Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990

This is still going on? I made a similar thread in DECEMBER 2016! He got one last warning in that thread, then got a block and editing restrictions by community consensus four months later[6]. Outta

WP:ROPE. Enough's enough, we can't keep coming back here for the same issues. Episodes like this are why pro wrestling articles are under sanctions right now.LM2000 (talk

) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@

WP:RS, not random youtube videos of passing mentions on TV, that support your stance. Seriously provide even one. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk}

13:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I am not moving goalposts. You don't read the information you are posting, to show that it doesn't support your case. For example, you stated Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live. https://www.wweperformancecenter.com/#!/journey yet that is not true. It says Check out the many Superstars who came through the Performance Center before making their mark on Monday Night Raw, SmackDown LIVE and 205 Live. This is clearly discussing TV shows not brands. I suggest you read

WP:RS to analyze it and draw that conclusion, yet you have been unable to provide any that does. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk}

13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There would also be concerns when regarding a

original research concerning the verifiability policy

:

The reason we don't count votes rather using

"ignoring all the rules"

, "...cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.".

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

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

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

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

Anyone? This user has announced they will no longer by

WP:CIVIL so I would appreciate an admin taking a look [11]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk}

00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks and constant belittling by HiLo48

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

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

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

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

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

I apologise but I am at work at the moment. I will provide strong evidence through diffs later tonight if that's ok? This one [12] from today at Talk:The Australian was completely uncalled for if you read the thread under Questionable source. I was certainly not forum shopping and tried to word my post on the noticeboard as neutrally as possible, so the constant accusations about forum shopping HiLo48 makes here and on the talk page seem pretty unfair as it was not multiple noticeboards and I simply wanted to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions to help form a consensus.Merphee (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

My use of the word 'extreme' relates to the total period of attacks and belittling. Apologies but I will provide many more diffs to support my post here as I just want it to stop. I note also on the Talk:The Australian that the points I was trying to make have now been supported by uninvolved editors see this comment [13] which was also why I correctly and neutrally placed the discussion on one single norticeboard, the reliable source noticeboard, and tried to disengage from HiLo48. HiLo48 then went straight there and posted this comment [14] making further unfounded accusations of forum shopping.Merphee (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

−

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

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

I will provide more diffs later tonight. My understanding is that constantly making big accusations like Forum Shopping and POV with no evidence and when I carefully selected my wording at the noticeboard is a form of personal attack? I also note that HiLo48's long quote and the 'essay' source I've questioned at The Australian has also not been supported by other uninvolved editors. Please see Talk:The Australian. Please also refer to this edit as evidence of that point. [15]. I have never said it was not centre right. It is even in the info-box. That was another accusation HiLo48 constantly made that i am trying to say The Australian is not centre-right and with no supporting evidence. Please refer to this diff as evidence to support my comments on that accusation.[16]Merphee (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Drmies, it's worth checking via Edits by User, as Merphee has periodically removed posts: [17]. Or, even easier, start here [18] and click forward to each next edit. HiLo48 has been harassing Merphee on his talkpage despite requests to stay off it. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Here's a little gem, which exemplifies your inability to have a civil conversation with Merphee: [19]. You both exhibit the same behaviors (with different writing styles), but neither of you can see that. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here's a thought

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

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

Honestly HiLo48, if that is your attitude and you cannot see your own

WP:PAs and repeated long-term pot-stirring, I agree with Tarage that an IBAN is in order. Softlavender (talk

) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is, neither you nor HiLo48 can carry on a discussion without engaging in personal attacks. So the way I see it, is there are several options available to resolve this: (A) You both follow the bolded advice at the top of this subthread. DO NOT MENTION OTHER EDITORS, by name, reference, or using the word "you". It's hard at first and takes practice but it can be done; you can pretend you are a robot if need be. (B) We topic ban both of you from Australian media and whatever else you conflict about. (C) We institute an

WP:IBAN between the two of you. (D) We topic ban you (Merphee) from Australian media or whatever the problem area is. (E) We block both of you. (F) We block you (Merphee), as the most disruptive (as agreed by several editors at this point) and least experienced editor. Something has to be done, because the endless bickering which you both engage in is disruptive and dysfunctional. Softlavender (talk

) 10:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Yes.

'c.s.n.s.'

12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) -

'c.s.n.s.'

13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Merphee has a tendency to hyperbole, but it usually comes after bickering from Hilo48. I do not think there was anything amiss about posting on RSN; editors are allowed to do that at any time, for any reason, and do not have to give anyone notice that they have done so, and it is not "forum shopping" unless there are already other

Ryk72 explained at the top of this thread. The problem with that RSN thread was HiLo48 jumping in immediately with personal attacks: [20]. So we can't judge the situation neutrally because, as so often before, HiLo48 has made it non-neutral by bickering. So the first step, in my opinion, is to stop the bickering from both of them. Softlavender (talk

) 11:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) -

'c.s.n.s.'

13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

I do not see what you say is there. I do not see

'c.s.n.s.'

14:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I made this neutrally worded edit [21] a while ago on the Talk:The Australian in a genuine attempt to reach a consensus and compromise but everyone seems to have ignored it. I have never engaged in an edit war and I do not attack other editors personally. But I do want the attacks on me to stop as they just lead the discussion away from a focus on reaching consensus.Merphee (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As far as The Australian article page it seems Curdle and I have reached a consensus [22] and unless anyone objects Curdle will put in their suggested edit which seems quite reasonable to me and satisfies my concerns with the previous version.Merphee (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@

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

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

Quick resolution?

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

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

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

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

Here's how it went down

Merphee removed an uncited, unattributed POV statement from The Australian that had been tagged for three years: [23]. HiLo48 went straight to Merphee's usertalk to harass him: [24]. Merphee added back part of the material he had removed: [25]. HiLo48 inserted an extremely POV quotation into the article: [26]. Merphee opened a neutral discussion on the article's talkpage about the POV quote: [27]. HiLo48's response was "Stop destroying the article" and he continued to deflect, bicker, and ridicule: [28]. Merphee correctly removed the quote and attempted to summarize it instead: [29]. HiLo48 reverted [30], and failed to neutrally respond to the issues Merphee brought up about it, instead bickering, casting aspersions, and making demands: [31]. Therefore Merphee engaged in

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

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

The only target opposing is the editor who opened this bad-faith ANI against the other for engaging in proper

Ryk72, and other outside parties, have time to review it and respond. Softlavender (talk

) 17:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Close

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

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

Despite numerous requests to get

WP:UNDUE he has refused to do so. I took the matter to DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#"Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" section - WP:UNDUE

) whose conclusion included:

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

and

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

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

In response User:Qexigator has now posted this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just passing by to comment that one user has recently re-added the deleted content by threatening to report and ban anyone who dare to delete it ([38]). Checking from the user's contributions history as well as the page's history itself, it looks like they are one of those who had been adding more and more candidates to the lists throughout the past months. Impru20^talk 15:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment having dealt with "Consensus required" at

π, ν

) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Article was a complete disaster

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

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

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

Protected

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

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

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

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

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

No, the sanction is:

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

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

See

WP:CRP

:

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

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

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

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

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

The page probably shouldn't be full-protected indefinitely.

Topic ban enacted. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § DanielPenfield and archiving

For a while now,

obviously not from me. He is well aware that I strongly dislike his archiving methods]], and I'm not the only one. Graham87

04:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who questioned this. I just brought this up on his talk page about two weeks ago about this method of creating a yearly archive on a talk page, which then added 10 years of discussions onto

a single year of 2015. I assumed that this was done in error as this makes no sense. So, I fixed the archive and I was reverted by him with an edit summary of "undo unwarranted and gratuitous change of archiving method". I was a little shocked by that response, since all I did was fix his poor archive method, but then he reverts me with that odd edit summary. So, I reverted him and then left a note on his talk page questioning his reasoning. I then left some further examples on why his method makes no sense. His response was to revert me again with an edit summary of "restore date-based archiving over method completely inappropriate for low-volume talk pages". At that point, I left him him one final note and walked away. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've also had issues with DanielPenfield needlessly reverting my talk page edits in the past. Here are two examples [39] [40]. While he may not have felt that my edits were necessary, I had previously explained to him that I was making those edits as part of a project focused on clearing out a backlog. After another editor opened a thread on the talk page, DP never participated. To be fair, I believe he also stopped reverting my edits, but it was annoying to be repeatedly and needlessly reverted while doing largely thankless maintenance work.

Lepricavark (talk

) 17:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

First another veiled threat. Now you're

stalking me because I dare to use date-based archiving as described in Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives? -- DanielPenfield (talk

) 13:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

(Non-administrator comment)@

WP:CIR. —PaleoNeonate

– 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• DanielPenfield, in your latest revert of me, in your edit summary, you stated "...you claim that you object to one archive containing multiple years and yet your switch from date-based to meaningless sequence number-based does exactly that..." No. Not even close. The sequential numbered archives are set up to put all the discussions that it can fit (by KBs) onto one archive. Once that fills up, it creates a new one. Rinse. Repeat. Depending on how active the page is, you may have ten years of discussions on one archive, or you may have a few months (see one of Jimbo's archives for example). Now let's take a look at our respective talk pages and the way our archives are set up. On your talk page, you have it set up by years and I have it set up by sequential numbers. At first glance, yours looks really good. In fact, I kinda wish I had set my own talk page archives up this way, because it looks nice, neat, and orderly. So, you have archives set up for every year dating back to 2012. If you click on any one of these, you see a whole year's worth of discussions on one page. That's great. That is until you click on your 2012 archive. This is where the problem lies. You have discussions from 2006, so now you have six years of archives showing on one single year. After you set up the archive bot, why didn't you fix this and create a new archive for each of those years? That's where your wrong, but that's your talk page, so you do what you want. If you want to keep up the date based archiving method on article talk pages, that's fine, however you need to make sure it's working properly. What's the point in having a date based archive system if your dates aren't accurate? With the sequential archive, there's no expectation of what dates you'll find on any one archive, but there is definitely one on date based. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jauerback: Oh yes. It even says so in the documentation; see the note for date-based archives. It says that lowercase sigmabot III can overcome this problem, but that bot doesn't archive sections without signatures whereas ClueBot III does. Graham87 05:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Administrators' noticeboard in six months (February 2019). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk

20:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that

Lepricavark, and Drmies: Graham87

06:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Maybe an alternative could be temporary 1RR and formal admin warning to not setup archival unless specific criteria are met? Or just a warning for now. I would support the topic ban but at the next ANI discussion personally. —PaleoNeonate – 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Striking my comment considering Special:Permalink/835192467#Odd archivebox and Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)/Archive 163#Archive box problem precedent. —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Mild support. Seems like a reasonable solution. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. "Intransigence" seems like a good word for this disruption. He has been asked to stop and continues on, using snide edit summaries. Someone else can archive these talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support I just browsed User talk:DanielPenfield and it shows several sections where editors have raised opinions of poor judgment only to be met with inflammatory responses. For example, ClueBot III archive templates shows a brickwall lack of collaboration. Perhaps DanielPenfield is using the best archive method (I don't know) but fiddling with archives should not leave a trail of bitterness—it would be better if the pages were not archived. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support and facepalm. Talk about uncollaborative and unhelpful editing. Let's just hope this M.O. of "my eccentric way or else" despite multiple problems and multiple good-faith concerns and requests does not continue to carry over into other elements of Wikipedia, or we may be back here soon enough. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I've been flabbergasted by the need to explain this to him and the attitude in return doesn't help matters. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Being honest I was going to suggest this a week ago but figured things may improve .... unfortunately that doesn't appear to have been the case, As someone who routinely archives talkpages there's a simple method > Archive talkpage > paste bot stuff from
  WP:ARCHIVE > Add the talkpage header = Job done, There's absolutely no need for this pedantic behaviour and edit warring. –Davey2010^Talk
  16:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support user needs to find someother hobby than mucking about with the talk pages of others. DanielPenfield, it shouldn't have required an ANI thread to stop what is obviously disruptive, unacceptable behavior.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I hope the proposal isn't so broadly construed that DanielPenfield would not be allowed to archive User talk:DanielPenfield. 134.223.230.152 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd allow him to archive his own user talk page, yes. But it's pretty large ... maybe the archive settings on that page need to be adjusted. Oh the irony ... Graham87 05:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User identity

• Comment/Query Does anyone have the fortitude to examine and compare this contributors editing patterns with the (once?) banned Betacommand? I see a familiarity of poor bot programming for a janitorial task and a response to criticisms of declaring personal attacks without attempting to address the issue. If Betacommand or another admitted alias is still editing on Commons/Simple Wikipedia it might be a simple task to compare times and patterns - and hopefully put this case of spider tingling down to encroaching old age and lack of recent experience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Holy shnikies, it's the O.G. himself!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have looked at some archives at

Betacommand. I am going to pop over to that wasteland to see what terms exist upon the individual behind that username in editing. In other words, I think it is BC under a different name but similar modus. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 17:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This account is 13 years old - it was created before Betacommand's original account. It's not him. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither was Werieth, according to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wrong ... and I might be again. A 13-year-old account with practically no overlap in editing areas would be spectacular. But I'm looking a bit more closely now. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, well all I'll say is that I can't find any reason why they're not the same person. But equally I can't see anything to say they definitely are. Looking at the timelines are quite bizarre - they have fewer than 60 mainspace articles that they've both edited, and practically all of those are edits years apart ... the ones that aren't (and the closest is 29 days!) are generally because Beta has done some tidy-up or vandalism revert. On usertalk pages, the intersect is because Beta has put a warning message there about something completely different. They've never both !voted on any discussion in Wikipedia space. Normally you'd just say (as I did) "these are different editors". And yet ... I can't find any time-overlapping edits, and I've been through three years so far - but ... perhaps that isn't perhaps massively unusual seeing as DP is a quite irregular editor. One thing though, I'm looking at a few edits, and they're ones like these [41] which are adding FURs to non-free images ... but then Beta used to be more concerned with flagging images that didn't have FURs. But those two things are the only things I can see - and it's very thin. I'm going to look some more, but especially as all CU data for Beta will be stale, I suspect that "suspicion" may be as far as we can go. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah - I think I may have something here. I used XTools to look at time of day editing. Practically all of DanielPenfield's weekday edits are in the six hours between between 06:00 and 12:00 UTC, whilst his Saturday and Sunday edits are spread out evenly - which says to me that's someone who works Monday to Friday. He has practically no edits between 0:00 and 06:00 UTC, presumably night (or the time he sleeps) where he is. Betacommand's graph is very different - edits per day are fairly similar (apart from some odd spikes) for all 7 days of the week, with a big gap from 08:00-14:00 UTC, presumably night/sleep time where he is. Given that, unless they're editing 24 hours a day, or are doing something that I can't work out at all, they're not the same person. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

My suspicions are based on the editors response (or lack of) to comments on their talk pages - the use of a bot which takes the correspondents name and sends a identikit replay (see my diffs above), a habit of not dealing with a bot issue being noted over a number of years, and antagonistic real time responses with the emphasis that as the script is attempting to make edits in accordance with WP policy and thus should not be criticized. I would also note that this is a very long term editor with a low amount of average edits per month - almost certainly a bot - working in the dullest of dull wiki-gnoming areas. Moreover, a bot does not need its operator to be awake while it runs (which might lead to errors not being picked up).

Now, this editor may not be Beta - who was editing 14 years ago, as memory of past reviews serves, but perhaps not under that name - but even if not they need to be reminded what happens to a policy compliant editor who seems unwilling to modify issues with their scripted editing and lack of communication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree that there needs to be a sanction here, whoever they actually are. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is Betacommand, it would be just ... wow. I didn't have that many interactions with him but I certainly read all about him on these noticeboards. FWIW the DanielPenfield account has made plenty of edits on Commons, and they're pretty bot-like too, like this one, say. Graham87 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I am very much out of the loop these days, but I suspect that this place - and this project - still have no authority over Commons. You may need to find both the relevant rules and place to air your concerns over at that project.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct re authority over Commons. I was really only putting that out here for more data points re times of editing, etc. Graham87 05:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Close

Can an uninvolved admin close this? I think it's run its course. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Discussion is ongoing as of today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's ongoing speculation about a connection to Betacommand, but not about the topic ban proposal. I think the topic ban proposal just needs the final signature at this point. Mz7 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1. On 25 Julyopened a merge discussion, at which he is thus far the only supporter. I opposed the merge.
2. Earlier today he implemented his own suggested merge[42][43][44]
3. I reverted on the grounds that in the case of a contested merge an uninvolved closer should determine consensus[45][46][47]
4. Francis restored his own merge nevertheless[48][49][50]
5. I posted to the article talk page in the merge discussion pointing out the guidance at
   WP:MERGECLOSE and requesting that he seek an uninvolved closer at ANRFC[51]
6. Francis has since removed my post not once but twice[52][53]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In case you haven't noticed, as Kudpung states above, "Francis Schonken has a long and troubled history of edit warring and combative behaviour", which includes wikillawyering and gaming the system, so if he doesn't get a specific warning for each specific page, he is liable to claim he wasn't warned if reported at ANEW. Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• (sorry for the strange indenting, but...) What Alex said. It'd have probably been better to Twinkle once, then change the text of the template message to include all three pages instead of having the same text three times with one tiny difference (which, yes, I did notice). ansh666 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have noticed. And I intend to block Francis Schonken if their next edit isn't to provide a valid explanation here reflecting on their editing behaviour. Alex Shih (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I apologise for my behaviour, which was not conducive to find consensus, nor to a better mutual understanding. The merge suggestion set-up (|section=yes is an allowed implementation of the template; !votes are not obligatory) was rather less the problem imho than my actions attempting to bring the procedure to an end, which was what really caused unnecessary controversy: I apologise again for being at the root of that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is disrupting a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Blank infoboxes simply to make some sort of point. He changed the indentation of his post to a bulleted list (asterisk markup) from the surrounding posts, all of which use the normal description list (colon markup). The effect of that on anybody hearing the discussion via a screen reader is something like this:

end description list -- end description item -- end description list
unordered list of one item -- list item: "The authority control ... 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)"
end list item -- end unordered list
description list -- description item: "Commenting out ..."

In other words, it has to unwind the indentation level of the description lists, then start and finish an unordered list and then wind up the levels of the description lists again. It is completely unacceptable as well as unnecessary to subject visually impaired users to that sort of nonsense, and so we have unambiguous guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists: "... improper formatting can also more than triple the length of time it takes them [screen readers] to read the list. Likewise, do not switch between initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) in one list."

Francis has been around long enough to be aware of the problems switching list styles cause to the visually impaired, so I tried to simply correct his switching of list type. He then restored the asterisk markup. So I restored the normal colon markup and drew his attention to the accessibility guideline. Despite having the MOS guidance clearly pointed out to him, he chose to restore the non-compliant asterisk markup, seemingly just to make a point.

He then attempted to justify his position by wiki-lawyering about Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, completely missing the part of TPG that states "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read ... Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment" (my emphasis). The courtesy conventions of not changing other editors' posts carry no weight against the need to keep our content accessible. I contend that Francis has no right to demand that nobody can change his posts from an indentation style that breaches accessibility to one that does.

Nevertheless, I tried one last time to fix the problem with the indentation style and warned Francis that I would raise the issue of his behaviour at ANI if he persisted. His response was to yet again restore the markup that he knows causes problems for the visually impaired. The point has been reinforced by Guy Macon (apologies for pinging you, Guy), but Francis has shown no sign of accepting that his actions are disruptive, breach our accessibility guidelines, and cause noticeable issues for our users who make use of assistive technology.

I think it's time that both we and our visually impaired readers were given a break from Francis' poor behaviour and that steps were taken to ensure that he does not repeat the same behaviour in future. I request administrative action to make sure that happens --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• If they're fucking up the site so visually impaired readers can't contribute, then it's time they were shown the door (and for what it's worth, feel free to fix my post here so it works as you want/need it to). Endorse any sanction upto and including an indefinite block. Nick (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• In discussions all over Wikipedia, there are often combinations of bulleted comments and comments indented with colons. Just look at this page, for example. Use of a flush-left bullet directly under a threaded conversation normally means this is a new idea unrelated to the conversation immediately above. I've never seen anyone take issue with it (heck it is
  WP:TPO, as it changes the meaning of the post. Softlavender (talk
  ) 21:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: Just because lots of editors make posts that cause problems for users of assistive technology doesn't make it right. The problem per se is easy to fix: stick to one style of indenting in discussions, as we have done here. Most editors understand the issues when explained to them and change their bad habits. My complaint is not about an editor mistakenly using markup that breaches our accessibility guidelines; it's about an editor who wilfully and persistently repeats the same breach of our accessibility guidelines multiple times after the issues have been pointed out to them. I've now seen that Francis later also reverted Redrose64 who independently had fixed Francis' markup in that thread. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • RexxS, you violated
      WP:TPO by completely refactoring the format and position of FS's post, thus changing its meaning, and without an edit-summary explanation that would warrant that change. FS changed it back, as he should have, to preserve the meaning and placement of his edit. The fact that a free-for-all edit-war then ensued is really not actionable on FS, unless some sitewide policy is instituted that directs people not to use the standard flush-left bullets when making a new unrelated comment or adding a new unrelated thought. Softlavender (talk
      ) 22:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • This removal broke the threading, and I had to go back to the history to make sure my reply hadn't been moved to become a reply to this comment. Natureium (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • RexxS, I'm a huge fan of promoting, even enforcing accessibility. For me it's been limited to colors and signatures, but I thank you for pointing this out to me (to us). Yes, Softlavender, I've switched too and never thought twice about it; on occasion I "correct" things as well (you know, when the asterisk sequence is broken), and I do sometimes use asterisks in a coloned discussion for emphasis. But now that I know, I am going to be much more careful, and I want to thank Rexx also for the translated code; now I understand it better. As for Schonken--well, if I'd done what they did, and you'd revert me and put the link there and an explanation, I would accept it. That they don't is a mystery to me. I can't judge right now if all the proper steps were taken (Softlavender says there was no edit summary the first time, and that's important), but what I can say is that I fully support the principle. And I also support us admins enforcing accessibility--though I realize many of us probably need to learn what that means, with yours truly certainly being one of them. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've gotten into edit wars over this exact same issue on more than occasion, I've used :* and * in all of the years I've been here and continue to do so to this day ... Not because I'm being awkward ... but because that's what I've been used to using for the past 5-6 years ...., Not really sure on a way forward but blocking or sanctioning is certainly not the solution, This whole issue varies from editor to editor really, Maybe an RFC would be best ? dunno. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: But if multiple other editors point out to you the accessibility problems that switching indent styles causes and fixes the markup, do you then insist on restoring your version five times? I really hope not. I disagree with your suggestion: surely we don't need an RfC to confirm our accessibility guidelines? There would be no point in having any policies and guidelines if we had to have an RfC every time somebody breached them. --RexxS (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't believe I restored it five times but I certainly would've said it was 3 or 4 times certainly, Funnily enough I wondered the exact same after posting that suggestion .... As I said all editors are different and all have their ways of editing so maybe an RFC on deprecating :* and * in favour of more accessible ways would be better ? .... That still might sound dumb but as I said we all have our ways good or bad, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I always try to match the existing thread so the layout is consistent and easy for people to follow. I don't understand why someone would wilfully choose to break the layout consistency particularly when they've been informed it makes WP inaccessible for those who have accessibility issues and rely on things like screen readers. It's trivial for us, for anybody who uses a screen viewer, it's shutting off a discussion or a page. If people went around blanking whole sections of talk pages, they would get a block bloody quickly for disruption - I do think we need to be as radical with behaviour which breaks accessibility software, but only AFTER its explained to them. Nick (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I thought that this was generally handled by copying whatever the other replies to a post are. If it starts off with bulleted replies, follow suit. Ditto for colons. I haven't been able to find any rhyme or reason other than this. Natureium (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • FS wasn't replying to anyone, he was making a new unrelated comment. Therefore he used a flush-left bullet, which is standard for that. Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Does it matter if you're replying to a specific person or giving your general thought in reply to the topic? It still makes sense to just go with whatever has been used before you, although I don't think it's anything worth edit warring over. Natureium (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am pretty confident nearly every editor has responded on a talk page style discussion (which VPT fall under) with the "wrong" indentation marks, so let's not bite FS on this issue. I do agree editing warring to keep what style you want when another editor has changed it in trying to harmonize the discussion, particularly if that change is meant to help follow the various threads, is a problem. As long as it is not changing the level of indenting so its still clear what the reply is to, that should be a non-controversial change of another's talk page comment, and making a big deal about it is a problem. --Masem (t) 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Schonken has no leg to stand on here. Regardless of one's opinion about switching to bullets mid-discussion, he had zero support against four established editors (me, RexxS, Redrose64, Guy Macon) telling him he was wrong—and pointing to the applicable PAGs. This is Schonken removing my don't-template-the-regulars reasoning on his TP without a response. That's the behavior of an editor who does not wish to edit as an actual member of the community, and in my view unacceptable from an editor with more than a year or two of experience. I support any admin action. Softlavender, the appropriate place to challenge long-existing behavior guidelines is not in ANI complaints. I'm quite confident you've known what the guidelines said for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason you've switched from bullets to an indention mid-discussion? Natureium (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Scroll up. This discussion started without bullets. Per guidelines, all bullets in this discussion should be removed. If I bulleted, I would be adding to the problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick made the first comment with a bullet, establishing the style. (RexxS posted the original discussion). This is why I say I'm confident every editor has made this "mistake" and thus biting FS on that aspect only makes no sense. It's the fighting to retain the error that is a problem. --Masem (t) 22:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is biting FS for making the initial mistake. We are strongly objecting to his behavior following the initial mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The only policy FS violated was edit-warring, and edit-warring reports belong at
  WP:TPO by refactoring FS's post in a way that changed its placement to look like a reply to the post above, without permission and without explanation. Those are the only two PAG violations I see in this entire matter. Softlavender (talk
  ) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would likely support a proposal to change
  WP:TPO (and/or some other explanatory guideline text) to allow for modifying other people's comments to retain a single indentation style. For now, however, I don't think we have any requirement. Doing something repeatedly after you've been told it negatively affects the experience of people using screen readers may make someone insensitive (at the mild end), but it's not, at this point, a blockable/sanctionable offense to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk
  \\ 00:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  I am considering suggesting the above change at

  WP:TPOC. If anyone is interested in helping -- or wants to talk me out of it -- please start a conversation on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk

  ) 01:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  WP:CREEP. -- Softlavender (talk

  ) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  You should know better than to label a fellow editor a creep. EEng 02:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  Hell no. EEng 02:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If some feel the existing language at

WP:VPP). Simply claiming that such a consensus exists without being able to show it, while multiple established editors are disputing that claim, is not constructive. Barring such a public discussion, the reasonable default assumption is that the longstanding guideline reflects community consensus, as guidelines are supposed to do. ―Mandruss ☎

02:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a rule about this. If you feel strongly about someone's bulleting/indenting, fix it, but if they undo it, they must feel similarly strongly (or are just being obstinate, though it doesn't really matter which one), and you shouldn't try to redo a "helpful correction" if it's been undone. I can't imagine many people are going to feel strongly enough to undo someone correcting their format, but this isn't something worth starting an edit war over. Natureium (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:IJDLI, we need to articulate a cogent reason for the things we do or the positions we take, and not all arguments are created equal (if they were, we could just skip the arguments and vote). ―Mandruss ☎

22:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)