Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1128

Can someone make the SPI investigation for Gondolabúrguer and Trakking? They are either cozy working together as meat puppets or are sock puppetsSem Lula (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The above account is brand-spanking new, and the above is their first edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: We know who this trickster is. They unmasked themselves in a comment below: "calling me a militant woman" – in other words, this is a fake account created by @Ertrinken in order to seem neutral or make it seem like there are several users on her side.

This user reverted an edit using the far-leftist battle cry "sai minion," which is an ideological and activistic way of using Wikpedia. And today my talk page was vandalized by an anonymous user writing this same far-leftist phrase.

It seems to be @Ertrinken who should be investigated here. This is the most suspect user I have come across on my peaceful time on Wikipedia. Trakking (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

What? I don't even know who you are... Ertrinken (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr Trakking, in your userpage, you say you are sweddish. How do you know so much about Brazilian politcs? My phrase isn't far leftist at all Ertrinken (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

What, Trakking is a trusted user, can you give us some evidence? -Lemonaka‎ 07:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• I was the admin that blocked Gondolabúrguer and I don't see a link between the accounts at all. Could you explain why you think this to be the case? Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trakker I believe they're referring to this CiphriusKane (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Which is completely lacking in anything even approaching evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

They edit the same pages, voice the same opinions and all of the suddenly, Gondolaburguer tags Trakking in a discussion about calling me a militant woman. Trakking does the same sort of things Gondolaburguer got blocks for. Sem Lula (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's see the evidence. Which pages? Which opinions? Provide article names and

diffs, please. Black Kite (talk)

10:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking Look: a militant woman in Brazil, who edits with a Leftist phrase "sai minion", is trying to block me because she does not want a See also in every article of this page: List of Catholic holy people from Brazil The same happened in Portuguese Wikipedia. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Sem Lula (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The editor 망고소녀 appears to be a

Oh no, not again. — Trey Maturin™ 14:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It really ever stopped. They went right from disruptive editing about the children of Martin Bormann to disruptive editing about the children and dates of Joseph Goebbels, Rudolf Höss, Heinrich Himmler, and Baldur von Schirach, (among others). They seem to have a "thing" about the children of Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I have extended 망고소녀's block to a sitewide indef for disruptive editing, including persistent edit warring, inappropriate logged-out editing, and addition of poorly-sourced material. The previous partial block from Martin Bormann has only caused the disruption to spread to more articles. DanCherek (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

This concerns many articles over multiple periods. Every single edit I've seen from them has been adding citations exclusively to a specific author, Hamada Hagras, who as far as I can tell is not particularly notable or well-cited. Very likely

• In their latest edits, they've been inserting unnecessary citations to Hagras (either in English or Arabic) into existing material, and literally nothing else. E.g.: [35], [36], [37], and most recently [38] and [39].
• In other cases they introduced undue prominence to Hagras in the body of the article ([40]) or added disproportionately long quotes from his work ([41]). In at least one of these cases, they also removed templates and other material without reason ([42]).
• They also previously tried to create an article about Hamada Hagras, which was promptly deleted by this AfD. They then tried to re-create it a few months later, before it was speedy-deleted (see messages here).
• Prior to this year's activity, they were active in 2019 and 2020; I did some spot checks and found that they were doing the same thing back then (tons of examples like [43], [44], [45], etc).
• They previously (in 2020) received a warning on their talk page about this behaviour here and another about conflicts of interest here. I tried to warn them again here and here. Apart from deleting my first message, they haven't responded and have continued these edits (per the examples above).

Please note that the user often stops editing for a period, but then returns to do more of the same. I think this deserves an indef block, unless they clearly commit to stop doing this. R Prazeres (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: I previously reported this to

WP:COIN (here), but it got no response, so I'm assuming this venue is more appropriate. R Prazeres (talk

) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that's problematic as they only seem to be here to add references to Hagras. Due to the repeated failure to communicate and disclose their COI, I have blocked them. SmartSE (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The user of this IP seems to have engaged in continued disruptive editing since September 2021, and has continued today with this edit. The IP has been blocked twice before. See also this edit. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 05:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked 2 years. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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

they have been disrupting their own talk page, please revoke TPA. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Although their edits to their talk page can easily be perceived as personal attacks,

editors can remove any content on their talk pages if they feel the need to do so. I've given them a warning for now, if the problem continues, their TPA will likely be revoked. Dinoz1 (chat?)

17:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• TPA revoked, one edit rev/deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

After being warned in user talk, IP 156.255.1.59 replied with legal threats. For now I have warn the user about making legal threats in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'mOnFire (talk • contribs)

I initially blocked for NLT, but then I noticed the IP is a webhost, and blocked for a year. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The user User talk:216.179.119.25 should be blocked, they keep repeating their disruptive editing in various articles. WP:NOTHERE User101FrOas (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The have not edited since their most recent warning, and have only two edits in the past 3 months. They are unlikely to be blocked if they heed the warnings that were given, and have stopped being disruptive, as it appears they have. --Jayron32 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok User101FrOas (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If they repeat their actions, I recommend you report on

WP:AIV. Dinoz1 (chat?)

(he/him) 18:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I also requested an interaction break from SPECIFICO, which pretty quickly fell apart—he "thanked" me for an edit soon after replying to my request for an interaction break, and, later, after he reverted me, I pinged him in the resulting talk page section to discuss the reversion. After that revert, I also—very explicitly—tried to extend an olive branch. I said:

By the way—since you did revert (hence the ping), I'd, of course, be more than happy to have you participate in the most recent discussion section—even if your take is that the current version is the best and most superior version! (I fully acknowledge that sometimes "awkward" constructions are a personal thing, and if I read something as being a bit awkward and everyone else disagrees—I'm wrong!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(In case it wasn't obvious, this is a olive branch! I genuinely think that we would probably agree on 99% of issues, and the fact that we're having a contentious discussion about the 1% shouldn't get in the way of that.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s how SPECIFICO responded to that message:

Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback, and it appears to me that you think that your "requests" obligate other editors to accept your misunderstanding of content, policy, and behavioral guidelines. As I've already said, it would have been a good move to stick with your decision to step away from that article and apply your efforts elsewhere for the time being. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I subsequently made quite a few edits to the Trump article. Most of those edits were extremely uncontroversial—objective grammar fixes. ‘’Very’’ occasionally, it’d be a bit more subjective—a language alteration here and there; reordering a sentence, changing present-perfect tense to past tense, etc. SPECIFICO reverted quite a few of these edits, offering little explanation. On one of those reverts, I recognized that the change I was proposing was a very subjective preference, and I did not start a subsequent discussion. But on others, I was pretty confused. The edits I was making seemed like fairly unequivocal improvements—even if an editor disagreed with ‘’part’’ of them, wholesale reverts without follow ups made little sense. As a result of these reverts, I started new sections on the talk page to discuss the changes. I pinged SPECIFICO in these sections, though he never responded to me. Here’s each of the discussions:

• Talk:Donald_Trump#Wording_re:_Rebukes: Made after [46].
  • Reason offered for revert: Completely changes the meaning of this text and is not an improvement
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
  • Result? My edit was reinserted after another edit said: Edit was completely justified. Does not change the content or tone of the text, and is appropriately past tense, as all Wikipedia articles about past events (e.g. when Trump was president) are supposed to be.
• Talk:Donald_Trump#FBI Investigations into Trump: Made after this revert.
  • Reason offered: "not better".
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? No.
  • Result? Reinserted by another editor. "Yes, I also cannot find any evidence in sources for that claim (folded into investigation, not ended) either. I'm going to restore these changes as supported by sourcing, and appropriately removing unsourced material...."
• Talk:Donald_Trump#Wording change re:Greenberg call: Made after this revert.
  • Reason offered: Not an imrovment. Wording and punctuation shapes the meaning and narratives of article text, and such edits should not be marked "minor". This one was much discussed in the past and the change was not an improvement.
  • Did SPECIFICO engage in the subsequent discussion? Eventually, yes, before then discussing with just one user on your talk page.
  • Result? Two other editors agreed that the text as it stood in the article was not clear and needed editing. You eventually responded to disagree with all of the edits the three of us had made. SPECIFICO and one of the editors discussed changes on SPECIFICO's personal talk page, explicitly in order to avoid discussing changes on the article talk page (even though only four users were in that discussion).

SPECIFICO has now told me to stop editing the Trump page multiple times. He's reverted me and accused me of violating policies—both, I think, baselessly, but it's hard to say because he hasn't responded when asked. It's been very difficult to get anything done on the Trump page because of the tone SPECIFICO has set.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest boomerang Andre🚐 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm okay with that! I would ask that, assuming there's a boomberang, someone removes the GA nomination for Death of Caylee Anthony and possibly Murder of Laci Peterson—on the former, I've been the only main editor for some time; on the latter, there's been another editor, but I'm not sure if that editor wants to go through the GA process. Having reviewed myself, I don't want to waste a reviewer's time. Thanks!--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Gonna have to agree. I'm surprised we even ended up here. DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I'm happy to accept the consensus and retire. I would suggest that someone eventually takes a look at the OWNERSHIP issues on that page, because I won't be the last editor SPECIFICO tries to intimidate off the page.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe that OP should be removed from the project, as they seem like a good editor. I would support an

  IBAN, and if we really think Jerome's conduct at Donald Trump is problematic, a page ban. QuicoleJR (talk

  ) 16:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think, aside from any issues with JFD, this situation with SPECIFICO is indeed an issue. I can see how interactions with SPECIFICO led to this entire situation and JFD (rightly, unfortunately) getting a 3 month pban.
  The issue is this: SPECIFICO has been warned before by both myself and others ([47][48][49][50] and this gem: SPECIFICO's constant personal attacks and aspersions against other users (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])—to say nothing of her systematic POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources—would surely have resulted in an indefinite site ban years ago if she shared the politics of (insert user). [51])
  We have warned SPECIFICO repeatedly about accusing others of breaking policy without evidence, and it now seems clear, this user has a pattern of doing so as part of attempts to discourage users from contributing to articles that (it seems) SPECIFICO doesn't want to change.

• They provide edit warring warnings to users after 1 revert, without engaging (or only minimally engaging) on the article talk page (see above diffs). They knee-jerk revert to their preferred version, in effect acting as a "filter" on articles until they are overruled on talk page by a consensus of others.
• SPECIFICO has also engaged in numerous instances of critiquing and commenting on other editors' behavior on article talk pages [52] (and has been warned about it at AE: [53]).
• This user (SPECIFICO) also has a history of hounding/harassing editors they disagree with politically/philosophically: including an anti-bludgeoning sanction [54] and specific campaigns/efforts to punish other users repeatedly [55][56]
• Of particular note: [57] (a situation in which SPECIFICO narrowly avoided a site-ban, on the principle that they should be able to show productive editing without these disputes/harassments): the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion[58] and Please take great care in reading all other warnings provided in the close. You were, indeed, extremely close to a site ban, and this should be a wakeup call [59]

I say all of these things, despite being (ideologically) extremely well-aligned with SPECIFICO, given their user and talk pages. But we cannot tolerate this sort of thing from anyone, even (especially) those we fervently agree with.

Why, as a project, are we putting up with all of this? SPECIFICO appears accustomed to employing the gears of Wikipedia to remove disagreement, enforce their preferred version of articles, and remove ideological "opponents", all of which creates a battleground mentality on the pages they frequent. This is exactly the environment which led JFD to break the BRD requirement(an otherwise very productive user, who has created numerous BRD discussions on the DJT talk after reverts from SPECIFICO, in which SPECIFICO ignores any and all actual discussion). I'm not sure what benefit this behavior provides to the project. I would recommend an AMPOL TBAN for SPECIFICO, if not an outright site ban given the previous warnings re: this behavioral pattern. Edit: 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) clarified with inserted text to finish hanging clause. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? I'm surprised there was a boomerang discussion here with something that bad. I would support a topic ban or siteban of SPECIFICO at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think part of it is that it has been a long time since some of this disputes flared up (2014, 2017, and 2018). But not much appears to have actually changed about their behavior (particularly ownership and chasing away other editors). They were TBAN'd from a similar dispute involving the Joe Biden page in 2020: [60]. And Julian Assange: [61] (also in 2020). They were also very close to sanctions for simiar knee-jerk reverts at Donald Trump in 2018: [62] As far as I can tell, they have received warnings or short TBANs for a littany of similar situations. I can count nearly 20 similar instances over the years. These are the patterns I would like SPECIFICO to reconsider, and those which I think are disrupting the project. Bans are preventative, not punitive, and so a TBAN for this user is probably more than sufficient. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR:, you reviewed all of Shibbolethink's links in 6 minutes? If you look more deeply at Shibbolethink's evidence, most of it falls apart. The claims of "warnings" are from Shibbolethink and 2 very partisan editors; the quote in green at the top was due to a misunderstanding; the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less, and that generally follows BRD anyway unless taken to the extreme; the diff claiming to describe commenting on other editors was a perfectly reasonable comment about the content of someone's BLP-violating comments; the last two bullets, and the quote in green at the bottom, are from 2014.

I don't want to be harsh, but WP is also damaged by (a) someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor, and (b) drive-by editors taking such claims at face value and jumping to immediately supporting a siteban. Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form, but it happens a lot here. And I'd recommend taking everything said at ANI with a grain of salt unless you know about it yourself, or research the claims made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for notifying me of that. It would appear that most of the talk page warnings are from the same people. And, upon further examination, those diffs are not great evidence. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less
See these reverts which were later over-ruled by consensus, for example: [63][64][65][66] (right about the source but not the content) etc etc. struck 18:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)because it's an example where consensus hasn't yet been established

Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form - Everything (with perhaps only the exception of the ASPERSIONS comment) in my comment is based upon formal or informal warnings to SPECIFICO from admins. The ASPERSIONS comments are from editors across the spectrum, who SPECIFICO gets into minor disagreements with. Again, over 1 revert in my and other cases! That's the issue that brought me here, someone who templates regulars in an attempt to dissuade them from contributing. SPECIFICO could have said "hey just an FYI, there's a BRD requirement on that page and you should be careful". or "hey that's a really contentious area, are you sure you want to delve into it?" But instead they just drop an accusation of edit warring and go from there. That's also very poor form.

Here, in order, is a list of those warnings/sanctions that I could find which match this behavioral pattern:

Of those, only the last two are from 2014, the rest are much more recent. The majority of these warnings/sanctions are from the last 3 years.

I found all of these just by looking today. Before the recent few days, I have never had any prolonged interactions with SPECIFICO to the best of my knowledge. I'm not here to settle any old scores or eliminate an opponent. Truthfully, I often, in my heart of hearts when I'm staring up at the ceiling all by my lonesome at night, think Wikipedia needs more editors who agree with

WP:AE is a much better venue for things like this, and would never have come here in the first place if JFD hadn't done so first. But I will also say, the above pattern of 9+ AE threads about this user ending in a warning or a short term sanction, shows that that process may be failing the project in the case of this particular user.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Those reverts were fine.

Further, this diff you offer is SPECIFICO reverting insertion of Trump as the oldest president thus far to take office, with an edit summary saying that it was "somewhat trivial" and sourced to

WP:ONUS

, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive? On the contrary, she's doing great work on that page. She and I have butted heads before, and she was perfectly dignified about it; didn't bludgeon, didn't hold a grudge. I wish more editors were like that (and many are, and I'm grateful for them all).

Also, I didn't know non-admins could hand out warnings. I've been missing out! DFlhb (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You reinserted it, against WP:ONUS, even though there was already a discussion on the talk page with five editors opposing, and two supporting (one support voter advanced no argument whatsoever). But SPECIFICO's the one being disruptive?

I reinserted it, providing actual

WP:EWN admins often ask you if you've done it. I think this is quite evidently a discrepancy between the colloquial and official meanings of "warning." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There are WP:RS for a billion things we don't mention, and for dozens of things we have affirmative consensus against. You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point. That's not ownership, and neither are the other diffs. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You're criticizing SPECIFICO for reverting something that five editors had disputed on the talk page by that point
Oh I'm sorry, did I include that diff as an example of SPECIFICO reverting only until consensus is established (in effect, acting as a filter) ? That was my mistake, I misunderstood your concern, I will strike it. But I stand by the rest of the diffs in that claim. SPECIFICO was, until today, knee-jerk reverting things at the article from multiple users. That's why I said they were acting with OWNERSHIP tendencies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as the involved editor, I can only say that it ms incredibly frustrating to be accused of OR multiple times in the same discussion, only for that user to never elaborate on how what you’ve said was OR. It’s incredibly frustrating to extend an olive branch and only be told you just don’t understand Wikipedia policy and you should stay away from a page. It’s incredibly frustrating to, on a contentious page, spell out in the edit summary why you’re making an edit (explaining the grammar issue or the lack to a source), only to have that user revert you with an edit summary that says “not better” or “completely changes the meaning” … and then never follow up, even when you ping them. You keep saying the reverts were fine, can you explain why? Why was the use of the perfect tense called for in the first? Or, if it wasn’t, and you’re saying what was called for was having an unsourced claim (“folded into”)—which, by the way, I spent considerable time trying to source— over a sourced claim, why was the whole edit reverted? Why not just that part? And, same thing with the other edits I’ve mentioned above? And even if you still say “no no the total revert was fine” (whatever fine means in this context), no discussion on the talk page, even after the a ping? Also fine? Is that collaboration? (Ironically SPECIFICO was later upset that I had flooded the talk page with sections asking about her reverts)-—Jerome Frank Disciple 18:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've only edited Talk:Donald Trump occasionally, but even just from having it on my watchlist and reading through the talk page from time to time and occasionally participating a discussion, I have to agree with Shibbolethink's observation that the "breaking of the BRD rule at Donald Trump is not without preamble. There's been a battleground mentality at that talk page for a long long time" [I removed the rest of my comment because forget it, I'm not getting involved in that.] -sche (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, you know what? My earlier comment included this: "I was about to say that I don't know what the best course of action here is, since warnings haven't worked, ... but the fact that an admin already made that very observation last year ("there is no good answer here. A warning is simply insufficient, a topic ban is way overkill. I've blocked SPECIFICO") makes me think we're at a point where, sadly, we should finally be considering an AMPOL topic ban, to let cooler heads handle things." I dropped that because I wasn't completely confident that all 'smaller' options short of topic-banning Specifico had been exhausted. But I want to highlight just how many attempts (warnings, blocks, discussion here, etc) have been made to get Specifico to improve her own behaviour (listed above) in an effort to avoid having to finally escalate to topic-banning her... so when I see a user below suggesting we don't need to do anything but nudge Specifico again but we should jump straight to broadly-topic banning JFD from all American politics for editing a page too much, especially when JFD has so clearly (even in opening this thread, and on his talk page) been eager to improve in response to feedback... 🙄 (That editor doesn't seem to have read or at least understood the edits in question, since she says JFD made a "self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread", but the edit request is the opposite of self-serving, it's bending over backwards to be compliant and notify anyone who thought his wording was problematic that it had been left in the article after the shuffle and "I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to sneak my preferred version of the article by".) -sche (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's all :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 18:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I find Talk:Donald Trump to be an assault on the senses at the moment, there are numerous, numerous multilevel proposals and votes and options and I just give up trying to wade through it all. the OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise, and I don't think SPECIFICO's past issues have any bearing on the frustration that seems to come with trying to deal with all of this. ValarianB (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

OPs contributions are overwhelming, volume-wise While I do understand your frustration with wading through that page, this particular part is entirely due to the interplay of SPECIFICO's reverts and the BRD requirement placed on that page. JFD was making (many quite good, a few less so) edits on that page, and SPECIFICO was reverting many of them with very little explanation. So then JFD goes to the talk, to do BRD as instructed, but then SPECIFICO doesn't participate. So the rest of us talk it out on the page, come to a rough consensus, and move forward. Rinse, repeat, and that's how you get so many multiple talk page sections. I also hate it, but I think it's by virtue of the environment/climate/restrictions on that page. A confluence of factors. Not any one user's fault. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just looking at a cursory check in on the article history, I see JFD making a lot of reverts. I also see them being blocked starting with the section User talk:Jerome Frank Disciple#Violation of 24-hour BRD at Donald Trump and continuing with not understanding why they were edit warring [85] and I would suggest an AP topic ban might be merited Andre🚐 00:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have I made a lot of reverts? The vast majority of my edits are, certainly, not reverts, and I'm curious about what the comparison for "a lot of reverts" is. Compared to SPECIFICO?

  Just a side comment that isn't a critique and has nothing to do with nothing, so to speak: One thing that's always been fascinating to me is how differently different people can interpret text. You posted that diff of a comment I made as evidence I didn't understand the block. The admin that responded to that comment took it as evidence that I did understand it, and unblocked me. (For the record, I think I understand, but I realize that's not actually evidence that I do understand. My only point is that it's funny how random the process is. Perhaps a different admin would've been like "you clearly don't understand—now your blocked for a month!".)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• WP:PETARD Hello! I realize, for the reasons I discuss here, that this may very well boomerang on me. I bowed out due to the constant snide, unhelpful remarks and ownership showed by Jerome Frank Disciple. Thing is, this editor consistently misconstrues posts by other editors, adding imagined motivations behind other editors edits. Late for me. If someone wants diffs, I'll supply. You can start with Bish's disinvitation at her TP.[86] O3000, Ret. (talk
  ) 00:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Facts and figures JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days.

  If you look at the page statistics, the average rate of the ten most active article editors is less than 1/3 as frequent -- over an average period of roughly 5 years.

  On the talk page, JFD has edited at a rate roughly 5 times more frequently than the ten most active talk page contributors.

  There's not much room for error there. And there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc. In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.

  I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.

  SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This filing seems hinge on the fact that SPECIFICO happens to edit in a lot of controversial American Politics areas, and thus this is probably a (multiple) content dispute more than anything else. (Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided]; instead he should warn the editor and if that doesn't stop disruptive editing they can be brought to ANI or whatever the next step might be.) I, too, would support an AP Topic Ban on the OP, for behavior in this thread and on wiki, not the least of which is making a blatant self-serving edit request in the middle of the thread [88]. For some further perspective, the editor just got blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring on Donald Trump [89]. An AP TBan, broadly construed, would give the OP an opportunity to demonstrate they can edit constructively and collaboratively and civilly and within WP policies and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Although, SPECIFICO shouldn't be telling an editor "to stop editing the Trump page multiple times" [if in fact that occurred; no diffs are provided];
  [90][91][92][93][94] These are overall more mild than "stop editing the Trump page". And worded not unkindly. But I think it is a fair summary of the effect these successive comments (and multiple under-explained reverts and personal comments) can have on another user.

  I overall think this situation will be okay, and based on the input of users so far on this thread, my guess is that no sanctions will occur.

  However, I would urge all editors to keep in mind some of what SPECIFICO has said in this thread:

• JFD's been editing the Trump pages at a staggering pace. In only 7 days, they have made 109 article edits and 269 talk page edits. That's in 7 days
  • This comment fails to mention that the average size of those edits is <50 characters, most <20. It seems what SPECIFICO is uncomfortable with in this situation is that the article is changing.
• there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone, etc. etc.
  • From what independent uninvolved users on this thread have said (not me or anyone involved at that talk page), they seem much more concerned with SPECIFICO's tone than with JFD's. JFD appears to be bending over backwards to be civil here and elsewhere.
• In fact, after being blocked for edit-warring, their reaction was to come file this complaint, ignoring this page's clear instruction to notify me of the posting.
  • This is not true and should be retracted. At 15:52 May 17 OP pinged SPECIFICO. At 16:45 May 17, OP posted a templated alert on SPECIFICO's talk.
• I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles.
  • Only one of the editors in this thread has been TBAN'd multiple times from AmPol topics, and it is not OP. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I would overall encourage SPECIFICO to reconsider how they respond to new editors entering an article space, and how aggressively rebuffing that input from multiple editors can create a hostile battleground-like space, which doubtlessly will come back to bite any and all users involved. The goal of this project is not "who can secure their preferred version for the longest" or "who can remove the most ideological opponents" but rather, "who can build an excellent encyclopedia." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have found Jerome Frank Disciple to a be super productive editor and someone who is super easy to work with on topics we have agreed and disagreed. The edit war sanction seemed hasty, but that has been resolved. My limited interaction with SPECIFICO has been less positive or productive, but nothing other than simple content disagreements. I will add that SPECIFICO's argument that JFD doesn't have temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles unfounded and honestly SPECIFICO is closer to that standard just based on prior history. That Trump article is a huge headache for obvious reasons so good luck to good editors attempting to wade through all the disputes. Nemov (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment I agree with Nemov on all points, for the reasons he stated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I echo Nemov's opinion about Jerome. I've been involved in two discussions with Jerome from my knowledge. In one I was on his side and the other I wasn't. In both experiences I found his contributions to be valuable and civil. Now with that said, from my experiences, when Jerome is adamant about something he can be a bit bludgeony. Jerome Frank Disciple, thats something you should work on. It's quite common with new editors to do that. So he should be warned not booted from the project or any topic area. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  In case someone is counting !votes or something on this discussion, I oppose any sanctions against Jerome at this time for the reasons directly above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment from OP: I appreciate all the comments and participation from everyone. I am trying to take to heart the critiques, though I have to admit it's also been very nice to read the complements, so thank you to everyone, but thank you especially to those have been able to talk about their history with me or who have been understanding of my motivations. It's truly heartwarming for me to read.
  I do want to apologize for all the trouble. I realize that, in some ways, I'm the worst messenger for this. The prospect of a boomerang discouraged me from commenting before. But I'm certain that SPECIFICO's actions discourage solid, good-faith editors from approaching the article—I'm certain that they already have done that, and I'm certain that they will do that. I know I sometimes have to fight against my own stubbornness—I try to be conscious of that—but, while that stubbornness is a defect, it's also what's allowed me to keep going on that page. And I think most editors agree that the vast majority of my edits on that page have been minor but objective improvements. In some ways, it's my stubbornness that allowed me to post here, even though it's also what makes posting here risky for me. Because I don't think an editor should have to be stubborn and fight through unjustified barriers in order to improve an article.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I've not been monitoring the situation that closely, but I seem to recall a vibe of hostility from SPECIFICO towards JFD at the Trump page, which may deserve a reminder on civility. starship.paint (exalt) 16:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Jerome Frank Disciple and Shibbolethink have been editing the main page and the talk page, that mess and cesspool (their words), effusively since May 10. The sheer volume of edits, from punctuation to reading the sources for given texts, makes it hard to keep up with evaluating the merits of each one which may account for some of the less than elaborate edit summaries. As for the messy cesspool, the current state of the talk page is not an improvement. Tone and vibe: I thought I was detecting whiffs of condescension at times, but not from Specifico. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  This matches my perception. There's a difference between trying to dictate how discussions are run, versus trying to help keep them on-point & concrete. SPECIFICO's in the latter camp. DFlhb (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support block or warning. Links provided by Jerome show beyond reasonable doubt that Specifico has been adopting a passive aggressive attitude towards other users in controversial topics. Furthermore, there are instances where Specifico refuses to engage in discussion; this is contradictory to the consensus building process as described in
  WP:UNBLOCKABLE, a pushback by the 'fan club' to turn the blame to the OP, who has made a valid complaint.--81.214.106.114 (talk
  ) 10:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. I've largely been dormant on Wikipedia lately due to being uninterested in the project, but this feels like Jerome wants to send a genuine complaint, while Specifico is using the OP's disadvantages to their advantage. Nobody is perfect, even the most illustrious and high-ranking editors out there mess up. Jerome is otherwise a good editor, and I think if this situation is resolved in their favor then they can become a very well known and respected Wikipedian. If this is resolved in Specifico's favor, it likely won't improve anyone due to many warnings and blocks being sent to them and nothing really improving. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 18:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, strong support for some sort of community response here, if only to the extent of a firm warning I won't disagree that Jerome seems to need to make some adjustments here, and that this is not the strongest set of circumstances on which to bring SPECIFICO's conduct under scrutiny, because of those conflating "the other guy" factors. That said, Jerome is far from the first editor to bring Specifico to a notice board over the last few years, or otherwise raise concerns about his discussion style. And while I have not been in the position of being engaged in a prolonged content dispute with Specific myself, I do answer a fairly large number of RfCs as a major component of my contributions as a Wikipedian, I've had a number of occasions to directly observe his conduct in heated discussions, seeing as he seems to contribute almost exclusively in

  WP:ARBAP2

  and other highly polarized American cultural topics. And despite the indirect exposure, I've seen a lot of evidence of a highly abrasive approach to discussion and consensus on controversial topics.

And the thing is, as best I can recall, I actually agree with Specifico's favored approach to the content much more often than not: I think he often has his hands on the right end of the stick, or thereabouts, when it comes to policy. But I still have a concern that he may be a net negative for these areas, simply because of the propensity for exacerbating tense situations and thereby entrenching positions rather than moving matters closer to consensus, if doing so would require expressing any degree of self-doubt or willingness to compromise, rather than going in guns akimbo. Editors working in CTOP/GS areas consistently are expected to put a premium on civility and self-restraint, to make sure that they do not cost the community time and effort even when they have the better take on some editorial dispute. And to put it mildly, that is not the sort of temperament Specifico seems to be bringing to bear on ARBAP topics, from my (admittedly intermittent) observations.

Jerome on the other hand, I can't recall having seen on the project until relatively recently, and yet I'm suddenly seeing his name in a lot of places all at once. Probably that's largely due to just a high level of activity at present, but I suspect some of it is also because he too is charging into high-contention areas and taking part in RfCs and other community dispute discussions that I happen to be randomly selected for through FRS or pending changes or this or that noticeboard. I do get the sense (especially after reading this discussion), that he has a size/volume-of-contributions (i.e. bludgeoning especially) issue that he might want to address going forward. But critically, everything about his conduct here suggests someone capable of accepting (and hopefully acting upon) feedback in that respect. I have never gotten that feeling from Specifico when the community has raised concerns with him. The walls go up pretty much immediately, accompanied by redirection of (/refusal to share any part) of the blame.

All of that said, I really need something more contemporary and substantial if I were to support a sanction in the form of a block or TBAN. So I'm not prepared to support such an action today. That said, I do think it would be in everyone's best interest to provide a formal warning to him that the community has to assess contributors such as himself, who are often right on the facts but can't present them without a wake of disruption, with a cost-benefit analysis, and that additional new topic bans are on the table if there is a continued pattern of tendentiousness and ownership behaviours. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Odd that you have so much experience with Specifico, and yet used the incorrect pronoun to reference her nine times. Please be more careful. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's user page says: "This user prefers to be referred to by whatever gender pronoun makes you feel comfortable." How are other users supposed to know what pronouns to use, if not from that page? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hover your mouse over her username. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That does nothing for me but show username. Maybe you've got something enabled I don't? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it matters if the editor in question is fine with anything. Cessaune [talk] 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Vibes, man. Or meta:User:SMcCandlish/userinfo which shows a little icon at the top of people's user pages based on what they set for Special:Preferences's "Gender used in messages" setting. DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I am virtually certain that I have seen indication that Specifico went by male pronouns in the past. By default (and you're welcome to check up on my recent edits to confirm this), I always refer to fellow community members on this project by gender-neutral "they", unless and until I know they embrace a gender and utilize a particular other pronoun here. It's a firm rule I follow for a number of reasons, so you can rest assured that I referred to Specifico as "he" because I believed that was Specifico's preference. If I misremembered (and I don't think I have, but it's possible) or her preferences have changed, I apologize and you can be certain I will comply with whatever Specifico's preferences are at any given time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit obscure, but {{gender|SPECIFICO}} → she. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Shameless plug for

WP:EDPRONOUNS, featuring guidance on general pronoun practices, finding a specific editor's pronouns, and how to handle mistakes regarding pronouns. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 07:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. We should return to the main issue at the hand. I think an administrator should collapse this part of the discussion. 81.214.106.114 (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Wow, this is a doozy. A lot of talk for what seems to me like something that should not have even been brought to ANI in the first place. Jerome has made a lot of edits, some of which SPECIFICO challenged, and is unsatisfied with SPECIFICO's response (or lack thereof). Obviously you are not required to explain your reason for reverting an edit on the talk page, though that is preferred, but these edits were extremely small, and Jerome's insistence of opening a talk page thread for each one is pretty unreasonable, especially at a page that has as many watchers as Trump's does. This is a scenario that often plays out between experienced editors and newcomers. Ideally Jerome would have just moved on, knowing that if their edits were reverted and nobody came to their defense out of the hundreds of editors watching the page, their edit was likely correctly reverted. It is disruptive to demand a consensus for small edits on a page that is highly visible. If there was a major issue with these edits, it would have been brought up and discussed by multiple editors on the talk page. That Jerome chose to come here seems they think they are entitled to a response and gives the impression of filibustering. It should be made clear to Jerome that they are not entitled to any response beyond that explained in a reasonable edit summary. Simply put, the lack of response to Jerome's objections is the community saying this is not worth their time. The only thing I see as possibly warranting this ANI is SPECIFICO appearing dismissive by telling Jerome to step away from the page multiple times, though not to the point sanctions are needed. Bottom line: Jerome needs to learn when to move on, and SPECIFICO needs to remember to not discourage good-faith editors from contributing. Nothing sanctionable, no warnings needed beyond those mild reminders. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The page has a BRD notice on it. The page literally tells users to post on the talk page if reverted. If JFD is following policy and guidelines and page notices, and you disagree with JFD, then it seems you may be interested in changing those things, rather than correcting JFD's behavior. I responded to JFD's threads, and agreed in multiple that JFD was correct. SPECIFICO didn't respond. So I reimplemented his changes. I would never have noticed them if not for the talk page sections. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  It tells users to post on the talk page because that is preferred to edit warring. It is not a requirement to post on the talk page, and indeed it is not common practice for every little revert to be discussed on the talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's good that you responded and restored, all I'm saying is that an ANI is not justified simply because SPECIFICO did not respond to the threads. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I agree? If it were only the case that SPECIFICO was reverting me on dubious grounds and then not responding to requests for elaboration, I absolutely wouldn't have come here! But, as I explained, it wasn't just that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• I will note without further comment that there is a separate section concerning a user who made seven (7) strongly opinionated political edits arguing with other users; the section for this user was closed with an immediate indef-block, and with no discussion having taken place in it other than the report and the announcement of the block. jp×g 02:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  That is a wildly inapt comparison. A new editor flooding talk pages with sections like "was this article written by the Democrats" and "‎Why can nothing bad about Obama be added?" is a different situation than an established editor with a large amount of productive contributions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly are you "noting" ? What possible comparison is there between an SPA troll and a user who has been here for a decade with 30,000 edits? Zaathras (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: 1 month TBAN from AmPol for SPECIFICO

The biggest issue that keeps coming up with SPECIFICO is her behavior towards other users. Some highlights:

1. Repeatedly calling single reverts "edit warring" [95][96][97]
2. Repeatedly "going to many editors' talk pages to allege" [insert various forms of misconduct] without evidence. (e.g.
   WP:ASPERSIONS) [98][99][100]
   1. Subset: alleging misconduct on talk pages without evidence. E.g. Please do not personalize your talk page comments. Please make neutrally worded statements of issues that concern you. [101] (in response to this comment of mine: @SPECIFICO then reverted that most recent change (not restoring STATUSQUO, but restoring STC's edit)...) and instances of other accusations like these: [102][103]
3. Failing to
   AGF
   and generally biting newcomers (not just to the site, but to her preferred article spaces):
   1. This is another instance of your not being as familiar with WP policies and guidelines as you think.[104]
   2. Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback [105]
   3. Please read and advocate your position according to WP:ONUS. Merely asserting that you are correct will not lead to consensus to include it. (in response to a comment I made citing 8
      WP:DUE) [106]
   4. No, I object. You should not be setting up an RfC, certainly not within a couple of hours of posting at BLPN for additional discussion and moreover with your relative inexperience as an editor on this page and on this site[107]
   5. No more snide remarks please Disciple. Longtime editors in contentious topics are quite aware of NPOV[108]
   6. This is quite an intriguing approach. We could get this article down to about 3 sentences, after his birth in Queens etc.[109] (interestingly, a snide remark)
   7. There's no consensus for this. Why are you prolonging this pointless discussion?[110] in response to this comment where JFD...agrees with SPECIFICO.
   8. Trying to bump off a witness?[111]
   9. This thread is a testament to the power of the google machine to find a web-readable quotation that can be weaponized for SYNTH and equivocation. Are we done?[112]
4. As an aside, SPECIFICO here and here argues against longstanding consensus and says that Donald Trump "did not promote "misinformation" about [ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, etc]" but instead that "He caused his followers to take the drugs." and that discussions about this content is not relevant to
   the fringe theories noticeboard (including other content re: PCR/antigen tests SPECIFICO agreed was misinformation
   ). All of this because "Lies ≠ Fringe".

All of which amounts to, in my assessment, an editor who is fed up with newcomers to articles, arguing their positions in a way that criticizes certain behaviors in others but does not reflect those standards in their own conduct (positions, btw, that I actually support much of the time). This behavior in SPECIFICO leads to a general sense that new contributions which disagree with SPECIFICO are not welcome on the pages they frequent (in this case Donald Trump).

This overall behavioral pattern is similar to past behavior which earned SPECIFICO (by my count) Six formal warnings from admins, a 48h block, two TBANs from AMPol topics (the last, in 2020, for 2 weeks, matching a 2 week TBAN from Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations 5 months earlier), and two I-bans (in 2020 and 2014) from users they disagreed with in ways similar to this situation.

Why is the project tolerating these behaviors, from a user who should definitely know better? Given that she has received numerous warnings for precisely this behavior? In this very thread, SPECIFICO has described JFD's conduct like this: there's been no willingness to slow down, moderate their tone and I don't think this editor has the temperament at this stage to collaborate on the American Politics articles. when the most salient comment thread from uninvolved users above is that JFD's tone is conciliatory and collaborative. [129][130][131]

This thread does have an imperfect opening comment, and there are ways JFD could change their approach, but we should not let that cloud our judgment here that SPECIFICO has absolutely broken

• Oppose - There are over 100 articles in the Donald Trump series. The main article alone has 155 archives and a current consensus of 60 items. Donald Trump articles are among the most difficult to edit of the 6.6 million in English Wikipedia. Editors foolish enough to edit them bear the scars as evidence. Through enormous effort resulting in innumerable sanctions over the years, the article is now in quite good shape and the remaining editors have reached a state where reasonably collaborative and well-structured discussion takes place. Then, a newcomer appeared with an account created in February. The TP is now difficult to wade through with discussions broken into pieces, an RfC improperly started by JFD and killed by an admin, posts by JFD edited after responses have been made, changes to the article made quickly without consensus, three claims of censorship by JFD, and placing an RPA flag in a post of mine that was in no way a personal attack, and also falsely claimed I was attempting to RGW. I didn’t include diffs as it would look like cherry-picking with so much commentary -- besides, it’s very difficult with all the activity and I’m not suggesting a block. But, I will link to the discussion JFD brought to my TP[132] and the discussion JFD brought to Bishonen’s TP where JFD continued to say I was at fault for the results of their poor TP editing practices, and where she asked JFD to “take your hints and sneers elsewhere”. [133]. It’s my humble opinion that JFD came to one of the most difficult articles in WP too early, in particular given that their very large number of edits to both the article and TP appears as though JFD was trying to take command of the article, ironic given the title of this filing accuses Specifico of such. Indeed, looking at the title of the filling, I find it odd that JFD would accuse Specifico of edit warring having just received a block for edit warring themselves four hours earlier from the same article. Smells like retribution. In any case, removing Specifico while allowing JFD to continue their bad behavior could damage one of the most widely read articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support Provided links show that there is a violation of several policies on part of Specifico. Specifico refused to engage in consensus building process by being unresponsive and also made comments that were discouraging for other users to edit in a controversial topic area. While JFD should have reduced his editing pace, we should remember that
  WP:BLUDGEON, which is an essay. Plus, from the block log, we know that this is not an isolated incident but a pattern of long standing problem.--81.214.106.114 (talk
  ) 20:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: "fighting to stave off" ? Do I look like to you like I'm fighting? That strikes me as kind of an uncivil and condescending rebuke to Zaathras. Your remark has a bit of the look of a thumb on the scale, for whatever inapparent reason. Amd there have been no diffs that show OWN etc., so aside from being off-topic for your comment, that too was uncalled for. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good grief, if you really think those comments, coming from someone in the same breath as they were supporting you, is a good look for you, fine: that's your business. But Zaathras' comments also violated several policies and were plainly disruptive. If not by me, they would have been corrected by someone, and rightly so. Nor was my response "uncivil" or "condescending". As to "putting my thumb on the scale", how in the wide world does that make rational sense to you in the context of my telling someone else they were not allowed to tell a third party they could not contribute to this discussion? In any event, I feel I've been quite equanimous with my feedback in this discussion. I am not in any a way a party to any of the disputes that brought you here, and have no "whatever" reason to be predisposed towards bias in evaluating your conduct as a random respondent in this community space. And I've even gone to efforts to explain why I think it would be a loss to us to have you sidelined for an extended period of time. But your conduct and your attitude towards your fellow editors stink, frankly. It's that simple. Sometimes the easiest solutions are the simplest: i.e., I'm giving you my honest opinion. And guess what, even people not involved in any dispute with you can (and clearly do) have qualms about how you carry yourself here and the impact your behaviour has on discussions.

And yes, part of the original complaints here involve accusations that you told someone they were not qualified to comment in a talk page discussion, so that very much imputes the issue of

wp:own; I'm not staking out an opinion as to whether or not that particular accusation is valid, but as a matter of fact and record, it is a part of what was complained of by involved parties. I didn't just make it up to add some invective to the debate fr some random reason. I honestly pointed that out to try to stop Zaathras from doing your position collateral damage by association, with an upsacled policy violation version of basically the same behaviour. I felt that would be an unfair influence against your interests, in a discussion that ought to be decided on your conduct alone. Good grief, the gratitude... SnowRise ^{let's rap}

21:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There was no policy violations or anything of the sort. Drop the hyperbole and stop the snide comments aimed at me, thankyouverymuch. Zaathras (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I think the comprehensive evidence raised above, and the history, supports the severity of the sanction. I would oppose any harsher sanction with this evidence. It is not impossible to be civil while editing on Donald Trump - I have some experience with the topic area. SPECIFICO will not be permanently removed, and many other editors will continue to edit the topic area. As to whether JFD should be removed, that is for editors to propose and discuss. If this is implemented, I hope that this will be the last sanction SPECIFICO receives, as I hope that she can improve her approach accordingly to avoid the behaviour listed above. starship.paint (exalt) 08:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but only for a time-limited block within the proposed parameters. As others have noted above, these are not ideal circumstances for a sanction, as the events immediately precipating this discussion are mixed bag in which Specifico's conduct is not the only conduct needing alteration. But when the history of warnings and sanctions is layed out in full as above (and even without the block log added in), it's pretty clear that Specifico can be considered to have long been on-notice that they need to make some behavioural changes--even in circumstances where there is blame to go around.

In trying to thread that needle, a month long (or less) ban from the topic area where these habits are mostly on display makes sense in two regards: 1) emphasizing the community's diminishing patience, of course, and 2) giving Specifico a pause to consider the implications of being removed from the area where they are most productive, and to consider what needs to change to avoid that outcome. It also creates a record of the fact that the community is collectively hitting a threshold moment with the concerns about civlity and increasing the heat in already difficult areas, so that if Specifico refuses to head the message this time, we don't have to start this discussion over again for the nth time if we get here again, and we can instead contemplate whether the moment has come for a longer-term restriction. Others have said it and I'll repeat it, hoping it doesn't sound like a platitude: I would think Specifico is, from an abudance of evidence, more than smart enough to adapt here. But at some point the community has to drop the light touch with a community member with such a bombastic style of dealing with disagreement. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support, and might very well be supporting a longer term ban, if it were called for. I'm converted, and entirely by the efforts of the editor in question, not anything that has been added in the last day by the complainants. The level of IDHT here is substantial, as is the self-defeating blowback in literally all directions towards any editor who is not 100% in support, whether they were party to earlier disputes or just commenting here. I'm convinced only a strong statement has a chance of sending the community's message, though I now have doubts whether it will lead to the required longterm change. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - but I wouldn't support anything longer. These don't seem to be issues that can't be overcome. However, the editor may be approaching the point of exhausting the community's patience. Nemov (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, because of the comment I made earlier when this proposal didn't exist: "I've largely been dormant on Wikipedia lately due to being uninterested in the project, but this feels like Jerome wants to send a genuine complaint, while Specifico is using the OP's disadvantages to their advantage. Nobody is perfect, even the most illustrious and high-ranking editors out there mess up. Jerome is otherwise a good editor, and I think if this situation is resolved in their favor then they can become a very well known and respected Wikipedian. If this is resolved in Specifico's favor, it likely won't improve anyone due to many warnings and blocks being sent to them and nothing really improving. (Friday)" I'm treating this as a more behavioral issue and less of an editorial issue, though there is a mild editing problem in the mix too. 𝘾𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙢𝙖𝙣2917 (talkpage) 13:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Talk:Donald Trump was relatively tame until new user Jerome Frank Disciple proceeded to toss grenades masked as massive Text Walls into the affair. If you're going to return a complex article and talk page back to status quo ante, then looking at Specifico is looking in the completely wrong direction. I don't blame anyone for getting frustrated with that mess. Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  The idea that Talk:Donald Trump has ever been relatively tame is preposterous. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with this strongly. JFD is perhaps the best current editor at Trump, in terms of both general civility and source-backed proposals. And, also, I agree with Nemov—the Trump talk page hasn't been "relatively tame" since, like, 2014. Do you actually have a claim pertaining to the above evidence? Cessaune [talk] 14:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, "relatively tame", as opposed to the sprawling mess that JFD and to a lesser extent Shibbolethink have made it. I really don't value the opinion of an involved editor who seeks to remove perceived opponents like knocking off a rook on a chessboard. Kindly refrain from future pings. Zaathras (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Zaathras: - your own combativeness is not a good look, given that you were warned in the topic area just this month, and page banned in the topic area earlier this year. starship.paint (exalt) 16:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am simply airing an opinion, which is not a right I have lost. If you find it disagreeable, then kindly shuffle on. Zaathras (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Zaathras: All combativeness is simply airing one's opinions. Being 99%-retired, I had not intended to comment in this discussion. I find your combativeness disagreeable and will now shuffle on. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine, I do not find your comment disagreeable at all. A handful of others, however, keep pinging me and making combative statements. If someone one doesn't want a dog to growl, it is usually wise to cease poking it. Zaathras (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I asked a simple question, Zaathras (Is there a policy stating so that I'm aware of?) after you said IP editors have no say in such discussions--Cessaune [talk] 13:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC) and pinged you. I then shared my opinion and asked another question (Do you actually have a claim pertaining to the above evidence?) without pinging you. Neither of these questions were asked in bad faith; the second question was asked because you didn't actually engage with the above SPECIFICO diffs at all in your !vote. I hope I'm not included in the "keep pinging me" category, and I really hope that my statements weren't perceived as combative. If that is the case, as always, I never intend to do that, and I'm sorry. Cessaune [talk] 13:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Floquenbeam called this five days ago, and the thread was heavily influenced by and bludgeoned by Shibbolethink.

  The claims of "warnings" are from Shibbolethink and 2 very partisan editors; the quote in green at the top was due to a misunderstanding; the claims of reverting unless there's a consensus are diff-less, and that generally follows BRD anyway unless taken to the extreme; the diff claiming to describe commenting on other editors was a perfectly reasonable comment about the content of someone's BLP-violating comments; the last two bullets, and the quote in green at the bottom, are from 2014. I don't want to be harsh, but WP is also damaged by (a) someone pulling out 9-year old diffs that they've had in storage to try to eliminate another editor, and (b) drive-by editors taking such claims at face value and jumping to immediately supporting a siteban. Padding a report with tons of borderline accusations in order to make it look overwhelming is really poor form, but it happens a lot here. And I'd recommend taking everything said at ANI with a grain of salt unless you know about it yourself, or research the claims made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Boomerangs for OP and Shibbolethink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support SPECIFICO is clearly tendentious, usually if not always removing negative information from articles about mainstream Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, while adding negative information to articles about Republicans and any Democrats who challenge the mainstream. As a result of their disruption, Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy has already nine pages of archived discussion which continues because SPECIFICO will not accept that the article call it Hunter Biden's laptop. Not only does this waste other editors' time, but it prevents the article from being developed. SPECIFICO has probably avoided greater sanctions in the past because there are a number of active editors who share his politics. But none of them go to the lengths SPECIFICO does, to continue to make arguments that they obviously know are bogus. TFD (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO's not remotely in a

  WP:1AM situation on the Hunter talk page, and her concerns are perfectly legitimate, as I and others outlined on the talk page a few months back in that big RfC (in fact, imma add it back to my watchlist); and I say this as someone who initially supported calling it Hunter's laptop, and was swayed by the sources. It's balderdash to blame SPECIFICO for that content dispute when there are numerous editors on either side and IMO reasonable concerns (shared by sources!) on her side. DFlhb (talk

  ) 21:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  As you say there was an RfC and although SPECIFICO and most editors of the page disagreed with calling it Biden's laptop, outside editors were almost unanimous in saying it was. The RfC was properly closed and the relevant edits made. Then SPECIFICO changed the text and started the whole debate over again. Of course they couldn't have done this without the support of a handful of editors with a similar editing history, but that doesn't justify their actions. TFD (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support for a month and no longer (damn why do I feel so guilty)- I'm kind of conflicted here. There is no doubt in my mind that SPECIFICO is, in general, a good editor. However, it's almost silly to vote against this, both based on the above diffs, and the fact that it's only a one-month tban. However however, these situations seem to be cherrypicked from the worst of SPECIFICO's comments, and it also feels to me like someone's been slowly compilling diffs, biding their time. I don't know. Regardless, I guess it's the repeated behavior that's the real issue. I don't know if a tban is the correct path, and I really don't want to lose SPECIFICO as a regular, mostly constructive editor at Trump, but if this is the path we must go down, I guess we must go down this path. We'll see what happens. Cessaune [talk] 14:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, support boomerang for OP Andre🚐 17:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  You might want to read tu quoque. Furthermore, this proposal is not initiated by JFD, whom you proposed to boomerang earlier in this thread. 81.214.106.114 (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear I was reiterating my call to boomerang JFD, not Shibbolethink. Andre🚐 21:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, SPECIFICO's political leanings on the the Trump article seem to definitely show bias when he makes replies and changes. Also has a problem with edit-warring and repeatedly reverting good faith edits without much explanation except on the talk page where he makes himself superior of any opinion or talk page consensus. The Capitalist forever (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I will note that the above editor is a example of the kind of button-pusher that more experienced editors tend to sooner or later pop off after having to deal with them. "Obviously this entire article was written by democrats and no conservative sources of the President's political party were mentioned, therefore not explaining the two sides/opinions of the subject, and only portraying him as the worst president when arguments could be made that Franklin Peirce was the worst president.". [134]. Zaathras (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as an uninvolved editor who has not edited Donald Trump anywhere close to recently, and who broadly agrees with SPECIFICO on the object-level content decisions. The list of evidence above is kinda nuts, and I'm surprised that given it there isn't more support for a longer topic ban. Is it because there isn't a single smoking-gun diff anywhere? I've found in the past that the community seems to be very reluctant to impose sanctions for a pattern of behavior as long as no single incident in that pattern of behavior is too egregious. It's definitely true that none of the specific incidents SPECIFICO is accused of is that bad... but taken all together it paints a picture of an editor who is blatantly uncivil as a matter of course and who has absolutely refused to change this behavior despite multiple previous sanctions for it. That's getting into "permanent topic ban" territory, IMO.

(As for the accusations of "compiling diffs": I don't care. A constructive editor should not have this many diffs to compile. I don't see any reason to believe that either JFD or Shibbolethink have any kind of long-standing grudge against SPECIFICO, but even if they do, the fact that they can back up their grudge with this kind of evidence is pretty damning, right?) Loki (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Very busy with a family matter so I've read the opening statement but only reviewed a few diffs in detail. While a few are indeed bad (3.1 and 3.2), other diffs don't support the accompanying narrative. Again, busy, so I have to just pick out a few. Facetious comments (diffs 3.6, 3.8) help keep discussions from becoming too stiff, and an't sanctionable. Diff 3.3 is true: merely stating that something was covered by WP:RS isn't an argument for inclusion (
  WP:VNOT
  ). Diff 3.4 is also true: JFD, for all his good intentions, is inexperienced and it would have been extremely ineffective to start a non-workshopped RfC, with non-neutral prompt, and two lengthy proposed versions that would be inappropriate to "lock-in" through an RfC. Wouldn't have helped us move towards a resolution.

I don't support sanctions against any editor at this time. JFD was ill-advised but earnest in starting a ton of threads over relatively trivial copyedits when there was already an ongoing huge unwieldy discussion about the E. Jean Carroll addition. But understanding of context and timing is too subtle to punish newer editors over. We treat bludgeoning as a conduct issue, and it is, but I think good-faith JFD is a good example for why we should also see it as a symptom of ineffective communication, and build a set of essays on how to communicate more effectively. Every comment posted on Wikipedia is meant to achieve a specific outcome, but we all do it indirectly or ineffectively at times (some more than others for sure), and I think this is the main cause of good-faith editors, novice and experienced, ending up at ANI. DFlhb (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that Shibbolethink started this TBAN proposal, let's look at his behavior today at that same Trump talk page. There, I proposed we replace one lead sentence with a better summary of the body section, and showed two tier-1 scholarly sources (40+ citations each) to support my summary's salience (diff1). Shibbolethink proposed an alternative, and when asked to show dueness, replied twice with lengthy lists + analyses of every link he found on the first page of a Google search, admitting that many of these links are unreliable or irrelevant (diff2, diff3). These sources contradict his own argument. In both replies, sources that mention multiple examples are presented as proof that one example is due, and somehow not other examples mentioned in the same sentence (in one source in diff2, his example is 3 bullet points out of 54). In his other reply, his sources support the dueness of Trump's COVID illness more than that of his preferred example. Shibbolethink's methodology is so nonsensical that he admits it tells us very little about what sources find important in the overall response (diff3 again). So why do these nonsensical "source surveys" account for 41% of that short subsection's word count? (Mine are 23%.) Then to top it off he tossed aspersions of cherry-picking and violating PAGs (diff). I agree with Shibbolethink that we hold experienced editors to a higher standard. So, given that he started a TBAN proposal for disruption, why can I find diffs from today of him disrupting that very same talk page with unreadable walls of text (with copious bold font), stupefyingly using random links from the first page of Google to prove dueness? DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS

? Wow, that's strong. I don't think the diff you provided shows any of that. Like, honestly, where did aspersions come from? At least in my opinion, ...to exclude this content because our own self-selected sources that we like don't mention it is not inline with our PAGs is a far ways away from the malice, repetitiveness, and general lack of self-awareness necessary. I honestly don't understand how you can compare what Shibb did to what SPECIFICO has been doing, and the entire reason we are here. A single one of the above SPECIFICO diffs is much more damning, and, frankly, much more of an aspersion issue than anything Shibb has done at Trump, regardless of the fact that it may be a little disruptive. If you oppose SPECIFCO being tbanned, in my eyes there's no way you can simultanouesly support Shibb being tbanned. If you would oppose Shibb being tbanned then your statement above is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Shibbolethink's methodology is closer to

WP:DUEness, so you're kind of right, but I think you're getting riled up about nothing really. Cessaune [talk]

00:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I do not edit in this area but the pov pushing is a maddening issue. I also find that SPECIFICO has demonstrated an intractable combative posture and refuses to drop the stick. The section of the project can use a break from this type of behavior and editing pattern. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the same is imposed on Jerome Frank Disciple. I think Jerome Frank Disciple needs, at the very least, a limit of the number of edits they make per a given time period on any affected article or talkpage; this behavior seems to be more disruptive than SPECIFICO's, and is exhausting and wastes the community's time. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Whether any and if so what sanction is or is not given to JFD is irrelevant here. SPECIFICO has a long history of completely inappropriate behaviour in the topic area and this behaviour is not directed at or otherwise related to any single editor. I would acutally support a much longer topic ban, because previous short ones have obviously not had the desired effect, but as a minimum this is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Should be indefinite. Let's take the bull by the horns and do the right thing here. Per the evidence submitted, Specifico has been getting sanctioned in this area since 2014. Enough is enough. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: TBAN for SPECIFICO

• @Objective3000: In any case, removing Specifico while allowing JFD to continue their bad behavior could damage one of the most widely read articles
  There are many multiple other editors on this page who disagree with JFD. I think those editors will be perfectly capable of reining in any misconduct from JFD and reporting it to the appropriate noticeboards/admins. I think from this entire thread and its response, JFD knows what they did wrong, was appropriately sanctioned, and knows their conduct will be under the microscope moving forward. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• I have seen no evidence that JFD takes to heart criticism. Why else would they make a filing against someone at ANI for civility, edit warring, and ownership when those are their problems -- particularly when they had just been blocked for edit warring four hours before the filing? Indeed, having Specifico thrown off the article will likely give JFD confidence to continue bad behavior. And yes other editors exist. But, we are at a very difficult period in history for this article given the subject's legal challenges and campaign. Frankly, the AMPol articles are so difficult, most admins are too intelligent to tread foot in them. (Even angels fear to tread therein.) This is the wrong time to weed out or chase away editors with the deep experience in those particular articles required to edit such an article, while welcoming someone clearly not prepared for the challenge who throws around accusations, misconstrues other editors' posts, and makes snide remarks -- even to an admin. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen no evidence that JFD takes to heart criticism.
  I think this thread shows that.

  throws around accusations, misconstrues other editors' posts, and makes snide remarks
  I agree, but I think we should use community tools to TBAN/short term block any editor who does these things in a way which drives other editors to leave the project. I've shown above instances in which SPECIFICO does all of these things (and more). If you provide diffs showing JFD doing such things, I would support a similar sanction for them. In their case, a 2 week TBAN given it would be their first instance of such behaviors. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Admitting error after a block in order to get the block lifted is not evidence of taking anything to heart. Flowers to a battered wife. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have I violated

  WP:BRD since? Diff?--Jerome Frank Disciple

  17:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  And what you call a post taking to heart criticism was made nine minutes before what I would call this retaliatory filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  retaliatory filing (from JFD)
  I get why you say that. My interpretation differs, but I understand why that is your belief. But it doesn't mean the concerns expressed in this thread by editors other than JFD are without merit. Why would I be proposing a TBAN, since SPECIFICO hasn't (yet) tried to get me blocked? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Umm, I didn't say all proposals are retaliatory. First I've seen here in ages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think you may have misunderstood my intention. What I'm saying is: why does any of that have any bearing on the merits of this TBAN proposal? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have said what I came to say in the combination of my edits above. Don't really want to spend more time on this and have lost interest in the article given the current atmosphere, which is now likely to continue. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• At this point I suggest everyone in this thread
  WP:TROUT themselves and move on. soibangla (talk
  ) 18:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• And I was just trying to come up with an idea for tonight's dinner. However, your suggestion means that we must now spend 20,000 words on which trout icon to use. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Snow Rise: This complaint is being sustained and rather persistently prosecuted by editors who are involved in a content discussion (dispute) at the Donald Trump talk page. See here for a summary of the most recent involvements. The purportedly damning links given in this ANI, cherrypicked excerpts purporting to show incivility, and snarky narratives in this thread ("this gem", etc.) do not support the allegations. Snow Rise, in comments from an uninvolved editor such as yourself, I'd have expected recent diffs or specific narratives about the current situation that would support your position here. Of course, if this were at AE, the Admins there would require that there actually be diffs that support whatever is alleged and would read things with their customary critical judgment. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, believe me, I realize there's a context here of other subpar actors, and I very nearly did !vote weak oppose for that very reason. But the pattern is pretty clear here: I can understand why it feels a little unfair to brought to account for your actions in this context, but sometimes when you have been warned by the community over a period of years about problematic behaviour and do little to nothing to acknowledge or reform those issues, this is the risk you run--that the straw that breaks the camel's back comes in a situation where you were not the only (or even necessarily the biggest) disruptive influence. And to be honest, the sense of IDHT from you historically on these issues is a big part of what pushed me over to the "act now, rather than continue to kick it down the road" column. Because the diffs above do not "purport" to show you acting incivily: they do show you acting in an incivil and otherwise inappropriate manner, both as a historical and contemporaneous matter. And the fact that you never can seem to own up to this is cause for concern that you genuinely don't get where the lines are, and the community needs to speak louder to get you to see them.

Because frankly, another big part of why I am supporting action now (but with a relatively light sanction) is because I would rather not lose your contributions altogether, and I am convinced you are on track for either an indef ban from

WP:ARBAP

topics or a longterm block. You have been blocked by admins in their individual capacity, you've been TBANed a number of times, 1-way IBANed, and received a slew of additional warnings in ANX forums and at AE. Sooner or later the community will run out of patience, and that will be a bad day for you and the project. Your take-no-prisoners approach to dispute just is not working. Put aside the consequences for your personally: despite the significant amount of good you do, you also do a lot of collateral damage to the side you want to support with the refusal to maintain your cool.

And I'm not basing this entirely upon the word of your regular adversaries who have manifested here. I generally have very little interest in contemporary AmPol topics, but I have always regularly participated in a fair number of random RfCs, so I get a semi-regular re-appraisal of what is going on in those areas (and in culture war articles generally) despite a lack of personal interest--and those notices jumped by about a factor of ten starting with the advent of the Trump administration. And there are a handful of names that I expect to see in the fray virtually every time I arrive at a brouhaha in this area, and yours is one of them. That in itself is not an indication of wrong doing, but I must tell you that I have two extremely strong impressions from the one or two dozen articles I have seen you operating on: 1) I agree with your take on the policy considerations much more often than not, probably in the upper 90th percentiles, and 2) your conduct is often way beyond the pale when it comes to

WP:CIV

.

Now, I get these areas are fraught with tension and that your own patience is also not infrequently tested by some nonsense, by virtue of this context. But I'm sorry, that does not omit you from scrupulously following our behavioural guidelines. You choose to edit in these highly controversial areas, and you bear the responsibility of doing so in an appropriate manner. You seem to view yourself as an antidote to a certain strain of propaganda and misinformation. And let me be clear: I don't doubt that you have played a central role in keeping all manner of terrible content out of highly visible articles. Thank you for that; that is why I want you to stay here for many years to come. But you are selling yourself a

false choice if you are convinced that your effectiveness in these areas requires you to employ fire-with-fire tactics: this is actually detracting from your value. SnowRise ^{let's rap}

16:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia heavily influenced by and bludgeoned by Shibbolethink.
  I have replied 15 times in a thread of 92 responses, participated in by (my count) ~20 editors. Each of my comments has been heavily collapsed and formatted to avoid over-extending the volume of my comments. But in threads such as these, when asked for diffs, I have provided diffs. When asked to elaborate, I have elaborated. When asked to show clearly which sanctions are recent and which are from "9 years ago" I have done so. When asked to narrow to specific concerns such as behavior, I have done so. In response to that reply from Floq, I provided a reverse chronological list showing that the concerning behaviors that are a pattern with the above are from the last year (since May 2022). But yes, they have correlates in 2020 and 2018. Could you describe how any of that is bludgeoning the discussion? Thanks (Edited 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) to correct numbers, I miscounted and redid in an automated fashion.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia, I concur with Shibbolethink. I find your comment a bit of whataboutism that has very little to do with the specific discussion. Nemov (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Here from the ping. I was asked to comment on the proposed text from
  WP:FTN
  , so I've been uninvolved in Trump stuff outside of my look over of the proposal at the page. With that, I don't know who has said what in the past or who's been in dispute with who. I've bumped into SPECIFICO over time and have usually had variable and decent interactions with them. If I've seen behavior issues, it was usually tied up with trying to wrangle other problem editors, so I'm one to usually give some pause and dig into the topic more if I see their name at admin boards.

In this case though, I am getting a pretty major red flag from SPECIFICO, and I hope they reflect on that as someone who has worked with them in the past. Had they only just been concerned about the amount of space used in the lead to cover the subject's

WP:FTN

with more problem editors. I consider it just being haphazard though in that case, especially since you appear to have detractors accusing you of doing the exact opposite for adding negative information (not assessing the validity of those edits one way or another).

So SPECIFICO, I hope you see just how poor of a path you're going down. I'm not going to formally vote on sanctions, but comments like that are showing me that you aren't exercising the care needed to edit in a controversial topic like COVID-19 misinformation. With that, I do think you need to step back from that area regardless of sanctions, and I'm usually not very quick to say that. That's how much of a red flag that comment was to someone who stays out of politics topics but does focus on science/fringe issues. If there are actual fringe proponents at that page, that should also be dealt with, but it was your comment that really drew my attention. KoA (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:FRINGE and in particular FRN is about how we must ensure that fringe content cannot be mistaken for mainstream or valid dissenting views by our readers. The discussion in the Trump page was about micro-tweaks of language, not about language that would fail to convery Trump's promotion of false and dangerous unproven and disproved narratives, medical treatments, etc. as if they were valid "alternative facts". That FRINGE page and that FTN noticeboard are where we make sure that such content is not falsely presented as reasonable, widely endorsed, or well founded. If the notification on that FTN gave you the misimpression that anyone at the Trump page was suggesting language that remotely approached a FRINGE violation, that's unfortunate. A lot of my work here over more than a decade has been devoted to ensuring that such UNDUE, false, and controversial information is presented as such. Editing in FRINGE-prone areas is difficult because one encounters, shall we say, highly motivated editors on such pages. But that discussion at Trump, as you can see in the summary provided by @Space4Time3Continuum2x: was about how to tweak the lead wording of longstanding text about Trump's promotion of what is clearly identified as unfounded and false narratives. If you care to look through the Trump talk archives in your spare time :), and see the hundreds of times I've advocated for well-sourced and properly framed article text about unsubstantiated, false, or misleading narratives, I think it would calm your concerns that I am an editor who is likely to be soft on FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk

15:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

PS, did you follow the links to the article talk page RE: Fringe? Shibbolethink's redacted summary in green is rather misleading, IMO. The article had long stated that Trump promoted unproven treatments. My view and the view of others there was that the insertion of "misinformation about" to modify the unproven treatments actually weakened the exposition showing this was fringe. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifico, your comment here is just showing to me that you're at the brink and blowing past basic details. That happens in contentious topics even when you are "right" sometimes and is why I am pointing this out. You're at a point that you are splitting hairs essentially claiming the lead text isn't of interest to

WP:FRINGE

or FTN because it's about presentation of the subject's fringe views. Step back and think about that. What you describe as "micro-tweaks" is very much something we do over at FTN quite often because we look at how best to accurately describe and summarize a BLP subject's fringe views exactly like was being requested. Things like what to cover and to how much depth in a lead statement is pretty much right up FTN's alley.

I'll be honest, trying to claim the lead text change isn't something squarely pertinent to FRINGE just distracts from other potential issues at the article. Don't do silly things like that and us outside editors will have an easier time helping out with other issues or problem editors. I already commented as someone uninvolved what version I thought best reflected the FRINGE perspective and needs without really even looking at who said what or past discussions. I saw the need right there as an outside editor. That's the other key point I'm trying to drive home too, be aware of how things can look, even if unintended, to those of us outside that article. KoA (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we're talking way past one another. I am well aware of the importance of framing and language to support NPOV including, in the extreme, FRINGE. I would think, after you carefully considered my previous reply that you would not have thought you needed to instruct me further on fringe/NPOV issues and language. Did you see any reference to "fringe" in the talk page discussion prior to the FTN notice? I've never seen any of the editors on that thread fail to respond constructively to such concerns nor to cause them. The

WP:FRINGE and I've very rarely seen such politics-related content raised at FTN. SPECIFICO talk

17:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE original research. I also object to what appears to be an insinuation to me. These are the main space edits: [136], [137], [138], [139]. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC) To be absolutely clear: "we personally" thought nothing of the kind and were confused by the edit summary challenging the stable version: while this is undoubtedly true, I'm removing it for two reasons: 1) I think it's a confusing negative-positive (naively when reading, I thought "was he promoting misinformation that tests weren't needed? That tests were needed?") and overall a relatively minor point that is clearly DUE for the body, but not the lead. Sorry for adding to all of the above. Come to think of it, it's starting to look a lot like the current state of the Donald Trump talk page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)

16:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually what you’ve quoted there was me responding to statements by SPECIFICO that Trump’s statements about HCQ and ivermectin were not “promoting misinformation.” I don’t recall you advocating there or elsewhere that such statements were not misinformation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop suggesting that I ever said that Trump was not spreading misinformation. You insinuated that with some very tight and misleading editing of my brief talk page comment on this sentence in your green text up top, and it's quite possible that such misrepresentation of my views is now coloring the comments by at least two editors in this discussion section. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)