so frustrated here? It's not coming across as helpful in the slightest, it's feeling like harassment, a pile-on, etc. GiantSnowman 13:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you followed some of the advice, you probably wouldn't end up here to be frustrated so much? At some point, you have to realize if everyone is telling you the problem is you, the problem JUST MIGHT BE YOU. Get with the flow man.50.201.228.202 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, IP making their first edit in 3 days! GiantSnowman 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sub heading caught my attention here and I wanted to say a few things. Firstly, there's no denying that Mr Snowman is a workhorse and his relentless editing on a daily basis (and on volume alone) should be acknowledged. I have no "history" with Mr Snowman, nor have I had any big "run-ins" with him, although I feel like that is largely down to how I have conducted myself as opposed to him. And by this, I mean having to ignore quite disparaging comments on countless occasions in recent years. Recently, I've seen a few things that I don't like at all about his behaviour towards other editors and this has prompted me to get involved on this noticeboard for the first time. Some of these behaviours should absolutely not be displayed by anyone on Wikpedia, let alone an administrator. Whether this be from an attitude standpoint, an interaction standpoint or from an ownership standpoint (such as editing an MOS without consensus and then forcing editors to consult said MOS to back up his point).

My interactions with Mr Snowman have been few and far between over the years and I have no bad feeling towards him, but I have had to ignore being called a "WP:Dick" (twice), have been told to "stay away" from pages and have been told that my edits are "generally poor". The only negative messages I've received from anyone in 12 years of editing have come from him. Does it sit well with me that editors are being discouraged to edit certain pages, being told to "go away", to "get over it", being called a dick, being forced to apologise to him or face sanctions, having their edits constantly reverted using a blanket approach? This is all coming from an administrator on Wikipedia. His behaviour is actively contradicting certain core values of Wikipedia. An administrator should not be unfriendly towards editors, they should not expect editors to know everything, they should not be impatient towards editors, they should not call editors names, they should not have a "them vs. us" mentality (I really don't like the "please, just listen to us" messages he sends new editors), they should not show endless frustration towards new editors. Looking at Wikipedia's expectations of adminship I would say it is quite conclusive that Mr Snowman breaches basic policies on a regular basis. Not through his application in his editing, but through his conduct towards other editors.

A lot of the concerns raised in this thread by others absolutely ring true in terms of what I've seen and experienced in my years of editing Wikipedia (the lack of edit summaries = CIR is my favourite one as it simply does not compute to him that the two do not correlate). The reason I have chosen to say something now is that Mr Snowman's responses in this thread do not suggest he has taken anything on board regarding his conduct towards others or how he is coming across to editors. To clarify, I am not calling for any sort of de-adminship here — Mr Snowman knows Wikipedia like the back of his hand, performs a lot of unnoticed work and is full of very good suggestions, some are absolutely spot on. It's how he delivers them that needs working on. He told me I included way too much information in my edits. I did not interact with the message as he delivered it in an aggressive manner, but he was absolutely correct and have spent the last few months thinning down articles off the back of this. I have no doubt that he's a good egg in real life and will eventually realise that how he interacts with editors is an area of improvement for him, just as he likes to point out areas of improvement for others. SBFCEdit (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That MOS discussion is painful (telling someone to follow the MOS, and then changing the MOS because, well, your point wasn't included there). And the other problems continue as well. "Vandalism" shouldn't be used for an edit where an editor combines two consecutive loan spells into one entry[32]: it may not follow the MOS, or it may not follow your preferred way of presenting stuff, but it isn't vandalism by a long stretch. And isn't some misclick either, as another edit combining two consecutive loan spells into one infobox line was reverted as vandalism as well[33]. Still reverting improvements as well, e.g. here an IP changed the player number from 10 to 16 (easily confirmed) and added the fact that he played 2 matches and scored one goal with the German U18 team (again easily confirmed). A previous editor also tried to correct these things, but to no avail; all sources may say one thing[34], but GiantSnowman has a source which says another thing so their version rules. Again, actively making an article worse. It just continues, no matter how many people here mention these issues, or how many times GiantSnowman says they'll improve.

Fram (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the MOS - yes, in hindsight I should not have changed the MOS to reflect actual usage whilst in the midst of a minor dispute, but I did not edit war etc. and nobody has challenged or changed the MOS since, so I guess my edit had some merit eh?

Regarding everything else - sigh, I am sick of having to justify every single edit I make and you only presenting half the picture.

The Glatzel page is a great example so thanks for bringing that up. If you had looked into it properly. You will note here I actually originally added the squad number 16, based on a BBC match report. Here an IP changed the squad number to 10. I went on the Tranmere website, it showed Glatzel with squad number 10, so I left the change, presuming BBC had made a typo in their match report (as they sometimes do). Tranmere now says 16. They must have been a typo on their the website when I checked, hence the confusion (for me and the IP and others no doubt). When will you AGF??? Fram I note here you have added that "Glatzel played for England at under-15 and under-16 youth levels, but switched to Germany at the U18 level" - that is in direct contradiction to the Liverpool F.C. official profile which says "He has represented Germany as an U15 and U16 player and also represented England at youth level". If an editor is editing against what a RS says, without providing an alternative source, that is disruptive. I will not be criticised for restoring a version supported by the RS!

out of interest, where is your source for the England youth stats? They are notoriously hard to adequately source since the FA stopped their player profiles, and stats sites like Soccerway often incomplete (they don't mention any for Glatzel).

Regarding the 'two loans' - noted, I will use a more informative edit summary when dealing with edits like that.

However, I, again, note that no neutral editor has yet to weigh in to say I am making articles "worse", that is just your opinion. I am being held to a standard by you that no other editor on Wikipedia has to abide by.

WP:BLP

is clear - 'We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". You can think I'm a dick (well, I know you do), but why is me challenging and removing unsourced content about BLPs so offensive to you?

So - either propose formal sanctions, or get off my back and leave me alone. You are obsessed. GiantSnowman 14:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I AGF when you always claim to be right, even when you are demonstrably wrong (like with the Botteghin issue above, where you insisted that it wasn't on the club site or on Google when it was in numerous reports for some days already). Perhaps some of your excuses are correct and you were unlucky, but assome of yourexcuses were simply false, I see little reason to believe you (see also the many promises to change your behaviour, but the need of actual sanctions before you truly changed).

For Paul Glatzel, as the other editors were clearly better informed, I believed their info. It is verifiable that he played for England U16[35]. As to "why is me challenging and removing unsourced content about BLPs so offensive to you", well, a number of reasons: you pretend this is mandatory and blockworthy, which isn't true; you treat editors like vandals, which is wrong; and you do the same stuff you accuse others off. Simply take the above example: you claim that you kept "10" instead of "16" because you saw it on the Tranmere Rovers website; but the number is unsourced. Here, today, you revert another editor who changed the nationality from "Spanish" to "Moroccan, born in Spain" because the "wording was fine". Well, no, the wording wasn't fine, as the player is Moroccan, not Spanish, as indicated by the very first source in the article at the time of your revert (actually, not just in the source, but even in the title of the source in the article itself!). And there are penty of sources calling him either Moroccan or Spanish-born Moroccan, but not Spanish. So, once again, you reverted a correct edit (sourced and everything) to an incorrect one, with a wrong edit summary. Or was he listed as Moroccan this night, as Spanish this morning, and again as Moroccan now?

As for sanctions, well, you are one of these editors for whom sanctions are difficult. You make too many errors every day, and

Fram (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I changed the

If your edit is reverted, the

WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Did you start a talk page discussion?I don’t see any relevance in this complaint to the IP topic. You’ve reverted it at least 4 times now. You should start a discussion before you get blocked for edit warring. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It's an abuse of guidelines to require discussion before every edit. There were no good reason to revert it or demand consensus, and that's why his history of sanctions is relevant – he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not. --

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason to revert it, it would seem to me, was that the version was stable before you arrived. If your edit is so obviously superior, then gaining consensus should be a breeze. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not If only two editors have weighed in, and they disagree...then there is no consensus for the change, and the existing text is understood to represent consensus. Why haven't you followed

WP:BRD by initiating a talkpage discussion to gain consensus for your disputed edit? It is not an abuse of guidelines to follow guidelines. Bringing this to ANI when you are the one edit warring in your preferred change, primarily complaining about unrelated events in the other editor's past, is a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:COVIDDS. Please exercise greater caution and do not edit war. Further, I take a dim view of you trying to browbeat Debresser with their sanctions history to win over a content dispute — and, as it happens, I'm actually the admin who sanctioned Debresser, for whatever that's worth (something, I'd reckon). El_C 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And he even blocked me once, for whatever that's worth. :P EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, blocking EEng is a right of passage for admins... El_C 06:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, Right of passage →Rite of passage, I can't spell. Though EEng probably self-identifies as a ship now (no Poop deck jokes, please!). El_C 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I gotta say something else. Triggerhippie4, I'm a bit shocked that an editor of your experience would revert a contending version over a longstanding one with an edit summary that reads: There is no consensus for your revision. It's your version that's new, Debresser's version already enjoyed consensus, at the very least loosely, via

WP:SILENCE. You can't tell him that his version has no consensus when yours has even less! El_C 05:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

And I gotta say something else too. This is an ANI thread over a short desc? REALY??? EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it would've been better for

WP:ONUS (even if you think it wastes everyones time and the change is minor). Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Triggerhippie4, browbeating Debresser over their sanctions history to win a content dispute is WP:BLACKSHEEP. We have seen this kind of thing before. Please don’t. Tinybubi (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry, not interesting. El_C 11:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is my reply at all necessary here? I agree with everything that has been said, but will happily repeat those points, and would like to add a few things:

1. Triggerhippie4 does not understand or refuses to accept that he is the one who has to gain consensus for his edits (as I pointed out to him multiple times), and this has been so for as long as I have known him here;
2. it takes two to edit war, and since Triggerhippie4's first reaction to a revert is, and has always been, to simply repeat his edit, he will regularly be in conflict with other editors;
3. trying to make another editor look bad is not nice (but please rest assured that I hold a very dim view of Triggerhippie4 as well, based on precisely the things that are being held against him here);
4. this is not really the kind of subject to take to WP:ANI;
5. there is a discussion on the talkpage, which seems to be going his way, and I have not reverted since, so opening this thread at that stage was being vindictive and I do not appreciate it at all;

Debresser (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, that is not an ideal reply – it seems to focus entirely on the actions of another editor without any recognition of your own distinctly sub-optimal behaviour. What exactly do we have to do at this point to stop you edit-warring, once and for all? You've been warned, you've been blocked, but you just . won't . stop. Do you not understand that edit-warring is a waste of everybody's time, and actively harms the encyclopaedia by eroding editor goodwill? Edit-warring over such trivial detail as this is particularly pointless and toxic.

Here's a proposal: you agree to a one-revert-per-month restriction on any page anywhere in the project (with the usual exceptions for pure vandalism, serious

WP:BLP violations, blatant copyright violation etc); if after – say – a year you have not broken that restriction it can be lightened to, say, one revert per week. Could you do that, do you think? The only alternative I can think of is to seek consensus here for a community-imposed 0RR restriction. El_C

, other editors: could this work, if Debresser agrees?

Triggerhippie4, you've taken a good deal of flak above, and I'm not going to add to that. But please read my comments about edit-warring, they apply to you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Justlettersandnumbers Not going to happen. I am allowed to revert to a consensus version. I am allowed to behave sub-optimal. I broke no rules. I hold the higher moral ground here, as the one protecting the page from aggressive non-consensus edits, and I don't believe you are seriously proposing to punish me for that. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you truying to keep this discussion from being automatically deleted by replying after almost precisely a week of no comments?

Your first edit summary was "changed description to be different from the title", and that is really a non-explanation. Which is precisely why I asked "Why would we do this?", meaning: why would we want the short description to be different from the title if the title is descriptive in precisely the right measure?

Also, in view of your claim of "disruptive editing" and the underlying bad faith assumption and obvious misjudgment of my motives, I will now change my opinion below that you indeed should be blocked, as an editor who has demonstrated not to be able to positively participate in community editing. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You confuse "not understand" with "disagree". A usual problem of

tendentious editors. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Debresser take it from someone who has acted sub-optimally in the past, I strongly advise not acting sub-optimally. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it is good. Or that I do so every time. But punishing an editor for it is wrong. There is always the question, who was the most wrong here. And IMHO it is very clear that the editor making a change is the one who must show consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang indeff Triggerhippie4

Since Triggerhippie4 suggested a permanent block for Debresser for purposes of browbeating, he should face his own proposed sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.151.38 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that he needs a stern warning that automatically undoing reverts of his edits is not going to be tolerated any longer. This was by far not the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be compared to calling the police with a fraudulent report. There are serious consequences for trying to falsely accuse someone of a crime, besides for wasting the police's time. I believe this is a similar situation in which Triggerhippie4 fraudulently reported Debresser on ANI, as noted by many users above, therefore this should have serious consequences besides letting him go with just a warning which is effectively a slap on the wrist.155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that today Triggerhippie4, even after all that has been said above about the inappropriateness of this post, still continues calling my reverts "disruptive", thereby proving an underlying bad faith assumption and, worse, an incapability to understand his fellow editors. Since this is not the first case where Triggerhippie4 has entered a bitter edit war, which he simply doesn't know how to stop (short of breaking 3RR), I think it is time we cut our losses, and indef block this editor. I am referring to Template:Jews and Judaism, where the same thing happened in November 2020, that after edit warring about his changes, he took me to WP:ANI over what after all is really a content issue (because of his inferior and unexplained edits). This editor does not seem to understand that things need no necessarily go his way, and that the community (as in WP:ANI) is not here to help him get his way. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." The above behavior is just more evidence of the behavioral issues that Triggerhippie4 is displaying. Triggerhippie has not displayed any remorse or reflection over his behavior which numerous Wikipedians have explained is problematic. Remember Law of holes. It may do some good.155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#User:Triggerhippie4,_user:Gidonb,_user:SoaringLL. This is not a one time issue for Triggerhippie4. This user seems to have a history of trying to browbeat others in an attempt to win editing disputes.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at Triggerhippie4 past ANI encounters and found another incident where he made spurious accusations against Debresser and was rebuked by the community:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Debresser. This is a chronic behavioral problem stretching over a year.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IP editor, for doing what I should have done, weren't I so disappointed with Wikipedia "justice" (read sarcasm and dripping blood). Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse per all the evidence above, edit warring, poisoning the well ,false accusations and frivolous reports against Debresser appears to a chronic problem.Ratnahastin ^tålk 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• an indef for this seems absurdly excessive? I suggest 1-way IBAN for 1 month as a more reasonable outcomes-focused alternative.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable outcome of this thread, and will hopefully get the point across. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since

Note: Horse Eye Jack is now editing as User:Horse Eye's Back. Citobun (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – On Hong Kong topics, Cold Season is narrowly focused on pushing a pro-government POV. As mentioned by Deryck Chan, the two above-mentioned pages are the main evidence of this. At Talk:Death of Luo Changqing (created by Cold Season), I detailed my concerns with that article, which simply regurgitated the news frenzy manufactured by Chinese state media. I echo the sentiments regarding Cold Season's editing behaviour. I have generally avoided this user and "their" articles for the past year due to the ownership attitude and reverting behaviour, which I find completely toxic. Citobun (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't really interacted with Cold Season this year since I haven't edited Hong Kong stuff for some time already, so my opinion may not be completely valid. However, this discussion from June last year is the one that came to my mind when I was pinged. He/she certainly has ownership issues, does not show a tendency to engage in discussions, and is rather uncooperative. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping Citobun! I wish they had stopped with the problematic behavior but it doesn’t look like they have, kind of impressive that they’re now up to 588 edits on Death of Chow Tsz-lok (second most prolific editor has 138, third has 17) and 222 edits at Death of Luo Changqing (second most prolific editor has 17, third has 6). I would expand the proposed ban to China related broadly construed, I don’t think that politics in HK post 97 really addresses the scope of disruption, for instance Ming treasure voyages seems to have the same ownership issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unsure what how far Cold Season's ownership and POV pushing issue extend beyond articles regarding events in Hong Kong from the last few years (it's not good to
  WP:WIKISTALK) and have proposed "Hong Kong politics since 1997" as a way of drawing a boundary around the issues I have seen. If you know other topic areas where this editor, feel free to invite other editors who have engaged with him into this discussion. Deryck C. 16:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To user Horse Eye's Back, I have zero disputes at the wiki article Ming treasure voyages, so that is simply an untrue statement to see what sticks, falsely based from only that I am the main contributor there. You probably only found it by looking at my recent contribution history as I'm engaged in a GA review there, nothing else. Nor is it against wiki policy to make a lot of edits in an article. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN from post-1997 Hong Kong politics, per nom; or at least from events and topics related to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which includes all the other articles mentioned above. I don't see any ownership issues evident at Ming treasure voyages — they are involved in a GA nomination at that article — so I wouldn't support a universal China topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN from Hong Kong topics. Wikipedia has millions of articles on topics having nothing to do with Hong Kong, and an editor with problems stemming from this one topic area might find themselves more useful in any of these other areas. BD2412 T 03:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You will find that all my edits have references, mostly western or HK sources, using similar wording as those sources. If there is any doubt of me misrepresenting something (I have not), then I wish for uninvolved editors/admin (rather than the clique that they often unsubtly ping e.g. [36][37] and here, whenever they see issue to gang up on) to check the wording with the references provided.

- For the Chow Tsz-lok article, use this stable article [38] (see also the talk page Talk:Death_of_Chow_Tsz-lok#Reverts), since it has been changed a lot from what I wrote.

- For the Luo Changqing article, use this stable article [39].

(because user Deryck Chan — who casts aspirations himself like at [40] ironically using a statement by me defending myself from someone else casting aspersions, like a tag team — has opposed to words as used in sources as simple as "ruling out" [41] about a legal verdict)

The POV pushing claim is circular, as it is clear that my content does not contradict the sources when checked, but is disliked because it is not slanted to anti-government views. Providing content in full (rather than just anti-government, which is in vogue, which I also keep in the articles) is not pro-government. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Adding to that. I've provided a comprehensive list of reasons for the so-called reverts at the Chow Tsz-lok article now (see
  WP:OWN
  issue, rather than just me correcting misleading edits.

Secondly, both Deryck Chan ("I need sometime to look at the bulk revert in detail " [42]) and Citobun ("I'm not so familiar with this article" [43]) have acknowledged that they have not bothered checking the article, indicating blanket opposition by a group.

Notwithstanding that I actually combed through it and didn't just revert, unlike the accusers (see my effort and time [44] followed by a single hostile indiscriminate revert [45] opposing my work, held in place by people unfamiliar). Conversely, no reasons for the changes have been provided (in this opposite day for the burden of proof) which I like to hear. --Cold Season (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not directly involved in your recent dispute at

WP:BLUDGEONing of associated discussions is toxic to deal with and goes nowhere – it is your way or the highway. I am amused that you would actually characterise independent, reliable news media as "anti-government" here, while closely paraphrasing Chinese state mouthpieces and Hong Kong government sources is merely providing "content in full". Citobun (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Question @
  Wikipedia is not a guidebook. I have restored Einsof's organization by chronological order because it makes no sense to put the "background" information last, and unsurprisingly the guidance is clustered at the bottom. I did separate one paragraph about the CDC guidance that didn't quite mix with the rest, but I hope we're all happy now. Besides, this dispute can be referred to an RfC at the talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 212.85.174.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi. Please can someone assist with this IP's edits? They keep removing sourced content regarding dates of death across three articles relating to Yugoslav sportspeople (one, two, three). Per their talkpage, they state they are correct and are using the Slovenian versions of the pages as a source. Although, checking those pages, only one of them has a date of death, which is also unsourced. Now they are stating that if they are blocked, that "I will demand Arbcom". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is great that the issue has been brough up here. I deal with yugoslav sports history in my professional life and I was surprised too see that the three local well known pre-war cyclists had wrong basic information about them in the English Wikipedia. I tried to correct it but then this user came with his uncooperative and rude remarks and removed all the correct content and added back the wrong info from some unexisting "sports reference" webpage. I would like to have a normal peacful discussion to correct the information as I believe it is in the best interest of everyone that Wikiepdia has the correct information available to the public. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: you do appear to be

user-generated, and I'm afraid that your personal knowledge and expertise is also not sufficient - we need a reliable, published source. It's OK for it to be in Slovenian (English-language sources are preferred, but not mandatory). Please provide sources for the information, or remove it until you can do so. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've blocked 212.85.174.201 from article space until they provide some sources and not another Wiki. If they come up with some please unblock. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I don't speak Slovenian, but I'm happy to help incorporate any

WP:RS to any of these articles, if they surface. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I have no sources in English, but there are sources in Slovenian. I am putting them here because I was blocked and cannot edit the articles. Please put them into the articles:

Obituary and an article: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-ANI7Q5EW/ Tombstone: https://grobovi.zale.si/sl/Home/GetGravePicture?uId=8cff2826-c246-4b31-ae1a-88f8d5b43efd

• Franc Gartner:

article: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-G7D8KRG4 more articles when he died: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-L9QWYMRK/ dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HSPTRI7L/

• Ivan Valant:

article and picture in Jesenice museum: http://www.gmj.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kviz-2019-iii-srednja-ola-konna-verzija.pdf obituary: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-AW59IIJ3/ also mentioned: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-6QJ7I2OW/ (his bike company still exists, now run by his grandson, you can contact him if you do not believe me [email protected]) All information is 100% correct. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts - just making sure you've seen the links from the IP editor above. I had a look at the first one, it's a newspaper dated 1957, which does indeed carry an obituary for Josip Solar on page 8. I ran the first sentence, which read "Se v zreli dobi je po hudi bolezni umri eden najboljsin slovenskih kolesarjev – Joca Solar" through Google translate, which gave me "One of the best Slovenian cyclists, Joca Solar, dies in adulthood after a serious illness." Seems legit, the database website might have this wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pages have still not changed. Less than two minutes were needed to revert my changes and then to block me, but now when I again presented proofs nothing happens. It makes me sad as I get the feeling that there is no genuine will to partiticipate and provide proper encyclopedic information about this topic. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked from editing those pages because you were

edit request, citing these sources and indicating what changes should be made based on them. (It would help the other editors if you were able to provide a bit of detail on where to find the information in those sources - the first link above is 8 pages long, and I couldn't find a way to search the text: it took me quite a while to find Solar's obituary, and to put the first sentence through Google translate.) Girth Summit _(blether) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Noone excpet the other user in question watches those pages anyway and he already saw the sources heere. So just correct the information, this the oly thing that I am interested in. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Girthy. I'll work with the IP on their talkpage to find the exact page in each newspaper source they've provided, and update all three pages during the day. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They provided sources so I've unblocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you a little quick to block them? They had the sources, just they were not particularly experienced. Did anyone discuss this issue? I wonder if it could have been resolved more amicably. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there was no basis for that block. What ever happened to the need for consensus? I've seen things like this before on AN/I ... someone unilaterally swoops in with a block on a new editor, who probably goes away confused and hating Wikipedia. Meanwhile, there are other incidents on this same page of very bad behavior being called out but no action. -- Jibal (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

• "I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"

No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"

This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

• "This is not how you're supposed to handle feedback you asked for."

My using of evidence to make a point is in fact a good way to handle feedback, and there's nothing wrong with calling out perceived

WP:DNTL

.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (
  WP:IUC
  ) and objective"

I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than

SinglePorpoiseAccount

has.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to
  name
  .
• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.
• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.
• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"

This is blatant misunderstanding of

WP:BATTLEGROUND

behavior.

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results".

Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (SinglePorpoiseAccount)

IMHO, you're dealing with an SPA and a Sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, SinglePorpoiseAccount is probably one of the IPs who was labeled with the SPA template on the talk page, as he created the account in the middle of that conversation and seems to have picked up the conversation where the IPs left off. If I'm correct, this wouldn't qualify as socking. As for the "accusations of misconduct" and the other problematic behavior, I don't see anything actionable there, at least not yet. The "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source" statement sounds a lot like stonewalling, but I wouldn't say sanctions are justified quite yet. Mlb96 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that does not qualify as socking, but this user seems far too experienced to have just been an IP editor, and I still suspect they are a sockpuppet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gather this concerns 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit and its talk. I'll watch that for a short period. Let me know if I miss any ongoing problems such as undue commentary as that can be resolved with a topic ban as they have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. You would need to spell out what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: It appears likely that things on this page are going to get worse before they get better. BD2412 T 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On the Maricopa County presidential ballot audit talk page - editors at the beginning of this thread noted how Wikipedia does not engage with hot news items per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and Wikipedia has no DEADLINE. [46]

Then this wall of text, consisting of Hot news items was posted at 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by SinglePorpoiseAccount [47].

At 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC), I commented about this wall of text [48].

Essentially this is disruptive behavior after other editors in good standing pointed out what Wikipedia covers. Also, it could be an end around to post this information somewhere on Wikipedia. I just wanted to point this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I want User:SinglePorpoiseAccount to retract their new defamatory statements here about my honesty, experience, and general effectiveness as an editor. I see this as an egregiously unevidenced personal attack.

They are implying that am I the one who sets their reputation on Wikipedia, saying that I lied by calling out their disruptive behavior and that I am now to blame for other editors noticing their disruptive behavior. It's completely backwards thinking, no logic, no responsibility for their own actions.

• Your lies have had a very real effect on my reputation, nobody is taking my edits seriously anymore and I'm getting attacked with references back to this RS/N.
• "You clearly had no intention of representing the actual issue at hand in an honest way. You've deceived all these Wikipedians with your framing and wasted everyones time. This is not how an experienced Wikipedian should handle source selection"
• don't you dare pretend this settles the dispute we had in the thread.

I never said or even implied that the dispute was settled. More

WP:BATTLE behavior.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This was my response to have been repeatedly called a liar, in an attempt to make me drop the matter in favor of FormalDude. This was before I knew Wikipedia has its own definition of bullying with an associated page, which I understand to be this one [[49]].

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"
  

  This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

This was my response to receiving a 3-part list of supposed "lies", but FormalDude did not actually prove they were lies in his response. In fact he did the opposite and proved himself wrong by quoting the statements he said didn't exist. Also note that the RS/N was created by FormalDude. More on this later.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"
  

  I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

This is a laughable mischaracterization of both our behavior. I'll admit things got a little heated, but FormalDude was not being civil. Let me give you an example from the edit before that one:

And there's no Wikipedia policy against accusing editors of

lying

when they are being deceitful.

Doesn't seem that civil to me, wouldn't you agree? My comment about being civil was there in an attempt to deescalate, which is obvious when you look at how the debate progressed.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.

Wow, who would've thought a new serious account wouldn't immediately go looking to edit lots of pages. The accusation about my name is blatantly meant as a degrading ad hominem.

• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.

Well I guess I should take "like a pro" as a compliment, but I really have been just an IPA for about one and a half decade now. Back in the day IPAs were just as good as regular accounts as long as you were just editing technical articles and fixing broken links, so I never bothered. But when it got to the Maricopa audit article I found it was annoying to have a changing IP among others who had a single IP, it wasn't immediately obvious who was me and who was someone else. In one instance there was actually someone who got the same IP as me, obviously connected to the same VPN network and behind their NAT. That was the final drop since if things got heated that would be a dangerous situation.

• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.

Again I think I should take that as a compliment, but my previous statement about being an IPA still applies here.

• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

I don't remember mentioning "WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS", but I might have just forgotten about it. It's been a busy couple of weeks.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"
  

  This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

That's odd, someone who hasn't been in a consensus situation on Wikipedia for years, if ever, misunderstanding formal consensus? Well, I'd never...

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"
  

  Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

This is not what I said. What I said what this:

AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified.

See how the context matters? Note the qualifier at the end; "after they have previously stated the results are verified". Reporting errors in your own reporting, when you have a reputation for getting your reporting right because of your stringent pre-publishing quality control, is obviously a conflict of interest. Now, if that's enough to actually stop them from reporting those errors is a different matter, but that's not what we're discussing here.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence.

I'm actually a little confused by this one, FormalDude linked to their own edit. I can only assume it refers to a statement I quoted from the AZ Central FormalDude linked, to disprove FormalDude's hypothesis that [AZ Central] reported how professional auditors say It’s not an "audit. It doesn’t meet the formal criteria." is an unchallenged statement. Fairly swiftly disproven, if I do say so myself.

Clearly FormalDude is out to get me for not getting is way in a dispute where he wanted to replace the link to Phoenix New Times about the banning of 9 Twitter accounts, initially offered by an IPA, with a link he had offered from BuzzFeed News. In his request to replace it he asked for comments, and I provided mine outlining I thought it had several grave quality issues making it unsuitable for the Wikipedia article in question. As one might imagine, FormalDude was not happy with that. The key bit of context here is that the Maricopa audit page is often questioned in bias byt IPAs, and with me being a recent former IPA I'm inclined to listen to such feedback. Now, BFN has a bit of a history on run-ins with Republicans, so using a BFN article as what would appear to he the dominant source to a claim on that page, wouldn't look too good on Wikipedia's part. Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly abuse our use of BFN to feed into their conspiracy theories, so it would be harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia. Therefore I would rather we use the more neutrally worded article from PNT as a source. FormalDude then took the issue to the RS/N, where he triumphantly tried to make me look like I was trying to discredit BFN as a whole.[50] It took me until today to figure out that was what he had done, while I was under the impression that it was a formal process to resolve the source selection dispute. In effect, I was framed due to my unfamiliarity with formal processes (IPAs tend to see very few of them and experience none). That incident has already caused real damage to my reputation.[51]

Anyway, this isn't the proper forum to discuss that, I just provided this as context as to why the dispute began in the first place.

FormalDude can choose to delete his statements if he wants, I don't care. I'd rather have a permanent notice about the incident on his talk page, so that I can point to it when Wikipedians try to use this incident against me. Speaking of which I also note FormalDude has a very relevant previous comment on his talk page about lying.[52] I'd also take this opportunity to remind FormalDude about

• I want to point out that SinglePorpoiseAccount had no trouble formatting this edit among many others.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 05:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We all know that
  SinglePorpoiseAccount if anything like this edit is repeated (that is the addition of the 8,614-byte comment above). Such walls-of-text are not helpful and will not be tolerated in an area under discretionary sanctions. If you can't make your point succinctly, don't try to make it at all. That advice applies to all participants. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you for the advice and thank you for finding the account name amusing. I considered some other pun based names but this is the one that stuck, probably because I was being called a SPA as an IPA which I found a bit amusing in itself.[53]
  talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Thanks for the advice,
  personal attacks, right?  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Of course it's bad but I'm not very useful for CIVIL enforcement (I would quickly indef someone who really breached CIVIL but a bit of venting is to be expected). I would ignore it but keep the diff for use if needed later. Focusing on article content is always best. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After observing SPA's editing behavior during the short time they have had their account, it seems to me they are
  not here. This includes the longest running incident of IDHT I have seen, occurring at the RSN [54], [55]. I'll try and post more diffs that are more to the point about that later. I any case, I am guessing they will be NOTHERE going forward. Happy days if they prove me wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I can assure you one of my core intentions with this account is to maintain the reputation of neutrality on Wikipedia. Had I not cared about it then I wouldn't even have brought up the PNT vs BFN issue. The incident over at RS/N was most unfortunate but I genuinely believed FormalDude had opened a question about our sourcing issue and sort of lost it a little when I realized that wasn't what he had done. Regardless I felt it necessary to apologize for the noise on RS/N after requesting it to be closed.[56]
  talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• with this account Please list your previous accounts - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well it's only been IP accounts, so I have no idea what most of the would be. I'm fairly sure I've had 85.24.253.53, 155.4.14.25 and 85.24.253.29, the first two sometime in 2018 and the latter in January of 2019. Looking at the history of the IPAs I can tell I'm sharing the IPs with other Wikipedians. My edits from those IPs are regarding the

  talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I did of course forget to mention 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6, which are the IPs I had just before I registered.

  talk) 21:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  WP:NOTHERE and a sock.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That account isn't me, you're embarking on a witch hunt. Which I also just learned there's actually a dedicated article about

  talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  talk) 21:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Well, this[57] seems remarkably churlish. It's more than a little misrepresentative, and casts doubt on the other statements made here. It would be better struck. -

talk 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Having doubts is well justified ... FD has repeatedly called people liars and then hides behind

WP:NPA -- Jibal (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

They may be "just observations"[58], but observations made with no or flimsy evidence are

talk 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Their stupendous and querulous timewasting and conspiracy-theorising at
  WP:RSN strongly suggests that not only are they NOTHERE, they're not competent - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I disagree you your characterization with the exception of competence. My competence is with smaller edits, like adding previously missing explanations or reading the Wikipedia documentation to fix formatting, not with participating in formal conflict resolution on Wikipedia and certainly not consensus discussions. I was mislead by FormalDude into thinking RS/N was the correct place to resolve the source selection dispute we were having, and if you read the key points I posted over there it should be obvious that it was indeed what I thought was happening..
  talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• User:FormalDude is now falsely accusing me of using IPAs after I registered my account.[59] This
  talk) 22:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Denying it isn't going to help. There's enough evidence to open a

  WP:Sockpuppet investigation.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  How do you even arrive at that conclusion in the first place? Does everyone who doesn't agree with you have to be a sockpuppet account? If so I have genuine concern for any previous accounts you have gotten banned for sockpuppetry. This is ridiculous, stop wasting the time of admins and let them make up their own mind instead of doubling down every time you don't get your way.

  talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Notice of name change: My rename request went through and I (formerly known as SinglePorpoiseAccount) am now known as MrPorpoise. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ban SinglePorpoiseAccount

For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Well I don't know what to say other than you're being duped by FormalDude. I don't think my inexperience with the formal processes of Wikipedia should be a cause for a ban, but if you're comfortable with having that decision on your conscience then there probably isn't anything I can do besides accept that after about 15 years I'm no longer welcome at Wikipedia.
  talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Due to SPA doubling down on their disruptive edits and attempts at manipulating the narrative of the dispute (both here and at
  WP:RS/N), I unfortunately do not see any acceptable outcome that is not a ban for SPA.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per
  amateur
  analysis of an article which they claim evinces bias. This continued after having the facts that this is not how we do things here explained to them multiple times, in detail.

I can understand if a user doesn't grasp how we identify RSes, but a user to whom that process has been explained multiple times, who insists on pursuing their own inept methods, and who does so to support a

WP:FRINGE

view at such a controversial topic as this doesn't strike me as capable of contributing meaningfully to this project.

Furthermore, while I agree with several others that none of the examples of incivility are actionable on their own or even taken as a whole, they do go a long way towards evincing a

WP:BATTLEground

mentality.

And that's ignoring the obvious quacking going on here.

Tell me all about it. 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment our SPA friend is clearly wrong at the
  WP:RSN thread (and consensus there is clearly against their view), but that isn't cause for a block. I don't see any other cause for a block presented, the diffs at the start of this thread are just needless dramatics over a disagreement. If there aren't better diffs (and Mr. Porpoise doesn't talk themselves into a block) I will be voting in opposition to this proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  They are persistent on spreading falsehoods and purposefully misinterpreting clear Wikipedia policies, as well evidenced by how many editors have had to make repeated explanations about basic guidelines to this user. And there are very valid reasons to suspect sockpuppetry. See:

  1. Their
     WP:FALSECON attempt here and my response here
     .
  2. Examples of them doubling down after being polity informed about policy here and here
  3. SPA not disclosing IPs that they used to support their argument (see above). In fact, they actually implied they were not the owner of those IPs to another user (BD2412), saying here that Wikipedia was "ignoring random IP accounts".

  Really I recommend you just look at SPA's authorship of

  WP:RS/N and Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, and you should see why a block is necessary. I would not have come to this conclusion if SPA had once admitted or taken responsibility for any of their serious actions, but they haven't–and that indicates to me that they will resume their disruptive behavior as soon as this AN/i is closed.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Is this really the place to double down? I thought the bullet points under this heading were purely for leaving final votes, not discussion?

  talk) 22:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Discussion that leads to a vote is permitted. Also, procedural arguments are not going to get you anywhere. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, sorry about that then. I just didn't see any discussion under any other vote bullet points, even in other cases, so I didn't want to unintentionally break any more rules.

  talk) 23:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  How is "I have no issue accepting most Wikipedians think so" possibly problematic? If SinglePorpoiseAccount continues to argue the same points in direct opposition to site policy and their previous statements, they will surely be blocked. If they say they will not do that, that is good. Regarding "IP socking", I really could not care less. If it is necessary the talk pages can be semi-protected. Otherwise, I don't care even if the editor is using multiple IPs (though I assume not). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can assure you I never had any intention to break any rules, and I am very sorry for any I may have broken. Even though I have experience with common templates and some Wikipedia policy, I am still inexperienced with the formal processes of Wikipedia. If there are any rules in particular you think I should read up on then I welcome any pointers.

  talk) 23:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @力: I think you should care that a user was purposefully deceitful about using IP accounts in order to make it seem like more people supported their point of view.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody has proved the user was "deceitful" or using IP accounts in violation of policy. And as I said previously, I don't care even if you could prove it; most everybody discounts the opinions of IP editors already, and as noted there is a clear consensus against them at RSN. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  FD throws that charge around freely and then absurdly uses

  WP:DNTL to justify it. Jibal (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Jibal: Nothing absurd about it, I guess you probably just didn't look into this in the slightest.

  • On Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit they use IP's 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6 to continue their argument.
  • On WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Discussion they pretend those IPs are not there's. They lie to User:BD241, saying that in addition to ignoring their argument, we ignored other IP users' arguments.
  • They admit in this thread that they use IPs 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban. The username "SinglePorpoiseAccount" alone implies an intent to cause disruption, and also heavily implies the user has edited here before and is familiar with what an SPA is. I've been reading into this incident for the past couple of days; personally, I'd suspect sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion. Patient Zero^talk 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  FIY, I have already put in a rename request to have it changed to MrPorpoise. At the time I registered I thought the pun would be found funny, but now I see how that's not how it has been viewed at all.

  talk) 00:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  User names don't imply any intent, they don't imply previous editing (though SPA has said they did edit under IP addresses), there's no evidence of sockpuppetry nor is this the place to raise the issue, absolutely no evidence of block/ban evasion, and none of these musings and imaginings even remotely support a site ban. -- Jibal (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I find it plausible but inconclusive as to whether this editor has previously edited under another name. I think their issues with accepting the reliability of sources stem from a poor choice of a starting point to edit Wikipedia. Articles on politically charged topics with substantial bodies of misinformation circulating in conspiratorial sources are rarely a good place to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I would suggest a general U.S. politics topic ban for a minimum of six months, subject thereafter to review of the editor's contributions to determine whether they have demonstrated productive participation and understanding of the rules. I expect that if they are in fact only interested in pressing a viewpoint in a contentious area, then they will be uninterested in editing substantially and for an extended period of time in other parts of the encyclopedia. However, I would not specifically oppose a site ban, deferring to the consensus of editors that there is a problem here requiring some action for resolution. BD2412 T 00:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this more targeted proposal first I also share the impression that the evidence is suggestive of socking, but far too short of the threshold of anything substantial enough to ban on such a presumption. It does happen from time to time that an editor contributes extensively enough as an IP to be more than passingly versed on our ecosystem of policy touchstones to be able to site them more or less intelligibly. That behaviour, standing alone, cannot be used as a basis to presume a block evasion or other forbidden use of multiple accounts. I will grant that the claim of 15 years of residency here as an IP, combined some some of the more particular behaviours begins to strain AGF considerably, but, in that respect, if there is a feeling that

WP:SPI

rather than just a ban on the basis of presumption.

On the other hand, there are some non-trivial concerns with

WP:ROPE I'd advise extending to any other editor who landed here because of strident positions in a contentious area. Therefor I am more amenable to this intermediary sanction to pull them out of the area where their conduct has raised concerns. Mind you, I actually wouldn't even support the TBAN on the present evidence, but Porpoise is asking us to take a lot on faith when there are some real questions as to the possibility of abuse of multiple accounts, and since the alternative would seem to be a full ban, this intermediary approach seems to be a better outcome for them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I would obviously prefer a temporary TBAN over a permanent SBAN, and U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at

talk) 14:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I almost forgot to mention; I would urge someone to please review the sockpuppet cases where FormalDude has been involved, in a manner which is completely separate from this and regardless of the outcome here. If there have been real new Wikipedians wrongfully banned they need to be found and let back on the site with an apology.

talk) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Here's all of the sockpuppet investigations I've ever been involved with (grand told of four) so that everyone can see I've only ever been involved in overtly obvious sock puppetry, much like I think is the case here. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons power spells out above. I think the username is funny and should be kept, first of all. SPA is being accused of both having such a good knowledge of policy that they must be a sock, and also "blatantly misunderstanding" consensus. Which is it? SPI is that-a-way, I'm not seeing any actual evidence of socking. The evidence of accusations of misbehavior does not contain accusations of misbehavior except for the "lies" comment (which was bad and should not be repeated but is not sanctionable by itself). Arguing
  WP:COISOURCE is not pushing a fringe theory or conspiracy theory, and I actually think the fringe/conspiracy/sock accusations against SPA are more problematic than anything SPA has written on the linked threads (including RSN). Fundamentally, we don't ban people for disagreeing with us or holding an unpopular or even bad opinion. SPA should endeavor to avoid writing long walls of text and accusing people of lying; everyone calling for SPA to be sanctioned should be more tolerant of differing opinions. This thread should be closed with no action. Levivich 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per Levivich - I find their name funny and certainly agree it shouldn't be changed. (If you're offended by their name wait till you find out we have someone named Darknipples here!), SPA has stated they've used IPs prior to creating an account so it would be obvious they have knowledge of various guidelines here, If you're concerned about socking create an SPI, otherwise quit the socking accusations. Lastly as someone who hates walls of text for some weird reason I don't mind theirs... maybe because it's entertaining and worth reading dunno. ... Either way I don't believe we've reached the blocking or banning stage just yet. SPA should stop accusing people of lying etc etc but other than that I see no reason to block/ban. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I might agree that their username could be a good pun if they weren't an actual

  single purpose account who has only edited 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Give it a rest with banging the same drum. It's becoming rather boring. I'm well aware of their editing area and you didn't need to point it out for the fourth time. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Formal, I agree with Davey on this. The username is a mildly amusing pun, made a bit more poignant by the fact that the pun seems to be accurate at this point.

  Don't get me wrong, I believe it represents an issue, but I wouldn't consider it an issue in and of itself.

  Also, if I saw some reason to suspect that the notions they have regarding sourcing and bias were amenable to change, I'd not support a ban at all. But the vast (vast) majority of editors who have expressed similar notions have been entirely unwilling to adapt to our norms here. I doubt SPA will, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe that unless a new user edits a bunch of different topic areas incompetently without any knowledge of our policies or how to work wikitext, they're obviously a sock or an SPA. Levivich 20:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And I think it's worth remembering that even if they were an SPA, that is not in itself a cause for sanction. Being an SPA has a negative connotation here because it often overlaps with dogmatic attachment to one particular view on that single topic and/or a

  WP:POLICY, a fact that people seem to forget a lot when using the term as an indictment (and I don't doubt that I've been guilty of it a time or two). SPA has taken on a pejorative tonality here because of a cultural presumption that editors who work across a variety of areas are demonstrating that they are here to build the project at large and not advance "the great truth" of one particular topic or protect any sacred cows. But it's important for us all to remember that the relationship is not a straight forward linear one: many exceptional community members have a very narrow focus to their work and many problem editors contribute disruptively and with extreme POV over a variety of topics. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support per the arguments made above and my own observations, this had crossed my mind while reading through the earlier discussion here but I held off because I didn’t have any long term knowledge of this contributor or a deep understanding of the context of the dispute. I’m glad that someone with more standing has opened this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sockpuppetry may be reported at
  parliamentary language upon editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It was FormalDude who made the accusation of lying, and absurdly justified that violation of

  WP:DNTL -- Jibal (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose - If there is enough evidence to confirm they are a sock of an active user this is not the proper venue. As mentioned that would be SPI. The user name is not to my taste but if we are going to allow possibly sexist or more offensive names than this, their name is not an issue comparatively. The bad faith accusations by them to others is not great and should be corrected but, past that I am not seeing near enough justification to ban them yet. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 6 month TBAN from US Politics per
  WP:DONTBITE applies...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose They are a two week old account who foolishly jumped into a contentious political article. Mistakes were predictable and inevitable. What is more surprising to me is that they stuck around and decided to get involved in this ANI report and I think they are handling the criticism better than some of our experienced editors would be if they were the subject of a noticeboard complaint. It just happened to me and it is most unpleasant. Most new editors would have stopped editing and left at this point. If you think they are a sockpuppet, report them at SPI. Otherwise, hopefully they learn from their mistakes like we all did and start working in articles that are less of a flashpoint for discord. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They've hardly done anything wrong except disagree with other editors. The sockpuppet accusation seems utterly baseless to me, and nothing else comes even remotely close to blockable behavior. Mlb96 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose None of the charges, "For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above" have any evidentiary support. -- Jibal (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to warn SinglePorpoiseAccount

They have certainly used up a lot of editor time on a non-starter issue. That said, I join those who think sockpuppetry issues should be handled at SPI. Without that lens, this looks like a real scrap between two editors that spilled out into RSN. If SPA had thrown in the towel earlier we wouldn't be here. It seems they have picked up on that message, and are responding to feedback. Can we warn them to avoid

@Firefangledfeathers: I have opined above that part of the problem is that the editor dove into the wrong end of the pool, with contentious issues of U.S. politics. They have stated in response: "U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at WP:BAN I came up with an alternate proposal; an ABAN for the Maricopa audit article, time limited for however long consensus determines, and a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude". I think this is a reasonable compromise, though I'd caution that contemporary U.S. politics generally is best to avoid if you're running into steep consensus against your views on what constitutes reliable sources in that area. BD2412 T 05:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: If you think this merits a sanction or even a consensus for a warning it would help (me, at least, and maybe also others reading this) if you wrote up a report with the evidence. As the report is worded above it seems largely non-actionable, but I'll admit I'm not really willing to closely read the walls of text on talks myself to dig something out. Judging by some awfully dubious comments, such as this, perhaps there are enough issues for an article ban to be justified, if someone can make a decent report. But this section is not a decent report. (at the same time, it could also just be a series of misunderstandings) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: This statement, also noted earlier in the discussion, is also quite problematic coming from an editor with only a few weeks of history, and in the context of a politically charged topic with a strong fringe view. BD2412 T 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to maintain context, that was in reply to this statement. I'll admit I went too far both in demanding unanimous consensus and in the escalating tone, but I feel like it's important to keep in mind the accusations of lying went both ways.

That said I have since learned the importance of

WP:DISENGAGE when a discussion starts heating up and I have no intention of escalating again, the above really is just to maintain context for my quoted statement. I have learnt my lesson and I feel like I have demonstrated at least a basic level of restraint here since I started getting pointers from voting Wikipedians. In addition, while I stand by my opinions of the BFN article, I realize those aren't shared by the consensus of other Wikipedians (as made overwhelmingly evident in the RS/N) and I can't use those as basis to justify which sources to use. My apologies to everyone who has participated in this matter, including FormalDude. I would however stil want a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude, it seems we inevitably provoke each other and that's no good, neither for ourselves nor other Wikipedians. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate the apology. I would support a one-way

WP:IBAN to prevent MrPorpoise from provoking/derailing any future discussions I'm participating in. However, this may not be necessary as it has only happened twice thus far. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 07:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I would expect you to apologize too, or at least thank all these nice Wikipedians who have spent their time reviewing the matter and made meaningful comments (thank you Wikipedians!). Anyway, the IBAN needs to be mutual to be meaningful. That is all I have to say to you on the matter and I will not leave any further replies for you. MrPorpoise (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose warnings, ibans, or any other action per previous section. Levivich 14:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As per above, doing NPP today, I have come across a number of erratic tags placed on new articles. My sense is that this editor has insufficient background / understanding of policy to be tagging articles like so. A stop needs to be put to this activity, making unnecessary work for other editors. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I made a judgement call on your article. The older conversations on my talk page are irrelevant, feel free to remove the notice and I will move on, dispute the articles for deletion, I’ve been tagging pages that need more sources. Dispute it.. --Gonzafer001 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your judgement is consistently wrong and it's making a lot of extra work for people who have to clean up after your mess. You don't know when or how to correctly use speedy deletion tags and your pattern of past and current misbehavior and competence issues are not irrelevant. This needs to end, because you are causing damage to the project, either through an enforced ban from you using deletion tags or an indefinite block. ♟♙ (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So me nominating your page for deletion encouraged you to retaliate against me buy surfing through my past contributions and also nominating them for deletion. Isn’t that considered a (WP:COI). Engaging in something with someone whom you have filled a reports against?^{(User_talk:Gonzafer001)} I think we are both in the wrong here and we can use this moment in time to learn instead of censor each other, don’t you agree: instead of trying to censor me, could you reach me to become a better Wikipedian?User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzafer001: That is not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Although other editors have introduced you to the COI guideline in the past you do not seem to have actually read it. As there seems to be a long-term competence issue it's appropriate to discuss it here. Citobun (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*sorry User: Citobun. I will try to work on improving as an editor.. you gotta start somewhere though. You don’t start off as an expert, it takes time. Some people on here have been here for 17 years.. this is my 5th year. User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you posting from the future? (Check the timestamps.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY several times yet continue to create articles lacking evidence of notability. And today's tagging was clearly faulty, I have no idea why he thought it was appropriate. He says he wants to become a better Wikipedian but he doesn't seem to have looked at the links he's been given which would have helped him achieve that goal. Maybe a ban from tagging and direct article creation might force them into learning our policies and guidelines, plus of course if they don't declare their paid status they will have to be blocked, but hopefully that won't happen. The ban should also apply to anything associated to them directly, eg the Bellingham Metro News. Doug Weller talk

• Gonzafer001, after five years you're no longer considered "new". After one or possibly two years you may be able to successfully make this excuse, but not after five and certainly not after people have repeatedly pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and policies. Which, as Doug and Citobun say you've shown no evidence of having read and understood. Or you just don't want to follow them. I submitted the draft you created about your company (after it was repeatedly deleted and for which you were warned about
  refusing to hear. Either explanation is very disruptive. EDIT: Even after this discussion you are begging another editor to help you get the article about your non-notable local newspaper from draft to article [64] - ♟♙ (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I was very much tempted to indef per NOT HERE/CIR especially with EnPassant's link above, but I have left a final warning and will not hesitate to block Gonzafer001 myself. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal

Gonzafer001 is indefinitely banned from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected.

• Support - As proposer. ♟♙ (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Editor is wasting everyone's time, at best, with this behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While I have not analyzed this in depth, this appears to be a moderate remedy for a clear-cut problem. Clarity should be provided that they can appeal it and when. Even better if the ban could auto expire in two years, appealable in 1 year.North8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose something must be done, but this franken-proposal isn't it. Gonzafer doesn't have New Page Patrol permissions, so there's no reason for a ban on that. I strongly encourage Gonzafer to install
  Twinkle for any future speedy-deletion (on account of it saving time and making it easier for others to review edits), but that's not the type of thing ANI is in the habit of requiring. (also I'm not sure if Twinkle works when doing mobile editing - perhaps the WMF can work on fixing that.) Regarding COI creations - there may be a need for this editor to use AFC. I'm not opposed to requiring Gonzafer to use AFC for article creations where a COI is involved. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  力, I use Twinkle on my smartphone (using Chrome in desktop mode). Aside from naturally being a bit fiddly due to the size of the screen, it works fine. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  力, I'm a little confused by your response... this is someone who has shown over the course of several years that he doesn't understand the very basics of how processes here work, seemingly refuses to read and attempt to understand them, and you want to give him additional tools to apply speedy deletion tags??? Editors are expected to understand how things work before using automated or semi-automated tools and those who misuse them routinely have them removed (including Twinkle). I think your proposal would inflame this situation rather than resolve it. As for NPP, he's doing it somehow, regardless of his permissions, because he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day. Bans are on behavior and don't necessarily need to involve removal of tools. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I see a new editor with a history of COI issues, but otherwise trying to improve the encyclopedia. If Gonzafer insists that the clear feedback here is not an opportunity to improve but instead complains (more) that people are "trying to censor" him, this may end with a full site block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  He's been here since April 2016, to me that is no longer a new editor. Just saying... ♟♙ (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment agree that this isn't the perfect solution, but now he's broken his sig so that you can't reach his talk and claiming he didn't, doesn't inspire good faith. He's a time sink, who hasn't proven to be a net positive to the encyclopedia Star Mississippi 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once I saw that I no longer knew if he truly doesn't understand the basics, or is just trolling. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This Editor is wasting everyone's time. He is playing Admin in comment, trolling editors and acting daft. Agreed, he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day causing a lot of work which will have to be undone, eventually. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' indefinite ban from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected. This is a fairly even-handed remedy. Further
  WP:CIR issues should result in editor being blocked from editing. There is an incredible lack of competence manifest. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment And now he admits he's lying and playing games [65]. Obvious
  WP:NOTHERE ♟♙ (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This edit summary certainly looks like trolling, and I'm not happy with the explanation. The continuing issues with signatures suggest competence issues as well. This is close to an indef. I'm willing to give them one more chance to explain themselves or at least to demonstrate they understand what they should not do going forward. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, or support an indef block. It seems even the opposer believes something must be done. I don't see why nothing is being done. — Bilorv (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Could an uninvolved admin make any necessary action here? ♟♙ (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an immediate block on 190.122.185.170 (talk · contribs) based on this transphobic edit summary, not to mention their two other edits. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already revdel'd; good; they should probably be blocked as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to block, says already blocked. Don't see a block. I think this happens when there is a global block> HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a global lock, or range lock, it should show up in a little red bar on the top of contribs, it does not.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain, it's an auto-block. Ran into a similar case recently, where I was able to unblock and the re-block the IP. Not being able to explicitly block an auto-blocked IP may be a recently introduced "feature". Favonian (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed able to unblock and subsequently to reblock for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at their contribs again ... that revdel is incomplete. -- Jibal (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That requires an e-mail to
  WP:EMERGENCY by my reading - I'll do so now. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The same person has been running around doing the same thing on Favonian's and Bonadea's talkpages. They apparently think we all sit in one place and conspire. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and here we are. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Favonian, Acroterion, it's probably that Indian editor who's been harassing Bonadea for years. Keep forgetting their name. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        @Drmies:, Prob.ly Rajeshbm (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Oh, I see; and a whole sock army... Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        @Drmies: you are thinking of Nsmutte (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – no, I'm sure it isn't him. He has made some rather vile attacks over the years, but his writing style is... unique, shall we say? Idiosyncratic, anyway, and this one doesn't write like Nsmutte at all. Rajeshbm is another user from India, but the issue with that sockmaster was more to do with UPE and promotion of various celebrities, if I remember correctly. --bonadea contributions talk 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi and for the archival record, this is almost certainly the same user as Correct grammar is important (talk · contribs · logs · block log), responsible for this transphobic attack with violent threats; already indef'ed by Drmies. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding these aliases for the record:

• Trapkemp (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Bedsidle (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Dozesorval (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is 103.94.121.206 the same person? Range blocked as an open proxy, but still able to use their user talk page – could their edit there be revdeled? --bonadea contributions talk 09:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Grawp, btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

God, they're still around? Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and honestly it's hilarious to see that even after a decade and a few topic-area hops his MO has evolved less than a Torkoal holding an Everstone. This is just sad that he's utterly incapable of learning anything meaningful. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

82.33.72.42 (talk · contribs) is becoming tendentious with their attacks on "Western academics" over at RSN and attacks on "capitalist controlled sources" [[74]] over at Elections in Cuba‎. It's clear they are POV pushing (and edit warred over trying to exclude question the use of said sources).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point to a single edit I made where I removed sources? You have repeatedly accused me of removing content yet when I have asked for evidence you haven't provided. On my talk page there is a clear example of an accusation you made that I proved wrong, I asked you to apologise and you have not. My issue is that those sources are not neutral, and while they should be included they must be given proper context and sources that disagree also deserve to be included. The article lead does not reflect the content of the article, which includes sources arguing both that Cuba is and isn't a democracy, this should be reflected in the article lead but it keeps being reverted to a version containing the objective phrase "elections in Cuba are not democratic", cited only to Western sources. I am merely trying to restore balance, if you want to accuse me of removing sources you must show evidence. Any time I have noticed that I accidentally removed a source in my editing, I have always restored it (see for example [[75]]) 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have rejected to their use using that phraseology [[76]]. You want false parity between academic and Cuban government sources (and have drawn false parallels between western media and Cuban government sources). When told this can't be you have resorted to going on about US state terrorism and capitalist propaganda. When told you are wrong you have resorted to

wp:battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

That edit shows that while I reverted parts of the article to restore my own sources, I did not remove any of the new sources or statements introduced by Snoogans. I have always been careful to incorporate them into my own edits, Snoogans et al are the ones who indiscriminately remove sources they disagree with. Try again. Show a source or statement that I actually removed outside of "elections in Cuba are not democratic", which as I explained is not reflective of the article as a whole. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this to let others decide if you are

wp:rightgreatwrongs. I am not alone in telling you you are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I just want it on record that you have repeatedly lied about my behaviour and when challenged have refused to back down. It is telling you cannot show any examples of what you accuse me of. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where he has lied about your behaviour. You aren't helping your case in saying so. Calm down and if there is a content issue, then discuss it. But you are becoming disruptive. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Cuba is a western nation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not taking sides (i have little knowledge of the electoral system of Cuba, or which sources that inform us about them are neutral or reliable), but when people talk about whether Cuba is or is not a Western nation in what context do they mean? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what they mean, one of their edit summaries was "the characterisation of this content as being by "western academics" is substantiated by checking the author affiliations, this isn't difficult. as explained, western journals are hardly neutral on this issue. the cuba solidarity campaign is likewise biased, but a biased source is not inherently non-reliable. Again, the lead must reflect the whole content of the article" As if the fact they are "western" makes a difference. That is kind of my point, as Cuba is a western nation its hard to see what this objection refers to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They also seem to have an issue on other pages and have just had another edit war waring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, the reality is that most of the pertinent
  3rd party sources
  are published in countries that are liberal democracies, and since the general consensus there is that a one party system isn't genuinely democratic, it is what it is. Now, proponents in Cuba might advance the political-philosophical position that their electoral system mobilizes a class-for-itself, thereby making it more democratic than liberal democracies. But, again, obviously this is a minority view in the world at present. Somewhat surprisingly (to me, also), I'm not really that familiar with the Elections in country x series of articles to tell if the blunt declaration in wiki-voice that "Elections in Cuba are not democratic" is par for the course. But it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

Quick note (perhaps a bit OT) about overlapping terminology of "Western," culturally and economically. Western World versus Eastern Bloc? Was communist Czechoslovakia more "western" than communist Mongolia? Well, at the very least it was to the west of it! Arguably, both were more western still than, say, Saudi Arabia. Or, culturally, are western values more prominent in socialist Cuba than in capitalist China? So precision in terminology is key. And for that, Rockwell Automation has got us covered P.S. Slatersteven, can you better differentiate what is or isn't a quote in your message? Maybe use {{tq|text}}...? You have quotes inside quotes inside quotes, it's confusingses. El_C 18:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Slatersteven pretty much sums it up. The IP holds a False equivalence between One-party totalitarians states like North Korea and Cuba and liberal democracy. Their issue with American academics is even more bizarre given the numerous Castro/Cuba sympathetic academics in US universities, that have been around pretty much since the start of the Revolution. This is not even getting into the fact that most academics if not sympathetic to Cuba at the very least oppose the embargo by the United States. As mentioned above the Ip has done this with North Korea and human trafficking, claiming that the US state department is not reliable for information. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can somone help with Special:Contributions/202.146.244.238. A quick block and some revdel would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some people so full of hate? I just don't get the mindset. And I would remind this editor that in English the singular "they" is even older than the singular "you".

Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil Bridger, thou hast offended me with thine new-fangled grammar. Get thee hence! Girth Summit _(blether) 16:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC) [reply

]

I've RevDel'ed the edits and edit summaries from the history. GiantSnowman 16:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand, this is what I appreciate about the administrative culture here. I have spent a goodly chunk of time today and yesterday trying to get anyone over at commons to respond to blatant homophobia and doxxing on a public noticeboard, but it took 48 hours and conversations with 4 admins to get someone to do a revdel, and the account that did the doxxing still isn't blocked. I'm feeling quite depressed about the whole experience. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Commons, @Girth Summit:, next time ping me directly. If I am around (which is seen from my contribution log here) I should be able to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit though that this case is way much simpler than the one on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, thanks for that offer. I know what you mean about it being a bit more complex, but for me it's pretty straightforward : if you put another user's real life name, their sexuality, and where they live and work on a noticeboard, you get blocked and the revisions get deleted and oversighted. Apparently not, on commons. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as we all know, on Commons you can block a checkuser because you are unhappy with the CU results and then insist that whoever unblocks the checkuser should be desysopped. So block is indeed slightly difficult to institute sometimes, but revdel should have been done quickly. Anyway, now I have given them the last warning and was very specific what they are not supposed to do ever again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, thank you. It sounds like the wild west over there. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a project which really suffers from an extremely high ratio between the amount of work needed to be done and the number of people capable of and willing to do the job. Therefore even reasonable users have tendency to get overworked and become unreasonable, or to walk away, and bad-faith and agenda users stay for years under the radar, and sometimes there are coalitions of agenda users with whom nobody can do anything. I am personally doing the necessary maintenance minimum but otherwise just upload my photographs which I seem to shoot much faster than I am able to upload. Probably at some point it will be declared failed and taken under direct governance of the WMF, but I doubt they can make it better.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[reindent] That Commons thread is so incredibly dysfunctional on many, many levels. I thought 'do I just whinge here about it, or do I try and do something about it', and decided on the latter, so I brought it to the attention of the head of T&S: m:User_talk:JEissfeldt_(WMF)#Wikimedia_Commons_thread_of_interest. I just cannot get over how absurdly handled that was, from an anti-harassment, anti-doxxing perspective. Daniel (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Daniel, I'm glad others feel the way I do. I'm still really troubled by that encounter. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're not the only one who knows what a fucking horror show Commons is. As I said elsewhere, they not only refuse to get their shit together but actively smear it around and blame us for it because... well, they never really get around to explaining why, but apparently something. It's a shame, because they do serve a quite useful purpose, but in real life I've handled colostomy bags that weren't as full of shit as the admins I've generally encountered there; why they have a raging hate-on for this project escapes me, since we pay their bills much more so than the other way around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the account we were discussing in relation to Commons is now globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anshsaini0304 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anshsaini0304's editing on caste-related articles worries me somewhat. Most recently they began a spree of small edits to a list removing descriptions next to the names of people included in the list. Their justification is that another editor removed content they added to the Sinai article.[82][83] I can't tell if this is

Out of 473 total, I counted 157 at

List of Saini people was protected on June 13, after a series of mass removals by NitinMlk (talk · contribs) and later Sitush (talk · contribs) of unsourced or poorly sourced entries, including content added by Anshsaini0304 a week prior. Consult that page's history for more information — I see an unsourced addition on February 10 and lots of additions of refs and images between June 4–6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment – Anshsaini0304 is an
  WP:UGC. Note that the mention of caste requires self-identification in the case of BLPs – see here for details. In fact, after multiple explanations at my and their talk pages, they returned more than one month later to create the same BLP violation: [97]
  .

At Talk:Saini#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_19_July_2021, when things didn't go their way yesterday, they made a lot of unhelpful edits at Yadav (surname) to get the extended confirmed status. And from this comment, it seems they wanted to get that status for directly editing Saini article. They are also making unhelpful comments at Talk:Saini, e.g. calling a source unreliable because it was published in 1998. In short, they are here to promote Saini caste rather than to build an encyclopedia. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, two months earlier, they were also asking another Saini editor regarding extended confirmed status: [98]. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems to be a bad-faith SPA. The Saini articles attract them quite a lot (and socks, IIRC). - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One option is a topic ban of

WP:GS/CASTE. But it appears that this editor is not just misguided but actively unhelpful. An indefinite block seems logical. The apparent gaming of EC, via the 175 edits at Yadav (surname) is especially bad. Regular editors have a lot of work trying to keep these caste-related lists up to Wikipedia standards. Based on the above evidence it seems that Anshaini0304 is going to keep on undoing their work. As recently as August 2 Anshsaini0304 was continuing to make caste assignments with bad sources, even after reminders. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Please wait and have a time to read and understand me.

The user : NitinMlk is trying to depict that I want to disrupt the caste related articles, specially those belonging to Saini caste but that's not true. He is not telling anyone what I am suffering from, Please check out the last thread of Talk:Saini, As I am new here I am having some problem to show everyone what I want. I have no intentions to promote any caste, let alone Saini caste but what is incorrect will be said incorrect everytime, although it's a different thing when a few specific editors don't want to accept that. anshsaini (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with EdJohnston on this. It's one thing to be misguided and make errors but this is clear disruption here and is resulting in a waste of time and effort on the part of other editors. A block would be better than a topic ban in this case. —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpacemanSpiff Okay block me or ban, whatever Wikipedia community finds suitable but please allow me to have a talk on the Page Talk:List of Saini People, also read last thread of the same talk page to understanad what I am saying. anshsaini (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – They are continuing their same disruption for Saini POV push, e.g. see
  WP:NOT HERE. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Reply - Oh my god this user : NitinMlk is manipulating everyone in various ways. I just asked this to know why I am observing biasness towards some articles, as I am only willing to know the reason and nothing else. anshsaini (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After all this disruption, they provided an irrelevant source (see these edits and my responses here). And now I have been waiting for their response for the last two hours. So I will be now logging out. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have responded and now definitely you will find a new excuse. anshsaini (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anshsaini, you are not going to get your way. When multiple reliable sources say something & you cannot offer a reliable source which contests them, we show what they say without qualification. That some of those sources are over 20 years old & still seem not to be contested by other sources rather supports their validity on the point. Please see
  WP:VNT. I am sorry that Paine Ellsworth got your hopes up by initially doing as you and other apparent Saini editors requested ... but they were wrong then on policy grounds & remain so now. You are editing disruptively and tendentiously, & seemingly trying to game the system. Such editing consumes a vast amount of the time available to other volunteers. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Sitush, Paine Ellsworth has nothing to do with my hopes, even It's not a hope. What's correct is correct no such thing of hopes are involved in this! And for those discussions on sources and all, you are also welcome to Talk:List of Saini People. I am already dealing with editor like you there, who genuinely don't want to understand the point of view of others.

  Just one request to all of you, always remember editing an article if something is correct then it will not lesser down your reputation on Wikipedia. I am observing that you and NitinMlk have some personal problems with these castes, anyways I don't care why you don't want to digest the truth I will not agree with you until you will come to a genuine solution. anshsaini (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect by "genuine solution" you may mean "until I get my way". It won't happen, for the reasons I have just given here and at the article talk page. But the discussion here is more about your behaviour, not the content dispute itself. You are doing yourself no favours. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush To make you more informative let me clear that by "genuine solution", I mean correct content of the article. To the reasons you gave on talk page of article, I replied although there were no reason just another attempt to manipulate me as you did to other editors who are unable to put what they wanted to show everytime. anshsaini (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I do understand your point of view. I have been editing caste articles here for over a decade & likely there aren't many opinions I haven't seen. But Wikipedia isn't based on the opinions of editors, which is why I pointed you to VNT. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You "think" that you are editing caste articles but you are only making them in your way and that too some specific caste related articles. Moreover I am not saying anywhere to modify the page in accordance to my views, everytime I have to provide sources check on the talk page. anshsaini (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to have provided a single valid source, as others have explained. Please read

WP:OR because you are asking us to draw conclusions which are not in the sources you raise. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not asking you or anyone else to draw conclusions but yeah I am asking to use some common sense in understanding the difference between some words i.e. Farmers and Gardeners. I don't know why you are not able to see this that they both are different completely. Now I think indirectly you are trying to ask me to provide "scholarly sources" to differentiate these words too.

Also I think it's better to discuss these on the Talk page of the article. anshsaini (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Anshsaini0304 is now EC. Regardless of whatever else happens here, I think at minimum EC should be pulled for the gaming, until the editor can make 500 legit edits and request at PERM. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader Sure, whatever access you want to take over from me you must go for it because I never intended to vandalise any article or to modify it in my way nor I am willing to use the EC access to that article by my own, I will always prefer a discussion at Talk page of any article because I don't want that anyone after some days just revert it as it takes lots of efforts. It's just that NitinMlk is trying again and again to prove that I want to vandalise any article. anshsaini (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors pushing caste issues? Must be a day that ends in y. Indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, the user also has a puppet. Seems like I need to recalibrate my AGF meter... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For caste stuff involving new-ish accounts, ABF will usually work better as a default mindset. I remain convinced, regardless of our general ethos, that all caste-related articles should be protected in some way by default. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: I did not understand your remark about day ending in y :( Could you elaborate please?

• User:Anshsaini0304 was indef blocked by User:GeneralNotability for disruptive caste-related editing. An unblock request has since been denied due to sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't interacted with that user much before, but in the last few days we came to be in a disagreement over one particular discussion, and her tone has become increasingly aggressive, up to a point I asked her to

• [99] "But a bunch of partisan POV-pushers led my Piotrus are demontrating an active hostility to actually learning about the topic, and want to detablise the coverage"
• [100] "I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, Piotrus?"
• [101] "Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations... your demand for sources is nothing more than a transparently bad faith attrition strategy. For whatever reason, you are engaged in a bizarre form of historical denialism in which you use a succession of WP:GAMINing techniques... The only IDONTLIKEIT here is your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality.
  • [102] this is my request asking her to refactor the last three posts cited in diffs above and apologize for them
• [103] "rv troll" edit summary in response to the above

In addition to this incident, I'll also note that at the same time, just today, BrownHairedGirl seems to have written similar AGF/NPA-violating comments directed at User:The Rambling Man ([104] "TRM, please do try to stop trolling"). User:SQL asked her to tone this down [105]; which didn't go down so well judging by the fact that after few short exchanges SQL themselves was asking her to "retract personal attacks" made against them: [106]. BHG's posts on her talk page in response to SQL: Accues an editor (presumably TRM) of being a troll again; does so again, referring to (presumably) TRM as troll four times; does so twice more again, and accuses SQL of "harassment and victimisation"; next she refuses to retract the previous accusations, repeats it and the "troll" comments, and adds a new one, accusing SQL of "being a troll-enabler"; continues to repeat a bunch of those accusations again; and finally ends with repeating some of the above and and saying "Your choice not to communicate further is a blessed relief after your terrible behaviour, so please make your non-communication permanent until you repent of being a force-multiplier for a troll.".

So within the last 2-3 days it seems that BrownHairedGirl managed to violate AGF/NPA, rather seriously, towards at least three different editors. Since she is hardly a new editor, one could expect her to uphold, rather than violate, our policies (AGF, CIV, NPA...). One may be having a bad day or few, but if a response to a request to refactor and apologize request is to call the other party a a troll, well... I don't file ANI reports often, but this toxicity is too much even for an old timer like me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As this will inevitably draw the anti-TRM hawks out of hiding, I'll just say that the kinds of things being expressed by BrownhairedGirl felt to me like just venting and while toxic, didn't bother me at all. I've been too busy lately just creating shit-tons of featured and good material, and keeping errors off the main page, to be bothered by that kind of stuff. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely reject Piotrus' claims, and am preparing my response. But there are a lot of diffs to collect, so it may take a few hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you insist on calling me a troll then? PS. My "claims" are simple: I've been a victim of several nasty personal attacks from you. Diffs are above. Good luck rejecting those "claims". All I asked is a refactor and an apology. Why escalate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't twist facts again, Piotrus. You escalated by bringing your complaint here after your trolling was reverted.

    The full history is below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm interested to hear both sides of this, so could we please break ANI tradition and try to work through this without the typical high-octane drama? There's a lot of signal to noise ratio issues at play, and if we can cut through that and work out what happened and why, we might just get through this without it becoming a cluster (I'll let you choose which sort). ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aye, this would be a good idea. Let's see BHG's response before we start any hyperbole. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 3rded. Piotrus, can you please textify the diffs and just link normally? My eyes glaze over in blue. P.S. TNT, with your user name, I guess Cluster munition...? Fuck, I said the bad word: munition! El_C 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Statement by BHG. I stand by my comments about Piotrus. For example, Piotrus falsely accused me[107] of You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial. That was because I had pointed out that in the case of the
  WP:BATTLEGROUND
  tactics which he has adopted in relation to political prisoner categories, and I make no apology for calling him for his malicious slurs. I could provide a lot more details on his antics, but I hope that his attempt to smear historical facts as inveting is sufficient illustration of his tactics and why I eventually questioned his integrity when he repeatedly pushed the same point by demanding sources for that simple, core historical point, and I stand by that comment.

So Piotrus's decision to come here to complain about my responses to his antics is bizarre.

As to TRM, the situation is at core relatively simple. TRM posted at BRFA a comment which was pure snark[108]. It offered no insight or value to the decision on whether run that bot task; it was purely a personal attack, and as such it was classic trolling. After I called it out as trolling[109] and hatted it[110], TRM unhatted the off-topic comments,[111] and posted another round of trolling.[112].SQL hatted the discussion again, and I replied to TRM.[113]

Then SQL came to my talk to reproach me for posting in the hatted area. SQL's concern was not that I had been trolled or that the BRFA had been disrupted by the trolling, but I had replied to the troll. SQL's opening comment tome[114] was If you have an issue with another editor, you know where to take it up. That inverted the core fact that the whole thing was a matter of another editor taking issue with me in the wrong venue. But there was no reproach to TRM, only to me. After several rounds of this, I eventually asked SQL to stop this harassment and victimisation, and go reproach the troll who had accused the disruption. SQL took offence at that, and we both tried to disengage.

I then went off to explore the background of TRM's comment that another editor has advised him to come to BRFA. I then discovered that in fact, TRM had been goaded into action by Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) (formerly Chris.sherlock), a long-term highly destructive editor who has waged extraordinarily long and vicious vendettas against numerous editors,and who began his vendetta against me after I opposed his vile vendetta against @DuncanHill. As a result,Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is subject to a one-way IBAN re me and DuncanHill. That IBAN was flagrantly broken by his antics on TRM's talk (permalink to that discussion,which is busting with personal attacks on me by all three participants), and by Aussie Article Writer's trolling of my draft RFA (permalink), and by Aussie Article Writer's continued breaches of the iBAN on his talk after being blocked for the IBAN breaches (permalink).

Sadly, SQL was uninterested in any of that shoddy background when I posted about it on SQL's talk: permalink.

Now, having slept on it, I am much less annoyed at SQL and TRM. All three of us -- TRM, SQL and me -- were all played like puppets by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, whose exceptional talent for poisoning wn.wp has been developed over a decade of drama and malice. I sincerely hope that they are again banned (as they were for three years) and they are never again able to spread poison like the did to collaboration between me, TRM and SQL.

So Piotrus's post on my talk today[115] was an attempt to leverage the drama created by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, by falsely linking it to my rejection of his smears at DRV. I promptly reverted it as trolling, and stand by that label: it was a clear attempt to make mischief by falsely portraying me as the cause of two dramas instigated by others.

Now, please can we end this drama and get back to editing?

SQL and TRM, please be wary of that menace Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock. And Piotrus ... if you making false accusations that another editor is inventing history, and double down at length with FUD tactics ... don't cry "personal attack" when your integrity is challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it's worth anything, I wasn't aware that (a) AAW was a sock and (b) the owner had been IBANned with you. I assume good faith with editors I've never heard of coming to my page. Although I probably should have learnt a lesson from years back when a rather excited admin blocked me for apparently deliberately proxying for a banned editor. Live and (in this case not) learn. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I wholly accept that. You had no reason at all to know about the IBAN, and your AGF was taken advantage of.

As I wrote above, I think in hindsight that you and me and SQL were all played like violins by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock's latest attempt to do what he has done successfully for years: create conflict to discredit others. Chris had enough insight to see how to press our buttons, and has enough malice to try to maximise destruction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to AAW it wasn't technically a sock account - it wasn't block evasion and there wasn't any overlap of the accounts. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks. I don't care whether or not they are blocked, or whether or not they have personally attacked you, those comments are unacceptable and are unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor with as much experience as you. I ask that you strike them, and I am prepared to hand out an NPA block if necessary. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

GeneralNotability Which comments? About his vile vendetta against me? Entirely justified. About his spreading of drama and malice for many years? Entirely justified. I'm sure you noticed his attempt to blame me for his problems during his last meltdown. Stop letting him press your buttons. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: as @DuncanHill notes below, my comments on Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer are entirely based on the facts of his appalling conduct over many years.

It is entirely unacceptable that Wikipedia editors have continued to be exposed for so long to the vendettas of Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer. He chose in this case to knowingly violate an IBAN to pursue a multi-venue attacks on me -- and you are criticising me for describing this? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS Note that Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer also violated his IBAN re @DuncanHill by posting repeatedly on Duncan's talks: see the history of Duncan's talk.

Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is well aware that bot IBANs are in place: see this disastrously botched appeal against his IBANs, last month.

Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer has been actively targeting editors for years. Why do you want the targets of his vendettas to refrain from noting that when he has another swing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I don't think there actually was an IBAN againt AAW with regard to me. There should have been one years ago after an email he sent me, which got one of his then-blocked accounts a loss of email privileges. He regained email by reappearing as another account. DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note (in case it wasn't clear) User:Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock has been indeffed for their comment on BHG's (not yet live) RfA, despite being IBanned from commenting about her. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an earlier personal attack and violation of the IBAN by AAW still on their userpage. Despite the numerous admins watching the page it was allowed to stand. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed that just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Black Kite.

    Note that the blocking admin GeneralNotability also posted a followup[116] noting multiple breaches of the IBAN. This was not a one-off strike by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock; it was more of the vendetta.

• (edit conflicted of course) I find myself reading another ANI thread where things can go one way or another - we could spend a long time quoting each other and end up with someone blocked, or we could try to look at this from an outside perspective. Wikipedia is weird, it causes otherwise lovely people to get rather annoyed about things which often wouldn't cause such a dramatic response (myself included!).

• @BrownHairedGirl: Some of your above comments have merit, others are combatative and have only escalated things. And that's what a lot of this is, on both sides - escalation for very little outcome. Your behaviour has been rude, and regardless of how anyone feels or how justified it may well be, we can do better than be rude. In an ideal world, I'd ask you to please refactor/strike things other people have found to be a personal attack - not on the basis that it may or may not have been one by the letter of some website's policy, but solely because what do you honestly lose by doing so? What we gain though, is de-escalation, and that is worthy of small concessions on a project built on collaboration. I'd also like to note that even though you have been rude, your experience of being harassed and targeted is valid and deserves investigation - everyone should be reminded that being uncivil does not preclude someone from also being the target of harassment, and we must not dismiss someone's claims solely because of the manner in which they present them. I appreciate your attempts at trying to disengage, and understand that sometimes that's easier said than done.
• @Piotrus: I hear you, and I agree that things have been said in a manner which aren't great. I understand that the resolution you would like is for BrownHairedGirl to retract/refactor their statement to you and apologise. I think that is a reasonable thing to request and would help de-escalate things.

• I've tried really hard to hear both sides of this - I don't want to see anyone blocked where the outcome could still be one we learn from. Incivility has no place here, we can do better in how we speak to each other and we can always choose not to escalate a situation. I'm not expecting people to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but stepping away, having a mug of wine tea and working together on this is a good start. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT, I'll have tea with you, but it's gotta be right fuckin' now! El_C 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @TheresNoTime: thanks for your conscientious attempt to defuse the situation, and for the time and effort you must have spent doing so.

However, I an not willing to refactor my comments in relation to Piotrus unless their allegation that I invented historical fact (and their many followups in similar vein) are clearly withdrawn.

To my mind, that sort of attempt to smear another editor's reasoned objections is many orders of magnitude more destructive than possibly rude words in response. Wikipedia may survive rudeness; but malicious allegations of historical falsification destroy the substance of what we here to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: What's the outcome you're looking for here? I understand your stance - de-escalation is almost always something that has to happen on both sides. Do we need to look at more IBANs as a way of moving everyone away from each other here? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheresNoTime: Some misunderstanding, maybe? I didn't bring this to ANI, so my only desire here was to defend myself.

  I would be quite happy for his discussion to simply to be closed as "no action needed", and put an end to the timesink. But if you want something specific, then i ask that Piotrus retract all his bogus allegations that I invented an NPOV problem, and the rest of the spinoffs as the dug in deeper. If that happened,then I would of course retract/refactor some of my comments in reply.

  I don't think that any IBAN here would be constructive. This at heart a content issue, where Piotrus has been waging a campaign to discredit anyone who point to complexity and nuance and POV problems in the application of a label which he insists can be objectively determined. That cannot be resolved by constraining Piotrus's interactions with one or more individual editors who have had the temerity to challenge his simple certainties; it needs a change of approach by Piotrus, or their recusal from a topic where they are too heavily emotionally invested to assume good faith in those who say "it's not that simple". Note for example that in the DRV discussion, Piotrus has repeatedly pronounced that those who point to POV issues in the term "political prisoner" are supporting "fringe views", taking a pro-western stance, etc. I will see if I have the energy to collect more diffs, but here's one to start with; Piotrus dismissing as a straw man [117] my assertion[118] that In the case of the

  WP:NPOV. That sort of counter-factual bluster is deeply corrosive battleground conduct, and there was lots of it from Piotrus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @BrownHairedGirl: Evidently action is needed, I was really hoping you'd reflect on the words you've used and come to your own conclusion on their suitability for use. They are not suitable. We're all guilty (myself, recently) of using inappropriate language to describe other editors. We must be better. I'm stepping away from this conversation now as its fairly likely to spiral into ANI-class bullshit, and at 9:30pm I'm more inclined to go put my feet up than continue this. I'm fairly sure this will result in a block, and perhaps it should. BrownHairedGirl, defeat the trend we're seeing on this project and apologise - do better than we've all done previously ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheresNoTime: again, I will make no apology for eventually standing up to a sustained attempt by Piotrus to smear and misrepresent editors who accurately pointed to complexity in response to his campaign to erase other perspectives.

  If Wikipedia really is a place where the response to such POV-pushing and bullying is more problematic than the POV-pushing and denialism itself, then it will no longer be an NPOV encyclopedia. Collegial discussion requires open exchange of views and willingness to accept factually-based counter-arguments. I am very troubled by your lack of concern about that conduct, because NPOV is a core policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Should their other accounts get indefblocked as well?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose "other accounts" are you referring to? I'm not following. -- llywrch (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume the now indefinitely blocked Aussie Article Writer.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was my first thought, but this thread is about BHG, so the referent is ambiguous. -- llywrch (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I was indeed talking about other accounts of AAW, and at the time I left this message BHG was not yet blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this thread on SQL's talk page shows a real lack of civility. SQL had already asked BHG to stop contacting them at this point. BHG justified the post by saying that it presented new information. Ok, sure, fine. But SQL replies reiterating clearly that they wish to be left alone and feel BHG's behaviour is approaching harrassment. Even after that BHG leaves another comment. Then SQL asks again for BHG to stop, and then BHG comments again. This is the kind of treatment that drives editors away from the project (cf. Special:Diff/1037702885). Colin M (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I was close to being driven away from Wikipedia by SQL's stonewalling, both over their initial refusal to recognise that I had been trolled and by their later refusal to even acknowledge that the whole saga had all been stoked by a serial vendetta-monger who breached an IBAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as BRFA/bot processes are concerned: I've never had a bad personal interaction with BHG, but I've noticed she can brush off as a bit verbose/abrasive when in a dispute. Aside from the incident linked to in the OP, there was this extended issue (along with the various spin-offs on other talk pages; and the history since a bunch was redacted by BAG members, eg here). As a result of the incident, the volume of text and the heat-to-light ratio was such that no other BAG member wanted to review the issue, and I'm surprised Primefac made the effort. I think she means well and often identifies an actual problem, but I'd just gently advise this approach is not always particularly helpful, especially when you want BAG attention on something, and it can discourage bot operators (like QEDK, who stopped running the bot and says "I'll probably let it lapse anyway since I have no intention of running a bot on this wiki again"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader: I found that episode absolutely horrible, and it severely dented my faith in BAG.

  The facts of that case were quite simple. A bot was authorised for category-related tasks, the BRFA having been notified at central talk pages. When it began work, it started populating a category which was nominated at CFD, where everyone except that bot operator opposed the bot's work. It was clear that owing to an oversight in notification, there was not actually consensus for its work, but the bot owner dug down and insisted that there was consensus, despite the overwhwelming opposition.

  BAG handled that very badly, focusing on a procedural defence of their initial good faith authorisation, rather than on the current consensus that the bot would do a lot of damage to category redirects. I was horrified by how hard I had to push the simple point that a good-faith assessment of consensus had turned out to be radically mistaken, and that the authorisation needed to be reassessed.

  I felt that QEDK was badly let down by BAG, who supported QEDK's destructive digging-in instead of simply saying "let's pause and reopen discussion". BAG guided EDK into confrontation rather consensus-building, and I am unsurprised that QEDK was disillusioned; I was disillusioned too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I quite agree with that reading. I don't want to run this sub-thread too long, but I'll just say that I do think it was largely how you decided to handle the problem, as well as the specific comments you made, that led to the great deal of animus discussion and the bot being retired. In addition, QEDK (unsurprisingly) basically disappeared after that month and he's now largely inactive. Obviously I can't say whether it's connected or not but I'd imagine so. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader: we'll have to differ on that. I tried all the usual gentle steps at escalation, but was repeatedly dismissed and insulted by QEDK, and stonewalled by BAG. The animus arose out of BAG's collective failure to reopen the consensus-building, which required an escalation of pressure to stop the bot doing damage.

  It could all have been so vastly happier for everyone if BAG had simply re-opened consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears the bomb robot has tipped at a hill. El_C 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  BrownHairedGirl, gotta say, after reading the linked threads and all the diffs above, I have to agree with PR and others that your tenor and demeanor appear to be have the opposite effect of what you intend in these discussions. Far from resolving these disputes, it is making them escalate to all-out brawls. I actually agree with you re: the CfD and deletion review discussions linked above, but I agree with others that your behavior is still problematic, regardless of what the right call is in the linked discussions. One can be right, and still be wrong about how they go about being right.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (I reply against my better judgement...) You say "escalation of pressure" as if you moved a user talk discussion to

  WP:BOTN. I feel the need to emphasise to you, after jogging my memory by reading the diffs again, that the whole affair was the most... ruthless... thing I've seen in the bot space, and I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's not often you see Primefac writing in all-caps. There was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task, three BAG members reviewed (and denied) your complaints, following which your messages towards QEDK included a vile, gaslighting thug, vile, scummy conduct, you systematic mendacity and persistent gaslighting, repeatedly stonewalled, deceived, bullied and gaslighted, whether this bot-owner is competent to run a bot, and those are just excerpts from two comments. You repeated similar stuff over dozens of other comments. Do you honestly not see how this would make another editor feel? Speaking for myself, I'd say that whole affair would be enough to throw in the towel and do something else onwiki, or find a different hobby altogether. It's not how we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  RE: a vile, gaslighting thug... [etc.] — holy shit! P.S. ProcrastinatingReader, once again, Cow Man says: diffs = friend. El_C 20:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ProcrastinatingReader: we are back to the core problem:your assertion that this was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task. I fundamentally disagree on both counts.

  QEDK repeatedly dismissed the objections of all the category regulars, often very insultingly. none of the regular category editors supported him, but he dismissed all the objections. That is not the conduct of a good bot owner.

  Similarly, this was not a "legitimate task". It was a task which had been approved in good faith without notifications treated at the most relevant editors, who objected en masse when they became aware of it. A good faith error was made in approving it, but once such widespread opposition became clear, it was no longer a legit task.

  That's the problem:the way we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment is to reopen a decision which turns out to be unexpectedly controversial due to lack of notification. I pleaded for that opportunity to discuss it collaboratively, but was repeatedly rebuffed. When BAG block the collaborative pathway, expect anger in return

  You have quoted me without diffs, which is unfair because I cannot review the context ... but I do recall utterly vile personal attacks from QEDK, to which I was responding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Diff for you are again behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the diff. That allows other editors to see my comment in the context of my explanation of the behaviour that I was describing.

  QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. He was ploughing on with a task which clearly did have consensus, and had been lashing out at me in multiple venues. It would be much more productive to read the whole thread than to cherrypick the points where I snapped at the antics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (FTR: I did give a diff in my original comment (of Primefac's removal, which contained that comment).)

  I remember reading this and the preceding/related discussions last year, such as on his user talk and though I can't remember all the details, I can remember that (on the whole) I didn't come away with the 'QEDK wasn't listening' impression. I also felt that even his most frustrated response fell short of "utterly vile personal attacks", and he kept his composure better than most of us would've. I think he was trying to listen (see how he responded to Trappist the monk's concern, on the same link), although after a while probably felt you weren't engaging in good faith. The BAG members responding also seemed to be more concerned with what you were saying (eg [119][120]). I also remember QEDK said he paused the bot's activity until BAG gave an all-clear, which removes any sense of urgency in my opinion. I'm not necessarily saying you were wrong about the content issues (I haven't reviewed them in depth, and in general you often are right), I'm just dismayed by your approach and how QEDK was treat. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In that

  AGF out the window and write something like this comment, which I will quote at length: You have now made your goal crystal clear [...], and your attempt to cast that as my "narrative" or "perception" is a viciously nasty response: it's gaslighting. Please conduct yourself much better. I have seen this pattern before: -manipulation of consensus-formation (by woefully inadequate notification and lack of upfront clarity about goals) and then a belated admissson of the real goal followed by an attempt at gaslighting the objectors. There is no justification for escalating rhetoric like that. "Manipulating consensus", specifically, is a nasty and (in context) unfounded accusation. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• (Non-administrator comment) I've looked at some (but not all) of the diffs, and one thing is clear: BHG needs to learn when to dis-engage with a discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support block (struck; the support was for a temporary block to prevent continuing personal attacks in this thread, those have now stopped User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)) even if QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug is accurate, constantly repeating these personal attacks is degrading to the conversation. Multiple editors have told BHG this. I still haven't read the initial deletion discussion that led to the DRV, but this diff about Piotrus your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand is clearly a personal attack. I don't see any option other than a block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For goodness sake, I repeated that comment about QEDK solely because it was dug out of the archives by someone else, and i explained why I used it at the time. My offence here was to defend myself.

    As to the DRV, please read the discussion and see that comment in context. I was being heavily goaded: accused of "inventing" historical facts, of creating a straw man pointing to one of he biggest political crises in Northern Ireland... and eventually I snapped. Your quite here omits both the context of the rest of my comment, and the wider context of the discussion which proceeded it. For the record, Piotrus made multiple claims at both DRV and at CFD to expertise as a social scientist ... yet his conduct of a FUD campaign against inconvenient facts was incompatible with the norms of that profession. So I didn't make a statement 'as quoted: I asked a question about what was was going on, with that as one possible explanation. I can't even quite the whole of what i wrote, because it seems that doing so will be treated as an offence in itself.

    This mining of decontextualized quotes is a terrible way to assess a lengthy discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have finished reading the CFD and DRV discussions. As this is a dispute over content that has turned into a behavior dispute, I will give my opinion on both. Both BHG and Piotrus are bludgeoning the DRV discussion. There is certainly a philosophical dispute regarding how categories should be used regarding controversial classifications. Whether or not

    WP:SUBJECTIVECAT applies to prohibit Category:Political prisoners is the topic of the open DRV. BHG's specific question of whether Bobby Sands would be in the category is a relevant one to that discussion, and Piotrus should not have insisted that there be an ongoing dispute on a Wikipedia talk page before it be considered. That said, Piotrus's suggestion that modern scholarship and not just contemporaneous opinions be considered is reasonable (we would certainly do so for 19th century political prisoners), and I don't see how that implies he is POV-pushing. With any amount of context, the your claim to be a social scientist are false comment is needlessly inflammatory; please do not insist that comment is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @力: It was a final-straw response to Piotrus's repeated claims that I was "inventing" the issue as a "straw man". I am glad that you agree that it is not. But can you understand how I was goaded by the repeated attempts to erase the issue and cast me as a liar,as well as by the wider bludgeoning?

    Of course, the views of contemporary scholars should be represented in the article, along with the views of the protagonists and contemporary observers and scholars. But to single one of those perspectives out as the "fact" summarised in a category entry or omitted from the category is a distortion of multi-polar reality.

    One of the issues here is cultural. Poland has moved far to the right, and its rejection of the communist era is complete; everything from that period is viewed by the vast majority as bad. Ireland has moved from centuries of conflict into a very different space, where everything is about creating space for two traditions to co-exist. So we are very much in a space of multi-polar narratives,and allowing all POVs to be heard, and not requiring a single official truth. It's fuzzy and complex,but least we not shooting each other no more.

    I don't expect outsiders to understand that, but I do expect that they at least try to educate themselves before denouncing it as fabrication. I remain highly alarmed that someone who claims to be a social scientist has been bludgeoning an en.wp discussion to insist that there is only one POV and no subjectivity. That pursuit of rigid certainty is the polar opposite of the critical analysis of complexity that I expect from social science, and I can't reconcile the two things I see. If I had been less goaded by the repeated malignment and by the repeated denial of a POV divide on the issue, I would probably have expressed my concern more cautiously, but that's not the situation I found myself in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The second quote needs a bit more context, but is not much better with it. BHG is saying that either QEDK is lying about being a social scientist and lacks thinking skills or that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. I unfortunately recognize this sort of dichotomy from some of BHG's previous comments which were cited in the Portals arbcom case. Examples of it being applied to three different editors: one, two, three. Colin M (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. I think the community is often naïve about the damage that power-users with chronic civility issues do to the movement. Editors like BHG drive away others in a manner that adds up to much more lost effort than they can ever contribute on their own. Even for the rare editor who is a net-positive despite chronic civility issues (which I don't believe BHG to be), it sends a message to other users when we let them continue editing—a message that creates a chilling effect. It's really easy to not call people things like "vile". If someone can't manage that bare minimum, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, whether they have 2 edits or 2,000,000. Until BHG can show that she understands CIV and NPA, and understands that they apply even when the other person was a jerk to you, and even when you feel you are in the right, she should not be editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh, at what point did blocking enter this discussion?. I don't see a reason to block anyone. I do see some good reasons for certain editors to step way from interacting with each other, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I must confess I started it (possibly sooner than helpful); I've simply seen enough comments where it appears BHG is defending their personal attacks by repeating them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is quite unpleasant to be a participant in any conflict with BrownHairedGirl. She insists she is right, she is quick to assume bad faith and rarely backs down from that, and she is absolutely terrible at de-escalation. The fault is always with others (who "goad" her). She seems to have learned nothing from the Portals case (the discussion surrounding a block preceding that case is quite comparable to what we have today). I tend to avoid her if possible (fortunately our interests don't overlap much). BHG has gotten away with bullying and incivility for a very long time because she has many supporters, and ANI in particular has historically been spectacularly useless with respect to BHG, who has been allowed to continue and repeat her behaviour here. There is not a problem of Piotrus/BHG or one of SQL/BHG or one of QEDK/BHG (or earlier NA1k/BHG) that could be solved by mutual voluntary or involuntary interaction bans, it is a problem with BHG. She could end these conflicts by disengaging, but either chooses not to or is unable to. Both are bad for a collaborative environment. —Kusma (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who has had a somewhat heated disagreement with BHG about renaming some categories or other (something like that), I really can't say I recognise that description of her. She stands up for what she believes in, and she challenges bullies. She has never shewn any signs of bearing me a grudge for our disagreement. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl:: There are many examples of personal attacks by you, above (and elsewhere). It would really be helpful if you could acknowledge that, and agree to moderate your behavior. Paul August ☎
• Well said Kusma — Ched (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Kusma and others said it well. Uncivil, rude and abrasive behavior creates a toxic environment on enwiki and already drove many good editors out of this project. Sadly, BHG has a history of repeatedly assuming bad faith and being quite rude and uncivil towards others. Unless something changes in her behavior, I am in favor of adopting sanctions towards her. - Darwinek (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]