Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085

• On November 18, after I attempted to remove content added by Banana Republic, Banana Republic restored it [93], without addressing the
  WP:BLP [94]
  .
• On November 19, after edits continued to be made to this section, I made edits [95] with the edit summary ce citation, add information from refs, ce
  WP:OR, and Banana Republic removed the reliably-sourced mention of Stavast wearing a headset and added the disputed term "mischaracterized" back into the article [96]. GhostOfDanGurney restored the version I had added [97] with an edit summary Restore version by Beccanyr; headset is very relevant to the event, you also created the "redundancy" with a change in the previous edit that was not mentioned in the summary. I then updated the citations to add direct quotes from the sources to help make the content in the article more clearly sourced to reliable sources [98]
  .
• On November 20,
  WP:DUE and now you insist on putting unnecessary crap into the paragraph., which was reverted by GhostOfDanGurney [105]
  .

I think a focus on issues that Banana Republic may have with me may be a

signs of disruptive editing while considering whether a topic ban is warranted. Beccaynr (talk

) 16:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• As I was about to participate in the now-open
  WP:BATTLEGROUND. Beccaynr (talk
  ) 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional Support provided that
  WP:TEDIOUS editing to chip away connections between Stavast, Brandon Brown, and “Let’s Go Brandon.” This included an uncalled for and frivolous attempt to indef block BananaRepublic. These efforts were opposed by large consensus every step of the way (including pending consensus in the ongoing RFC on Stavast’s page). Everyone needs to take a break from these pages for a while, but to put the blame solely on BananaRepublic would be the wrong move.Frank Anchor 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [comment slightly modified for clarity - F.A
  . 14:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)]
• Oppose While I largely agree with Frank Anchor's good analysis in his previous statement, a topic ban for User:Beccaynr and User:GhostOfDanGurney is the only appropriate and necessary measure to pacify the battleground. Everyone else will come along in the discussion. --KnightMove (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment For what it's worth, regardless of any support this reply/proposal gets, I'm voluntarily disengaging from the topic, as I told BR before these replies from Frank and Knight went up. American Politics is clearly not the topic I want to ever be involved in. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to vote, but it would be a good idea for all three of Beccaynr, GhostOfDanGurney, and Banana Republic to voluntarily avoid this article for the next month. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As a follow up to the diffs above in this section, and after trying to discuss the issue further with
  here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk
  ) 02:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

While no editor other than myself has accused you of being

WP:OWN. Banana Republic (talk

) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In your first diff,

focus on the content during discussions of content, and for concerns about conduct to be discussed in appropriate forums, with supporting diffs. Beccaynr (talk

) 06:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected. As you pointed out, you were accused of

WP:OWN. I'm not sure which one is worse, but nonetheless thanks for the correction. Banana Republic (talk

) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Per

accusation of bad-faith editing. [...] However clear such an intent might subjectively seem, one should not cast aspersions about the mentalities or motivations of other editors. Wikipedia has a variety of noticeboards for dealing with problematic editing behavior, patterns of which tend to speak for themselves when properly diffed with evidence. Beccaynr (talk

) 22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Antiochian Greek Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am currently dealing with an article that is being watched and monitored a zealous group of people, possibly socks, that has no reliable sources and is trying to use

It looks like they have taken control of the article, that is, their word decrees, stopping anybody trying to improve the article. The majority of those personalities and populations do not use "Antiochian Greek" or "Rum" - they identify as Arabs. They include all Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Christian communities in the Levant, yet dismiss communities in Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Iraq, also dismissing the fact (if we are going to include the population stats) that they don't speak modern-day Greek, hence it shouldn't be in the lead. This is beyond a content dispute, they have taken ownership of the article and are putting foward a position into the public sphere with no pushback allowed. They don't even have citations. It is a deliberate misuse of Wikipedia. The article is a mess with NO reliable sources. Users are stopping people (me in this case) from trying to improve the definition and readability of the article. They have reverted my citation needed tags. JJNito197 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not find the description above correct. The arguments are largely in violaton of WP:NPOV, aiming at classifying a minority according to a certain point of view, when more than one can prevail. Things are complicated in the Levant. Some do identify as Arabs, others don't and "Greek" here is for "Rhomi", the old classification until a century or so ago. The personalities above are easily referenceable; it would suffice to attach a {citation needed} to it. But I agree that zealots can appear to disrupt an argument. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@

☖

01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a behavioral issue from two editors. At Julian Assange, a widely reported event brought about extensive discussion involving several editors (mostly from here onward). A RfC was launched "Should we include..." [a specific text]. The consensus for inclusion was overwhelming: eleven !votes to include, from both involved and uninvolved editors, with reasons given; two !votes against - Basketcase22 & Specifico. Since that time time both editors have sought to ignore that consensus and impose their own preferred version. They were reminded at Basketcase22's talk page of the need to abide by consensus, by both me and another editor. Both simply ignored this, and continued to insert their preferred version despite their undoubted awareness of the RfC at the time and the reminder yesterday. They have made no attempt to obtain a new consensus for their preferred version (in fact they haven't discussed the content at all since starting to try to force their preferred version on the page). I seek a reminder from admin to both editors that the consensus from an RfC is binding; failing that having any effect some kind of temporary article ban is probably in order. This would not be the first occasion of a topic ban on this article for Specifico, who has a history of disruption on it. Diffs:

3 Oct Following wide discussion, RfC launched on a specific text (the text is already in the article by edit consensus)

5 Oct Ninth !vote for inclusion added. Despite this clear and growing consensus for the proposed text, earlier the same day Basketcase22 starts deleting sources (Sydney Morning Herald, The Times) that support the text.

24 Oct eleventh !vote for inclusion of the proposed text.

2 Nov RfC expires

14 Nov Basketcase2022 reverts to their preferred version. Their edit summary says "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" - they are surely aware that this same edit is contrary to established consensus. They and Specifico are reminded on Basketcase2022's talk page of the need to abide by consensus (with a link to the RfC). Mr Ernie reminds them that editing contrary to established consensus is disruptive. Both Specifico and Basketcase2022 have read this reminder of the consensus version.

15 Nov Specifico ignores this, changes to his preferred version again. Basketcase2022 does the same.

This is quite flagrant disruptive editing to ignore an RfC that these two were the only editors to !vote against. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I dispute that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus for inclusion. A headcount by an involved editor does not establish consensus. On 2 Nov 2021, Legobot removed the expired RfC template, but the RfC was never formally closed. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Who carries out any "headcount" is not the issue. This was not a close-run RfC: there was only you and one other editor !voting against, and a large consensus for a positive answer to the question "should we include this". If anything it was undercounted, as that tally does not include my comments which I did not cast as a formal vote. Your argument that the discussion was not a consensus, despite how obvious it was to other editors at the time, verges on the ridiculous, and starts to stretch credulity that you are

Wp:HERE to collaborate in building an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧

05:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, you are basing your complaint here on two edits I made to Julian Assange.

• 14 Nov 2021: The following discretionary sanction applies to all people who edit this article: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.
• 16 Nov 2021: Undid violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring 1055450268 by Special:Contributions/Cambial Yellowing – see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=1055247431

I have made 351 edits to our Assange BLP. I trust that in determining whether or not I am here to collaborate in building an encyclopedia, administrators will consider the totality of my edits, not merely the two that stretch your credulity. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What I am basing it on is laid out in detail above. Your misleading edit summaries – in which you admonish against the exact type of sanctions violation you are committing in that edit – do serve to aggravate the issue. But your attitude and the content of your edits, including the other that I reference above, are the problem.

In light of the above comments from Basketcase2022, I propose a short topic ban. Basketcase2022 clearly has little interest in seeking or abiding by consensus on the article where it conflicts with their preferred version. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the two I bulletized, please remind me what other of my edits did you reference above? Your complaint here is so much about a different editor than me, that I must have missed your diffs pointing to my other "disruptive" edits. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It's about you just as much as Specifico. All the relevant diffs are under "Diffs" in my post immediately above. Some other edits you made in the past are not relevant. It is not your two edits that stretch credulity - it is your absurd fantasy that you and one other editor were the consensus out of 13 editors, the rest of whom took the opposing view. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've already disputed here that the referenced RfC resulted in consensus, and have never claimed elsewhere that it did. Please don't put words in my mouth. Basketcase2022 (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes - but your dispute of the obvious fact is utterly baseless and without merit. Even if we remove one vote - for Yes - because they modify it as “weak” - it’s still 10 editors supporting that text to your two opposed. You also both invent the same nonexistent policy - and this is pointed out to both of you with no refutation. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anybody put in a closure request for the two said-RFC? PS - The second one begins with an unsigned post, so I don't know what the starting date is. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There’s only one on this particular issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I see two RFCs that aren't officially closed. One about "Yahoo" & the other about "AP2". GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant one is - the one I link to above, about Yahoo. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I've put in a request for closure for both RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is clear disruptive editing here by SPECIFICO. I've a little more faith to excuse Basketcase2022, who appears to just be following SPECIFICO's (the much more experienced editor) lead. A few weeks ago they removed the text under discussion at least 3 times (probably more but I can't find all the diffs) [118], [119], [120]. They insisted there was no consensus for this text, but it was basically only SPECIFICO and Basketcase2022 who were disputing this via reverts. There was a lengthy talk page discussion with overwhelming consensus for inclusion see here, but apparently this was not good enough and SPECIFICO insisted on an RFC in this section. You can read through the RFC here. Despite the overwhelming consensus in the previous discussion, and the obvious consensus in the RFC, SPECIFICO again altered the text saying we need to wait for the RFC to close. I don't like to go to AE but it is now inevitable unless the disruptive editing against consensus stops. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, Talk:Julian Assange — everyone's favourite 562,540 bytes talk page. For comparison, Joe Biden is at a sleepy 16,072 bytes, while Donald Trump is at a ____ 69,969 bytes(!). As I recall, there was a moment recently when someone told me something to the effect of 'see talk page.' It was funny. El_C 15:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

El C is right about Talk:Julian Assange being overlong, but his byte count is misleading. Of the grand total, 35% (195,288 bytes) is accounted for by one humongous section, which is a scrapbook being kept as a "social experiment" by a single user with few contributions by other editors. So please show some respect. Wikipedia must make room for social experiments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think @El C: showed exactly the right level of respect. Someone has to keep a sense of humour around here. What I wanna know is: was the use of the adjective "sleepy" within 10 characters distance of the words "Joe Biden" - always a contentious move - intentional? Jungian maybe? Show some respect El C! 🤡 Cambial — foliar❧ 18:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

At his user talk page, SPECIFICO has suggested that ANI is the wrong forum for the present complaint: This is a discretionary sanctions issue regarding BLP and AP with the page under "Consensus Required".… DS issues are reviewed at WP:AE. However, although SPECIFICO has been an editor for nine years, he is not an administrator. So I request clarification by an admin: is ANI the correct forum? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• The correct forum is when there is a disagreement over an RFC that never received a closure is
  WP:RFCL. It's silly to talk about sanctions and the like before that. If the RFC is closed with an overwhelming consensus then maybe people can swing back around to talk about people who insisted otherwise, but obviously the first step when there's a dispute over an RFC's outcome is to obtain a formal closure. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No. The requirement to follow consensus is ubiquitous; it is not contingent on whether a RfC has been hatted and closed - it is not even contingent on holding an RfC (though they serve to make the consensus more obvious - very obvious, in this case). Cambial — foliar❧ 18:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but when editors dispute whether a consensus exists, we have procedures in place to resolve that, the first of which is a formal closure. Leaping straight to ANI is not helpful, especially since the subtext of the request is "remove these editors" rather than "resolve this dispute over consensus." Per

WP:AGF, your focus should be on resolving the dispute first, and only escalating here when it's irreconcilable; coming to ANI before even bothering to get a formal close for the disputed RFC is obviously a waste of time. Nobody is going to support any sort of sanctions based on a single RFC, which has not yet even received a formal closure, when you yourself are unwilling to take even the most basic steps to resolve the things beforehand. As I said, if the closure determines that the consensus was so clear that their refusal to accept it was egregious, you can always come here after that, with that to back you up; but rushing to ANI without even taking such a simple and obvious step isn't going to go anywhere. --Aquillion (talk

) 01:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the correct place to discuss 2 editors who have been consistently editing against consensus. Consensus was first established in the discussion (see here) and has now been cemented by an RFC. There's no requirement that we need to wait for a formal close to codify what is easy enough to just quickly check. Basketcase and SPECIFICO have been continuously removing this material by falsely stating no consensus and they need to stop. It would be helpful if uninvolved editors checking in could look and provide a 3rd opinion about when consensus was established, or what it would take to establish such consensus. For example, if an editor doesn't accept consensus from a normal talk page discussion, is it acceptable to demand an RFC? Or once consensus is clear in said RFC if it is acceptable to demand everyone wait until it is formally closed? To me it just seems like stalling. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I deny your use of consistently and continuously to describe my alleged "editing against consensus." Neither you nor anyone else has produced diffs to substantiate those words. My two recent edits, which I bulletized above, do not constitute consistent or continuous violation of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You reverted it on 14 Nov, long after talk page and RFC consensus has been reached. You reverted it on 4 Oct, after the talk page discussion had clear consensus for inclusion. You reverted and reverted it earlier. We've had to waste a tremendous amount of time now because you and SPECIFICO have reverted this time after time after time after time. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Your reply contains 8 diffs, only 4 of which point to edits of mine. The others point to a different editor. Of the diffs relating to my contributions, all 4 such edits were made in accordance with the discretionary sanction in place at Julian Assange: You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. None of those 4 edits violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You're barking up the wrong tree. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are violating a DS. I'm saying you are editing against a clearly established consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

All four of your edits that Mr Ernie points to violate behavioural policy, which is why we are here. The fact you are unable to recognise this is why a fixed duration topic ban is the proposed remedy. The two most recent edits violate both Consensus Required - as you are changing to your (or Specifico’s) new version which does not have consensus, and removing a version which has been shown by formal process to have a strong consensus - and the more general prohibition on disruptive editing. Consensus is always required. It has been very clearly established to support the version you removed. You’ve made no attempt to gain a consensus for you new version, and you have seen what editors’ views are in the RfC. That is disruptive editing. Pretending that obvious consensus doesn’t exist won’t change that. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Stalling? What's your rush? On a page that seems to get updated several times a day with the latest Assange internet chatter, a deep breath seems like a very good way to let the dust settle and sort the day's urgent

WP:NOTNEWS from the enduring significant facts. At any rate, the page is under the Consensus Required DS page restriction, which OP violated at least twice by reinstating this content that's been disputed from the first day it appeared. So with respect to ANI, this is a content dispute, and as to AE -- nobody has reported it there. SPECIFICO talk

19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Don’t lie Specifico, it’s uncivil. You know full well that it is you who violated Consensus Required. Multiple times. Your new version inserted 14 Nov has no consensus. Furthermore, you haven’t even tried to gain consensus for your new version. The version that you sought to remove that has been on the page for ~ 6 weeks prior has been put to RfC with a very clear consensus. Simply fabricating things to suit your narrative is not a good look. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The original poster of this ANI complaint,

WP:NPA, and neatly illustrates what SPECIFICO and I are up against here. This is really neither a content dispute nor disagreement over the interpretation of policies and guidelines. It's a clash of personalities. As such, it's very disappointing. Basketcase2022 (talk

) 02:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: This was not an accusation, but a simple statement of fact. You can show it not to be a fact by posting the diff in which I broke the "Consensus Required" rule, and explaining how Specifico could be unaware of the eleven !votes for the consensus for that content against your and his two (despite responding to messages in which they were directed to that consensus by multiple editors less than 18 hours earlier, and responding to multiple threads in the RfC that arrived at it). What’s disappointing is your transparent and failed attempt to dress this up as something other than what it is: inappropriate behaviour on your part being discussed at the appropriate venue. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW the RfC discussed in this ANI section has now been closed with the conclusion: Overall, there was a rough consensus that the text is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. (Emphasis in original.) I accept that conclusion and have restored the text in Julian Assange to the version that gained rough consensus. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC close was for this material to syat, I do not agree, but that is what the close said. Thus that is what we must do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not an RfC was properly closed, this is clearly editing against consensus which is disruptive and particularly egregious in a biography of a living person. SPECIFIO makes no attempt to hide his dislike of Assange and wants to use this article in order to disparage him in the hope that he will be imprisoned in the United States. Since they clearly are not here to improve the encyclopedia, they should be blocked indefinitely. TFD (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Please clarify your comment. After singling out SPECIFICO, you invoke the plural pronoun to say Since they clearly are not here to improve the encyclopedia, they should be blocked indefinitely. (Emphases added.) I realize we live in an age where plural pronouns are increasingly applied to an individual so as to maintain gender neutrality. However, as the titular subject of this ANI section, I am concerned that your use of "they" may deliberately include me. If so, please confirm in plain language that you believe I should be blocked indefinitely. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I used they instead of he or she because that is the recommended usage when you don't know. i am unfamiliar with the other editor, so did not comment. TFD (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Query (in its own subsection)

@Cambial Yellowing: like with Talk:Julian Assange, I've only read fragments of this report. But in light of Basketcase2022's self-revert, just checking in with you to see if we're good to close this thread and move on. Thanks. El_C 14:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: When you close it, please consider warning OP to lay off the aspersions and personal attacks, a small sample of which can be seen above. I won't get into all the diffless misrepresentations in their complaint and subsequent replies.. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Will do. It's probably worthwhile to note that "lying" is worse than being "uncivil," but ironically, Cambial Yellowing's Don’t lie Specifico, it’s uncivil is uncivil (more than just uncivil, in fact). El_C 14:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it uncivil to say someone is lying if they are lying? Please don't warn someone for behavior that you haven't fully investigated. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lying is exceedingly difficult to prove in such matters. So AGF'ing on the side of an error (of memory, ideological blinders, confusion, etc.) ought to be the default assumption. If one is claiming that AGF no longer applies to a veteran editor (i.e. within the realm of

WP:PACT), that deserves more than a passing comment. El_C

15:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for AGF, but it has nearly been exhausted with this topic, especially for editors who've been sanctioned for behavior similar to why we've had to waste more than 6 weeks discussing this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: If by "editors" (plural) who've been sanctioned for similar behavior, I hope you are not including me. I've never been sanctioned for any behavior. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: so report it accordingly (i.e. focused, coherently), but again, it's problematic to do so in passing. El_C 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@

Evidently Specifico, when casting his own aspersions, considers himself above the obligation he wishes to place on others to provide evidence for claims of impropriety. I consider false, evidence-free accusations of sanctionable behaviour contrary to

I accept your suggestion, El C, that in principle when an editor makes a false allegation, factors other than intentionally communicating mistruth could explain it. In this instance Specifico made an accusation of me violating an AE sanction. As they reverted my edit back to their new version, there is an implicit suggestion in their accusation that their action was not a violation of the AE sanction. (Presumably, Specifico does not consider himself above arbitration enforcement). Can @SPECIFICO: explain, logically, how he managed to maintain the following beliefs? That the version I reverted to, identical in meaning and, bar the replacement of "plotted" with "developed plans", identical in word to the text discussed at great length at article talk that was the subject of a decisive RfC with an overwhelming majority, was a violation of the Consensus Required sanction. But at the same time that his own version, a version that has never been discussed nor even raised at article talk nor anywhere else on this website, that deletes one third of the content, reframes the section with in-text attribution, and rewords the first sentence to accommodate these changes, was not a violation of Consensus Required. If he can offer such an explanation of how he believed both of these to be true, together with some evidence that his undiscussed version had somehow gained consensus, I will gladly strike my remark, and apologise here and to Specifico personally. Perhaps El C can briefly hold off immediately closing the thread to allow Specifico an opportunity to explain this. In the meantime I withdraw it, accepting the possibility, however remote, of Specifico's forthcoming explanation. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, are you unable to better condense? I'm sorry, but the length of your reply comes across as filibustering. It is not helping you advance your position, in my view. I don't see SPECIFICO mentioned in your OP, in any case. El_C 10:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: The consensus for inclusion was overwhelming: eleven !votes to include, from both involved and uninvolved editors, with reasons given; two !votes against - Basketcase22 & Specifico. Since that time time both editors have sought to ignore that consensus and impose their own preferred version. (emphasis mine) The word "both" is used throughout the OP, so your assertion that SPECIFICO is not mentioned in the OP is false. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 15:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, SPECIFICO was in lower case, now I see it. Thanks. El_C 15:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO accuses me here, again in edit summary here, and again here of violating a sanction on the article. This accusation is untrue, and he provides no evidence for it. He then unselfconsciously accuses me of "diffless misrepresentations", again without providing any evidence (the multiple diffs in my post above it contradict this claim). When he pinged me to first make his accusation, I responded, pinging him with a link to the strong 11-2 !vote consensus of the RfC he took part in, and he saw my response (but gave no reply to the facts). But he went on to repeat the false accusation twice more anyway. Specifico's initial edits that started this problem reframed, reworded, and deleted roughly one third of the text, which has a strong consensus from RfC, that has been on the page for the last month. His version has never been raised on the talk page. He repeated this edit a day later. Then he decided to falsely accuse me again of violating the sanction.

Specifico's baseless accusations here are representative of an ongoing pattern in which he falsely accuses editors of this or that breach of protocol (example), and that pattern is starting to look like a tactic to intimidate some of the less experienced editors on the page. I consider his false accusations either an accusation of bad faith without evidence (

WP:5P4. You suggested such behavior should be focused, coherently discussed. I hope the version above better summarises it. Cambial — foliar❧

15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well said, Camibal. The shorter the text in which you express your ideas, the better. You may be interested in WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 15:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,

WP:TBAN's little cousin) SPECIFICO from the article and the talk page, then... There's been quite a bit of friction on their part in this topic, I've noticed recently (example), so we've probably reached critical mass there. El_C

16:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that OP posted no diffs. There were many. But the diffs do not support OP's allegations, and the additional insinuations about me only further muddy the issue. I note that the content issue is now resolved by the closure that OP could have requested at any time, and that this complaint garnered negligible interest on this board. This controversial BLP and AP content was contested from its first appearance at the article, and in light of the many issues raised in the course of the discussion, and the overtly inappropriate and personalized conduct of several editors on the talk page, closure of the RfC was the appropriate measure of consensus. There is one remaining BLP item: Several editors agreed that the attribution of the illegal schemes to CIA director Pompeo was inappropriate, but it happened to be in the version that was copied to the RfC and to my knowledge was not noted in the RfC discussion, which focused on the WEIGHT issue. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "diffless" appears to be constructed to indicate a lack of diffs, but OK. That aside, anyone curious to follow the diffs provided can see that they fit my description to the letter. There are of course no insinuations, I indicated all of the behavioral problems in plain terms.

With regards the proposal @

decidedly non-neutral notifications at RS/N, BLP/N and NPOV/N. This turn to more problematic actions (alongside Specifico's stubborn refusal to accept any responsibility for their misbehavior) gives further impetus to this proposed remedy. Cambial — foliar❧

18:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Minkai: FYI, the first article text appearance of the Yahoo story was here on September 26 it was challenged by reversion here on Sept. 28 The issue was discussed on the article talk page beginning here on September 26 in a broad and multi-faceted discussion that was nowhere near any consensus two days later when OP violated the "Consensus Required" restriction by restored the content here on September 28. I'll also note that anyone, including OP, who is deeply concerned about incivility on the article talk page can review that Yahoo thread and find several egregious examples, but not from me. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @JulieMinkai: SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There was no "Consensus Required" DS restriction on the page at the time of that edit. It was applied on the 8 October, more than ten days after. You are tying yourself in knots to continue trying to

misrepresent my actions as improper. That's the exact problem I outline above, and you're continuing to do so below it. I note an earlier statement by @El C: about this exact behavior: I'll make it clear, though, that if it becomes obvious that someone is invoking the CR with flimsy reasoning (i.e. their objection lacking substance, etc.), then that could be addressed accordingly. At this point, in the face of Specifico's intransigence, I request that appropriate action be taken in the form of an article ban longer than that previous; it apparently had little or no effect in encouraging Specifico to modify his behavior. Cambial — foliar❧

18:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked that. You are correct, my mistake. I fact I checked that before seeing your post and returned here to correct my statement. Your accusation that I purposely lied about something easily verified is uncalled for. The key fact is that you aggressively reinstated your edit instead of using the talk page to discuss a reverted content already under discussion there. That's best practice on any article. I wonder why you did not report other editors who also removed your preferred content? Also, as would not be clear from your narrative, I did not remove the mention of the Yahoo story entirely after the many !votes in favor. I conformed a few words to the cited source and I removed a trivial bit about a congressional committee that came to nothing. The BLP violation I had also objected to was no longer in the article, although it's back in there now -- presumably overlooked in the RfC after someone correctly removed it earlier. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In no sense is that a key fact. It's neither relevant, nor is it a fact. First let's state the obvious: you're talking about something that happened seven weeks ago to try to defend the, now five, serious misrepresentations of my actions that you've made in as many days.

Secondly, what you call reinstating [my] edit does not accord with reality: I made two separate small edits to pre-existing material. You deleted all of that pre-existing material with an edit summary claiming it is "weakly sourced". I restored that pre-existing material with additional sources from

WP:RSP#The Guardian. The absurd suggestion that this edit was aggressive, presumably drawn from your fertile imagination, is yet another example of the behavioral problems that an article ban will serve to address. Cambial — foliar❧

20:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

i really think it's time to move on, To specify one aspect of my concern: For any reader who does not do exhaustive research on the diffs, your narrative gives the impression that both Basket and I reverted wholesale the text that has now been established as consensus by the RfC. But that's not what happened. First, because there was no closure (which you or any other editor could easily have secured) and second because Basket and I were making adjustments that did not remove or impair the key content that was at issue and under discussion. Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community. And I wonder how closely any of those who did comment have examined your complaint. For example, your diff to the RfC does not go to the RfC about this matter Your diff goes to an entirely different bit of content. So I guess we all can make mistakes with histories an diffs, eh? 🙆‍♀️ SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You think it's time to move on from a discussion of your ongoing inappropriate behavior and a remedy that would serve to prevent and hopefully modify it.

Mandy Rice-Davis applies here. We are discussing your repeated mischaracterising of other editor's actions as improper, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, on article talk or user talk. You continue to make excuses for it, which suggests that an article ban is the only remedy that might bring about a change in your behavior. The main question was "Should we include [the text now in the article]"; anyone who investigates just one diff can see that you misrepresent even this minor detail. The diff to the RfC goes to the correct place. Cambial — foliar❧

20:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion and Slatersteven: not to put you on the spot (but to put you on the spot) — what do you guys think about the utility of a page ban on SPECIFICO? El_C 20:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Article talk notified of discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think (given the general lack of adheance to the DS (incivilty, soapboxing, ect)) that has gone on over there that it would be wrong to single out one user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that gives me pause. El_C 14:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and El C: Slatersteven's comments are concerning, and I would be interested to see examples of breaches of the discretionary sanction (presu you mean Consensus Required) that have gone unaddressed. I fail to see how that relates to the behavioural problem that gave rise to this discussion: continued, repeated false accusations of violations against other editors. This is not something I have seen from other editors. You and I have had disagreements in the past, and both of us have placed erroneous messages on each other’s talk. When the error was pointed out, you admitted your mistake, and similarly I admitted my mistake. In this case, Specifico inaccurately accused me of sanction violation - no-one can be offended by this, presumably a simple error. The error was pointed out with evidence. He saw the response (but gave no reply to the facts). Then he repeated the false accusation in edit sunmary - this is merely annoying, so he is pointed to the evidence a second time. He is later brought to AN/I by notification, and makes the false accusation again - now it is a behavioural problem. He continues to "double down" falsely accusing me of various breaches of protocol, and refusing to acknowledge his actions - now the problem is serious. There are at least two examples of other accusations made against editors he disagrees with, and he’s given no indication that he intends to change his behaviour in any way. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a general issue of tone and has been going on for a while, but edits like this [[124]] and [[125]] contain material about users, not content. and this [[126]] snarky soapboxing (which to be fair it was removed "on reflection"). As I said, the issue is not just one user, it is very complex and need some invinviolved oversight to decide who is at fault.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Cambial: Your timeline says "Oct.3 the RfC is launched..." and gives this link: about which you wrote "3 Oct Following wide discussion, RfC launched on a specific text (the text is already in the article by edit consensus". When I click on that link it does not go toi the RfC about the 2021 Yahoo! that is the subject of your complaint. Interestingly, and confirning the near total disinterest the community showed wrt your complaint, no other editor pointed this out or asked about it. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO that link you posted is Slatersteven launching the RFC. That occurred on Oct 3, as the text you quote from Cambial correctly states. You can find the closed version here. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The overall behavior at the page can be examined in a separate thread if needed. This thread is focused on the behavior of 2 editors who have been editing against a clearly established consensus by saying there is no consensus. This has been going on for weeks and is disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am confused

Request for comment on Yahoo report

S hould we include

"In September 2021, Yahoo! News reported that in 2014 in the wake of Snowden's leaks, "top intelligence officials lobbied the White House" to designate Wikileaks as an "information broker" to allow for more investigative tools against it, "potentially paving the way" for its prosecution. However, the White House rejected this idea. "I am not the least bit surprised," journalist Glenn Greenwald told Yahoo! News, "that the CIA, a longtime authoritarian and antidemocratic institution, plotted to find a way to criminalize journalism and spy on and commit other acts of aggression against journalists."

In the body?Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be the RFC referred to as "Oct.3 the RfC is launched", which is there the link take me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

But the RfC about the text that I and numerous others edited is about the 2017 plots, which appears here at this link. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your singular focus on this irrelevant detail that you continue to get wrong, SPECIFICO, is concerning. The link I provided and which you copied several times is the correct link to the correct diff that opened the RfC I refer to. Slatersteven modified the RfC a couple of times including here. Focusing on a minor detail about which you are also wrong, but refusing to even acknowledge your serious misbehaviour in repeatedly making false accusations, even when shown otherwise, against other editors, on user talk, in edit summaries, and here at AN/I, is indicative of your attitude which is why an ABAN of some duration appears to be the only method of obtaining some alteration of your inappropriate conduct. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m also confused. You’ve posted something about a (hopefully resolved) content issue. How does that relate to this discussion of your repeated and ongoing false accusations of violations of one kind or another against me and other editors, in the face of highlighted evidence to the contrary? - a habit that you’ve given every indication you intend to continue with. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Directly above you again accused me of lying by pointing out the incorrect link. My post immediately above yours here is specifying the links, which I presume you posted as a result of an error. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are the same RFCs SPECIFICO. You post a link to Slatersteven opening it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahh I see, it would have ben nice if Cambial Yellowing had specofced what RFC they were talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Directly above - where? I said you inaccurately accused me of sanction violation - objectively true. You were pinged with evidence showing this not to be the case. You responded without addressing that evidence, instead giving your opinion about why your non-consensus version should be included anyway. You repeated the false allegation. The evidence was linked to again in the edit following. You came to AN/I and made the false allegation a third time. You’ve made similar false allegations against other editors. Once or twice is an error, but when you continue to insist on it in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is a problem. This needs to stop. An article ban would serve to achieve this in the short term, and hopefully encourage you to modify your behavior in the longer term. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't recall there having been an RfC on the wording in OP's link for Oct. 3, by you or anyone else. SPECIFICO talk

I doubt they forged it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Full arbitration case recommended

I'm coming to realize that this is unlikely to get sorted in the usual places. El_C 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I came late to this ANI, but am aware of the article history, and as I said I think it is way more complex than any single user. Yes I think this is the way to go, but it is such a huge talk page, and so active trying to remember who said what and when is not always easy, and will be a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As the titular subject of this ANI complaint, I concur with your recommendation. However, being an editor of less than 4 months' standing, I'm unsure about the process. Since you've already placed Wikipedia's Julian Assange BLP under discretionary sanctions, does proceeding to full arbitration mean submitting it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and is the OP of this ANI section the only one who can do so? It strikes me that framing the case properly might have a lot to do with its outcome. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.217 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)  

An arb case is not needed and a request would certainly fail. This specific issue is quite simple. What we need is an admin to look into this and answer these questions: When was consensus established? Was it established in a discussion summarized by this comment (link) on October 3rd? Was it established at the end of the early activity in the RFC by Oct 6th or so (link). Or was it not until it was closed on Nov 17th? If consensus was established prior to the RFC closure, were the reverts reported in the OP (by Basketcase2022 here and by SPECIFICO here) disruptive Mr Ernie (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, thank you for crystalizing the issue. Rereading the two diffs you provided (by me and by SPECIFICO), those edits seem more trivial than disruptive, and certainly do not justify this sprawling 60K-byte ANI section full of more heat than light. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, heh, a magical admin from the sky. Sounds good. ;) El_C 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Less seriously, I don't think an RfAR about disruption in the Julian Assange page overall will fail. This "specific" incident is hardly its alpha and omega. El_C 22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry, I'm confused. In recommending a "full arbitration case" did you mean one addressing disruption in the entire Assange BLP but not focused on this section's accusations of misconduct? That leaves me wondering how we can settle this particular episode, which seems unworthy of a massive official inquiry. Scoffing at Mr Ernie's call for an admin to look into this does not help us move forward in resolving the ANI case at hand. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

MEK. I doubt there's an admin that wants to touch it. In fact, for the last couple of years, looks like I'm just about the only admin who even breathed in its direction (Example: protection log). As for resolving the dispute outlined in this ANI case, an RfAR would be the way (part of it). But I'm not gonna file it. I'll leave that to others. El_C

23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

What a depressing situation! An ANI case that can't be resolved because admins are afraid to touch it. As the party accused of misconduct, I was hoping for a dispositive acquittal. That's obviously not in the cards. Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure "afraid" is the best descriptor for that. Though I suppose we can say afraid of making a major time commitment that may well end up being for naught, seeing as another incident would likely be just around the corner. So to restate my position: I think this is a nipping-in-the-bud an assortment of problems sort of thing. El_C 10:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You used the term radioactive. That's not normally applied to a problem that is merely time-consuming to clean up. It suggests dangerous handling—something of which to be rightly afraid. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As to the question of blocking SPECIFICO from TFD above, I fully support that. Here are a couple of diffs to show they are not trying to be NPOV as far as the article is concerned:

[127], [128]

and here is a recent response to me showing they and others join in trying to stop constructive contrributions they don't like by straight non constructive obstruction

[129]

NadVolum (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that discussion seems to have concluded (or at least subsided), out of idle curiosity I fact checked two observations made here on 18 Nov 2021 by SPECIFICO.

• At 17:53 he noted, This complaint garnered negligible interest on this board.
• At 20:23, he added, Your complaint about a minor content dispute that was subsidiary to the main question (whether to use the Yahoo story) has attracted scant interest here from the community.

Could that really be true—and if so, did it remain true for the duration of this complaint, which is now nearly five days old?

The answers are yes and yes. Of the 95 contributions by 11 editors (including one administrator), just one user hadn't previously participated at Talk:Julian Assange.

This is my first experience of being accused at ANI of wrongdoing. I have to say, I'm disheartened that only a single uninvolved user was moved to consider and comment on my case. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved, and I intend to stay that way -- I have no intention of reading everything on that 500KB talk page. There is enough disruption (and this ANI discussion has been so ineffective) that the committee would need to seriously consider a case. I don't think either American Politics DS or BLP DS are really intended to address the points of disagreement here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Basketcase2022: I made an attempt to read the discussion (it was extremely long and confusing); it seems that many people were in the same boat. That isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the idea that there's no issue here and everyone should just move along. jp×g 17:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, SashiRolls: of course I took a screenshot! File:FACT! - 69,969 Donald Trump.jpg. El_C 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• The discussions in question appear to have been closed by an uninvolved editor. Is that close being adhered to now? If so, unless someone can succinctly state an unresolved conduct issue, it's not clear what conduct problem still exists such that ANI (or ArbCom) intervention is required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader, I'm not gonna provide painstaking documentation about the chronic conflict that plagues this article and its did-you-click? talk page. You're free to not/believe me. El_C 18:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Mikehawk10 closed the RfC at 04:14, 17 November 2021. Twenty-three minutes later, I conformed the text to the closer's decision. There have been no attempts to alter that text in the four days since. Basketcase2022 (talk
  ) 18:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: The content issue that this originally related to has been resolved, and the relevant discussion of it largely ends before the Query (in its own subsection) subheading.

The discussion was related to Specifico’s conduct, and raised an issue that I summarise in this comment (in the Query subsection), and in this comment above. The couple of other examples I refer to of this pattern of behaviour are here and here. It remains the case that Specifico has given no indication they intend to change this behaviour, and have given every indication they intend to continue with it. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• What I'd like to know is why exactly do editors like User:SPECIFICO and User:Jack Upland be allowed to edit Assange related articles when they explicitly demonstrate that they can't adhere to npov. There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article, "silent consensus" on WP is very strong. Of course, those who favor the change can launch and RfC and test their view. - diff and Removing slab of pro-Assange slab of text - diff. - hako9 (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I've wondered the same thing for years. Levivich 15:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's a great question. Apparently it's better left unsolved. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think one of the problems with the article is that a lot of usual editors have very inflexible partisan positions, pro and anti-Assange, which makes it hard to resolve discussions. The comments above imply that the anti-Assange editors are alone in violating NPOV. Anyone who looks at the discussion can see that's not true. I think I'm one of the more independent editors regularly involved with the page. I think it's unfair to suggest that I should be banned because of a bad edit summary I wrote on another page.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Jack Upland: You're downplaying the issue. You removed a sourced and good faith addition to an Assange related article with the sole reasoning that it was "pro Assange". You then go on to write on the talk page pro Assange tone doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia - diff. You also need to be specific when you say that there are pro-Assange editors with equally blatant disregard of npov as you and specifico. Please provide diffs or don't point fingers. All I see is neutral editors and a fringe anti Assange group who doesn't respect npov. - hako9 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Was this exchange neutral editing?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes 100% neutral. I even acknowledged and thanked you for that edit. I invite any uninvolved admin to take a look and see if I made any pov edit on main or talk page. The fact that you bought this up shows you have nothing except to waste time. Compare the diffs that I provided above with what you have given. I think I'm one of the more independent editors regularly involved with the page. Lol. Give me an effin break man. - hako9 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 blocked

I have given Basketcase2022 an indefinite break from Wikipedia (without talk page or email access); based on behavioral and technical evidence, I am quite confident that they are a block-evading NedFausa (who is currently CBANned by the community and blocked without talk page or email). I am happy to elaborate further on the specific behavioral details in private, but I believe this interaction analyzer report is rather convincing even without the specific behavioral evidence or the technical evidence. I don't have the patience to read through the above discussion to figure out if this block solves everything or not, so not closing the discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping El_C as the admin who seems to have chosen to involve themselves in this mess. Hot potato! GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that closes this entire ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol. I guess we can close “SPECIFICO and a sock puppet waste 2 months of everyone’s time.” Maybe the topic ban from a year ago should be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they were the only ones wasting time.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:GS/IRANPOL had a similar toolset (I mean, it helps to streamline, but it wasn't a necessity). No, likely like here, what was needed was a major page overhaul that only arbitration can really deliver. Anyway, I hope it all works out somehow. Doesn't hurt to be hopeful. El_C

05:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it will and note the general low-level incivility and personalization of disputes continue. It may cut down the clutter of umpteen random links a day, but not the overall tone issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the general tone. Editors responding on your talk to repeated evidence-free accusations you place on their talk page is not harassment, Slatersteven. Quite the reverse. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, no issues with low-level incivility or personalization of disputes here! --JBL (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a response on my talk page, not the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)