Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below." (Referencing this by Legacypac), "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it.") Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source" I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much. I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since. Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content. Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations. This is becoming extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [1] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC) While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[2][3][4] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ... I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a ^{[better source needed]} tag.[reply]

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", "PMO scandal", "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots). Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun—in fact, two thirds of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ("Lavscam": 4940 hits, '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits). To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source. I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

"I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin. Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [5] [6][7][8][9]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[10][11][12] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [13], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the {{Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)

We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).

Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[14][15][16] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.

So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.

Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:

DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."

CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."

DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."

CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that"

DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)

CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."

DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)

Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":

CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader."

Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose against its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Kerrigan has continued today with the exact some behaviour on the exact same subject:

DK: "Curly Turkey, has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above."

Continuing to make this claim even after I've highlighted it here suggests strongly it is a deliberate provocation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? You said and I quote LavScam should appear in the lede "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair — per WP:WEIGHT... The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally - or more - used terms". You are clearly referring to the possible use of other terms (admittedly you then dismiss your own suggestion). BUT saying you never proposed it now is nothing but an outright lie. You are being dishonest and disruptive and need to be put down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call them lies all you want—the diffs and quotes are right here for everyone to see. You've also quoted me out of context (and without a diff)—here's the diff and the parts of the quote you left out: "Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out." As I stated above, I later ammended this to "No—after doing further research and discovering "LAvScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of available sources—and that two thirds of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT." At no point did I ever "propose" including such a list, and you've provided no evidence to suggest I have. You have provided your own evidence of how you misrepresent my statements, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this do you not get? You "proposed" as in "suggested" as in "said" other terms should be used in the article to balance weight. Then you said, you thought there would be too many terms, so you didn't want to try. Then we argued about what terms you even ever suggested. You are always talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have a problem man.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have "proposed", "suggested", and "said" explicitly that no such list should be included in the lead, from my first comment on the subject to the last; I've demonstrated so with diffs here, and you've provided none to contradict them. Thank you for demonstrating more WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:IDHT and now clear attempts to wikilawyer your way out of this. Do you deny that you originally said that you opposed the inclusion of the term LavScam unless other terms were used? Do you deny that you were attempting to create the inclusion of "other" terms as a precondition? Do you deny that you then said your preference was for no additional terms (despite trying to create that as a precondition)? And then do you deny refusing to spell out exactly which terms you thought ought to be included to satisfy your precondition? Do you deny refusing to offer any reliable sources on that question (google screen shots don't count)? I get it; you later changed your story to object because based on no evidence you think the term is used in few articles. You take this position ignoring the numerous reliable souces (from a diverse mix of news agencies) listed on the talk page which refer to the scandal as LavScam. Do you really not see why I (and others) have formed the view you are not acting in good faith and are attempting to disrupt the article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

"based on no evidence"—I've provided the evidence multiple times on this very page: first in my initial statement, and here again today. You've seen these figures more than once at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, too. I've responded to all of the rest of your comment repeatedly, and have provided diffs to back up my statements. Are you trying to build a case against yourself with this WP:IDHT? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI -- I have restored this matter as Safrolic did previously, as this matter is not yet resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curly turkey still not listening and still agenda pushing. The RFC on LavScam strongly supports inclusion which shows how Curly is out to lunch on this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've demonstrated Legacypac's right-wing agenda (with diffs) above—Legacypac can't even name whatever agenda it is I'm supposed to be pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of Legacypac POV-pushing and denying evidence—denying the very existence of evidence: "The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence." I've already provided the evidence both here and multiple times on that talk page, but here it is again: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. Two-thirds of hits for "LavScam" are from torontosun.com 4940 "Lavscam" vs only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is Legacypac going to accuse me of having an "agenda" in one day?: "Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted."

Again—what "agenda"? Why can't Legacypac name it, or provide diffs to support it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for (some sort of) closure

This thread seems to have been "live" for quite some time, with little or no admin input (apologies if I've missed it). Please can someone review in the next 24-48 hrs and close/action as needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Curly's piece about LegacyPac may be irrelevant now that he's been indef'd for unrelated personal attacks. My piece is still active though, and I'd really appreciate someone else stepping in. Safrolic (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac may have been the worst and most blatant offender, but a heaping helping of the rest of the evidence I've provided relates to other users' disruptive behaviour and sourcing policy violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Safrolic. Things have not improved. Curly is disruptive and action is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bumped thread. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I see is two editors at the top of this thread making rather hand-wavy, generalized accusations of "disruption" with very little diff support (which mostly shows irritation, and I think we're all clear that CT is toward the curmudgeonly side – I am too, so that's not much of a criticism). On the other hand, CT has laid out an extensively diffed case that a bunch of rather recent arrivals are skirting WP:CCPOL to engage in a WP:CIVILPOV pattern, a view supported by other editors with similar concerns. Those demanding a formal close instead of letting this archive away without one should "be careful what they wish for" as the saying goes. With one of the key participants indeffed, it seems likely that the dynamic will change. For his part, CT could try to be a bit less testy and more responsive at the article's talk page (i.e., take advantage of the altered playing field).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note I have linked to this thread from Administrators' noticeboard. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

In 11+ years editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure I've ever posted here. This is not a page I watchlist, so I'm not very familiar with how to present your case, but I'm asking for help from other editors regarding User:Graywalls. This editor registered in September 2018, starting with the Mook (graffiti artist), Cope2, Glossary of graffiti, Graffiti in the United States, Graffiti, Cornbread (graffiti artist), and John Fekner pages. They moved on to articles related to Oregon, Portland, and homelessness:

Also, starting with Hawks PDX, they seemed to focus on LGBT-related content about Portland:

Hounding

Our paths crossed in March when we disagreed over merging Homelessness in Oregon into Homelessness in the United States by state. After this interaction, the editor started focusing on me and my work: Right 2 Dream Too, Turf War (Banksy) (nominated for deletion and kept), Hawks PDX, CC Slaughters, No Vacancy Lounge, Nostrana (restaurant) (since promoted to Good article status), Escape Nightclub, LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Holocene (Portland, Oregon), etc.

• Allegation disputed: Those articles are connected through neighborhood, category and sometimes overlap in categories within a certain article leads to propagation. If article A is included in "category A" in which I find article B, and I find a similar pattern in articles within category A, you having edited on them or having created them shouldn't be used to invoke hounding allegation to avoid me from, to put it in your own word you used in the last few days "tampering". Graywalls (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly 2 months now, I've logged in to Wikipedia to see pings, talk page notes, and watchlist diffs from this editor, and they've been occupying a tremendous amount of my time and energy, not to mention the elevated stress levels. Following is a brief overview of content they've worked to remove (sometimes successfully, but with an unnecessary community cost, and sometimes not) -- I've collapsed some content for easier browsing by uninterested editors:

All of the above is simply to say this editor and I have interacted on many articles. I'll give a new editor a pass for inappropriately nominating a few articles for speedy deletion, or flagging for AfD, but they are continuing to target articles I've created even after demonstrating they have a less than stellar judgement of notability and source appropriateness, and they don't seem to care about wasting volunteer time (insisting on deleting over redirecting when the latter is totally appropriate).

I've spent a significant amount of time rescuing multiple speedy deleted articles and expanding multiple recently-AfD'd articles, and I've asked Graywalls to simply try redirecting and/or posting their concerns on talk pages before going straight to AfD. I can't keep dropping whatever I'm doing to clean up after them, and I'd rather be spending my volunteer time improving the project in other ways. I should note, Graywalls was asked to stop hounding me by Reywas92.

Behavior

I wish hounding were the only problem, but actually that's my lesser concern. User:Tedder posted a note on their talk page about their behavior back in early April, but unfortunately, their behavior has continued to be combative, obstructive, and generally disruptive. Following are just a few talk pages demonstrating their feet dragging, preference to keep tags over addressing simple problems, unwilling to compromise, ignoring consensus, and edit warring: Talk:Embers Avenue, Talk:Outside In (organization), Talk:CC Slaughters, Talk:Hawks PDX, Talk:Club Portland, Talk:No Vacancy Lounge (currently awaiting 3O response), Talk:LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Talk:Holocene (Portland, Oregon), Talk:Street Roots, etc. I could go on and on.

Now, I fully admit, I'm sure Graywalls can and will provide some evidence that I've also behaved inappropriately, or point to some editorial disputes where they are actually correct and I am wrong w/r/t policy interpretation. I'm not suggesting everything I want is right and everything they want is wrong -- in fact, many times I've tried to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on discussions because I thought third opinions would be helpful. I've been subjected to relentless poking for many weeks now, and my interactions with this editor have been incredibly frustrating. Just getting the editor to agree to allowing "c. 2012" to a business article's infobox was excruciating, and wasted a lot of volunteer time. I've tried hard not to edit war, but at the same time, sometimes I feel like I'm fighting a vandal/troll. I do apologize if I've been overly aggressive, but again, I've never encountered this much obstruction and resistance in a decade of editing. I've probably not done a good job summarizing our interactions, but I can definitely say being on the receiving end has been very unpleasant, and I would not wish this on any Wikipedia editor. Hard to describe, but their pokes often seemed retaliatory -- if I replied unfavorably on one talk page, they'd start a new one on a related page, or reignite a past discussion elsewhere.

In short, I will own up to any of my behavioral mistakes, but I feel justified in bringing this problem to other editors. Simply put, I cannot continue to engage with this editor, and I don't contribute to Wikipedia to work with such disruption. I am clearly not alone in my frustration. I am bringing my concerns to the administrator noticeboard because I don't know what else to do. Below I've created a list of articles they've worked on, which can be used or ignored to trace some of their edits.

Discussion

I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I've created a list of articles I think might need a little scrutiny:

I invite other editors to please share their experiences, if they feel inclined. @AHampton, Kbabej, Peteforsyth, and Reywas92: I've observed some of your interactions with this editor on various talk pages, and wonder if you'd care to add any comments or concerns. I'm sure Graywalls will deem this a cherry-picked list, and that's fine, they are welcome to invite whomever they'd like to this discussion. I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, but I stand by the vast majority of my edits.

I'd like to think my edits to Wikipedia over the years demonstrate a clear net positive contribution to the project, and an enthusiasm for the movement in general. I've been struggling to assume good faith with Graywalls for a while now, so I'm putting them on others' radar so I don't have to worry about this any longer. Even if no action is taken, I feel better going on the record and identifying my concerns. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am not one bit surprised to see this posting. I think it's unfortunate Graywalls has chosen Another Believer to focus on, for whatever reason, but it beggars belief Graywalls is just happening across articles AB has created or heavily edited. Graywalls stated on their talk page, "They just all happen to be his." That, frankly, is unbelievable. Instead, Graywalls has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING AB since early March, posting WP:DRIVEBYTAGs on articles, adding questionable content (see this discussion), or nominating many articles for deletion (covered above in AB's post). AB is not the only one to notice this behavior, either. Tedder stated "I've seen a pattern of editing that comes off as disruptive, hostile, or prickly." I would second that statement with the caveat I don't think it's just "prickly" behavior; with Graywall's unusually adept WP editing (for such a new account), they are choosing to be intentionally hostile. Indeed, some of their edits (example here) come across as deliberately trying to provoke. I think AB did an appropriate job of laying out examples above, so I don't see the need to get into even more of those. What I would like to point out is that AB has been a consistent and dedicated volunteer for years; I don't think he would come to this noticeboard lightly (nor should people). But it is warranted. --Kbabej (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This interaction report, where one of the parties has only about 1600 edits and most of the edits are separated by seconds/minutes, makes it awfully hard to frame this as anything other than hounding. Is it possible this could be resolved as simply as this recommendation? - Graywalls, please don't follow AB's edits. If you continue, something like a one-way interaction ban is possible, and that's always a hassle that's best avoided when possible. So maybe take a voluntary step back, realizing that hounding can have a negative impact on a fellow community member, regardless of good intentions? There are a whole lot of articles AB has not been a major contributor to that could use your attention, after all. :) This isn't to say you haven't raised any valid points, but unless a user shows a clear pattern of unambiguously problematic edits, following their edits isn't ok. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls responding to Another Believer's allegations

My interest focuses on topics, as well as things in my area. Articles touched or created by Another Believer substantially overlaps. With the number of edits made by AB, the prevalence of articles in Portland area having been touched by him is very high. The probability of articles having characteristics that is of my interest having been touched by him should be considered. I disagree with the allegation of hounding and you can see from my edits that I don't interact with his articles outside of my area. Hounding would be following after a particular editor; rather than topic. When the number of articles that have been touched or created by a certain editor is disproportionately high, the probability of overlapping is correspondingly high. I follow articles through things that branch from articles and categories in which they're listed. I agree with other concerns on politeness and respectful interaction brought up by tedder and I have been conscious and aware to maintain politeness. Part of the reason where my AfD significantly overlaps his creation relates to the fact many of the articles, such as those on a bunch of bars, taverns, restaurants and clubs have been created by him; as well as much of "establishments" listed in the neighborhood categories.
After reading news stories like these, I've been watching different debates, discussion, noticeboard talks which is how I am familiar to processses. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/bnppw4/wikipedias-co-founder-is-wikipedias-biggest-critic-511 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwpqmn/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia

Interacting with AB, regardless of his other involvements, I'm getting the impression as he's lording over anything he's created or contributed as if he's claiming an implicit ownership. It's outrageous he's listed essentially every article I have worked on as "might need a little scrutiny". I'm beginning to feel some of his interactions are not in good faith, but rather to get his way anyway he can, such as very directly asking people in AfD who comment in contrary to his desired input if "they'd mind changing their vote"; and asking other users very directly "making very specific edits", admin shopping and airing out charged allegations against me with loaded language in disparaging way, specifically framing me as the problem onto WikiProjects page, and on other users talk page who have shown any sign of sympathethy with him. Following the "admin shopping" discussion, it was suggested to me by Ritchie333 to use AfD to nominate questionable articles for deletion; and I don't nominate them because they are AB, I nominate them, because I believe they are run of the mill local venues. AB admitted stacking up sources after AfD has been nominated to save the article; which I see as disruptive, because loading up the article with a bunch of calendar events can significantly add work load on AfD participants and hinder transparency into lack of the article's true notability.

When disputes arise, he has a tendency to "ping" specific editors he's already familiar and after seeing those users interaction on matters that relate to us, I've come to an opinion that these people are likely to side with him. He's not heeded advise from 3rd opinion here that Wikiprojects are not the best forum for editorial disputes. The interaction here referencing another editor's voice expressing concerns about his article points that there has been issues concerning his edits long before I was even on the map. arguing with every opponent on clearly questionable notability entries. [17] this one AB cited in his complaining statement involves a self-promo/puppets. My use of 3rdOnion has been a way of trying to obtain fair consensus. perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements.

Graywalls (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple - if you find yourself constantly editing the same articles as someone else, find a way to work with them in a collegial manner. AB was there first, and he's a generally polite person. Your comments towards him have a tendency to be snarky and rude. Can you commit to being polite?

The point is that whatever your intent, you're making the editing process for AB stressful. It looks like HOUNDING. What are you willing to do to change that? Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As are his towards mine. I have been being mindful to avoid making snarks. I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. I didn't think order of arrival made a difference. After all, if that played a role, then he'd been grandfathered over others in a ton of articles. Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep implying I'm being paid for my contributions to Wikipedia, which I don't appreciate. You've also nominated several articles for so-called "run of the mill" venues, which were kept by the Wikipedia community, so perhaps you need to change your definition of "run of the mill". Also, there's nothing wrong with expanding an article after a deletion nomination, in an attempt to demonstrate notability. You seemed upset when I expanded a couple articles you nominated for deletion, which is odd -- most editors would say, "thanks!" and move on to other things. I don't claim ownership of any article(s), but I sure don't like them being tampered with or flagged for deletion unnecessarily. Regarding "admin shopping" -- we've already been over this. I was not threatening Deb, I was merely starting with them for help as the deleting admin, but I'd go to someone else for help if they were not willing to assist. What's wrong about this? I was just asking for help restoring a page into the draft space, which I felt was improperly deleted. This is not controversial or against policy. Yes, I've pinged specific editors on specific talk pages based on their editing histories and work on related articles. I don't expect editors to agree with me just because I've invited them to a discussion. Also, I won't apologize for asking AfD participants if they'd be willing to change their vote from delete to redirect, when redirecting is a solid option. I'm very tired of explaining myself and many of my edits to you. After the comments above, your suggestion is to take away my autopatrolled status? Give me a break. I've written almost 100 Good articles, several of which are specifically about Portland restaurants, local history and culture, public artwork, and other venues. I think I have a decent understanding of appropriate sourcing and notability criteria. I could easily go through your edits and cherry-pick tons of problematic diffs, but I'd rather we focus on the big picture here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did in the past said I believed you might be a paid editor, but didn't believe it was frowned upon. It has not happened after but you continue to charge that I'm "keep implying". I don't know where your referencing to "threatening Deb" is coming from. I was referencing your comment that looks like you are admin shopping which to me looks like you'll just keep looking until you find one that will give you what you want. Changes you do not like referenced as "tampering" sure sounds like snarky way to exhibit territory of a sort; and referring to your own edits as "contribution" and referring to mine or others you don't agree as "tampering" is the big picture of the comment I left on your page regarding dismissive comments.

@Deb:. I am wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on "concerns from others" you referenced here?

Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I don't remember exactly now. I might have been thinking of this or this. Deb (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? User:Muboshgu retracted the warning and has since encouraged me to apply for administrator status. The interaction with Ss112 was just about creating new pages in the draft space vs. expanding existing redirects. Not really related to this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said "might have been". What you're doing now is exactly what you were doing in our previous interaction and I'm not going to be led down the garden path again. Deb (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I acknowledge you said "might have been", and I was just explaining those interactions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, Admin shopping, threatening, whatever. You're saying I was wrong to ask an editor who deleted a page if they'd be willing to restore. If Deb was unwilling to restore, then I would have gone to someone else. Getting a page restored is not a problem, and the page was properly restored. You're focusing on a very specific case when there's clearly a much larger issue here. Knowing your M.O., I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here. I will just let others take over from here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to not have to interact with AB and I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff. Given the sheer quantity of his stuff, it would basically cripple me from being able to participate on Portland stuff. Since his articles are everywhere, perhaps and about a lot of other things, perhaps I could avoid him outside of Portland area/art stuff, and he could just avoid this area/subject.Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Knowing your M.O", does it surprise you that a pattern of comments like this reinforces me to develop a doubt about good faith? You, the complainant started this grievance and "I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here." seems like a line to avoid having to provide a detailed explanation. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is a kind of stalking, but Graywalls probably believes it falls into the category of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which is allowed; this isn't black and white. It's hard to understand how someone who's been here as long as User:Another Believer has can be so insensitive to the annoyance caused by repeatedly asking questions to buy time in order to avoid having to answer straight questions like this quite reasonable one from another user. I certainly felt harassed by Another Believer on 12 March, when he bombarded me with follow-ups in order to get this draft, which he hasn't touched since 14 March. I would suggest that User:Graywalls stays away from future interaction, for the sake of his own sanity. Deb (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, You'd need to lay out a case for 'harassment' w/r/t getting the draft page restored. But, for the record, I do apologize if I came across too aggressive, truly. I haven't touched the March 14 draft because I've been a little occupied, and there's no requirement I work on the draft immediately. I've also been working on other pages (drafts and live articles) nominated for deletion by Graywalls, so that's been a major distraction. I merely wanted the original markup restored, which is not a problem. And, I totally agree, I would also suggest Graywalls stay away. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets deleted, so what? I don't nominate things for deletion because of who created them. Things I have nominated for deletion are based on contents concern, promotional (for example, authored by the article subject, or its owner, executive director, etc. Even if something has been G11'd as promotional, it doesn't preclude others from re-creating the same article if it isn't substantially similar. Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believed a page was wrongfully speedy deleted, and I asked for its restoration. I believe the topic is notable, and I'll expand the draft at some point in the future. I'm glad the original markup has been restored, so I don't have to start from scratch. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would indeed suggest we should avoid interacting, but not at the expense that I have to avoid pages in Portland area solely because they have been touched/created by you. I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area; and I don't interact with articles outside these criteria that you have worked on. Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I'm glad you're open to avoiding me, but why are you bringing up art articles? We've been discussing Oregon, Portland, homelessness, and LGBT-related content. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It overlaps with the area of topic you brought up in the opening sentence of your complaint. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I was just noting your initial edits to the project. I do not watchlist these pages, nor am I particularly interested in graffiti. I write a lot about public art and sculpture, so thanks for clarifying. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several patterns of behavior that are interesting- and certainly graywalls can't claim ignorance to rules, they have come into editing over the past year showing substantial knowledge of how things work. And yet.. the patterns are there. Seemingly coincidental editing of articles, accusations of "admin shopping" and "pinging other editors to maintain ownership" come up over and over again. Congrats on having boorish behavior that stops just short of going over the line, I guess. tedder (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do pickup a lot from reading a lot of conflicts that goes on here. I've been doing plenty of lurking. With my disputes intensifying with AB, I have been finding myself having to rely more and more on argument based on policies. The guidelines here says AfD arguments that appeal to policies are good. When I do that you say I'm "lawyering". I actually concur with you on the need to remain polite for the sake of maintaining peace around other editors and duly noted. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• AFAICT, in each case above, Another Believer is the first editor and Graywalls is the second. I found no cases in which G was the first editor and AB was the second. In almost all cases, G is also the last editor. Meaning, the pattern is usually AB->G, or AB->G->AB->G, rarely AB->G->AB, and never G->AB or G->AB->G->AB. 8 out of 11 of G's AfD noms are of articles created by AB. Leviv ich 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd look carefully at the dates, though; in many cases there's a year or more between AB's first group of edits and G's first. Deb (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, indeed, my impression is that this is true in most cases. I image this can easily happen when a new editor enters a niche area where there's already been a prolific editor editing before. "Second editor" in and of itself doesn't mean much. What made me raise an eyebrow is the prevalent pattern of AB->G or AB->G->AB->G, but not AB->G->AB, which suggests G continues to edit so long as AB edits, but once AB stops, G stops. The other thing that sticks out is that it's been like this for almost two months straight. I cannot imagine that G was not aware that they've been editing and nominating for deletion so many articles that were created by or primarily edited by AB. I can understand significant incidental overlap; I can't understanding not noticing this much overlap after this much time. Although nobody "owns" articles, at some point, one must realize they are effectively "hounding", even if it's unintentional, and if it is unintentional, one usually stops, even if they don't have to. Graywalls' comment above (I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff) is kind of funny because the only place they've interacted is in Portland metro area stuff. Leviv ich 18:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with that, but the area where they have interacted is - as you pointed out - the area where AB is complaining about G's edits. If that's the case, then perhaps the problem is not as widespread as is being suggested. G is presumably watching this particular set of articles and it's ringing alarm bells with him when he sees AB editing them. Deb (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich (talk · contribs), gosh, given how prolific he is, then things in Portland having been touched by him at some point in the past is really likely high. I don't choose what to edit based on whose touched the article. After you posted your analysis, I decided to conduct a quick investigation on my own. Pride Northwest This is something I came upon from branching off from articles and categories. It appeared promotional ish to me and I start working on it. AB came rushing to it an hour and half later. How long ago did he work on it before me? Some 14 months ago. This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue. Outside In I start working on it... Another Believer comes rushing a short while later... This too was found to be suspected undisclosed paid editing / connected contributor Street Roots I work on it.. AB comes rushing after the same day. This too is possible UDPE. Bud Clark I edit... AB comes rushing after the same day. So, seriously, who's following who now with the timing of matter taken into context? It's pretty ridiculous to keep AB in the loop simply from having touched it at sometime in the distant past. Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Bud Clark. Sequence: GW-> AB (1hr 58 minutes later) ->GW. (if one is going to be include "touched at some point", then AW precedes me by an edit that occurred four years ago). I'm the one who feels getting followed around. Graywalls (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, have you ever interacted with Another Believer under a prior account, as an IP, or otherwise, before your interactions with this account? Leviv ich 04:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not. Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't surprise me. Given that he's been on here for years (and I've been here a few months) his extremely high level of activity and the strong overlap in the area of interest, it's unsurprising he's already tread on them first. Had his activity not been so prolific and there's a pattern that my edits follow him, rather than topics, I think that makes for hounding. I'd also guess that his participation here is probably at the upper few percentile range. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neighborhoods_in_Portland,_Oregon. Go into a neighborhood, then pick an article within a neighborhood. The probability of running into an AB touched article is extremely high. Pretty much the same with a lot of Oregon related topics. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Levivich, This is super helpful, thanks for sharing. You have a point, Graywalls, but I'm not worried about the articles I've edited minimally. You're not owning up to your actions fully, but you've clearly targeted articles I've worked on more substantially, and your pokes feel retaliatory even if that's not your intention. Also, you've wasted significant community time by going against consensus, dragging out discussions way longer than necessary, and going straight to AfD when redirecting was entirely appropriate. Only World Famous Kenton Club has been deleted, and even that article should probably exist, hence why I'm working in the draft space on a new entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• what you call "consensus" is moot as you often appoint yourself to arbitrate the consensus and declare "consensus has been reached" on something you're a party to the dispute; and you have used something like "3 agree with AB, 2 agree with GW, therefore consensus is with AB" but I feel that you're knowingly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEFINECONSENSUS by counting numbers and emphasizing votes and disregarding argument presented and their validity in scope of guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Graywalls, Please. When 3 people say they don't like your image, and you keep adding it back to an article, that's going against consensus. I can point to other examples. You throw around abbreviations, acronyms, and policy pages often, but still seem to ignore editors' preferences. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• this is the example I had in mind. I call there was no "clear" consensus but you or I, as someone involved would be inherently biased in the determination; and this is not the only example of where you help yourself to the podium and arbitrate a concern you're involved in. I suggested 3-O or RfC(well after additional editors have become involved), but you were apprehensive to that. I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side. "WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race." and after having personally seein Jonesey95 show sympathetic to your POV but I've not seen you invite Deb along even though she's been involved in a dialogue that involved both you and Joesey95 at the same time. Do you see me as combative with 3PO comments? One suggested advert tag wasn't warranted and something more appropriate should be used. They said they probably wouldn't use it, but it was more appropriate than the advert. (re: bithouse). Graywalls (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Graywalls, You're grasping, and you can interpret this as me being unwilling to go into detail about specific editorial disputes if you want, but I don't feel a need to reply here. I will respond to other editors, but I'm tired of rehashing everything to you all the time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How about you both agree not to edit any articles on Oregon for the next, say, six months? You never know, you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic. :-) Deb (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deb, That's absolutely not something I'd agree to voluntarily. First of all, I edit articles about plenty of other topics, but why should I stop editing articles about Oregon? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because those are the ones you are having the issues with. Deb (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deb, Obviously, but why should I be punished or restricted from editing certain topics? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was suggesting a voluntary topic ban for a temporary period to allow you both time to cool down and forget your differences. If either of you objects, it may appear that you have ownership issues with these articles. Deb (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No ownership issues, but I came here to identify a problematic editor, not to voluntarily stop editing articles about specific topics. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Deb, I don't think that suggestion is realistic. The issue here is GW is hounding and harassing AB. Why should AB be punished for GW's behavior? Also, not readily jumping to agree to your suggestion = ownership issues? That's a false dichotomy. --Kbabej (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Even if it were reasonable at a base level, 6 months is what we'd do for a sanctionable TBAN - it's insanely OTT. I personally am against it basically at all. Other than both parties not participating in it during the course of the ANI discussion, I feel it is unfair punishment of the innocent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary Break

Even though Reywas92 doesn't agree with the interactions that have gone on between us, he does share common point with me over the underlying issue about notability concerns. For as long as Another Believer has been here, he should have a good idea of notability requirements. If he feels I'm "hounding" because of AfDs and there are some comments in AfDs suggesting obvious concerns in common with my concern about articles on run of the mill places. There's bound ot be slight disagreements in the grey area, but there shouldn't be such a drastic idea as to what should be notable. If AfD ends up in "no consensus" that is not an indication that it wasn't called for.

AfD on Oregon Bears perhaps he ought to consider the absurdity of creating a bunch of pages on local dive bars, restaurants, every gay gar in town and so on. The fact our clash don't extend past the Portland area articles and comments in the AfD above is an indication that churning out pages on venues that likely won't meet notability is a major part of problem. By not creating those questionable articles, the amount of volunteer time that has to be spent dealing with them would be cut. I've already made commitment to politeness, however I admit to no wrong doing in nominating articles on legitimate notability ground. Having his autopatrol removed would help those articles go through review scrutiny and avoid having them become a point of concern in the first place. This AfD was not nominated by me, yet for the exact same reason that have got me to AfD such similar articles is an indication that I'm not selectively nominating them, because of who created the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sullivan%27s_Gulch_Bar_%26_Grill Graywalls (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Oregon Bears and Sullivan's Gulch Bar and Grill just needed to be redirected to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, plain and simple. Or you could have raised your concerns on the articles' talk pages. I wouldn't have put up a fight for either. You're still focusing on specific editorial disputes and what you deem to be "absurd" topics like restaurants, gay bars, etc, which you think "likely won't meet notability". What you're failing to recognize is that most of the articles you've nominated for deletion have been kept by the community, after editors looked into sourcing, or redirected because the topics deserved coverage in some form and the pages served a purpose. I've created many quality articles about local gay bars and restaurants: Lutz Tavern, Nostrana (restaurant), Red Cap Garage, Rimsky-Korsakoffee House, Starky's, Three Sisters Tavern, etc. For you to suggest I have no idea what I'm doing w/r/t notability of local establishments is unfair. Sure, maybe I've created some stubs that should be redirected or deleted, but I don't think you're helping the project by questioning notability of every local thing you deem "absurd" or "run-of-the-mill". You're taking an unnecessary toll on the community. And, sorry to say, you're still focusing on notability here and not your behavior, specifically feet dragging, consensus ignoring, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the CC Slaughters talk. I'm questioning the rationality, in general, of what you declare "consensus". Graywalls (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss specific editorial disputes here. That's a distraction from the larger issue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to end this

I made a suggestion above that both contributors take a voluntary break from the articles on which they interact. (This wouldn't of course stop User:Another Believer from working on drafts like the one that was so urgent on 12 March that it had to be created immediately but which he hasn't bothered with for several weeks.)

AB has indicated that he's not willing to take any break because he wants User:Graywalls to be punished. G hasn't said whether he's prepared to take a break. A few other people have been quick to disagree with my initial proposal but no one has suggested an alternative. If neither of the antagonists is willing to consider this compromise, I suggest this report be closed because it's just wasting everyone's time repeating arguments they've already had on their talk pages. Deb (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wanting to get into an adversarial terms with you; but six months of avoiding the only area of articles I work on is excessive. Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist. From what it sounds like. I don't see this grievance was made in a good faith given inflammatory language like "vandal", "troll", "tampering" that in general expressing diminutive and marginalizing contributions he disagrees with. Despite acknowledging he's been too aggressive at times, such actions don't show any willingness to make changes; while I have agreed to; and have been trying to maintain politeness which can be seen in the more recent edits. Listing out essentially every single page I have worked on and framing it as "articles possibly needing scrutiny" doesn't suggest he's trying to resolve problems rather than to project blames. Graywalls (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six months was a suggestion, not a command. Three months would be fine. Deb (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comment on the alternative I just proposed before you replied? Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a practical alternative. There are other areas you can work on as well. Deb (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't come here to "punish" Graywalls. I came to identify a problem. And now Deb is suggesting we both stop working in a topic area, and Graywalls has suggested I stop working on Oregon articles while they be allowed to continue working on Oregon articles? What planet am I living on? I came here to report harassment, and if the community is not going to take this seriously, then I am quite bothered and disappointed. I've made my concerns known. Graywalls, you've not really owned up to your actions or volunteered to back off, but you seem to acknowledge some behavioral changes are needed. If we need to end this discussion, fine. But you need to know, editors are watching you carefully, and if you continue to drag your feet, ignore consensus, and act in a retaliatory fashion, I will report you immediately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things this omits, and is especially evident both here and on AfDs, is what Levivich reported on for interaction patterns. It's hard to articulate how problematic it is when *every* response by *every* editor is responded to and challenged by the same person. This is asymmetric behavior, not "both of you are equally at fault". tedder (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion. I also believe that AB has aggravated the problem by his own insistence on having the last word. I've now made a constructive suggestion to end the problematic behaviour and you haven't come up with an alternative as yet. If you have a proposal, please make it so that others can approve or reject it. Deb (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused how AB is having the last word when Levivich's data shows that's entirely inverted. I'm not saying I have the right answer, but it's a bit of a fallacy to exclude opinions that don't have a better plan. tedder (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder, I was a bit confused by this as well. I actually feel like I walked away plenty of times because Graywalls had to have the last word. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience of you, User:Another Believer, is that you like to have the last word - and you've just proved it - and will hang on indefinitely in order to get your own way. User:Graywalls is a lot newer than you are so, although I'm not condoning his behaviour, it may be that he hasn't yet learned the lessons that you've had time to learn. Deb (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Deb's efforts to make a proposal to bring some kind of resolution here, particularly where the proposal is for a voluntary break and not an imposed sanction. One thing we haven't yet discussed is the possibility of closing this with a warning? Leviv ich 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for future problem avoidance

this dispute really shouldn't have occurred in the first place. I should have done away with the abrasive comments in talk and summaries. That, I will avoid in the future. As long as AB has been here, verifiability is something he should have been familiar with. When there's a doubt about something, the requirement that a reliable source directly verify the claim is non-negotiable. In this case, there's no source directly supporting when the business opened up and shouldn't have turned into an argument over keeping inferred information that is not directly supported. Regardless of how people feel at the talk page level, this is something that shouldn't be overridden according to WP:CONLEVEL. I think that when problems of this nature arrives, it should go by the policy; and if we have a disagreement over the interpretation, we should research the noticeboard archives and ask questions there if answer can not be found. I have generally been happy with 3-O comment system. So, maybe for the next three months, we can both stick to ONE RR in regards to reverting each other, directly or indirectly (by asking others if they would make specific changes) and make use of third opinion rather than ping specific individuals to weigh in.

As for AfDs, I don't believe it's improper that I nominate things around Oregon in categories and neighborhoods listing when I see what I believe to be run of the mill. After all, if AfD determines it's notable, it has no impact on the article. I can agree on not going back and forth in the AfD debate and would like, in return from AB to not add a list of trivial calendar events, reviews from local alternative weeklies and such as soon as they're nominated to make notability determination more time consuming than necessary. Waiting for AB to comment. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, like Deb's suggestion, that's punishing AB for Graywall's behavior. Most all users besides Graywalls have stated their behavior is either stalking or hounding, neither of which should be acceptable. Why punish AB for Graywalls obviously targeting them? That makes no sense, and would deter AB (and possibly other users) from reporting harassment in the future. --Kbabej (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, thank you for acknowledging your inappropriate behavior at Talk:Hawks PDX. I don't feel a need to comment here further about a specific dispute. Nor will I apologize for expanding articles you've unnecessarily nominated for deletion. Again, you're distracting from a much larger problem. Even Deb has said this conversation has devolved into specific disputes we've already been over and over. This seems to be your M.O. -- distracting and rehashing the same things over and over. What a massive waste of time. I will say it again, I don't appreciate your hounding or going against consensus, or your unnecessary deletion nominations, which take a toll on the community. If you continue to act out of line, I will report you. I am disappointed this discussion has not been more fruitful, but oh well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What were you trying to accomplish by this complaint? I don't agree that my deletion nominations are unnecessary. I can commit to politeness and modify how I say things but I'm not willing to avoid area of my interest (Portland area/some art topics) simply because you have been to it before. I'm talking about the way you attempt to reach consensus and how you determine consensus has been reached whose MO hasn't been restricted to the specific examples. I believe 1RR is something we can give it a try for a while, say a month or two. If I see some hole in the wall place while looking in Portland categories, that's a legitimate reason to nominate for AfD without any consideration to who created it. I'm not going after something because you made them. Graywalls (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, You seem quite frustrated when I expand an article after your nomination deletion, which is a perfectly appropriate reaction to seeing an article about a notable topic flagged for deletion. You've also done a great job not owning up to your retaliatory behavior. Fellow editors, I am more than happy to address any of your questions or concerns, but I am no longer interested in communicating with Graywalls directly. This disruption has very much negatively impacted my editing experience the last couple months. I've made my concerns known, and I've made it very clear I'm willing report any and all shenanigans moving forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was only frustrated with the addition of long list of routine happenings with event listings and calendars as citations that only occurred after the AfD. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Deb, Graywalls, and Kbabej: Sorry, I'm not sure what happened here exactly. I think an edit conflict. But User:Deb's comment to User:Kbabej was removed. Letting all involved know. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (iban)

No editor above (besides Graywalls themselves) believes Graywalls ins't stalking or harassing AB. The fact that GW can't see that, or chooses not to admit it, is problematic. Stalking/harassing should be taken seriously, as it can push good editors off WP. What I'm proposing is simple: An WP:IBAN for Graywalls on articles that Another Believer has created or edited. There are literally millions of articles on the English WP. As Deb stated to both AB and Graywalls, "[Graywalls] "You never know, you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic." There's no reason GW needs to be harassing and hounding a particular editor and their work. Indeed, they already stated they have other interests in graffiti. I'm sure there's more to be interested in as well. Out of millions of articles, avoiding one particular editor shouldn't be difficult, especially for such a new editor. This could be an opportunity into broadening their horizons and focus on different parts of the project, rather than engaging one person over and over. --Kbabej (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't say that. Action may be needed but I don't think it's practical to make that kind of blanket ban. He could easily breach it without being aware of it. Deb (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, Above you said, "I think this is a kind of stalking" as well as "I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion." Sorry, but what "certainly didn't you say"? I am confused. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, I'm confused then as well. You've stated twice Graywalls has been stalking, as AB has shown. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure Deb didn't mean the stalking/hounding part. Deb did NOT say "[Graywalls] may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic." What Deb DID say was you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic. which was directed at both Gray & AB in the context of a voluntary stepping away. Very, very different than how Kbabej was quoting it. TelosCricket (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood now. Very helpful, thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to apply her quote to GW, not necessarily that she said that exactly. Didn't do that well, admittedly. My apologies. --Kbabej (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated above quote to not distract from the proposal. --Kbabej (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Deb (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No way. This would be reasonable if he wasn't so prolific, but considering how much breadth he has in the things of my local interest, it would essentially allow him to claim dominance by grandfathered stake. Graywalls (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to agree to this, Graywalls. I'm asking other editors if they agree this is how we should proceed. You've shown an inability to recognize the harassment and stalking you've done, so I didn't expect you to agree to something that would force you to change your harassing behavior. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to the heart of what I've noticed. It's also problematic to allow an editor to hound another when it involves taking many articles to AfD. tedder (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just came across this discussion. AB is a passionate editor about the Pacific Northwest. See meta:Cascadia for evidence. Any remedies that would tend to extinguish that passion, or throttle AB's contributions unnecessarily, would lessen Wikipedia IMO. The one-way IBAN (on Graywalls) sounds reasonable to me. He/she can find other things to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging editors who have contributed to this discussion. What are your thoughts on this proposal, @Rhododendrites, Guettarda, Tedder, Levivich, and Nosebagbear:? And @TelosCricket: (Please note I have not left anyone out intentionally. If I have missed an editor, please ping them, or let me know, and I will.) --Kbabej (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kbabej, sorry, I'm confused because IBAN says the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages, and the proposal as written is for an IBAN on articles that Another Believer has created or edited, which sounds more like a TBAN? Leviv ich 05:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich My understanding of IBAN was that a user could not "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means." But yes, thank you for pointing out that I am effectively proposing a TBAN and IBAN. --Kbabej (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leviich - it's both a TBAN and a 1-way IBAN, I'd say. I do actually feel Gray has something that this would be a staggeringly large TBAN. I feel it would need some limitations. Perhaps articles posted on by AB in the last month? This would be a nuisance, but far less so than cutting off such a large realm. The normal 1-way IBAN limitations would also apply (user talk page etc etc). Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For such a new editor, I don't think this would be "staggeringly large". There are millions of articles on WP, and most people have varied interests. Why should harassment and hounding be allowed to continue just because AB has focused on PDX articles? Graywalls has exhibited a pattern of behavior that is intentional, hostile, and targeted toward AB. Again, I view this as an opportunity for GW to actually focus on other areas and contribute in a positive way to the project instead of becoming focused on following one user around. --Kbabej (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the main issue is the way Graywalls has been treating Another Believer over the past two months:

• Per the above, I support a one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. My concern about a TBAN from Portland is that it misses the target, because I think Portland is just a proxy for AB. I'm not sure that it's necessary over and above an IBAN. Leviv ich 19:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are implying that you don't believe Graywalls is a new user, I feel you should come right out and say it. Deb (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No I’m not implying that at all, and it wouldn’t matter if they were or weren’t anyway. I’m saying GW has been harassing the first editor they had a content dispute with. It would make more sense if these statements I quoted came after years of disagreement, but GW went from zero to nuclear in no time, and kept it up even after a talk page warning, even during this ANI. Hence why I think an IBAN is appropriate. Leviv ich 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually G11'd Elephant's Delicatessen; because it looked very promotional; and there was a tell tale sign of significant editing by the business. I was shocked at the chain reaction that took on. Some have been saying how I continue to bring this incident back. When someone directly says " If you're not willing to help, I will find another admin who is willing to restore the page." While AB says I continue to "bring back" the past, the big picture is that a comment like this comes across as he'll just shop around until he gets his way. Is this interpretation unreasonable?

"Please stop. I'll agree to not seeking outside input here if you'll agree to my proposed path forward above." This is the instance which I was referencing when I said coercive and manipulative; because his statement comes across as ""accept my proposal.. else if...".

I do find his remarks, edit comments etc dismissive. I've shared that concern with him. And I am digging around for this discussion and it seems like I'm not the only one made to feel that way with his demeanor. this. This to me looks like the same back-n-forth that has been wearing me out, and possibly what Deb at one point describes as "haranguing".

this chattering says others are also finding his stubby articles a point of concern. And nominating those things for deletion because I actually believe something don't have notability isn't going after the PERSON who is making them.

and another back and forth

Obviously, interactions can not happen between us if one of us wasn't around. These interactions suggest AB has a confrontational tendencies with others who do not agree with his way. It's a mischaracterization to say I'm "treating him poorly" just because.

Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support a 1way IBAN, 3 months seems appropriate. Again, IBAN covers the problematic behavior well, as it includes (preventing) deleting content and AfDs. Lev, I appreciate the work you've done reviewing behavior (again), as it shows a clear pattern. tedder (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I won't argue against it, but I do believe there is fault on both sides and both editors have shown intransigency in getting us to this situation. Deb (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belated response to request for opinion. I have to concur that I've found User:Graywalls problematic. It appeared to me that many of their edits ought have gone through TALK first, and that being dictatorial and argumentative, rather than collaborative, seemed the heart of the tension, both in my experience, and around other edits of theirs that I looked through in order to assess. AHampton (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AHampton, I certainly felt harassed when you reverted your comments back onto my page in violation of policy on restoration after I acknowledged your message and left you message on your page to express my willingness to continue on the article concerns on the article's talk page. I felt further harassed when you demanded that I restore your content and threatened else if you're going to file a frivolous complaint here and you did not followup to say this was a misunderstanding, therefore it's assumed that you're maintaining your position. Graywalls (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it took me so long to weigh in. To quote another editor (above): you were as "snarky and rude" then as now. What do you think your TALK pg is for? I had intended, in fact, to be polite by addressing you individually, not on an article's TALK page, and because you were the main issue, so that was the place for the notes. Maybe you can't recognize polite, though. As has been stated (above): "Can you commit to being polite?" Can you? I'd say all of your issues here are a direct result of not behaving collaboratively, or even with respect to other editors.

FYI: As for restoring what you so hastily deleted from your TALK page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&diff=890679380&oldid=887367796I) — Unfortunately, I had been led astray about that policy by another editor, long ago, or I would not have... Quote: "never, ever modify existing content in talk pages, especially in talk pages of other editors, and even if it's your own text. It's a huge no-no." -Mardus 03:40, 26 September 2017, when all I did then was add another sentence to my own post, because I had forgotten to answer part of their question. (Maybe they'll turn up here and handily spout some other policy about that.) I didn't bother mentioning it then, because attempting to reason with you was a clear waste of time. Immediately deleting a polite note on your TALK page belies your aim at the time. AHampton (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, what I wrote, still applies.

The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk.

• If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again.
• If it's something that another editor wrote that you disagree with, then you do not modify their text, and you will add your own disagreement.
• If it's your own text, and you want to fix punctuation, spelling, or grammar mistakes without changing the spirit of what you wrote, then you can do that. But in this case, us the <strike></strike> tags — like this — to show which parts of text you are no longer in agreement with — without removing what was entered before.
• But you should not delete what you wrote.
• Archival is quite another matter.
• If it's someone else's text that unsigned, then I think there is a bot or a template to append to that other person's text, that "this unsigned comment was added by (typically an IP address) at this time on this date."
• There may be some instances, where inexperienced editors might break formatting by mistake, in which case it's permissible to fix formatting or code. Most of the time, it involves indentation.

-Mardus /talk 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Idea", indeed. Despite what appears to be your decree of opinion, which is not here supported by any accompanying policy; Mr. Graywalls here had been quick to counter with actual WP policy, when I claimed that TALK should not be modified, per you. Incidentally, "The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk" never occurred and the only line from your text above that applies is "If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again." The rest is a grandstand. Is that your opinion, or policy? Your "idea" also runs contrary to the policy that I was told by an Admin who had deleted their own ill-advised comment in another discussion, at the suggestion of another editor. (Twice burnt, as it happened.) Since you answered so fully, yet without any policy to back up your opinion, and I have taken us off-topic due to a need to answer to Graywalls' "harrassed" statement, subsequent to my ascribing to your apparently unfounded admonishment of 2017; I will take this discussion to my own TALK page, reprint it there, and we can carry on, Mardus, aside from this discussion.)

• Comment – I've noticed that over this past week, both editors have continued to edit productively, even in the same topic area, without "bumping into" each other, which is very encouraging. Waters seem to have calmed. Leviv ich 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, They've been editing more pages not on my watchlist, which has made my editing experience more enjoyable. I am still concerned about some of their recent contributions, but I am actively avoiding them and waiting for this discussion to close before I revisit some of the articles where we've disagreed in the past. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt Another Believer and I massively disagree on editorial decision and which concerns take precedence. I don't disagree that there has been mutual poking and jabbing here and there. After seeing how quickly AB pounced on me on things, I think I'm the one hounded. Things he sees as a major deal aren't necessarily a big deal to me and on the flip side, he doesn't appear to hold undisclosed paid editing and undisclosed connected contributor to the same degree of concern as I do. per WP:ASPERSIONS, I realize I shouldn't accuse without evidence. I don't believe my allegation of canvassing was evidence less, because Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Bit_House_Saloon. [[67]] and pinging others in this manner on the page itself is not a neutral way of involving others into editorial dispute. I don't think those discussions that clearly infer to me was presented in a neutral manner. Graywalls (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, do you really think you are making your case by implying AB is a paid editor and then saying "I shouldn't accuse without evidence"? tedder (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've shared my opinion back in March that I believed he's a PR professional after I've read the discussion here, but at the time, I wasn't aware sharing such opinion is discouraged so I retracted that opinion. I just provided explanation on how I felt he was shopping around for input non-neutrally. The comment you replied to wasn't stating or implying he's a paid editor. It was describing our editorial opinion differences which isn't saying, implying and isn't intended to be construed as implying he's a Paid-editor. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support a 3-month one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. Evidence from Levivich is too much to ignore on stalking. starship.paint ~ KO 12:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a 6-month one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. After reading everything discussed above, as well as coming across this diff where the first three letters in the word "Assuming" were capitalised, probably as a form of homophobic dog-whistling.—NØ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, dogs cannot whistle. Second of all, I'd like to see even the slightest evidence that there's such a thing as a homophobic dog. An extraordinary idea, when you think about it. EEng 10:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment FWIW, I don't see homophobic overtones there, but rather a reference to assume in the context of "when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me." In other words, that it's a bad assumption. No position on the rest of the debate, just thought I'd mention that. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec):(Non-administrator comment) A wee off topic, but I feel it prudent to point out that the "ASSuming" was unlikely to be "homophobic dog-whistling". There is a saying that when one assumes, it makes an ASS out of U (you) and ME. Graywalls was probably referencing that saying. Still, calling another editor an ass isn't civil or the best way to be collaborative (imo). TelosCricket (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • simply addressing MaranoFan's remark " probably as a form of homophobic dog-whistling" is incorrect and a baseless and uncalled for personal attack of accusation of making a bias comment. Graywalls (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck that part, my assumption (no pun intended) was because of the article being about a gay bathhouse. That said, I stand by my assessment of supporting a 6 month, one-way IBAN as I originally stated. I cannot in good conscience support calling other users an "ass", or whatever explanation you’re going to give next for using the word. Secondly, at least some of the AB articles you nominated for deletion (I’ve weighed in on No Vacancy Lounge) clearly had enough reliable sourcing to not be deleted.—NØ 07:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, I expressed disappointment and criticism at the conduct of RHaworth (talk · contribs) over deletions, not so much over whether the deletion was justified but proper adherence to WP:ADMINACCT and by extension WP:CIVIL. In the past month I have spotted several issues, and I feel like I'm spending far too much time cleaning up after him and performing the necessary level of "customer service" to keep editors on board and active in the project.

• Jeff Oster was deleted per WP:G4 despite being rewritten from scratch. The creator, Meta in MA (talk · contribs) asked for restoration and got given a canned message "I continue to be annoyed when somebody leaves a message to me about an article and provides no wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it?" My answer would be "Which of the two of you has more experience in the technical side of Wikipedia and should therefore be expected to provide support to the one who doesn't?" The response, "I'm getting really disappointed with trying to submit work to Wikipedia. I'm trying to follow the rules and better document New Age artists, and once I get an article edited to the point where it is approved, it gets deleted. Does Wikipedia what to suppress new authors?" was somewhat predictable.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyTicket.co.uk was closed as "delete" with just the nomination and no other !votes, to which I would normally expect a soft delete or a redirect. The subsequent creation of a redirect seems a bit odd (nobody asked for it at the AfD).
• Draft:Víctor Manzanilla (now moved to Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer) was deleted by RHaworth, and restoration requested by GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) See here. For some reason, RHaworth dug his heels in and refused to give a straight answer to GiantSnowman, so I restored it for him and added a few sources.
• MaxBrowne (talk · contribs) complained about the deletion of Threatin. See here. RHaworth's reply was "I should have ignored you both because neither of you is capable of providing a link." which got the response "You've been kind of unfriendly so excuse my lack of enthusiasm for replying". Elsewhere on this talk page archive I see comments from RHaworth such as "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" (see WP:IPHUMAN) and "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here" which he was specifically told not to say at the last ANI thread.
• Paul W (talk · contribs) took exception to RHaworth deleting Vivian Li, saying, "Disappointed that you feel my efforts were deficient. As a Wikimedia UK volunteer, I was trying to encourage and support new editors (acknowledged in the article Talk page). I was racing against a speedy deletion (apologies for the typos - I had other things going on....), and now you tell me I am undeserving". See here. After I intervened, RHaworth did apologise.

I'm not saying the deletions were blatantly wrong or against policy - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't, but I'm just completely unhappy that somebody can seemingly think that certain policies don't apply to them, when they would certainly cause an RfA to fail in today's climate. I admit my temper is fraying in this area, and I should probably just back out completely, but I don't really want to sit by and see new editors have a bad experience and quit. So somebody needs to look to see if there's anything we can do, and what a typical level of WP:ADMINACCT should be set at. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated).Smeat75 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyTicket.co.uk AfD - another user tagged it for CSD while I was filling in the AfD proposal. The CSD tag was placed by the time I submitted the nomination, so the conflict was my bad, not theirs. I was pondering what to do for the best when RHaworth deleted the page; I didn't request the redirect, but in fairness it was probably appropriate (the website belonged to the company that it was redirected to). GirthSummit _(blether) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a reasonable compromise, sure; the issue is more the reply from RHaworth, which is the somewhat unhelpful "The discussion says "the result was delete" so why do you ask the question?". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that IPs are subhuman. Frequently, ANI is protected and we can not even post here. We all have IPs, you know. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have anything to say here other than my disappointment on RHaworth's comments on IPs. Like I understand that some editors are against allowing IPs to be able to edit and I respect that opinion, but calling IPs as "very low life forms" seems too much. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will add another issue to this thread: While Ephixa was still in draftspace, and a deletion review closed as "Accept draft", RHaworth declined a G6 request and salted the redirect as "trying to circumvent DRV". Seems like an obvious rush in not reading the full story before declining. Luckily, after discussion, we were able to accept the draft, but I still had the feeling the decline was rushed. I'm not saying he was wrong in declining the G6, though, I'm just disappointed in how it was handled. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm sure if he's told to restrain himself from vocalising his views on IPs—shared, of course, by so many of his colleagues—then both he and us can get back to what we're here for...to paraphrase the OP :D ——SerialNumber54129 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, I've questioned RHaworth's deletions several times over the past couple years, usually to no avail. I'd love to see an WP:ADMINACCT Arb Com case opened for RHaworth's conduct. I certainly don't have the time to present evidence here, but I would in a case request. This is an ongoing problem that doesn't look like it's ever going to be resolved otherwise, as the conduct since the "acknowledgment" in the previous thread has demonstrated. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've certainly on many occasions gone to remove the deletion tags from pages which appear to have been tagged in error, to find that RHaworth has deleted the page in question in the meantime. AGF and all that, but he's clearly just opening CAT:EX and CAT:CSD and hitting the "batch delete" button since there's no possible way he could actually be checking the articles and their histories in the time taken. (If you've ever wanted to see what 100 deletions in one minute looks like, here you go.) There are also some distinctly goofy log entries. I'm not sure if Arbcom is necessary—hopefully an "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" is all that's necessary—but just a skim over his talk page isn't promising. ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The last ANI thread was archived as RHaworth has acknowleged the communication issues and no futher action is required. Unfortunately, acknowledging is not the same as actually improving. I explicitly did not comment last year because he and I have distinctively different views on speedy deletion and I didn't want that to be the focus after Ritchie had mentioned it but I think Ritchie has demonstrated now that RHaworth is not willing to follow ADMINACCT regardless of his mistaken applications of the speedy deletion policy and thus I would welcome an ArbCom case to analyze his behavior if this (again) fails to sanction him. Regards SoWhy 19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And even if this did go to Arbcom, it would waste everyone's time, with the Arbs (eventually) coming back with the standard "RHaworth is admonished" line. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ritchie333, I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities. Please provide your own replies to messages on my user talk page which you consider are unsuitable and reply on my behalf to all the new messages there. I will study your responses and try and learn from your example.

  Everybody else, is it sufficient for me to say that I accept my admonishment? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And why do you think that that's in any way sufficient? You have been disrupting Wikipedia for well over a decade by speedily deleting articles that don't remotely qualify for speedy deletion and by salting the titles when editors have tried to question your actions. I, for one, won't let this thread go until your obvious incompetency leads to your admin rights being removed. I'm about to go to bed now, so won't look up the diffs until tomorrow, but I would have thought that it's pretty obvious to anyone looking at your record that what I say is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger: - hi, firstly just an indication of interest specifically in diffs of retributive saltings tomorrow. Secondly, I feel that if it's just bad speedies, then I'd advocate a TBAN without a loss of general sysops rights. If there are true retributive saltings, then that's definitely cause for de-sysopping. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RHaworth is an absolute gentleman compared to several other Admins I deal with regularly. I watch his talkpage and respond to requests from time to time. He is fast to delete when we are doing bulk CSDs like G13s and willing to restore based on any reasonable and sometimes unreasonable request. Not the Admin that needs ro be dragged here for a beating. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got to say that I'm of the opposite opinion. RHaworth has been, IMO, the single most difficult admin I've dealt with (though I'll acknowledge there are one or two others who come from time to time). I'll fully admit that's over many years, not just since the last time this came to ANI. But honestly I can tell when it's one of his deletions at DRV just from the deletion request. My sense is that he gets overturned for really poor deletions pretty often. And I've commonly seen him be really terse when dealing with others, especially new users and IPs. It's not like I follow him, just go look at discussions related to DRVs he's involved in. Is there a good/easy way to see how admins have faired at DRV? I'd be willing to put together a list of the issues I've had if there is. But I've no idea how to search for them. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me also acknowledge that he does a lot of good work around here. No doubt. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a minor comment: according to WP:NOQUORUM it is acceptable for the admin to close the discussion according to the nominator's suggestion. That is a hard, rather than soft, delete. That should generally be less common though. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• RH does excellent work, and is correct in his judgments as often as I am, or as anyone who does as much work as he does. But since there is always the possibility of error (indeed, the certainty of making a few errors), it's unfair to new users to assume their objections do not need to be considered. It's also unfair to the rest of us who feel obliged to rescue rescuable articles and who have to deal with the new editors subsequently. In past years, there were quite a few other admins acting similarly, and it seemed unreasonable to single him out among them, but the others have in general either changed or left. I know it's hard to break a pattern, and I suggest we need patience while waiting for improvement. But I hope we really do actually see improvement. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broadly concur with DGG's comments. I note RHaworth has accepted his admonishment ... and I [AGF that means an attempt to improve communications towards current sysop/admin norms ... and I guess we will be back here if not. Thread closure may be more productive than a Good Friday crucifixion of RAHaworth. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me too. Those of us who dare to carry out deletions - almost always at the request of other contributors - expect and get considerable criticism. I don't see any reason for him to do more than apologise if he gets it wrong once in a while. Deb (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      As I said at the top, "I'm not saying the deletions were blatantly wrong or against policy - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't". That is not the purpose of this thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Just to clarify, when I said "gets it wrong", I did not mean to refer only to deletions but to general conduct. Deb (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) +1 I'm not, obviously, a clearer of backlogs—indeed, I'm more likely to cause them  :) but, notwithstanding that no-one's irreplaceable, I do wonder who exactly would do the work that RH does; not, it would seem, the admins currently calling for arbitration (103 G11s/U5s over their last 1500 collated deletions; [68], [69], [70]). Happy days!  :)

    Of course, no-one has to do anything they don't want to do, but a few pro rata errors are a small price, I think, to pay for the heavy lifting to be done while allowing the rest of us to wander the halls of enlighten/ment. I grant you that RH can be brusque; but he's never told anyone to fuck off, people—and there are a fair few admins who that can't be said of! They, I suggest, would justify an occasional outburst on the grounds that they are permanently dealing with vandals/socks/LTAs and other such unsavoury characters, and after all, if you sleep with dogs you rise with fleas. I expect RH's occasional terseness stems from much the same thing: permanently hearing the same thing over and over, most of the time from blatant spammers and Garage Bandists.

    Poor for the soul I'd imagine; rather RH than me. And, I suspect, rather RH than most/of/us/here right now... ——SerialNumber54129 09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The examples I gave above do not fit this pattern - do you really think Phil Bridger, Paul W and GiantSnowman are vandals, socks or LTAs? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Supercilious disingenuity. I was referring to mindsets, not individuals, as you well understand. And I was replying above to Deb, not you. ——SerialNumber54129 09:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you're arguing a Straw man. This thread is not about people who do a lot of CSD deletions, and it is certainly not meant to be a campaign against their excellent work. It's about a particular pattern of behaviour in which one admin has refused to engage with veteran editors on reasonable queries about deletions, and also exhibited WP:BITE behaviour towards other good faith newbies. You can't wave that one away just by saying there are lots of vandals and trolls out there. It's something that needs to be examined, and RHaworth needs to acknowledge that the examples presented above do not constitute satisfactory conduct and that they will do better in the future.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That being the case it would have been closed at the point where RH explicitly acknowledged so—over twelve hours ago. It wasn't. However, I note this discussion is relevant; I'd be personally tempted to suggest a moratorium on all but the most egregious (but how to define, naturally) incivility being brought her while a consensus is being established. If it is of course. ——SerialNumber54129 11:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated)." I don't see why. I go through my watchlist several times every week, and check what such editors are up to. Several of them are reverting vandalism, correcting typos, or using the talk page to mention errors and omissions. On the other hand several editors with signed names are vandalizing pages, trolling, and leaving misleading messages such as "fixed typo". Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Try editing as an IP for a few days. I tried, making the same kinds of edits I normally do, and I was reverted without explanation and threatened with a block. IPs are treated that way, so it's reasonable to conclude that a lot of editors think of them that way. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding IP editors, I would encourage RHaworth, and everyone else to read WP:HUMAN. Paul August ☎ 23:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment on the Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer debacle seeing as I've being pinged here - this was a clearly notable article which was moved to draftspace for no reason and then he refused to answer questions about it. Very concerning conduct. GiantSnowman 12:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment RHaworth seems to have resumed activities although the last comment here is he was on limited capability device which I totally understand especially can understand especially given the Easter holiday period. Gets a WP:TROUT doing a CSD in a batch with a rate of about 10+/min on a page with a contest in progress from a person giving him support earlier in the thread. To be fair there may be timing issues here and posting this here may influence matters. This may of course be a godd faith attempt to help out while resources are light which I can totally appreciate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I also need to WP:TROUT myself here for not simply removing the CSD notice first rather than writing on the take page which was the incorrect procedure for contesting the deletion by a not page owner (In haste hit the big button in lieu of carefully reading small print).Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I will observe quickly RHaworth has just restored the page in question and has been thanked by me for doing so.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did he pull a userfied page from Meta in MA and then tag it for speedy deletion? Muthian (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reasonably sure this was the incident mentioned at the top of the thread and which was probably the key triggering incident for the thread and to an extent has been implicitly acknowledged already by RHaworth.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So, as the thread draws to a close, do we have any conclusion? A couple of people have suggested Arbcom, a couple have said that RHaworth has got the message, others are "meh". RHaworth has reached out to me, but I can't see the response is particularly conciliatory. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have been avoiding this issue for the last few days, because I believed that RHaworths incompetence was so obvious to anyone looking at his record that this would be settled without my having to offer any more evidence. It's very difficult for a non-admin to come up with diffs because nearly all of them would be to deleted articles, which I can't see.

Firstly I would note that this is not the first time that this admin has been brought to WP:ANI on these grounds, and he has previously promised to do better in the future but those promises have not been kept, so we should not just lie back and accept similar promises this time. I would also say that this thread should not just be concerned with incivility towards anyone who this admin seems to consider to be inferior to him, who are basically any non-admins and especially people who choose not to log in to edit or who are not experts in the technicalities of Wikimedia mark-up, but also about gross incompetence with speedy deletion, which I can't substantiate because of my inability to see deleted articles, but I have experienced many times over the years. He seems to just delete almost anything that's nominated (which, of course, would result in many correct decisions, because most nominations are correct) rather than check whether the articles actually meet speedy deletion criteria.

I have been editing for over a decade, mostly logging in but for a time without. On many occasions I have contested a speedy deletion, explaining in my edit summary why the speedy deletion tagging was incorrect, but found that an hour or two later the article was speedily deleted anyway without explanation. On nearly every such occasion the deleting admin was RHaworth. To address DGG's comment above making the claim that there is any equivalence between their approaches, on the one occasion when DGG was the deleting admin the deletion was immediately reverted with an apology, something that I have never seen from RHaworth.

The most recent occasion when RHaworth has disrupted my editing by inappropriately salting a title was at Manoj Paras. The subject of this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and I provided a source to confirm this, so I tried to revert RHaworth's move to user space per WP:BRD, but after I messed this up by forgetting to change the namespace in my move RHawarth salted the mainspace title. Going back many years, showing that this problem has been here for many years, I had a similar experience with Cheveley Park Stud. These are not just two isolated occurrences, but just the latest and earliest that I can remember where there is still some undeleted evidence available. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For another recent example of inappropriate involved protection see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of an algebraic curve. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: The most recent CSD you contested that involved RHaworth was Great Dane Airlines on 15 April. The article as you saw it was tagged CSD A7 and the prose in its entirety was "Great Dane Airlines is a startup airline that is based in Aalborg, Denmark. It is due to launch its inaugural flight on 21 June 2019 to Dublin, Ireland." You declined the A7 and added a citation to the Irish Times. It was then deleted by RHaworth per CSD G11, with no further edits or tags. Houston, we have a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. @RHaworth:'s complete lack of silence here is also very concerning per WP:ADMINACCT... GiantSnowman 10:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per a comment I've made elsewhere, I initially counselled against taking this to Arbcom. However, despite his claim that he's unable to respond at the ANI thread because "I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities" he's continuing to perform mass deletions (while he's not yet back to his 100-deletion-per-minute rate, he made 14 deletions in one minute just a couple of hours ago). He's also still batch-deleting without actually checking the articles he's deleting, unless he's going to try to justify deleting a page that has existed since 2009 and is unquestionably accurate (albeit of questionable appropriateness) as a "blatant hoax". I now consider his non-response to concerns a blatant case of ANI flu in an attempt to evade scrutiny (the alternative—that he doesn't have the technical ability to read the pages at present but is still running deletion scripts anyway—is even worse). ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• RHaworth's attitude towards editors who come to his talk page is not acceptable. I can't think of a more inappropriate analogy to a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit than the petty point scoring and infantile back-and-froth that is the House of Commons, but apparently RHaworth thinks it is ok to state on his user page, I have a well-justified reputation for blunt speaking on talk pages. But such pages are not a vicar's tea party. I take my standards from parliamentary language - if a Speaker would allow it then I use it. Similarly his edit notice (which I see has just been nominated for deletion) says that he reserves the right to ignore messages from those to fail to correctly format a wikilink, even if they provide the link as a URL instead! This is incompatible with WP:ADMINACCT.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RHaworth replies at last - and still away from base. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. But collaborators may have differing views. If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it! Chances are that I will never notice or, if I do notice, I will accept it. If you don't have the relevant rights, ask Ritchie333, or any other admin to do it for you or request the change on my talk page.

I will make the following specific changes to my behaviour:

• Insisting on wikilinks: I feel that in an, admittedly somewhat perverted way, I am helping the person to become a better Wikipedian. But I will change: as long as I can identify what the person is talking about, I will respond. (I had two cases recently of an IP address that had made no other edits making a complaint where it was totally impossible to work out what they were talking about!)
• I will treat IP addresses as being just as human as logged-in users.
• Regaring my mantra; "kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks you are notable and writes about you here". I really do not see what Ritchie333 is objectiong to but I will switch to the following. "When you become notable enough that other people write about you in third-party independent reliable sources, then someone with no CoI will be interested enough to come here and write your biography". (Based on a suggestion by DGG.)

Are there any other changes needed? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" covered, but what about the other two? We wouldn't be having a discussion about your replies to people questioning your mistakes if you didn't keep abusing the batch-delete function to speedy delete everything that has been nominated for deletion without bothering to check for yourself if it had been tagged correctly. Per my comments elsewhere, my allegation would be trivially easy to refute were I wrong, as even if we very generously assume that only one in 50 taggings are wrong (the real number is much higher than that, and for some of the more widely misunderstood deletion categories like WP:A7 is probably nearer 50%), then for someone deleting at this kind of volume it should be simple to point me towards numerous diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD". Seeing as I've repeatedly made this accusation against you at Wikipedia's highest-profile drama board (and one where false accusations invariably attract boomerangs) and nobody has provided any such evidence—and that even after all these concerns have been raised you're still carrying out obviously incorrect speedy deletions—I'm assuming you've not taken on board any of what anyone above is telling you. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and explain a few things, but first I need to reiterate that you're a nice guy and you deserve to have a hug (but I'm probably not the best person for that) and I'm not doing this because I like having a pop at other admins; on the contrary, I find it tiring and draining, and saps my mental energy which would be better spent on other things. Rather, it's because I get a semi-regular stream of off-wiki complaints about you, and I'm fed up of having to defend you, as that saps my mental energy even more. So this comes from just a total state of exhaustion over the issue. Now onto the individual points:

• "If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it!" I don't intrinsically have a problem with that, I have that prominently displayed on my user page and generally don't need anyone to ask permission. The key problems are: 1) it's not immediately obvious that you're okay with this 2) the default position, as stated by the policy on tool misuse is "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.", so it would be reasonable to assume that people don't know this. 3) It's not reasonable to expect new users (such as the editor who created Great Dane Airlines that you unilaterally deleted on a questionable pretext that you haven't justified yet) to know that administrator actions can be reversed if you ask the right ones. Particularly if they get brushed off with excuses like "I don't talk to IP addresses" or "For heaven's sake! Do you not know what a wikilink is?"
• The problem with "kindly have the decency....." is (as linked to at the top of the thread), you were asked to do this at the previous ANI thread from April 2018, and didn't - or possibly more likely, you adhered to it for a bit, then slipped into your old habits. That's really what I was getting at.
• You really need to address Iridescent's points above. If you're systematically going through CAT:CSD and deleting everything, expecting other admins to revert anything that people disagree with, then that's not really a working method that's compatible with adminship. Actions such as deletion should be a last resort - as the deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". I appreciate admins go on holiday and can't respond; indeed, if you look at my contributions you'll discover I was away at Easter and only managed to grab brief periods online; but if that's the case, I wouldn't expect any admin actions, or any edits at all bar holding replies.

I fully admit I'm frustrated by this, and I'm sure you are as well, and it's not nice to basically tell an admin ten years my senior effectively how to suck eggs. But I think everyone on the thread is optimistic that there can be improvements in this area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would give you a hug, RH... :-) Deb (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have thought that anyone whose competence has been called into question, and who is in a place where they don't have the ability to reply properly to concerns that have been raised, would have the self-awareness to refrain from performing speedy deletions until this thread has been resolved. I see that you have restored one article that has been mentioned in this thread, but what about the very many others that you have deleted in error, and the very many editors that you have been responsible for scaring away from Wikipedia? No hugs from me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Good timing, I was about to comment about you, Phil. I feel I am being subjected at the moment to a zero-tolerance policy. Am I not allowed to make any mistakes? My deletion of Great Dane Airlines was a simple edit-conflict-type mistake. I had the 2019-04-15 11:58:35 state of the page open in a browser tab. So when I deleted it at 2019-04-15 12:44:46 I never saw that you had removed the speedy tag. If you had contacted me, I would have restored the page promptly. Why did you not do so? Now see if I have excuses for some of the other pages that I have "deleted in error". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not do so for the simple reason that I did not even know you had speedily deleted the article until it was pointed out in this thread. I cannot be expected to spend my editing time checking up on your mistakes, and neither can any other editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "My deletion of Great Dane Airlines was a simple edit-conflict-type mistake." That brings to mind the old proverb, "a bad workman always blames his tools". I think what Phil was asking is why you thought Great Dane Airlines (a stub containing one sentence and a table) met the criteria for G11 ("unambiguous advertising or promotion") and deleted it. According to the deletion policy, "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it.". This is why people are annoyed at you, because you're doing things that seem to be contradicted by core policies, and hoping things will just blow over of their own accord. I've been dragged off to ANI and asked to justify myself to a bunch of angry users, and it's not nice - but it comes with the territory of being an admin, so you've got to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would add to my previous comment that it's blindingly obvious common sense that articles should be checked just before speedily deleting them, not 45 minutes previously, and I know that I pointed this out to you many years ago, and that others have done so since then. Even if I had noticed that you had speedily deleted this I probably wouldn't have gone to your talk page, because my long experience has been that pointing out your mistakes there only leads to your use of admin tools to salt article titles, so furthering your disruption. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: I'm still waiting (1) an explanation as to why despite being able to edit and delete numerous articles you were unable to post here to acknowledge the discussion and concerns and (2) a full explanation of the Víctor Manzanilla saga. Why did you move it into draft, and why did you not respond to the concerns of me and another editor on your talk page? GiantSnowman 07:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm still waiting for the diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD" that would demonstrate that you're not just opening CAT:CSD and bulk deleting the entire contents each day without bothering to actually review whether the articles are correctly tagged. In the absence of such diffs, I'm going to consider working on the assumption that your inability to provide them is implicit evidence that you're abusing your sysop bit to apply a delete everything and see who appeals policy. Assuming you're not still continuing to abuse the batch-delete function, you can no doubt give me a good explanation as to why this page you incorrectly deleted a couple of hours ago constituted "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". ‑ Iridescent 08:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dask library. This was (in retrospect probably incorrectly) deleted as A7 by me (as web content without claim of importance, but it probably should be considered software instead, which isn't A7 deletable). Page creator came to my talk page, I replied and undeleted. 30 minutes later, Rhaworth deletes again as A3 (incorrect) and G11 (also incorrect). We all make poor deletions (like I said, mine was probably not correct either), but to do this during a discussion about such deletions, on a page which had just been deleted and undeleted already, and with two incorrect rationales at once, is a bit too much. Fram (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @RHaworth: I am becoming increasingly concerned that you can find time to make poor deletions but you cannot find the time to respond to concerns here. GiantSnowman 13:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying to GiantSnowman's (1) above: speedy deletions receive careful consideration from me but rarely take more than a few minutes. Thus they can be done to occupy an idle moment. Replying to the messages here is a totally different matter. I compose very slowly especially when my message requires careful wording. So my reply got left until I had time to find an hour or two to do it..

To GiantSnowman's (2): I encountered Victor Manzanilla in this state. I was puzzled by this curious edit which simultaneously added categories and a speedy tag. I decided that it might survive better in draft space. My action was queried here on my talk page. I gave what I considered a perfectly adequate reply at 14:09, 8 April 2019. Within 24 hours the situation had been rectified. I think this a good example of Wikipedia collaborative editing at work to correct the action of a disruptive editor, namely 他删之石.

To Iridescent, I say: search my contributions history for the keyword "unspeedy". I do not feel the need to provide a more extensive edit summary: it is implicit that I disagree with the speedy tag.

And… here's the perfect demonstration of why your reputation for incompetence and sloppiness is deserved. On searching your contributions for "unspeedy", the very first thing I come to is an error by you. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've searched your mainspace contributions for the last month for "unspeedy" in the edit summary. It appears five times:

Lakshmi Bai College wasn't even nominated for speedy deletion, so, as Iridescent pointed out, your edit summary was in error.

Marlon Mullen was created with a {{db-copyvio}} tag already in place, and you rightly removed it.

Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer has already been mentioned above. You rightly removed the speedy deletion tag (which had no rationale) after it was moved back from draft space but obviously wrongly moved an article about someone who easily passes more than one count of WP:POLITICIAN to draft in the first place.

Snowdon alplily was correctly tagged for WP:G5 but you removed the tag without explanation.

Off of was incorrectly tagged for WP:G8 and you correctly removed the tag.

There is not one instance of you removing an incorrect WP:A7 tag, which must be the most common speedy deletion error made, and only one of your "unspeedy" edit summaries relates to an article where you have simply correctly removed a tag placed by someone other than the creator without disrupting things by moving a valid article to draft space. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It does feel as though I am being required to justify every action of mine in fine detail.

Regarding Lakshmi Bai. To Iridsecent I say: please review these edits and these admin actions and explain to me very carefully wherein my error lay. To Phil Bridger I say: my action may appear different if you view it as this diff.

I have now deleted the edit to Snowdon alplily which violated WP:G5. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You were the one who suggested searching your contribution history for "unspeedy", so I don't see how you can complain that I have done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dask library: the only way that it could have come to my attention is that I found it in CAT:CSD in this state timestamped 09:07, 25 April. As I explained in my message stamped 22:21, 24 April above I may leave a tab open for some time before I action it. The fact that the tab was still open in my browser three and an half hours later may be explained by the fact that in most of the interim I was driving down an English motorway. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be misled when RH says "speedy deletions receive careful consideration from me but rarely take more than a few minutes." He has said earlier that I do actually look at articles (in some cases for more than 10 seconds!) before I delete them but I may not even look at the speedy tag. (emphasis mine) which is more likely to be true. SD0001 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what happens now?

I repeat Ritchie333's question of a few days ago. It appears to me that anyone who has looked at RHaworth's record, rather than just said that he's a nice guy, has come to the conclusion that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. There wouldn't be any point in a non-admin such as myself starting an Arbcom case because I don't have access to most of the evidence about incompetence in the area of speedy deletion, which is in deleted articles. Is one of the admins involved in this discussion going to start a case or do we just accept that he will carry on being the most disruptive admin on English Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've laid into RHaworth enough over the past week; if Iridescent, Fram or somebody else wants to take it to Arbcom, then I'll support them but I think the case probably wants to be started by somebody else. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Let us try some quantification. It is possible that even the most diligent deleter will make straight mistakes and errors of judgement. Please specify an acceptable level for such actions as a percentage of total deletions. Now tell me what percentage of my deletions fall into these categories.

Are there any other of my specific actions for which anybody would like a detailed post-mortem? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed, but I just want to say this - why can't you say "I'm sorry. It was a mistake. Please accept my apologies.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately for admin errors, the only answer is "It varies based on the type and severity of the mistake. If the administrator is taking on difficult judgement calls at the fringes of the established policy, I could live with an error rate as high as 1 in 10. If an administrator is handling a bunch of bulk CSD's, an error rate of 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 is completely reasonable. There are some egregious errors where I would expect a lower error rate, but I'd be hard pressed to think of an example that I couldn't live with at a 1 in 1000 rate. These are just my personal opinions of where the acceptable line is, they are very rough numbers. I haven't been following this, so I don't know what your error rate is. I'm not an admin, so maybe I have no business trying to guess what these acceptable error rates are. I will point out that bad calls should be judged in the context of an admins entire body of work. An admin who makes 10 bad calls out of 10,000 deletions is a model to be emulated. An admin who makes 10 bad calls out of 12 is a problem. An admin who makes 10,000 deletions, has 50 of them randomly reviewed, and has 10 errors in that sample suggests a BIG problem. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The error rate isn't the only part that bothers me. It is the dismissive attitude toward others, especially IPs. It's been going on for years. Richie333 documented this fairly well at the start of this section. Hobit (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry: insisting on wikilinks on my user talk page was a mistake. Please accept my apologies - I shall relinquish the policy.

I am sorry: refusing to talk to IP addresses was a mistake. Please accept my apologies - I shall relinquish the policy.

I am sorry: a small proportion of my deletions were mistakes. Please accept my apologies - I shall take more care over speedies in the future. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• None of this warrants any more than a slap on the wrist and a pointer towards the right direction. I've seen RH elsewhere and I have not seen them to be particularly daft, so as long they understand policies, I say we should let this be and reopen this another day if they are really being a net negative to Wikipedia (which right now, mostly they are not). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @QEDK: I couldn't disagree more that RHowarth's very long term BITEY behaviour and long history of improper speedy deletions warrants only a slap on the wrist. He's had them before and it hasn't changed a darn thing. I'm not sure what the answer is, but sweeping it under the carpet is very much not it. RH generally does understand the policies, he just doesn't follow them and fails to respond in an appropriate manner when people try to discuss this with them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf: My understanding was that RH will do better, atleast for the very reason for not having to face consequences. R333/Iridescent, in Ritchie's own words, has laid into him a fair amount over the past week and I am confident if RH does not improve his dealings with editors, they will be out of ROPE the next time around. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @QEDK: Why do you think not facing consequences this time will result in RH suddenly upping his game when it hasn't on any previous occasion over the years when his behaviour has been discussed? Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thryduulf: It's not often that RH has been brought to ANI and hung out to dry and given his written apology on this noticeboard, which is not particularly as easy task to do, I can see why he would write a somber word-to-word reply just like Ritchie asked. I just think we should extend the maximum amount of rope plausible to an editor, and only when they cross the point of no return (WP:NOTHERE) should we impose sanctions. I do not disagree with the fact that RH may be deserving of some consequences but I would like to see them return to work as a volunteer with a positive work outcome, as they have said they will. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the three apologies above do not come across as particularly sincere, I'm willing to take RHaworth at his word. But, of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting. Paul August ☎ 23:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.... and with that Draft:Balaguer Guitars, reading " Balaguer Guitars is an American manufacturer of musical instruments, best known for solid body electric guitars and basses. The company was founded by Joe Balaguer in 2015, though prototypes were made between 2013-2014 prior to official release in 2015. Balaguer Guitars has manufacturing facilities in USA, South Korea, and China." and easily sourceable such as Music Radar is nuked by RHaworth per WP:G11. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, that's sheer G11 stuff. Created by a conflicted account and a blatant sales-page in entirety. G11 has not got anything to do with notability and if you deem it so, that's outlying. ∯WBG^converse 19:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

....using vintage and traditional inspiration with modern design implementation.....The Artist Series come in both Select and Standard variations. All quality control and final inspections are done by the staff at the Pottstown, Pennsylvania headquarter......The Balaguer Guitars Standard Series is an affordable production line with multiple finish options and configurations.....

I guess your continued involvement with RHW is hampering your objectivity. ∯WBG^converse 19:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only cited source in the entire article was the website of the shop. BalaguerGuitarsWiki, rather obvious COI conflicted editor, created the article. The language used, a sampling of which WBG provided, is basically stripped from the website. It looks like a G11 to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to discuss this edit at User talk:Hob Gadling#Personal attack. As I said there I find the phrase Even if it were allowed, you are bad at it particularly unhelpful, but there are other problems with the post IMO.

You are moving further and further away from reality was part of a subsequent post. [71]

I don't want the user (or myself!) banned from the discussion. But I think it would be good to avoid these personal attacks. Is this unreasonable? Andrewa (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks pretty mild and nowhere near a personal attack. Is there some backstory I'm missing? What do you think someone should say if they believe persistent errors of logic are being presented on a talk page? The discussion seems to concern whether someone with a forestry PhD can be regarded as an expert in ecology and Hob Gadling's response (essentially, "no") seems fine. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so if I reply that (in my opinion) he is the one out of touch with reality, that would be OK? I recognise that while WP:NPA leaves no wiggle room, in practice it seems there's no longer any consensus to enforce it strictly.
  • The question under discussion is, does the PhD in any way make ecologist a better disambiguator than environmentalist? The RM is to move away from (environmentalist), and my proposal is (ecologist) as the new name, and I find the suggestion that the PhD is irrelevant bizarre... many reliable secondary sources (as well as primary ones such as Moore himself) call it in Ecology, and there's no such evidence to support the existing name. But that the PhD is irrelevant seems to me to be exactly what Hob Gadling and others are suggesting.
  • So it seems to me that they are the ones denying reality on this specific issue. Whether that's true or not, it's my honest opinion, so is it OK for me to express it there? (Not sure whether I will but if it's disapproved here I won't.) Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but the no personal attacks policy addresses stronger abuse than the two examples provided above. There is a strong disagreement and people will decorate their comments with insults but the ratio of comment-on-content to low-level-insults was good. I'm not saying the comments are desirable and I'm not saying their logic is sound. They just don't rise to a level where ANI action is required IMHO. It would be different if their every comment included a snide remark. This is not the place to discuss the issue but you might like to take a different approach and suggest that if the title Patrick Moore (environmentalist) would be appropriate when he was president of Greenpeace Canada, then it should be appropriate now, even if his opponents claim otherwise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, and thanks for your time. I'll reluctantly deal with these low-level PAs as I can... the perpetrator is leading with their chin IMO. And thanks, good point about the history. As no admin has even commented here, suggest we close this as no trouble found. Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Snooganssnoogans has a regular pattern of violating copyright on en.wp. I've added the most recent example uncovered first:

• On 26 October 2017 they plagiarized the BBC (here). After I removed the long-standing copyvio here on 18 April 2019; they restored a close paraphrase without in-text attribution in the subsequent edit, without any acknowledgment of the WP:COPYVIO.

• On 26 October 2016 they plagiarized the Daily Beast (here). This was drawn to their attention on the talk page here. Their reaction was typically aggressive.

• On 30 December 2018, they misattributed copyrighted text written by Harry McGrath to Elizabeth Teague ([72]) and reacted aggressively when I corrected their mistake.

Civility has been a chronic problem for Snooganssnoogans. Despite being blocked for WP:CIV by EdJohnston in 2016, their behavior has not improved. POV has also been a recurrent problem. On May 24, 2017 they were banned from making mass edits to en.wp entries at AE. This despite support from a number of like-minded editors, including a sockpuppet of Cirt (Sagecandor). (AE case)

• On 21 April 2018 they attacked other editors (1, 2) who sought to have their biased content removed. The RFC was unanimous § in rejecting their contribution as written.

• On 21 April 2019 they removed my attempt at getting them to reflect on their repeated violations of copyright law, calling this request that they follow WP policy "unhinged rambling" ([73]). A look at the history of their TP edit summaries show that they routinely engage in name-calling against editors who attempt to rein in their abusive behaviour. Snooganssnoogans will need to provide evidence that they've asked me to stay off their talk page, I have no such recollection of them doing so, but will do so now that they have asked (I believe) for the first time.

I believe that Snoogans should be indefinitely blocked for the copyright violations and civility infractions, though as soon as they recognize the problem with their behavior in an unblock request I would see no problem with their being welcomed back as long as they promise to follow WP policy. The block I am requesting is preventative, as they have shown no awareness that civility and copyright issues are taken seriously on en.wp.

Of course, perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps WP:CIV and WP:COPYVIO are not core policies. This request will help determine that. Thank you for your attention to these matters. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing a real copyvio problem here. Those of us that know Snooganssnoogans are aware he adds quotes from daily news stories on American political articles. It does seem very lazy to add quotes instead of paraphrasing however in Snooganssnoogans defence over the years they have run into problems with their interpretation of sources especially because of the nature of the topics and news sources used...thus the eventuality of just quoting has come to the for front. As for civility...its an ongoing problem with many editors and theses examples above are not outrageous in my view...more of a sign of frustration. --Moxy 🍁 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, civility is a big issue for snooganssnoogans, and has been for years, although no one seems willing to do anything about it. Natureium (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After having the pleasure of discussing quotefarms with Snoog at Talk:2018 United States elections, I gave up and left the topic area. Leviv ich 18:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the purported copyvios: the first example (one sentence sourced to BBC – with the BBC as a cited ref) is just a case of close paraphrasing in one sentence, which can happen when one reads a source and seeks to summarize its contents. The second example (one sentence sourced to the Daily Beast - with the DB as a cited ref) is a clear copyvio, and I do not exactly remember the circumstances behind that 2.5 yr old edit - the text should of course be fixed and has been fixed. The third example is just an accident where one link was copied into the cite-ref generator rather than another (something I’m sure every prolific editor has done). After almost three years of stalking my edits (note that I’ve added a lot of content during that time[74]), this is the sum of what SashiRolls comes up with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context for what's going on here: In September 2016, SashiRolls (SR) got topic-banned from the Jill Stein article for trying to add a bunch of fringe nonsense to the article and for being abrasive on the talk page.[75][76] At that point, SR began a stalking and harassment campaign against me (whom he blamed for the topic-ban), where he followed me to pages that he’d never been to before, only to revert me nilly-willy. After SR removed my addition of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal to one obscure article,[77] an admin, Neutrality, explicitly stated in Nov 2016 that SashiRolls's "edits basically appear part of a strategy to harass Snooganssnoogans and drive him off the project."[78] Another admin, Tryptofish, called SR out for vandalizing my talk page during this harassment episode.[79] During this harassment, I told SR to “stop following me around and leaving crazed comments on my talk page. Leave me alone, you sociopath.” [80] At that point, half of my talk page was full of SR’s rambling commentary and threats, and SR was stalking me across Wikipedia articles. However, because I personally insulted SR over his stalking, I was blocked for 48 hrs by EdJohnston. This is not an excuse for the civility violation (which I’ve already served my punishment for), but I was clearly provoked at the time (I was also very green as a Wikipedia editor and unaware of appropriate procedures to resolve that kind of situation). A month later, SR was banned for something unrelated.[81] However, the creepy harassment did not end there. SR continued following my edits, obsessively analyzing them and complaining about them on off-Wiki forums. On Wikipediocracy alone, Google shows 84 results for “snoog”[82] and 46 results for “snooganssnoogans”[83]. The overwhelming majority of these references are made by SR, and this does not count references on other off-wiki forums and other iterations of my username by SR. At some point, admins decided to allow SR to edit Wikipedia again. Of course, the tendentious editing resumed when SR came back. On the Tulsi Gabbard article, SR decided to block any and all changes made by me, and refused to explain why.[84] (Note that the Tulsi Gabbard is another page that SR stalked me to in 2016 only to indiscriminately revert me - this is his first edit there[85]) SR was informed by the admin Awilley that this was not an appropriate way to edit. When SR could not simply block things without explanations, SR instead filibustered changes to the article by filling the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM ramblings and casting of aspersions. The behavior was erratic, as SR accused me and MrX of tag-teaming,[86] posted weird rants connecting me to content disputes on unrelated pages that SashiRolls has grievances about (pages that I've never edited),[87][88] and requested that I be topic-banned for fairly standard and uncontroversial edits.[89]. When SR was allowed to edit again[90], multiple admins and editors expressed the sentiment that this editor would be up to trouble again in no time, and that he’d be kept on a short leash. I think I’ve documented a long-standing harassment campaign that has culminated in this spurious request to have me banned over a copyvio of one sentence in 2016 and for telling SR to stay off my talk page (SR inaccurately suggests that I've never instructed him to stay off my talk page before). Would it be possible for an admin to please tell this editor to leave me alone and refrain from mentioning me again? It's been almost three years of this creepy harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be inaccurate to say that Snoogans' biased writing on Ajamu Baraka was why I became an active editor in 2016. It would be inaccurate to say that I "stalk" them. I avoid them, except when they edit topics that interest me (generally anti-war politicians is where our interests intersect). As for the copyvio:

BBC text: Wikileaks itself fuelled the conspiracy theory by offering a reward for the capture of Mr Rich's killer and hinting that he may have been the source of the emails. (source: §)

Snoogans' text: WikiLeaks fuelled the conspiracy theories by offering a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the capture of Rich's killer and hinting that Rich may have been the source of the leaked emails.

it is worth noting that the $20,000 is not in the source, which means that strictly speaking the source should not be used for what was added to mask the copyvio. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is 100% indisputable that SR stalked me here[91] (never mind all the other instances I cited). It was so brazen and blatant that an admin chastised him for it and explicitly characterized it as harassment.[92] That SR is lying about something so blatant and easily disprovable should put everything else in context (and is also a good illustration of what I put up with). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That content from a non-BBC source is also in there undermines your case that text is just being plagiarized verbatim and supports my claim that the text was written from memory. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... that was over two and half years ago. I did in fact see that edit in your list of contributions two or three months after I became an active editor. I was correct to try to get you to fix the grammar (singular verb / plural subject). Since you would not, I deleted it because I did not have access to the source to determine whether what you wrote was true or not: all that was obvious was that it was ungrammatical. You mentioned Tulsi Gabbard above. Those interested should feel free to look at your biased editing on that page. However, I don't want to distract from the straightforward copyvio problem documented in this thread... '27 of 33 identical words would seem to me to be a copyright violation. Perhaps it would be good for someone to lay down the law about this. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The language used in the BBC is identical to language used in many of the sources. The particular grouping and order of the language does appear to be copied from the BBC, but considering how much the same language is repeated in other sources I feel like this is being blown out of proportion. I am not familiar with the copyright policy though. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been trying to stay away from wiki-conflict lately, but having been pinged, I feel that I should comment briefly. Please note that I am not an admin (nor do I play one on TV). I'm unfamiliar with what's going on at the pages in question. I've had positive interactions with Snooganssnoogans in the past, although I also realize that recent US politics (a topic that is under Discretionary Sanctions) is a contentious editing area. As for civility, when I said this a few weeks ago: [93] (in the GMO DS topic area), SashiRolls responded with this: [94]. Maybe I should have come here complaining that "civility has been a chronic problem" for him. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trypto, you never did explain to me why you thought this quote was a useful addition to Jill Stein's BLP Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek. (source: §) I found that quite peculiar at the time. Still do, actually. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has become a theme here, that diff is from about three years ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a WP:BATTLE by User:SashiRolls. I would suggest to close it without action or WP:BOOMERANG. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls is going to eventually either get Snooganssnoogans banned or otherwise drive them off the encyclopedia, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Even banning SashiRolls didn’t help - they’ll just keep getting themselves unbanned. We have two options here: we can get rid of Snooganssnoogans and the problem goes away, or we can ignore it and let the harassment reach its natural conclusion. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, had Snoog been willing to accept that there was a problem we wouldn't be here. Following WP:COPYVIO policy I posted first on their talk page and had no intention of escalating until they were dismissive and insulting. I assumed they would say something logical and conciliatory after being caught red-handed. The next step listed at WP:COPYVIO for dealing with violators is ANI. I believe I have followed procedure to the letter: If a contributor has already been clearly warned of copyright infringement but carried on, you may want to seek advice from an administrator familiar with copyright policies or report it for administrator attention at the administrators' incidents noticeboard. You may also want to open a request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. They were warned in 2016 on the page of an anti-war politician. They have continued (who knows how much, I've looked at less than 0.01% of their edits). Still, I gave them an extra chance. They chose not to take it. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but ... did you really just start a thread on a user with 20,000 edits claiming that they have " a regular pattern of violating copyright" and then provide three examples in the last two and a half years? I think the phrase we reach for here is "you're going to have to do better than that". Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did. 3 violations of copyright law that I have seen in a sample of perhaps 150 edits to mainspace that I've studied carefully enough to compare with sources is a 2% copyvio rate. I have been encouraged not to investigate further because that would be considered "stalking". That's convenient. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you investigated further and actually made a case for something you posted at ANI I'm pretty sure no-one would complain about it. As it is, it just reads like "here's something I lazily threw together about an editor that I don't get along with". Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, in the last few months I've improved 4 articles to the point where they were included on the front page of Wikipedia with me as the #1 editor (François Rabelais, 2018-2019 Sudanese protests, 2019 Algerian protests, & Yellow vests movement). On none of those pages have I engaged in copyright violation. Many of these pages involved reading sources in several languages. One of the pages should not have appeared on the main page (Rabelais) because it was based on an erroneous death date. I have dug into archives (well, ok, just went to the library ^^) to verify that information for en.wp. Please watch who you are calling lazy: it seems to me it should be reserved for the person who doesn't bother to rewrite what they read. As Rabelais says (in all caps): DO WHAT YOU WANT. I'm done here. If others want to dig into the Snoog's edit, I'm pretty sure they will find more of the same. However, I have been quite clearly told not to go out of my way to investigate the power-users after having been blocked for exposing the Cirt / Sagecandor affair, which I recall you getting involved in. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of the good work you do here, and I'm not calling you lazy; I'm saying this is a lazy report, because it is. If you're going to make a case for a sanction against another user, you need to make sure it's pretty watertight, and asking for a copyvio sanction against someone and providing 3 diffs in 30 months is definitely not that. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Boomerang: I don't really know either of the two editors here, aside from just seeing them around. But reviewing this thread and the diffs, I think a boomerang may be order. This is sort of ridiculous. A "2% copyright in three years"? That's not uncommon for even veteran editors.

This is either obsessive frivolity, or some sort of retaliatory effort. And Sashi Rolls, your sarcastic comments about admins (presumably) warning you not to Wikistalk the reported user are not helpful. Just stick to the facts. The current examples you provided are not suitable for any sort of administrative action, as far as I can see. This is a statistically normal result, especially when quoting sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"2% copyright in three years"? That's not uncommon for even veteran editors. It definitely should be. I would say a 0% copyright violation rate is all that's acceptable for veteran editors. Natureium (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further on boomerang: It's worth keeping in mind that SashiRolls was previously indeffed as an AE sanction: [95], and was given the opportunity, about six months ago, to return to the community under what is essentially WP:ROPE: [96]. We may indeed be deep into boomerang territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Boomerang. This reads and feels like a bad-faith revenge attempt and is laughable on its merits. Even the comments about "We'll see if these are core policies or not" are a dare to do something. --Jorm (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Boomerang - This report seems clearly filed in bad faith, especially considering how SashiRolls has persistently gotten into conflict (and possibly harassed) with Snoog. The civility issues may be of some merit, but ideally not on this bad-faith thread. Nanophosis (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it's important to take a look at Talk:WikiLeaks to see the context of the claim of copyright violation. It seems like it might be an excuse to remove text in order to push a POV. I don't think it's fair for SashiRolls to complain about civility issues when they have themselves been uncivil:

  ps for the peanut gallery (Snoog / Neutrality / Calton): there is a conspiracy theory circulating that Wikipedians are doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories". We should try to correct that image we're giving of ourselves as doddering cockatiels who keep repeating "conspiracy theories".[97]

  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As an English teacher, I have occasionally had the unpleasant duty of giving failing grades for similar copyright infringements on assignments, though I generally give students the opportunity to redo their work since nobody else risks being penalized because student papers are not published. I did not realize that people were not even warned for copyright infringement here. I assumed the policy was taken as seriously as it in education (where in principle you can be failed for an entire year for a single occurrence). My apologies for bringing a stricter set of standards to en.wp than what I apparently should have. However, I will not apologize for bringing Snoog to ANI; their incivility is notorious and gets under a great many editors skin (cf. User:Snooganssnoogans or any of their 52 noticeboard pages). If I am to be blocked for the "crime" of following procedure, then I guess I'll find something more productive to do than collaborating on front-page entries. With regard to the new accounts piling on, there's not much I can do about that. Regarding KB's decontextualized quote, this was written because people were defending the repetition of "conspiracy theories" in three consecutive sentences (in a section titled "conspiracy theories"). To apologize for that I would have to apologize for being a writer. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every act of incivility has context. I can't speak to Snoog's incivility, but their context must be considered as well. Note that I added a link to Talk:WikiLeaks where the context of your statement, the current copyright issues, and incivility can be evaluated. You have not addressed the concerns about your behavior. Instead, your comment feels like passive aggressive blame shifting. This is an example of uncivil behavior. I understand you feel piled on, but you have not helped yourself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing you've done warrants any sort of block, although a suggestion to avoid continued conflict with Snoog or, at worst, an IBAN may be proposed. You definitely do good work here, and I want to make clear that my previous comment is not an endorsement of a block. Nanophosis (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course it's taken seriously here, when it's spotted. This is not anything worth sanctioning or even actionable, though. A copyright vio of 2% in 150 edits is effectively null, especially considering the sorts of articles Snoogans edits; much of it is likely quotes. I'll admit I didn't delve deep into it beyond what you posted, because prima facie, this is a frivolous request. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up their alleged incivility, as this wasn't the basis of your request, and honestly makes me think this request is more about a grudge, and was filed in bad faith. I don't "know" either of you, but I am familiar with your editing habits, as I watch many of the pages that both of you happen to edit. Snoogans certainly makes sweeping and opinionated statements about various subjects, which probably isn't kosher for article talk pages in some cases. But they rarely say anything directly about editors, especially a specific editor. WP gives some latitude in this area, and I'm not sure if it's actually "incivility". And the community is well aware of the meatpuppetry, canvassing, and the effect that conspiracy theories have on the traffic and editing in these subject areas. I'm not sure why you put "conspiracy theories" in quotes. Maybe we're not on the same page here, and I'm just not following you, in so far as what specific point you're trying to make here.

And there's no point in preemptively engaging in apologetics to justify what seems to be a request without merit. Sashi, I don't know you, and I honestly don't know your motivations or your mind. But acting like a martyr here is not helpful. Do you honestly think this ANI request has substance beyond "Snoogs is snarky"? Or the original premise this was based on? I'm really confused as to your motivations here; this is one of the flimsiest cases I've seen brought here by a veteran editor, and you seem to be trying to change the subject when it's been pointed out.

I'm not suggesting a block, though I'll of course assent to the community consensus. Mainly because I'm not sure a block would fix this sort of behaviour. At the very least, a ban on filing cases in ANI and a one-way IBAN might be warranted. Honestly, I'm just not sure why you thought this was a good idea. It's rather transparent this is a personal matter. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boomerang: a frivolous report and battleground mentality. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a frivolous report nor do I have a battleground mentality. I am focused on building an encyclopedia. Whenever I have to interact with Snoog I put on "emotional armor" because I know they will accuse me of being "unhinged", "batshit insane", "tiresome", a "sociopath", that my questions are "excruciating" "pointless" "quibbles", etc. Let's take one example from Tulsi Gabbard, whose talk page I think should be required reading for anyone wanting to know how Wikipedia really works. As most people probably know, she is a representative from Hawaii running for president. On 12 February, her BLP contained the word Syria 47 times, which I hope people will agree is a bit excessive. On 13 February, Snoogans edited her BLP in order to add 12 more occurrences of the word (+2 in the edit summary), so that if you search the following link to the state they left the article in, you will find 61 occurrences of the word: §). Taking a look at the "syria trip", "counterterrorism" and especially the "foreign policy / syria" section should be enough to convince anyone that there is something quite unhealthy about these editing practices. Whole sentences were repeated twice in the same paragraph, for example, three times in the article. There were also a few specific inaccuracies in that text, such as the claim that al-Qaeda & Al-Nusra were exclusively "Syrian terrorists" which I had to correct since they had duplicated it into two different sections. Since that time, the BLP is much somewhat improved.

They have started an RfC now, I see, and have started off the discussion by saying "I have gone above and beyond to deal with SashiRolls, who has effectively held up any and all changes to this article (see the last two months of excruciating and pointless talk page discussions)." In order to decide whether this was "excruciating" or "pointless", I encourage anyone wanting to weigh in here to take a look at the Tulsi_Gabbard#Syria section, which is still more than exhaustive but is now better written than what you saw in the above link... because I fixed it. Needless to say, I have not participated in the RfC, as I believe the well to have been poisoned. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WALLOFTEXT. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't handle reading a paragraph, this might not be the website for you. Leviv ich 15:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a fair point, and I apologize. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Snooganssnoogans' version of events is pretty much exactly what I have observed, starting with the Jill Stein article and onward. SashiRolls has some sort of obsession with Snooganssnoogans which results in all manner of disruption. This vexatious complaint is yet another example of harassment. SashiRolls even started to stalk me a couple of months ago here. Note the wacky interrogation, which I took to be a be an attempt to harass me shortly after similar interactions on talk:Tulsi Gabbard:

• "I will not speculate as to Snoogans' motivations for misrepresenting the article being cited in the topic sentence of the paragraph, but will suggest that they are not making themselves look like someone who should be trusted to edit this BLP given their demonstrable record of one-sided editing on this page. I will ask Snoogans to self-revert. We will see if they can play fair or if their mission is contrary to en.wp's and topic-banning becomes necessary."[98]  
• "A topic-ban from this article would be the simplest: en.wp does itself a disservice by continuing to allow such underhanded tactics to be deployed."[99]
• "Speaking of x-tools, I would remind Snoog & MrX that tag-teaming is a well-known strategy that is frowned upon."[100]
• "By reverting me restoring information you removed from the lede, you are subverting the BRD process in your typical gaming style"[101]
• "More to the point, it's always good to ask who is doing the stirring. I think I'll unwatchlist this page for a few days and !watch other people play. Go, SnooX!"[102]

This is a continuation of the same type of behavior that resulted in SashiRolls being indeffed in 2017.[103] - MrX 🖋 15:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To those editors bringing up Sashi's indef from 2017, as well as those who may not know, let me share more details there. SashiRolls was blocked for continually bringing up behavioral issues from a former administrator using a sockpuppet to evade a topic ban, put in place to prevent exactly the type of issues Sashi was identifying. Nearly each time Sashi brought up the issues, commenting editors attacked Sashi, allowing the socking former admin to continue editing in violation of the topic ban for several more months, and earning Sashi an indef. Since returning, Sashi has been a valuable content contributor, and a net positive to the project. In the presented diffs, Snoogans does appear to have run afoul of copyright violations. I think the simple thing would be for Snoog to acknowledge that some editors take issue with that, and strive to make sure it doesn't happen again. No boomerang. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr Ernie. All I've asked is that 1) Snoogans be required to take the comments concerning civility, POV, and copyvio on-board, 2) apologize and 3) promise not to do it again. (Of course, others could quite legitimately think that this is far too soft.) A friend that I mentioned this recent ferkluffle to sent me another example of sloppy editing where Snoogans seemingly got really confused. This is the paragraph from the Syrian Civil War section of Seymour Hersh's BLP that they added a couple weeks ago:

Politico's Jack Shafer described the story as "a messy omelet of a piece that offers little of substance for readers or journalists who may want to verify its many claims."^[1][2]

The only problem with this is that, in fact, Shafer is talking about an article about bin Laden, that has nothing to do with the Syrian civil war. So in the end the first and third sentences of the new paragraph Snoogans created refer to articles about bin Laden, not Syria, while the middle sentence (which Snoog pulled from preexisting text in the article) is the only one in the paragraph that is actually about Syria. I've looked at this pretty carefully and just cannot understand how or why that mistake could have been made. The irony is that in that sentence Bellingcat is accusing Hersh of sloppy journalism (perhaps correctly, I have no opinion on that). All I know is that that paragraph's topic sentence is sourced to articles not about what Snoog's text claims they are about, and the "smoking gun" quote they found in Politico to end the paragraph is not referring to Hersh's reporting on Syria either. It's a bit depressing, really, that I have to risk being boomeranged for pointing out these problems. @Snooganssnoogans:, could you explain this mistake? I would object ahead of time to those who would say this is a "content" issue that we are seeing just too many sloppy edits for this not to be considered behavioural. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple: In a large edit covering critiques of Hersh's journalism on both the killing of Bin Laden AND the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, one sentence critiquing his Bin Laden story ended up in the paragraph on the Syrian Civil War. Why on Earth is this being brought to this noticeboard rather than just fixed on the article like any other editing error? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a good example of the unhealthy and disturbing obsession with me: that this editor is talking with and working with other editors to find dirt on me. And after three years of this creepy stalking of nearly 20,000 edits, this is the sum of what this editor could cobble together? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, by pointing out a mistake a friend pointed out to me, I am a creep? One does wonder if there is much hope for improvement regarding WP:5P4. I would really like to see less toxicity at Wikipedia. Also, I did mention this on the talk page of the entry, along with another potential concern that does not involve you. I saw you fixed the final sentence but not the topic sentence. Why didn't you fix the topic sentence as well? You are still saying that a 2015 article in WaPo criticized a piece published in 2017. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be me, but I would much rather deal with an editor who is being honestly uncivil than one who is passive aggressive and makes me feel manipulated. You just created two straw men. Snoogans accurately described you as talking with another editor about him. Your friend wouldn't have pointed out Snoogans' mistake to you if you hadn't spoken to your friend about them. I can't say whether your behavior was "creepy" or problematic, but I can say that you've misrepresented the complaint. You state: It's a bit depressing, really, that I have to risk being boomeranged for pointing out these problems. This is not why you're at risk of being boomeranged. It is your underlying behavior which I have witnessed for only maybe two days. There are two other editors on Talk:WikiLeaks who I find far more disruptive, but that's another story. If you want to help yourself, start by owning your own problematic behavior rather than continuing it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?! This is a public website; Snoog's mistakes just like yours or mine are a matter of public record. I have been blocked from this site before -- for over 500 days -- because of machinations to protect a defrocked admin socking. A couple of the same people involved in that affair are here now (Trypto, MrX, more indirectly Snoog). Why would I not speak to my friends about this? It just so happens that I have friends who know that this contributor is (AGF) careless. I mean, sure, if you want me to cuss at Snoog I could (though that would get me blocked pronto). I prefer to be diligent and stick to the facts, both in this affair and in my contributions to mainspace. I'm getting a little tired of the harassment/2-bit psychology from you Kolya. Have we met before? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have not met. I see that you are continuing to not address your behavior and are instead shifting the blame onto me. I may leave it at that because I see that I'm not getting anywhere and there are others who have known you longer than two days. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that would be best. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr Ernie correctly points out that SashiRolls did indeed get caught up somewhat unfairly in the antics of a serial sockpuppeteer, which was the proximal cause for the indef block, and that the major reason that the community decided to lift the block was because of that unfairness. But no one should come away from that thinking that the consensus was that everything else was OK. Rather, as can be seen in my earlier link to the unblock decision, there was significant concern over battleground-y conduct, and an explicit warning that the unblock came with a short WP:ROPE.

Setting aside the wall of text over content disputes, the first question here is whether there is sufficient evidence presented to require admin intervention directed at Snooganssnoogans. No there isn't.

But the reciprocal question, raised by multiple editors, is whether there is a basis for some sort of boomerang. SashiRolls was warned about future conduct when the block was lifted. Since then, based on information in this ANI discussion, he has engaged in battleground behavior in two topic areas under Discretionary Sanctions: Am Pol, and GMOs. And the very filing of this ANI report is clearly battleground conduct over a content dispute in Am Pol, possibly accompanied by a personal grudge. Snoogans has commented here in an appropriate manner, whereas SashiRolls seems to be throwing everything at the wall to see if anything sticks. I'm not seeing a net positive there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone puzzled as to why Trypto is talking about rope may want to read the guide.

This is just a reminder that, every so often, it's good to laugh rather than to call people "tiresome" or "grudge-y". (On the battle page mentioned above, it is even suggested that when battlers call you names, you should not respond in kind.) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is puzzled by that probably doesn't know what WP:ROPE is about. The reason why I'm talking about it is because it's relevant. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boomerang. In my view, a highly experienced editor is effectively asking for a boomerang when you're told explicitly by an admin to stop harassing an editor, and then you come back and file an ANI report on the same editor based on 3 copyvios in 3 years. It doesn't matter how much time passed in the meantime. The vengeful ex doesn't get to say, "But officer, we dated 3 years ago!" Or, "But officer, the last time you caught me me harassing my ex was 2 1/2 years ago!" When you're told to stop harassing someone, you stop harassing them forever. R2 (bleep) 20:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Boomerang: an utterly frivolous report per MrX and R2D2 and others. Three copyvios in nearly three years, at least one of which would better be described as a close-paraphrase of brief content. Regarding civility, I would characterise interaction as "sometimes abrasive meets often snarky", so take your pick as to which is less constructive. Snarky is more in evidence in this ANI. Word of advice Sashi, don't bring frivolous ANI's, and you won't have to spend "time being sucked into dodging boomerangs being thrown at" you. Pincrete (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More diffs

• No boomerang for Sashi and no boomerang for me for posting this:
  • At MS-13, back in July 2018, Snoog posts on the talk page "... article should cover Trump's rhetoric about MS-13, and outline all the falsehoods ..." In December 2018, they add to the lead that "The gang is a core component to Republican Party messaging ... Republican politicians, President Trump in particular, have falsely accused Democratic politicians of supporting MS-13. ..." and like an 8k section with the heading "Republican Party discourse". If someone reverts all or part of that, per WP:BRD, Snoog should be seeking consensus on the talk page, but instead it's revert, revert a 2nd editor, revert a 3rd editor, revert a 4th editor, revert a 5th editor and 2RR and 3RR, revert a 6th editor, revert a 7th editor, revert an 8th editor and 2RR, revert a 9th editor, revert a 10th editor, revert an 11th editor, revert a 12th editor, revert a 13th editor (2RR), 3RR with the edit summary "restoring the longstanding version". On the talk page: "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study"; to another editor: "Your sole contributions were to add ramblings by far-right crackpots to this article..."
  • At The Wall Street Journal, adds negative information, adds "The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters ...", and to the lead: "The editorial board is known for promoting fringe views on scientific matters. ...". Then months of revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert, 2RR, 3RR, revert, 2RR, 3RR with the edit summary "stop helping an IP vandal to remove reliably sourced long-standing content", revert, 2RR. To be fair, a few days ago Snoog started an RfC at Talk:The Wall Street Journal and as of now there is unanimous support.
  • Last month at Republican Party (United States): 1RR, 2RR, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR
  • Last week at Dan Crenshaw: removes "... Crenshaw argued for working and partnering with the Mexican government to reduce illegal immigration to the United States ...", adds "Crenshaw said that climate change is real but that there is a 'very reasonable debate going on' about the extent to which human activity contributes to it ... (the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change)." and "|In 2019, Crenshaw voiced opposition to HR 1, legislation introduced by Democrats to make voting easier.]]"; and adds "... Crenshaw defended Trump's proposal ...". Then revert, revert a 2nd editor, revert a 3rd editor, revert a 4th editor. On the talk page: "Stop whitewashing."
  • At Talk:Wikileaks: "... your obfuscatory fringe version ...", "You are also violating WP:BRD ...", and:

  Why is it so difficult for you to obtain consensus for your edits, either through talk page discussions or by seeking community-wide input through a RfC?
  — User:Snooganssnoogans 13:52, 17 April 2019

  • A recent EWN report against Snoog, based on different diffs than those above (at Candace Owens going back almost a year) resulted in no action. Leviv ich 05:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, like I explained at the spurious EWN filing where I was seriously being accused of edit-warring for removing BLP vio text that claimed that Sarah Silverman supported the transnational crime organization MS-13 (seriously): when you edit pages that deal with conspiracy theories, fringe content and falsehoods, you end up reverting a lot. In most cases, editors are not regular, do not bother at all to engage on the talk page and do not cite Wikipedia policy. The WSJ article is a good example, as IP numbers repeatedly edit-warred out the disputed content, only for me to start a RfC as soon as regular editors started removing it, and the RfC has of course unanimous consensus with eight votes after 3 days. You suggest that my edit summary "Undid revision 893037220 by Victor Schmidt (talk) the content is sourced in the body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Science. stop helping an IP vandal to remove reliably sourced long-standing content)" is some kind of egregious civility violation, yet I was thanked by the regular editor whom I reverted for this edit summary (which explained what was going on). It's the same with the Dan Crenshaw page, where an editor removed Crenshaw's views on a major piece of legislation without any justification, I started a talk asking for reasons for the removal, stated that it amounted to "whitewashing", the other editor never bothered to respond and some other regular editor restored the content (that's how it traditionally goes). The "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study" is literally in response to an editor who admits to not reading a study, yet who still went ahead with writing inaccurate text summarizing the contents of the study (and who was threatening to edit-war his summary into the article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps that editor objected to your calling their attempt to improve the article whitewashing and chose not to engage with you? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, it's important context here to clarify how Levivich and I know each other: Levivich sought to remove long-standing content out of the 2018 United States elections by falsely claiming to have a consensus[104][105] and then by brazenly removing content that was closed as a consensus via a RfC.[106][107] That's how I know this editor and how this editor knows me: I sought to keep long-standing content in the article that adhered to RS coverage whereas the other helped to edit-war the content out and replace it with poorly sourced rubbish. My version was of course approved in a RfC, and even then, the other editor sought to remove it. Again, what I'm I supposed to do when someone (in this case, Levivich) literally removes "consensus" text: let someone force out this consensus text? Start another RfC whose result this editor will ignore? Or should I revert it and thus be guilty of "edit-warring"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's time to give up the "long-standing content" line. As the diffs posted above demonstrate, you add new content, edit war when anyone tries to change it, then eventually claim it's "long-standing content". What you're supposed to do instead is follow WP:BRD, even if you're reverted by an IP editor. Leviv ich 14:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Should I have started a second RfC after you removed text that had just been declared "consensus" in a closed RfC?[108][109] Is this seriously the burden that I need to shoulder? It is not feasible in the slightest that I start a talk page discussion every single time that I revert someone (certainly not when it's consensus text) and it's certainly not something that other editors do. If you disagree with the consensus reached in a RfC, I'm pretty sure the burden falls on you to start a talk page discussion or start a new RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You are expected to shoulder the same burden as the rest of us: to not edit war, to edit collaboratively, to follow WP:BRD, etc. I posted diffs of your recent editing at MS-13, The Wall Street Journal, Dan Crenshaw, Republican Party (United States) and WikiLeaks–leading right up to this past week. Your responses have been about my editing at 2018 United States elections–from January and February. The difference is that I followed BRD at that article; I didn't edit war; I took it to the talk page after I was reverted. The editing history and talk page of that article speak for themselves (as does the RfC closing statement). You, however, routinely ignore BRD and edit war, falsely claiming you are restoring a "longstanding version", or that the editors who disagree with your edits are "whitewashing" or otherwise pushing POV or being disruptive. There is nothing about you or the topics you edit that justify an exception to the rules of orderly, collaborative editing. That you can't seem to see that is why I think a short topic ban from AP2 may help. Leviv ich 16:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Levivich: I'm looking at your diffs. In this MS-13 nonsense, looking at your first diff [110], I see Snoogans reverting a user called BreakingZews. It should probably be noted that BreakingZews was soon after Topic Banned from AP2 in this thread [111]. The next diff in your list is this one, [112], in which an editor tries to insinuate that the Democratic Party might be supporting MS-13. Do we need to talk about that, or do you already understand how ridiculous that is? Seriously, is that your argument against Snooganssnoogans? If that's the best you can do, then you deserve that boomerang. Geogene (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: What you refer to as my "first diff" wasn't the first diff, so let me break it down further in hopes it will be clearer what is going on:

1. Snoog adds 9,174 bytes of new content to MS-13. Under WP:BRD, this is a bold addition. It is not a revert of anything or anyone. It is before BreakingZews edited the article.
2. Over the next four months, 13 different editors changed or removed part of that 9k passage. Each of these is a BRD revert, to which the proper response is discussion on the talk page. Instead, in each case, Snoog reverted the revert, reinstating their original bold addition, sometimes multiple times. I linked to each of those in my long post above.

Do you think this is acceptable? Why does it matter that one of those 13 editors was topic banned? Leviv ich 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the very first one of those editors was topic banned from AP2 soon afterward. The next edit seemed to be trying to insinuate a conspiracy theory (that Democrats are possibly working to promote MS-13) when Snooganssnoogans reverted them. Edits like that should be challenged. We need more editors reverting edits like that, and we need fewer editors trying to get those editors topic banned for it. How long a text needs to remain in an article unchallenged before changing it, as opposed to reverting changes to it, becomes the WP:BOLD action seems like a less important issue, one that we're unlikely to find a consensus on here. Geogene (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the other 11 editors? Were they all trying to insinuate a conspiracy theory? Leviv ich 20:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, since the first two were without merit I stopped looking. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Here's a TLDR version of #More diffs with just EC accounts at MS-13: Snoog added 9k to the article, then reverted NortyNort's edit to the language, as well as reverted David8302's edit, reverted Tigerboy1966's edit, reverted Rich Farmbrough's edit, reverted 84percent's edit, and reverted Niteshift36's edit, with the justification "...restoring the longstanding version". On the talk page, Snoog wrote to Rich Farmbrough "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study" and to Niteshift36 "Your sole contributions were to add ramblings by far-right crackpots to this article...". Leviv ich 00:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of Levivich's examples is edit-warring on the WSJ page to remove climate change-related content. Every editor who removed the content was an IP number[113] (as soon as regular editors removed the content, I started a talk page discussion[114] and a RfC)[115]. Three days after the start of the RfC, there are seven votes in support of my version, with one vote against my version. Despite this consensus, the IP numbers are back removing the text.[116] If I now restore this long-standing content which obviously has consensus support, should I expect Levivich to count that as an example of edit-warring? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I posted so many is so that you couldn't get away with cherrypicking one or two and excusing them. 13 editors at MS-13, ironically–they weren't all IPs. They weren't all vandals. They weren't all new editors. There are even more editors once you factor in the other articles I posted. If you think it'll help, we can ping them all, and ask them if they're "real" editors or if they're the kind of editors we can ignore. Leviv ich 21:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Update: I pinged some of them, we can ask. Leviv ich 00:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a real person. My edit was correcting information which wasn't supported by any of the three sources Snooganssnoogans cited. I figured it would be a non-contentious edit, as all I did was change the term "focused on" to "mentioned" (because, as described in the edit summary, Snoog's sources either did not use the term "focus" anywhere, or they were in direct contradiction by saying the focus was on healthcare and other issues). It was a surprise to see it reverted. From this short interaction with him or her, it appears to me that Snooganssnoogans is trying to push a POV and is uninterested in truth. 84percent (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This set of diffs is more convincing the the first one.The extensive POV edit-warring and incivility is a huge problem. He editwars without even attempting to provide sources. A claim such as "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." needs a source [117] and I can't believe after being told that by other editors he continues to add it back in without a source. That Republicans cited Joe Biden's past support of delaying judicial nominations until after an election as justification for their opposition to Merrick Garland as reported by the new york times is "fringe" [118] does not even make sense. You can't just label things "fringe" because you disagree with them and only present half the story. Just take a look at the page user:Snooganssnoogans and you can see he's WP:NOTHERE. What kind of legit editor keeps a list of 50 or so mostly off-wiki criticisms of his editing? He is here to improve content or just to make more outrageous edits to draw attention to himself? That a single editor could have received that much negative attention really makes Wikipedia look bad. Why would anyone be proud of this?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) The text "There is no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." is sourced to the Associated Press, FactCheck.Org and ProPublica (in the body of the article)[119]. Furthermore, the text is entirely consistent with the state of the academic literature, and consistent with language used on Sanctuary city and Immigration and crime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (2) There are a number of peer-reviewed studies that characterize the Republican move as unprecedented (cited in the body of the article). The so-called "Biden precedent" that Republicans cobbled together was both misleading[120] and ultimately something that one Senator at one time remarked rather than acted on. So it is indeed fringe to rebut peer-reviewed assessments of the move as unprecedented with political rhetoric from partisans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid points... that should have been raised on the talk page after the first time you were reverted. That your bold addition was "correct" isn't a reason to ignore BRD. Leviv ich 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not valid points. 1. The sources provided, while critical of President Trump, do not actually say "no evidence that weak immigration enforcement or sanctuary city policies contribute to MS-13 activity." 2. I don't care whether you personally think that citing the "Biden rule" is misleading, sure its open to debate whether circumstances were different then, but that doesn't make it "fringe" (and note that the source doesn't use that work either).--Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're now just flat-out telling falsehoods about the sources (this is an extremely good example of the kind of time-consuming veto tactics that one frequently encounters on American politics pages that relate to conspiracy theories, fringe rhetoric and falsehoods). (1) AP: "It’s inaccurate for Trump and his administration to assert that weak immigration enforcement is leading to “unchecked” crime, including from the “vile gang MS-13.”"[121], FactCheck.Org describes Trump's claim that "The weak illegal immigration policies of the Obama Admin. allowed bad MS 13 gangs to form in cities across U.S." as "distorts the facts" and cites as an MS-13 expert literally saying "Gangs do not flourish because of weak immigration policies."[122], ProPublica likewise rejects the assertion,[123], NBC News: "there's no evidence that sanctuary cities, which limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, foster crime or gangs, and authorities have said sanctuary policies actually help them fight crime."[124] (2) "Fringe" as in contradiction to mainstream academic scholarship (which is all cited in the article in question). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'll concede that the sources actually say that weak immigration polices do not lead to gang activity, but they do so without much proof. The AP article says "Several studies have shown that immigration does not lead to increased crime." without even citing those studies. An intelligent reader would first ask, whether those studies came to the conclusion that immigration as a whole (including legal immigration) doesn't lead to increased gang activity or that specifically illegal immigration (what Trump was actually talking about) doesn't lead to increased gang activity? Then the next question would be, are there also other studies that came to different conclusions? I'm not saying the conclusion here is wrong or right, just that it needs better evidence. 2. The source was written by "mainstream academic scholarship": Not true, it was written by a reporter, his bio is here So it's basically an opinion piece, which is fine and the author makes the argument that circumstances were different in 1992, which is also fine. So, to be clear there is nothing wrong with this as a source, but to say that anyone who disagrees with this particular reporter or any other for that matter is "fringe" is disingenuous and inflammatory. You seem to have a view that intelligent people cannot have disagreements and therefore anyone who has a different view that you is "fringe" and this type of mentality should not be accepted here.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) RS are not required prove things. Especially not when RS are just describing an obvious and apparent research consensus. Since you're interested in learning more about the relationship between Immigration and crime, research shows both that (a) legal immigration does not increase crime and (b) illegal immigration does not increase crime. (2) I'm not referring to the PolitiFact article as "mainstream academic scholarship", I'm referring to the "mainstream academic scholarship" cited in the Wikipedia article (i.e. the mainstream academic scholarship that you want to rebut with "But Republicans say otherwise"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference to scholars is in the NPR article which say "Scores of scholars — law professors, historians and political scientists — urged the Senate to at least have a process for Garland as a duly appointed nominee with impeccable qualifications. But some lawyers and academics pointed out that the Constitution empowered the Senate to "advise and consent" but did not require it do so. (Some adding that they thought the Senate still ought to do so.)" 1. I don't' see anything about the Biden rule there. 2. Nor do I see anything that categorizes Republican views as fringe. All is says is they are doing the opposite of what scholars "urged" them to do.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are four academic sources cited in the body regarding the blocking of Garland. Please read more carefully. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to play this find the mystery source game with you. Why don't you just provide the academic source that asserts that citing the Biden Rule is a fringe view?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the academic sources (AFAIK) specifically address the "Biden rule" (why would they? it's a faux rationale). They describe the blocking of Garland as "unprecedented",^[1] a "culmination of this confrontational style,"^[2] a "blatant abuse of constitutional norms,"^[3] and a "classic example of constitutional hardball."^[4] The addition of the "Biden rule" is to rebut these assessments by making it seem as if the move was not unprecedented and just normal everyday politics (that's the "fringe" part). This chapter is not cited in the Wikipedia article but it specifically addresses the "Biden rule", effectively calling it BS.[125] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the academic sources (AFAIK) specifically address the "Biden rule"", so what you're relying on is WP:SYNTH.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm relying here on is WP:FRINGE. We don't add fringe arguments to articles to rebut mainstream academic scholarship just because they haven't been specifically addressed by academics (i.e. we wouldn't say "Some scientists say human activity contributes to climate change. Others say [insert inane arguments for why humans don't contribute to climate change]"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are just labeling something fringe because you disagree with it. What theory, fringe or otherwise is being pushed here. It is not a theory that Biden wanted to delay judicial nominations until after the 1992 elections, that's true. It is the opinion of Republicans that this set a precedent to oppose the Garland nomination. It is the opinion of other people that it did not. Do you understand the difference between a theory and an opinion??? The underlying facts are not in dispute, the dispute is over how to interpret them.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*No boomerang. I was drawn here by my mention above. Snooganssnoogans did, in fact, add a lot of material to the MS13 article, specifically in the lead (not a lede). The material has been removed or challenged by a number of editors and his constant reversion with the claim of 'it's long-standing' is, in my view, dishonest. When it was pointed out that his version spent over half of the lead discussing one issue in a very POV manner, his "solution" was to just fill the lead with more info instead of addressing the undue weight issue. I can't see where he is trying to work towards consensus on that article. No comment on the other articles that I'm not involved in. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking Snoogans' initial statement

This has all become way too long, as usual when you have to fact-check Snoogans. But it does need doing since unfortunately it is always "feasible in the slightest" for Snoog to type out screeds full of adverbs and adjectives "every single time" they talk about everyone's behaviour except their own. Therefore, I would like to briefly point out 3 of the verifiable lies as well as a dubious half-truth in their initial statement:

1) SR began a stalking and harassment campaign against me (whom he blamed for the topic-ban), where he followed me to pages that he’d never been to before, only to revert me nilly-willy. After SR removed my addition of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal to one obscure article

Anyone clicking next on the link Snoog gave above would see that first he reverted me without correcting his two subject-verb agreement errors, and then I corrected the errors in the subsequent edit and walked away from the page and never edited it again [126]. I did not "revert [him] nilly-willy", but precisely once after politely trying to get them to correct their own error by leaving a message on their talk page. Verdict: pants on fire

2) I watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard's BLP around the time that she resigned from the DNC as I figured that would lead to negative consequences for her BLP. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Snoogans began modifying... deleting positive things from her page and curiously "massaging" some negative wiki-text which was sourced to a long-since deleted blogpost. So, contrary to what he stated above, what angered him enough to call me "batshit insane" & a "sociopath" was not my correcting his agreement errors, but my calling out his misrepresentation of a no-longer existent source (which he admitted he had not read "I did not and I have never read that blogpost. I changed the language because it read weird). (Actually they changed the wiki-text from the past to the present tense to make it sound more recent.) So concerning their description of the reason for their block... Verdict: pants on fire

3) Concerning Neutrality's comment about the trivial episode mentioned in #1, Snoog has obviously not seen fit to include my response to it which pointed out how trivial it was to be complaining about me correcting a grammatical error. People can find that response by clicking next from the provided diff. Neutrality's original complaint was made but was unwarranted. The only communication I've had with Neutrality since returning was to thank him for a good edit he made on a page I principally authored. Verdict: half truth

4) Concerning AWilley, I'm surprised they haven't commented, since Snoog has completely misrepresented their position: @Snooganssnoogans: There are ways out of this. I think the best way would be for you to understand what is at the root of SushiRolls's objections and start editing from a more neutral point of view. (Not an endorsement of SashiRolls's POV) ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Verdict: Pants on fire

Fact check evaluation: Four Pinocchios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs)

(1) You stalked me to a page which you never edited before and which you had zero reason to ever encounter only to remove my edit in its entirety (which was a summary of a peer-reviewed study in a top journal).[[127]] That you're still BSing about this and can't cop to stalking me to this page is beyond belief. Do you seriously think anyone is buying it? An admin literally described it as part of an intentional campaign to harass me and drive me of the project.[128] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(2) You're asking us to believe that you happened to make your first edit to the Tulsi Gabbard page shortly after I edited the page, and where you coincidentally happened to revert my edit in its entirety, because you watchlisted the article in anticipation that some bad people would start editing the article? And you did all of this at basically same time that you stalked me to other articles and filled my talk page with incoherent and threatening commentary in what an admin described as a harassment campaign?[129] Hard to believe. In particular, given that you can't even admit to the most brazen and blatant stalking. This is beyond the point (your creepy harassment) but I removed poorly sourced content and added RS content to the Tulsi Gabbard page. This[130] is the edit in question (so readers can judge). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Why on Earth would I include your ranting in response to an admin warning you not harass me anymore? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(4) That's an extremely misleading and deceptive recounting events. You're completely misrepresenting my interaction with Awilley. After describing how you indiscriminately reverted all my edits on the Tulsi Gabbard page and refused to explain why (holding the page hostage), I asked him/her "whether it's OK to hold a page hostage like this", to which Awilley answered, "Ugh, that is definitely not how things are supposed to work."[131] Then later, after you were informed by Awilley that you couldn't block things without explanation, and after I spent ten days trying to converse with you on the Tulsi Gabbard page (during which time you filled the talk page with WP:NOTFORUM rambling and casting of aspersions), I asked Awilley "is there seriously no way out of this?", to which Awilley gave the response that you just quoted.[132] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) are we still talking about your error on Reconquista?

2) Why do you neglect to mention that it was your first edit ever to Gabbard's page? By all means people are welcome to read your initial edit and my subsequent improvements to the page and my TP edits concerning my revert of your edit. (Cf. BRD)

3) There are lots of reasons. Again, are we still talking about your grammatical error on Reconquista? It's fixed, get over it.

4) I think people should investigate your representation of this matter. @Awilley: prefers to avoid drama, but it is true they did reply "ugh no" to your one-sided presentation of the matter on your TP and shortly thereafter thanked me on the same page for filling in the missing gaps in your story. I cited their last comment on the matter, after you'd been pinging them fairly regularly. My impression was that they wanted you to understand that they did not wish to be your muscle. That is a very respectable position, IMO. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged... I both criticized SashiRolls for mass-reverting and gaming the BRD rule to hold Snooganssnoognas's edits hostage with talkpage discussion, and I chided Snooganssnans for essentially failing to write for the opponent. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, we will have to agree to radically disagree on the "mass-reverting and gaming" charge, which is nonsense. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5) Snoogans, you seem to want to give me the reputation of a stalker, by providing evidence of a grammar correction I made in November 2016. A newish editor, below, wants to call into question whether I had the Tulsi Gabbard article watchlisted when you made your first edit to it in November 2016, though I've explained my reasoning above for doing so. Digging back into it, I remember that the exact date was probably closer to around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign, because by then I was pretty aware that there was very strong partisanship on Wikipedia. (At the time I didn't yet know that the CCO of the Clinton Foundation was a WMF donor & contractor though)

On 22 September 2016 13:45 I made some edits to Haiti-United States relations. Snoog, you made your first ever edit to that page on 22 September @ 14:34 (less than an hour later) to revert my edit with the ES "bilateral US-Haiti relations nothing to do with Clinton Foundation which is a private entity".

First, one does wonder how you found that edit so quickly without having the page watchlisted. Second, this ES also deserves a Pinocchio/pants on fire fact-check rating: the first of several articles added as a source was a Politico article by Jonathan Katz which Politico had (and has) tagged as "Clinton Foundation," and which includes a picture captioned "At left, workers walk through the $300 million Caracol Industrial Park campus in the north of Haiti last month. The three-year-old park—a key project of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state—was intended to have thousands more jobs by now but is far behind initial projections" [133] Four hours later you still hadn't opened discussion on the Talk Page, so I did so at 18:25 on 22 September 2016. WP:BRD?

I've edited quite a few articles on Haiti and have never seen any evidence of your presence in that area of Wikipedia. How did you happen to find that obscure article Snoogans? Did you have it watchlisted? If so, could you explain why? If not, who was "stalking" whom, in fact? Out of curiosity: would you agree that a foundation's CCO being a donor and employee-contractor of the WMF should have no bearing on whether we include RS descriptions of their activities? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Just maybe it had something to do with your 13:22, 22 September 2016 edit on Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Haiti where there is a link right there to Haiti-United States relations. The question is, how did you find this edit by Snoogans which perfectly fit your narrative, and without noticing the obvious explanation? It took me all of five minutes to verify what happened. Secondly, what do you mean by "around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks KB. I had forgotten that I'd added that link. I ran into this again when I had to dig up the diff from his TP to show that Snoog was misrepresenting the reason for his block. I saw: "Not sure why you're following me around, but..." and a request for him to rewrite what he didn't like) It's funny how he could remove something which required hours of reading for me to prepare for the encyclopedia within 45 minutes of my adding it. But that is a question about bias not about "stalking". You are correct. I notice though that you didn't correct your misstatement below about whether or not I reverted JBL. Could it be that you made a mistake? How did you make that mistake? Why haven't you corrected it? To answer your question, I'm not sure exactly which day I added TG's BLP to my watchlist, all I know is that it was well before Snoogans' started editing it, probably closer to the end of the primaries than to the date of the general election. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so when you said you thought you watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard "around the time that DWSchultz said she would resign", that was a mistake too? It is unclear at this point. You are now suggesting you may have watchlisted the article around the end of the primaries? Please ping me next time when I've made an error so I'm sure to notice. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6) Another example of !stalking that maybe Mr/s Butternut will explain. Snoog followed me to the Daily Mail article on Christmas Day to revert a sourced contribution I made critical of en.wp process during the first RfC about banning the DM. (It was and remains their only edit ever to the page). They eventually retracted their position when I pointed out they had fought to use the same source they were objecting to as non-RS to post negative POV about Jill Stein during the 2016 election. Let's be clear: I am not advocating for the Daily Mail or for Jill Stein by pointing this out. I am advocating for NPOV. Let's also be clear: I don't see anything *procedurally* illegitimate about Snoog coming and reverting me on Christmas Day, 2018 (edit: actually, by BRD they should have opened disussion on the TP, but let's not be too strict about it). Their double standard on sourcing and their crying wolf about "stalking" is another matter entirely. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, you have been repeatedly told to stop making baseless personal attacks against other editors. Most recently you have attacked me, [134] after I corrected the one small error in my documentation of the dishonesty in just one piece of your statements. [135] You are now again making the baseless accusation that User:Snooganssnoogans has been stalking you. On Christmas Day 2018, you two were participating in a discussion at WP:RSN #Media Bias Fact Check where you provided a link to your Daily Mail edit in response to Snooganssnoogans. [136] I am curious how you are able to find these supposed occurrences of stalking without noticing their context within your editing history on the same day. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Mr/s Butternut knows, their link above does not lead directly to the edit in question. Only by following the sequence of edits did Snoog find the edit they reverted. If you are so concerned about honesty, you really should be accurate in the research you did in the last two hours. It's true that I had spaced that 4 months ago I made a comment about the use of Media Bias/Fact Check on the Daily Mail. See also the use of the Daily Mail on Wikileaks. (the article where the initial copyvio that started this thread occured)

Once again, allow me to repeat... I don't see anything *procedurally* illegitimate about Snoog coming and reverting me on Christmas Day, 2018 (edit: actually, by BRD they should have opened disussion on the TP, but let's not be too strict about it). Their double standard on sourcing and their crying wolf about "stalking" is another matter entirely. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I empathize with Snooganssnoogans' use of the phrase "incoherent ramblings" to describe your behavior. Your above comment has no substance and serves only to distract from the merits of my criticism. Snoogans reverted edits which you had made to WP:Daily Mail on the same day that you sent him a link to WP:Daily Mail. I can't make any sense of your statement. Here is the editing history where you were reverted by Snoogans and User:Aquillion [137] Regarding your last comment, I am discussing the accusations of stalking, which you personally requested that I investigate, and which are as you stated: "another matter entirely" from the actual edits, so when you change the subject to the edits themselves you are distracting from what you asked me to discuss. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any merit to your statement above, as below, is undermined by your deliberate misrepresentation. Above you say you two were participating in a discussion [...] where you provided a link to your Daily Mail edit, implying that it is the same edit I mentioned above, which it was not. If Snoog wanted to verify that nothing was up with that edit, they would only have needed to click on the link I provided at RS/N and see that I had indeed removed the Media Bias/Fact Check link that they said had said was unreliable. Nothing would have led them to go digging further into my edits. It is worth noting that on the Daily Mail page 1) I did not engage in edit-warring but let Aquillon, who you just canvassed, Calton, Snoog & Neutrality have their way. 2) WP:BRD states that when you revert you should start a TP discussion (technical foul) 3) by their own subsequent admission, their revert was not justified on the basis that both Snoog and Aquillon had claimed ("random academic", "obscure figure", Forbes op-ed is not RS) (shifting goalposts).

Twice now you've misrepresented your opposition research (conducted minutes beforehand) in ways unfavorable to your opponent. I am quoting from memory (from 2.5 years ago and 4 months ago) and I'm doing much better than you as far as accuracy goes. I did have TG watchlisted before Snoog showed up there and before Volunteer Marek supported Snoog without any participation in the discussion; I did not revert anyone neutral in the discussion about the deleted blogpost sourcing Snoog's rewrite of the wiki-text. Incidentally, the "Leftward Journey" article you mention below was also a dead link when I returned to the page. I dug the correct link up, because I have no problem "writing for the enemy". Snoog on the other hand, isn't very good at that as this example shows. (They are claiming what they've written is "long-standing content" when in fact they had changed the "long-standing" text without discussion. That should remind people about what was said above (in the "more diffs" sections) about the 13 people they reverted at another page I was not involved in. You have denied you are a sockpuppet, so I will have to assume (according to wiki-rules) that your behavioral similarities to Cirt (note the blue drama ice-cap in the graph) are just a coincidence, and that you really have only ever made 341 edits to mainspace (note the blue drama ice-cap in your graph. Note the lack of blue drama ice-cap in my graph. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about you accusing Snoogans of stalking you to WP:Daily Mail, which I have shown did not happen. You state "If Snoog wanted to verify that nothing was up with that edit, they would only have needed to click on the link I provided at RS/N and see that I had indeed removed the Media Bias/Fact Check link that they said had said was unreliable. Nothing would have led them to go digging further into my edits." You didn't just remove the Media Bias/Fact Check link, you also removed the following line which was sourced from The Guardian: "Support for the ban centred on claims of 'the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication'." [138] Snoogans must have then looked to see that the article at that time included inline attribution to The Guardian along with a Forbes op-ed which they objected to. Their edit summary includes "The Guardian is RS, so no need to attribute". [139] I'm not going to argue further about your bad faith or at best strange inferences. If you want to discuss who you think I am you can invite me to your talk page, but the rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with me. I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing in those graphs, but I don't appreciate the backhanded accusation of sockpuppetry. You invited me to correct what you felt was Snoogans' copyright violation [140]; here at ANI you have accused Snoogans of copyright violation; I saw and continue to see what I feel is dishonesty, which I do not appreciate. Snoogans clearly has conduct problems too (which seem well investigated by others), but like I said, an editor who is being honestly uncivil isn't my biggest peeve. I don't want to clutter up this space anymore, so please invite me to your page if you have personal concerns. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you conveniently don't mention, were your theory true, they would have been satisfied by clicking next just once as I restored the sentence in the very next edit. Let me suggest that you go do something useful for the encyclopedia as I have done this evening. You haven't made a mainspace edit in at least 4 days. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you would stop making false statements and accusations I wouldn't feel the need to participate here any longer. There is a pattern here of you either assuming the worst intentions of people or of you outright lying. You did not restore the sentence you deleted without changing it. You changed the sentence to "Support for the ban centred on a competitor's claims about "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". [141] Note that you added the word "competitor's". Snoogans would only have had to click "next" one more time to see that you added inline attribution to The Guardian, [142] which they disagreed with. [143] There is no merit to your accusation that Snoogans stalked you to WP:Daily Mail. Please let this go. Please stop making this personal about me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I added a word. I didn't notice. You win. Bravo. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're demonstrating a battleground mentality. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to be creating subsections

It looks concerning to me when editors are explaining their reasoning by posting little animated faces expressing scorn, or giving Pinocchio ratings to what other editors have said. Looks battleground-y to me, like maybe the reasoning would look considerably weaker without the visual embellishments. And it sure looks like the exporting of a content dispute to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This very much seems battleground-y to me and I seriously wonder about the rhetorical skills involved in posting Pinocchio ratings. This is sad.--Jorm (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I show you a ton of recent diffs of an editor edit warring with over a dozen other editors across multiple articles to keep their own bold additions in, and what "looks concerning" to you is my use of a smiley? Now that is sad. Leviv ich 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I said. I wouldn't, however, call it a smiley – more like a snarky. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking SashiRolls

SashiRolls claimed above: "I watchlisted Tulsi Gabbard's BLP around the time that she resigned from the DNC as I figured that would lead to negative consequences for her BLP. Sure enough, shortly thereafter, Snoogans began modifying...". Tulsi Gabbard resigned from the DNC on February 28, 2016[144], while SashiRolls' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard was not until November 11, 2016[145], the day after Snooganssnoogans' first edit to Tulsi Gabbard[146]. On Novermber 11, Snoogans said on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard "you're just here to revert my edits whatever they happen to be.", to which SashiRolls responded: Look, I'm watching your edits for bias, you know that, especially concerning politicians like Tulsi Gabbard."[147].

SashiRolls reverted Snoogans' edit which was supported by two other neutral editors, as User:Joel B. Lewis wrote:

You are simply restating your a priori position as if it were the result of a discussion that hasn't happened. So far, two neutral editors have weighed in; I have expressed skepticism of your position and V.M. has reverted you. I strongly opposed inclusion of long, mundane quotes from press releases; if you want to write something proper using secondary sources, go ahead, but you haven't done that. I am also skeptical of your position on the older stuff, though I haven't thought as much about it yet. I am going to revert to the last version before the personal attacks broke out and we can continue to discuss how to rewrite it. --JBL (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Full discussion here.

Snoogans' edit was restored by User:Volunteer Marek, which SashiRolls reverted[148], and by JBL, which SashiRolls reverted[149].

SashiRolls claimed above that Snoogans "misrepresent[ed] a no-longer existent source (which he admitted he had not read 'I did not and I have never read that blogpost. I changed the language because it read weird'). (Actually they changed the wiki-text from the past to the present tense to make it sound more recent." It is reasonable to think the language "read weird". The word "initially" feels somewhat taken out of context in this paragraph which ended the section:

Her father, Mike Gabbard, is a staunch anti-gay marriage Democrat (formerly a Republican) who is the State Senator for Hawaii's 19th District. The familial connection, and her previous stance,[22] initially caused voters to doubt the sincerity of her support for LGBT causes.[123] Snoogans' edit

SashiRolls later deleted the last clause, which they had found to be negative[150], because the source was "no longer active", when they could have instead just added the archived source. Notice that they did not actually remove the citation or the other text using that citation. Search for "Expression" magazine:[151]. But they didn't just delete the text sourced to the "no longer active" link, they also removed the preceding reference without explanation in their edit summary.[152] The sentence, which was then without any citations, was later removed.[153]

• Boomerang: dishonesty. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) My choice of words was incorrect, in retrospect I should have said "when your name pops up on my watchlist" rather than "I am watching your edits".

2) You are correct that I was mistaken about the watchlist date, it would have had to have been later. You are not correct about the substance. I added TG to my watchlist because I knew her BLP would get spun and did not edit it until it started being done.

3) I reverted only Snoog & VM because neither discussed (Cf. BRD). NB: This was Volunteer Marek's first edit ever to the article, just as it had been Snoog's. When JBL asked me to rewrite, I did. I did not revert JBLewis. Could you correct your statement above saying that I did or provide evidence of it, please?

4) At the time, I did not know about archived links. I did try to find the blog but did not find it because it had been deleted. A blog is not an RS.

5) I need to get to my day job. I would like to be working on more pressing things on en.wp but find my time being sucked into dodging boomerangs being thrown at me. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut: that is some class detective work from someone who has been active in Wikipedia only since January 2019. I'm not for dismissing diffs if they're the posted by the "wrong person", but given that this topic area has been plagued by sockpuppets (Sagecandor, Dan the Plumber etc.), it would be nice if someone like you left advocating boomerangs for someone else. --Pudeo (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was quoted: that one comment is an accurate but not complete summary of my observations of that interaction; both editors were acting in difficult or otherwise less-than-ideal ways. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Incivility I have not looked at the copyvio claims, but I found Snoogans response to be extremely incivil, and did not give the appearance of either AGF of having good faith. I have not met with this type of response since the guy who quoted Julius Caesar then accused everyone who objected of effectively being illiterate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

  Calling someone illiterate is just about the worst kind of personal attack. After all, it's not a person's fault if their mother and father weren't married. EEng 08:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, FFS, now everyone in the office knows I'm not working... GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Leave it to EEng to attempt to diffuse a situation while blaming it on his illiteracy...and I mean that illiterally. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear: this editor is referring to my response to him. "How about you actually bother to read the contents of the study rather than add your own OR description of its contents and then threaten to edit-war your false original research back into the article?"[154] does not seem like a horrifically inappropriate response when someone inaccurately summarizes a study (which was freely available through a google search), admits not to reading it and then threatens to edit-war that inaccurate description of the study back into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  True, it's not horrifically inappropriate. Horrifically inappropriate would be something like "it's probably cancer", or violent imagery involving sandpaper and hot sauce. But I think we should aim higher than "not horrifically inappropriate". Leviv ich 17:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There are two problems with your responses to me on that page, and your previous revert without starting a discussion. That is that they were both wrong and and rude.

  I did point out AGF to you, but your next response was as bad or worse. I think it quite reasonable when a reference takes one to an abstract with a paid link to the full paper, to take the abstract at face value. Moreover the abstract did agree with the paper when I found a freely accessible copy.

  The paper allowed a significant claim to be reasonably present in the article, albeit one weaker than that which was there. The other two references, from newspaper columns, merely stated "no evidence" for a contrary position, and should have been removed, or moved to support that which they actually did.

  I know you want (and I think introduced) a stronger claim, which may very well be true, but it simply isn't supported by the sources.

  This was really the only change I was intending to make to the section, and it seems unexceptional, whereas your response came across ass both ABF and WP:OWN.

  Looking back on the history of the page since you introduced the changes there seems to be a lot of dispute over them, on the basis of WP:UNDUE and (though not expressed as such) WP:COATRACK. I have not formed a firm opinion on these issues, but there certainly seems to be a case to answer, and some of this material might well do better in other articles.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Just to follow up, accusing me of adding "OR" and "threaten[ing] to edit-war your false original research back into the article?" is egregiously incivil, not to say demonstrably wrong. By posting my conclusions before reinstating my version (which I have still not done) I was inviting dissent, in the event that you or someone else had something constructive to say. Had I wished to edit war, which in 15 years editing I don't believe I have ever done, I would have simply made the change.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  

  The text sourced to those studies was introduced by another editor. I added the weaker claim ("no evidence"). I would never add sources to an article which do not specifically refer to the subject of the article, even if those studies are obviously pertinent to the subject of the article. But if those studies are in the article, they better be described correctly. Furthermore, all the studies make causal claims and the study which you did not initially read explicitly says that these studies used causal inference methods, not just correlation. Studies in top journals in the social sciences do not just do correlation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that everything has been settled...

At this point, I think that it's becoming abundantly clear that nothing is going to be settled about this, here at ANI. So here's a thought. I'm pretty sure that all of the point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint and so on is within the American Politics topic area of Discretionary Sanctions. So to all the editors who are rootin-tootin sure that the other guy is evil incarnate, how about you STFU? Team Boomerang, Team No-Boomerang, Team Pinocchio, Team Pants-on-Fire, I'm talking to you. Give a DS alert at the talk page of anyone you are pissed off at, if they haven't gotten one for Am Pol in the last year. And then go to WP:AE with it. I've heard that they have word limits there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• support Govindaharihari (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Tryp is right, except I'm not sure if AE is the best venue. Leviv ich 22:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I'm not sure if AE is the best venue either. This seems like an issue of both editors' conduct unrelated to the topic areas. After I did my best to accurately describe SashiRolls' behavior [155] I was personally attacked,[156] and when I complained about being attacked I was again attacked. [157] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Also not sure if AE is the best venue. DS notices are the best way to move forward, absent additional escalation. However, as the articles are controversial (all AP-1932 is), I must ask: do notices regarding discretionary sanctions really address the root cause? I beg to say no, not entirely. I'd honestly also support IBANs for both, in lieu of DS notices. Look, it's pretty clear to me that these two are like oil and water: they don't mix well (or at all), and anything about one complaining about the other invariably spirals out of control (see above sections), and it's mighty apparent to me that the best way to resolve any future conflict is to lay out some hard and fast rules now (i.e. IBANs). For the sake of a more genial community, DS sanctions just don't go far enough, and I don't want to see this being repeated next month or in six months or whatever. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Since there seems to be some misunderstanding about what WP:AE is, I'd like to clarify some things. First of all, this is largely about user conduct, so any dispute resolution venue below ANI is unlikely to resolve anything more than what we see here. (It might be a good idea to propose a two-way IBAN here, although that can create problems with a "first-mover" advantage. But if someone wants to create a subsection just below and propose that, please do so.) At the "top" of the dispute resolution ladder is WP:RFAR, but there is zero point in going there, because there has already been an ArbCom decision on modern American politics. That decision means that Discretionary Sanctions are already in place. Putting Template:Ds/alert on an editor's talk page does not constitute a sanction; it is only a formal informational notice that DS exist, so the editor cannot claim that they were not aware. Once an editor is officially "aware", they can be taken to AE, where uninvolved administrators are empowered to take decisive action if justified. There, there is no threaded discussion, and each editor is held to word and diff limits that largely prevent walls of text. There, as here, boomerang applies, but the discussion is much more focused, and the results can be quite strong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some data-driven analysis: I think an ArbCom case is warranted for an editor whose red line (# of reverts) frequently exceeds their gold line (# of talk page edits) if admins are unwilling to take action on the mass of civility / POV / copyvio evidence presented here. If someone is making more reverts than talk-page edits, they are definitely not respecting WP:BRD and would seem to be frequently edit-warring (which does not require going beyond 1RR or beyond 3RR). (See their graph, which establishes this pattern based on neutral data.) I have contributed significantly less to AmPol since returning and as a result my green line (# of main space edits) is way above my yellow line (# of talk space edits). My redline (reverts) has always been negligible (which is normal for most contributors). (my graph) SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you initiated this ANI report, and you like the idea of a new ArbCom case, WP:RFAR is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't be here if it weren't for Snoogans' WP:IDHT response to my TP request that they stop with the copyvios. I do not like the idea of a new ArbCom case (I gather you and MrX like ArbCom cases and have been involved in GMO and AmPol1 respectively), I like the idea of the multiple contributors who have commented here being heard. SS promising to respect WP:BRD,taking more care to ensure their their contributions actually reflect the sources they are citing, and treating other contributors with respect would be an excellent end to this ANI report, especially if they followed through and tried to bring their redline and POV into line with the expectations WP:HERE. Incidentally I just rewrote the nothere section of that essay to make it (a lot) easier to read and less redundant and rambling. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, pudding, insert clichés here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I take it, then, that you no longer wish to have anyone sanctioned by an admin, and that you will be satisfied if everyone commits to editing cooperatively, rather than as a battleground. I'm saying "everyone" because, as they say, it takes two to tango. And, to use yet another cliché, the proof in the pudding will not rest in any promises here, but rather in editor conduct going forward. Personally, that sounds good enough to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My initial statement was that I did not want Snoog to be perma-banned but to be sent a clear message that they needed to prove they had heard (through an unblock request) the concerns in the thread. They have shown no signs that they have heard the legitimate complaints above. According to the essay often used as a block reason: someone who is "here" exhibits an ability for: Self-correction and heeding lessons: When mistakes are made, there is visible effort to learn from them. I didn't mess with that section. I'm not sure you could point out any evidence of that above, despite the many mistakes highlighted. I've streamlined the !here sections "Consistent agenda pushing" and "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" to make them easier to understand. You might want to take a look at them yourself, to see if there is anything needing improvement. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this needs to be closed, but in any case, you need either to drop it or to demonstrate that you want to do something more than just filibuster here. If I understand correctly, you just massively re-wrote WP:NOTHERE so that it would make your point. You seem to be trying to stop the discussion here from being closed, but when you said that the situation requires a full ArbCom case and I pointed you to where you could file the case, you suddenly changed your tune. And you have shown a remarkable lack of interest in taking your complaints to WP:AE. I think it's becoming abundantly clear that you are the one who is WP:NOTHERE. Somebody please close this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This thread, as Atsme illustrated has become WP:ROPE. The rope ends here. I am not holding up decision. As I said before, DO WHAT YOU WANT. Jimbo isn't going to swoop in and close it for us. I would suggest just doing something sensible. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a request for arbitration. After looking into Cirt's sock that SashiRolls insinuated that I was I found that SashiRolls' behavior towards me was the same as what he has been blocked for in the past. I felt this needed to escalate above AN/I and it looked like no one else was going to do it. Snooganssnoogans' conduct seems like a whole separate issue. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Snooganssnoogans from my interactions with them on various articles is a very passionate and bold editor who needs to cultivate better social skills with others and take the time to read what others have written. All of us, at one time or another, have a need to improve our social skills and interactions with others (including me). My frustration with this editor is that they completely ignore and disregard talk page discussions about controversial edits and frequently borderline edit war. By way of example, the article Brexit has been flagged as POV and a variety of editors, me included, have been attempting to resolve the debate, only to have this editor come along and revert any edits they disagree with like a bull in a china shop without following through on WP:BRD and participating in the discussions and completely ignoring consensus, which is very frustrating. For almost two months I and others have attempted to add the "remain" viewpoint to the article with valid and cited content, but this editor will blindly revert it without considering the opinions of other editors or even participate in a reasonable way in these discussions, which is somewhat disruptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Somebody please close this. Nothing more is going to come of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very loud {{{{{YELLING}}}}} resonating in an echo chamber....will one of our trusty admins PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD? Well, actually it's no longer a thread, it's a hawser - and it may well be longer than any of our longest articles! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lithopsian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rigel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arianewiki1 is being subjected to continued personal attacks and ignoring policy (even when pointed out to them) by Lithiopsian, whose current post here[158] is problematic.

These current issues stem from these two reverts on the star Rigel here[159], which I reverted again here[160] and discussed why on the talkpage here[161] and on their talkpage here.[162][163]

They again reverted these edits under an IP[164], justifying this is the edit summary because they were "uncommented reverts" (which are no required, as I advised them under H:FIES and H:ES.) Under this same revert, they state "Lithopsian here before anyone goes mental about sockpuppets." LightandDark2000 again revert Lithopsian's edit here[165], which was restored by Lithopsian here[166], admitting they were the IP "not a troll, just me not logged in, re-instate."

This is blatant omission of using multiple account to enforce a POV is against policy, specifically, logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. (Stated as badsock in Sock) There were previously warned about this here.[167] Worse, they previously likely used again an IP before (151.230.13.97) as badsocking.

Also Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1[168] saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish."[169] is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack. I've explained my uncontroversial reasoning here[170], which has not be refuted (hence consensus.) Lithopsian making unfounded statements that Arianewiki1 "...abuse, and threats to individuals"[171] without evidence is clearly vilification. I feel this isn't true. I've never threaten or abused anyone in these current disputes.

Frankly, this behaviour looks like avoiding scrutiny and degrading/dismissing/undermine others who dare to question them.

Two examples are:

1. In the discussion on their talkpage here[172] Where they said "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation.", but when I modified the text to "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni (ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori.", they reverted it, removed my correction, then claimed the whole sentence was then not needed. When given the reference showing it does have a variable star designation, they say instead of admitting the initial statement was wrong, their response becomes: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1."

1. Another discussion on the Rigel talkpage here[173], which do not have significant differences except more cite sand the statement "Depending on the stellar mass mass and composition of this initial red supergiant, Rigel may execute a number of so-called blue loops, caused by variations in energy production occurring in the shells.[74]" According to Lithopsian this is all 'fantasy' as justification for reverting it, but bizarrely when you read Blue supergiant star it says "Depending on the exact mass and composition of a red supergiant, it can execute a number of blue loops before either exploding as a type II supernova or finally dumping enough of its outer layers to become a blue supergiant again, less luminous than the first time but more unstable.[6]" Extraordinarily, Lithopsian cites this same text here.[174] so they are reverting my material based on "revert the whole fantasy explanation of supergiant evolution, based on a book about red giants."[175] when they've already endorsed and cited the exact same Maeder (2001) themselves on the Blue supergiant star (Rigel is a blue suergiant star) article. [176]. Perhaps some of this could be reworded, but Lithopsian repeatable using various tactics to remove everything and point blank refuses to discuss it.

Their edits, apparently, seems to superior to others regardless of the facts in front of them - even if they've already been shown to have made incorrect edits or endorsed legitimate cites.

I do feel they have now show a pattern of gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior, and which they have been previously repeatably warned about disruptive behaviour here[177][178][179] Regardless of the PA, it is plainly evidence of disruptive editing. Furthermore, the back-up response by Attic Salt here[180] is clearly grave dancing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK unless they were evading a block. I'm not sure why they were editing logged out but it doesn't seem to have been a clear attempt to evade scrutiny, perhaps they were using a different device or don't trust the device they are editing so always log out after editing. (To put it a different way, there's little difference between a clearly declared edit from an IP, and an edit from a Lithopsian-alt account.) Of course, the edits from the IP will be treated the same as the edits from the account, so 3RR violations etc could be a problem. That said I'm not seeing a bright line violation either, 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert and it's also been about 2 days too. Nil Einne (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I consider it very bad practice to refer to yourself in the third person in these sort of complaint, it seriously harms your complaint suggesting it shouldn't be taken seriously. It makes it sound like you're pretending you're only a third person interested observer when you aren't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also HTF is this [181] gravedancing? No one has been blocked or decided to leave wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pile on more but.... I have some agreement with your view that a lot of the stuff in the Rigel talk page raised by Lithiopsian in the thread were you complained about gravedancing, concerns user conduct rather than ways to improve the article, and so should be dealt with on user talk pages and not the article talk page. But while I still agree with that, having looked at the talk page it doesn't seem that Lithiopsian is the only one. I'm seeing a lot of comments from you which also concern user conduct and not ways to improve the article. I.E. pot, kettle, black much? The more I look at this, the more it seems to me to be not something for ANI. All of you need to cut out on the personal chatter, put aside the animosity and whatever differences and disagreements you've had and instead concentrate on how you can improve the article. Use whatever form of WP:dispute resolution you need if you can't resolve this by yourselves. None of you should want this at ANI, since don't be surprised if you are the one who ends up blocked because of it. (And to be clear, this is directed at everyone in the dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: "If the editor said who they were in the edit summary I don't see that there is any violation of WP:SOCK ", but how do you know if they are the editor or different sock? LightandDark2000 Illegit explains that.

The gravedancing was by Attic Salt not Lithopsian

As for pot, kettle, black, Well the full statement is "The only thing that is right is this statement: "…because we'd be imposing our own interpretation of "right" on the world." Pot . Kettle. Black." but Lithopsian is also imposing the same interpretation of "right". Pointed out above.

The reason why there is a problem here is Lithopsian refuses BRD. When they say: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." How do you get consensus then? I've attempted to change the text again to avoid edit warring, and I have followed such changes with extensive info on the article's talk page. If they knowingly don't respond after a while (a few days), then it should be OK to reinsert the text. Expecting the edit summary to "explain" the change is not engaging in consensus building. (I mat have this wrong, but that is how I interpret policy. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um I never said that the gravedancing was by Lithopsian. I was fully aware when replying that it was by Attic Salt. WTF does that have to do with anything? The point is that there is no way this can be considered grave dancing. They are simply agreeing with what someone else said in an ongoing discussion which in part is on article content.

And I still fundamentally disagree with you about socking. If Lithopsian says the IP is not them it should be blocked for impersonation not for socking. If they say it is them and it is them, then it's not a problem since they've already said is them and so they're not try to evade scrutiny or otherwise use logged out editing as a way to get around restrictions. To be clear, this means they're not "suggests they are multiple people" nor are they "give the impression of more support for a position" nor "editing while logged out in order to mislead". Those can't apply when the edit was clearly disclosed as coming from the same editor, just like with an alternative account. If you disagree, please explain clearly how a clearly disclosed edit as an IP violates some aspect of our socking policy. You still haven't and nor has LightandDark2000.

Remember that while the general suggestion is that people should edit from both accounts to confirm it is them before starting editing with an alternative account, and we may sometimes block an account if it's uncertain, this is done to protect other editors not for socking reasons. If I start an account "Nil Einne (public devices)" and don't do so it doesn't make my alternative account illegitimate. Heck in this case, even if I fail to specifically mention on my talk page the existence of the alternative account, I question whether this is any significant violation of our WP:SOCK policy. At most, what should happen would be someone would mention on my talk page "hey you should mention it on your userpage" and I will say "you're right" and do so. I don't think it's worth getting into details on what would happen if I refuse to do so in a case like this.

Also I think you're missing my point about the pot kettle black thing. I don't really care about your arguments over right or wrong since you haven't given me a reason to care. I do care that editors are misusing article talk pages to engage in petty squabbles between themselves over user conduct. So you have a point where you said "The rest of this response is quite unacceptable, and really should be made on User talkpages but not here." (Well I'm not saying the rest of the response bit is accurate, but some of that content definitely seems better suited for a user talk page, or no where.) The problem is a quick read of the article talk page shows they're not the only one of doing so. You seem to be well guilty of it as well.

The key issues that you still seem to be missing is that ultimately we deal with user conduct issues here on ANI and our willingness to spend time analysing a complaint is going to depend on a lot of things including our perception it's worth it. In this case you're not giving the impression that your complaint is worth a cent since you start off with foolish referring to yourself in the third person, you then complain about socking for a clearly disclosed edit from an IP (to be fair the previous one was not but the time between edits was so short it's not really an issue) and you top that off with the silly grave dancing comment. If we then actually have a quick look at what's going on in the talk page, it becomes clear that you are right, there is way too much personal commentary that belongs either on user talk pages or nowhere. Except you are guilty of it as much as any other editor.

And I now find from the comment below that you are refusing to use edit summaries. While you're right there is no clear requirement to do so, and in fact it's far better to open a discussion on the talk page then to try to discuss via edit summaries, it's still often helpful to do so. Especially when making major edits. I mean heck even leaving a edit summary like "see talk" will tell editors there is a discussion on the talk page they may not be aware of. Completely refusing to do so does you no favours. It gives me even less reason to think any one editor is at fault here. Instead a bunch of them are causing problems. It's possible that these problems are severe enough to suggest multiple editors should be blocked (i.e. including you) but frankly I can't be bothered looking into it in detail.

To be it a different way, the best way you can ensure any complaint is taken seriously is to be on your best behaviour. If another editor is really a significant problem, you countering by also behaving poorly rarely helps. Instead try to be an exemplar of perfect behaviour. Yes I understand it can be hard when another editor's behaviour is very poor, and in fact I'm very often guilty of behaving poorly in response to behaviour I perceive as poor, I do understand that I should try and avoid it. Since to an outsider, it just means it's easy to miss the other editor's poor behaviour.

This means discuss, use edit summaries, don't misuse article talk pages, think carefully about whether your complaint is dealing with actual issues etc etc. If you are having problems coming to consensus, even if the other editor is only engaging in limited discussion, remember that ultimately if you have consensus they're going to fail so do consider using forms of dispute resolution if necessary, even if you feel the other editor hasn't given an adequate explanation for the problems, but it is clear they still disagree with your changes. Over time, if an editor keeps rejecting your changes, but consensus is always against them, and they keep refusing to engage in any real discussion you should be able to build up evidence to open a good case. (But please for the love of everything, don't refer to yourself in the third person!)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few final comments. Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [182] so any impersonation issue is not an issue. Note that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with LightandDark2000 thinking the IP was someone trolling/impersonating rather than Lithopsian. As I indicated before this is a risk people take when they don't properly declare. Any doubt was cleared up by Lithopsian. Yes it is slightly more confusing than it should be, but it isn't a socking problem since that's to do with editing in a way where you are trying to hide you are the same editor in circumstances where it isn't allowed.

Also while looking at the talk page, I uncovered that Arianewiki1 had a 1RR and further was unblocked with the proviso they should walk away if an IP starts editing disruptively. I've read the details briefly but frankly they don't matter much. If Arianewiki1 is worried that Lithopsian editing from an IP would require them to "walk away" they should clarify this with Ritchie333 since I'm certain it was not the intention that it would apply here.

As for the 1RR, while appreciate Arianewiki1 may feel this places them at a disadvantage, ultimately as I indicated before, the best way you can ensure your edits survive is by ensuring they have consensus. Also since there being no justification to revert simply because of a lack of edit summary came up in relation to the block, I'd implore Arianewiki1 to ensure they aren't violating WP:POINT by refusing to use edit summaries.

Earlier when I said that if you keep finding consensus, the obvious flipside if you frequently find your proposal lacks consensus. And especially if there is consensus against your proposal. In that case, it appears that you've misunderstood what the community expects and you need to learn what it is. Remember that we are volunteers and no one should be expected to teach you. It's understandable if someone keeps proposing stuff which doesn't improve the article, that other editors may get frustrated and bored of explaining why. I'm not saying this is happening here, I have no idea. I'm simply reminding that you should always be prepared to accept that perhaps you're the one in the wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is a nightmare. This recent response about are all about me and not the issue in the ANI. What is are saying that it is OK for an editor to refuse to engage on talkpage, and revert anything they disagree with, but if I do not write an edit summary, which I am not required to provide via both H:FIES and H:ES. (A lesson that was used to enforce the 1RR.)

Saying that "Lithopsian has already clearly declared the IP was them from the main account [183] so any impersonation issue is not an issue." is plainly wrong. They must of used the IP address to declare that, and plainly it was done for other reasons. I clearly cannot revert again under 1RR, so they are either doing it to either entrap me or look like they are reenforcing consensus. My only choice was to go back to the talkpage, which I did, and explained my position.

Again, regardless of my rights or wrongs, is it acceptable that: " Lithopsian declares that they refuse to engage with Arianewiki1 saying: "I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring Arianewiki1" and saying "I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it." It is against policy. They openly use this excuse to justify "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." is clear defiance of multiple policies as a personal attack." I you require consensus, how do you actually achieve that then? Where have I attacked an editor to such a degree that I have to "get use to it."? Is this normal editing policy? Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have an opinion on this at the moment, but it doesn't look good. First off, socking (including the use of IPs in this manner) is never a good thing when content disputes are involved. Secondly, editors need to respond/engage in discussion when there is a clear disagreement on edits, and consensus needs to be taken into account. Ignoring said consensus or continuing to restore the same disputed version(s) of an article is counterproductive, and even disruptive. Now, I'm not all that familiar with the current content dispute, but if Lithopsian continues to avoid the discussion (at the article's talk page), this could easily escalate into full-scale edit-warring. (I made one revert on the article, assuming that the IP was a troll or an LTA sock, but apparently, that wasn't the case.) My point is, all involved editors need to engage in discussion instead of blindly reverting or attacking each other. Circumventing the discussion process is harmful, and is definitely grounds for sanctions if this kind of activity continues. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of discussion, I'd like to point out User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. To me, that raises questions about WP:NOTHERE, since it precludes a major avenue of communication. I briefly participated in the discussion on Rigel, but left once Arianewiki made it clear they were going to be involved in a big way. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: there has been alot of discussion on the talk page - walls of text even. Trying to negotiate with Arianewiki1 is very difficult. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will just note that I have interacted with User:Lithopsian on a number of occasions and never had an issue with policy, civility, or content decisions. The editor has been and continues to be a most useful and helpful contributor to Wikipedia. OTOH, I am going to avoid posting my opinion on Arianewiki1 due to WP:CIVIL and the desire to avoid a massive time sink. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of posters have noted WP:NOTHERE issues and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [184] and the attitude displayed at User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries. Is there a general feeling that community action (such as a requirement to always use edit summaries and a 0RR restriction) is warranted at this point, if the user's 1RR restriction isn't adequately preventing the disruption? Neither option really directly addresses the editor's behavior towards other editors (which is, I think, the core of the issue), but it'd be a start. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: Sorry VQuakr. I stopped writing edit summaries after reading from an admin Tigraan who said "As has been explained to you a thousand times, edit summaries are not mandatory - they are encouraged, sure, but an edit without an edit summary should never be reverted just because it lacks an edit summary."[185] Aother was Nick-D "As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this."

I felt I got into trouble for one edit here: [186], saying "No explanation in revert. Discuss talkpage please." and said: "I've have made a big mistake making that single revert, which was simply momentary lapse of judgement. I thought I was protecting the IP, who had no explanation to why their edit was reverted within the edit summary. (They may have necessarily not have been needed to be advised, but that might have helped avoid this.)" I stopped edit summaries so I didn't do this again.

Silk Tork advised me "Most editors who are not vandal fighting can get by quite productively without ever (or rarely) making a single revert, so asking someone not to revert good faith edits, but to engage in a discussion instead, doesn't seem that onerous, especially when that person has a history of problematic reverts. A quick glance at Arianewiki1's contribution history will show a particularly high number of single reverts, often accompanied by an edit summary such as "Use talk page", "Please get consensus", "Nothing wrong with this cited text. You'll need consensus to remove it. Sorry.", " Not a valid reason for revert here.", etc - all of which are indicative of a situation in which discussion would be helpful. Not all of Arianewiki1's reverts are inappropriate - there are times when Ariane's edit is the preferred one; it is the editing model of "revert first, discuss later" that is the problem." To correct this, like on the Rigel article, I now properly discuss or explain the problems on the talkpage before reverting. (This explains "Future comments and discussions will only be placed on article talkpages or on my or other talkpages."[187] I've stated this in User:Arianewiki1#Edit_summaries

If it is required to write edit summaries again, please advise, as recent experience and policy says I don't have to do that. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIES H:FIES that you just cited states right at the beginning, "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit". Your conclusion from that that you will never write an edit summary again shows, at best, a severe lack of judgement on your part. To be clear, for editors with the judgement and/or good faith to be able to tell when edit summaries are warranted, they are optional. I believe they should be mandatory for you in particular, because you have exhibited a severe lack of at least one of those two essential ingredients. VQuakr (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how does this exactly fix the ANI on Lithopsian then? When they say: "This is getting tiresome. When I attempt to discuss content with you, then I get accused of violating any and every policy going, acting in bad faith, am met with walls of words that are almost impossible to follow, and you maintain your bizarre interpretation of the subject in the face of any editor who dares to disagree. When I don't engage then I'm accused of violating any and every policy going and being "vindictive". Whenever it looks like you can't batter every other editor into submission on an article, you try to pick them off with threats and warnings n personal talk pages. Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it. But just one final time: I'm not modifying your edits because I'm being vindictive, or because I'm trying to game the system, or because you forgot to dot some imaginary i or cross some obscure policy t; it is because you write a lot of rubbish."[188] and choose to ignore me. Is this acceptable response or WP:PA? Forcing me to write edit summaries will not solve this, and they'll revert anything, regardless if there is an edit summary or not. An editor on 1RR will be trumped to those on 3RR. If I slip up, I'm dead.

Also even if H:FIES is true, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: budding consensus is that to "fix the ANI on Lithopsian", we look at you. If you are uninterested in common sense or suggestions, relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries are WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. VQuakr (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but there must be balance too. If Lithopsian is happy to make reverts but intends not to discuss it, we have a problem. Also WP:EPTALK says " If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is called for, however, if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." I'm doing exactly that. WP:CAUTIOUS says: "If you choose to be bold, try to justify your change in detail on the article talk page, so as to avoid an edit war. On 1RR, I have too. Again, H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. I am following the "...relevant policy/guidelines on edit summaries." Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried about this recent statement of "…and general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users ie [189] . How is this disruptive exactly? I explained how the User could avoid issues (they were not explained), I said "... I'll respect your wishes." and advised a solution "to avoid all my edits." The response: "I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page."[190] I don't think I implied (and certainly didn't mean) to bargain anything, and was only a way to reduce the angst. I had no knowledge for the reason for this request.

It is also interesting to mention this User. An example of edits with the star Deneb. They made this edit here[191], saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor.". I responded on their talk page 18 minutes late here[192], explaining 'dredging' was a technical astronomical term (they archived the discussion without response) , and I modified to text correctly here[193] outside the 24 hour required if 1RR was applicable (it was 34 hours). They made another minor modification here[194]. This is surely a model example of HERE.

Yet 10 days later, they want to ban me from their talkpage? (There are other examples of overwriting context with their interpretation for the sake of grammar. (e,g. Western world versus western world, discussion here[195] other context problems are discussed here[196] or here.[197] This suggests extensive use of talkpages to solve editing issues. If there is any attitude here it is from frustration is the dismissive tone. Reading their response here[198])

Another is getting accused of "Revert errors introduced. Arianewiki1, it is probably a good idea not to revise other's comments." [199] I replied that this was "... petty and trivial. Really, when I modified it I said "I've fixed your reference(s) above for clarity."[200] What harm did it do? If anything it strengthens your own argument." Is this another example of "general disruption by Arianewiki1 as evidenced by their interactions with other users"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does Arianewiki1 not use edit summaries, he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable. Furthermore, Arianewiki1 rather regularly harasses other editors -- see my talk page (which is about 50% aggressive contributions from Arianewiki1 [201]. And to top it off, when I banned him from my talk page, he quickly felt the need to continue with his provocation: [202]. Attic Salt (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what this means: "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit." ? How is this done? Please present evidence of this behaviour with links. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See edit history: [203]. No Section indication, no undo indication. Attic Salt (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information…" I haven't removed nor deliberately removed anything at all. Clearly, an omission doesn't mean removal. If I "undo of a previous edit" it is tagged 'Tag: Undo' by the system.[204] (I've made 16 undos in 468 edits, the majority were for vandalism, since 30 January 2019.) According your edit summary[205] "Complete blanking of edit summaries" So how is this done? Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you are doing it. I'm just saying that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary, along with your own description of your edit. That's what most of us do. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attic Salt? What policy is being violated by removing the "default" info from edit summaries? John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is an ANI, where the accusations have to be backed up with difs and facts. Your accusation is "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." is false statement, and worse there not provided any proof that I'm doing that. Further saying: "... that the prepopulated info (section details, undo details) needs to be left in the edit summary... That's what most of us do." is also false. The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us." You've also said "no undo indication", but your own earlier given link here[206] does have all the tag:undo e.g. here[207]. Consider kindly striking (out) these wrong accusations. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @John from Idegon: Not the person you're asking, but I'll observe it's not a question of a strict violation of policy, just obnoxious behaviour making life difficult for other editors. The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, I'll suspect Arianewiki of being disingenuous (my AGF burned out a while ago). Starting with their second edit in 2008, their edits had those markers. Maybe they have indeed changed to making all edits as raw edits to the article and never touching the undo or section header edit links, but I suspect it's more likely a strategy to keep reverts from showing up in their edit history as such (and generally, make an analysis of their edit history excruciatingly difficult). The question is not whether they have made a specific rule violation at this time, as much as are they here to collaborate on an encyclopedia? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In saying "The declaration of the behaviour on their user page was what surprised me - it's an "in your face" statement that other editors don't matter. " Editors of course matter, and I see any declaration that they don't matter - an inference not fact. (I've explained my reasoning above.)

Then saying that "As for not knowing about edit comment undo/section markers automatically put into edit comments, ", but I said "The "prepopulated info (section details, undo details)..." are automatically generated by the system not me, or "most of us."", which says the exact opposite. I am unsure what Attic Salt is saying, but they claim that I am somehow "…he actually removes all the default information that is preloaded into each summary, information about the section being edited and whether or not his edit is an undo of a previous edit. This is not acceptable." Does Attic Salt misunderstand that I cannot actual remove this information because it is generated by the operation system that I have no control over?

If there is any strategy here, it is for me to avoid edit warring at all costs, because if I do, I won't be editing here. With individuals applying other pressures by refusing to discuss issue on talkpages and claim: "Hence no discussion of content is possible with you, so get used to it." and " because you write a lot of rubbish." or now want to "ban" users from their talkpages, appears as alternative strategies to make my demise certain. Two examples here[208] to make even the simplest edits survive take this to a new level difficult. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I think concise and informative edit summaries are essential, people should realize that Arianewiki1 is not necessarily removing *any* automatically generated text. The text generated depends on how you got there. If you just "edit the page", almost nothing is generated. -- Elphion (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already restated the "Edit summaries" 'problem' here[209] to remove the angst. As explained above, I now use the talkpages, and won't revert edits, but do try and reword them if necessary. Concern is why. Attic Salt has ignored any reasoning, but still won't back down using any lack of edit summaries. e.g. Here[210] saying "Note: Arianewiki1 is still not using edit summaries" or "As I explained in my edit summaries (see, I use edit summaries)" to me here.[211] They have been advised: "WP:PARTR, and know: "Do not engage in discussions in edit summaries. Doing so is a hallmark of edit warring; instead, stop editing and use the talk page." They also have been advised about WP:EDITSUMCITE recently here. (This appear under Talk:Rigel#Non-consensus modification :Variability section, and highlights the level of effort to 'discuss' even simple changes, finally admitted by them against the simple evidence[212].) I will consider their advise in due course, but they are seemingly using a lack of edit summaries as a kind of weapon to justify reverts, when policy is specifically against such actions. How a false accusation is not redacted by them, especially in an ANI, is shows more about issues with reverting of articles than missing edit summaries. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 175.138.78.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.135.130.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.188.44.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP hopper has a long history of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Admin Black Kite recently blocked IP 175.137.72.188 manually for 1 month,[213] but clearly, the IP hopper is not willing to cease this WP:TENDENTIOUS editorial pattern. NB: These are just 5 of his IP's. Same target articles, same geo-location, same POV, same narrative (pro-Indian), trying to come across as separate users, etc. There should be many more IP's. Whoever operates these, he/she is clearly on a single purpose mission and trying to put wool over everyone's eyes. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These IPs are all from Kuala Lumpur but I don't yet see enough evidence that they are the same person. 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a month by User:Black Kite but they have not continued to edit since their block expired. (Also reported at AN3 back in February, with an explanation of their editing pattern. Out of all the IPs listed above, only 175.138.78.234 (talk · contribs) is currently active and I am not quite seeing a case for blocking them. If we are sure this is a real problem, it might be possible to semiprotect a dozen articles. An interchange at an India-related noticeboard does suggest the IP could be pushing a POV. In the last month or so, it is possible that two of these IPs could be the same person, editing one after the other: 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs) (editing from April 14-17) and 175.138.78.234 (talk · contribs) (from April 17 on). EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware of this. I'm going to bed, but will post something in the morning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there might be two persons here - one clothing-obsessed and the other doing art & architecture. Or is that just a screen? I have been seeing these for months. Generally-accepted art history is all a European conspiracy - that's the line. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make a preliminary observation: there are two sets of IPs: a larger one from Malaysia, and a smaller one from New Jersey/Delaware. They have appeared on pages in which Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) has been in conflict with me, all taking his side, though I'm sure there are other pages as well. Highpeaks himself once indicated that this IP from Jersey City, New Jersay, now banned by Drmies, was being used by him. The pages (including their talk pages) on which I've encountered these IPs are these: Kurta, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, Talk:India, Indus Valley Civilization, History of India, and History of domes in South Asia. I will make a more detailed post later this weekend. There are also red-linked new users, that had quickly sprouted in the instance of a vote: here, here (now blocked), and here. Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) is a recent example of a newuser who is battling in Highpeak's support. Whether all this is meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, or a spectacular conincidence, I can't tell. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

man, you seem to have got a lot of grudge against highpeaks, now accusing me of being his puppet, this is not the first time you have accused him of something, previously being towing a hindu buddhist agenda, indian nationalist agenda etc and now this. if mods are little bit concerned about your behavior they would take action. Hammy0007 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Kurta

• • • After a gap of some years, and after posting a talk page message for the lead author of the page, Malikhpur, I made my first recent edit to the page on: 6th April 2019
    • Later the same day, after my edits were completed, Highpeaks35 appeared to change "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" and our back and forth began.
    • On 17 April 2019, 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (in Malaysia) appeared on the page to edit war with me over "Indian subcontinent".
    • On 19 April 2019, 63.143.237.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (in Union City, New Jersey) joined in over "Indian subcontinent".
    • On 21 April 2019, 2600:1002:b102:4e39:4dda:65bd:e2eb:3dd0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in Wilmington, Delaware joined in over "Indian subcontinent"
    • 22 April 2019, 2600:1002:b12c:4ac5:5c10:1d47:c2c2:68c8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from Mantua, New Jersey) joined battle for Indian subcontinent

• Talk:Kurta
  • • 11 April 2019, 202.188.53.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia) made a post critical of my edits
    • 13 April 2019, 202.188.44.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia) made a semi-neutral post.
    • 15 April 2019, 175.136.101.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia) joined the fray
• The IPs in this instance are a toxic presence, holding up progress, and relentlessly dragging the article back to reflecting their favored POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, can you please look at this non-sense. Look where Fowler&fowler is now stooping to? Stating me and Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) are the same person? Please check our locations, editing styles and log-ins, that can easily state we have nothing in common. I edited thousands of articles in Wiki; and I tended to follow Hammy's work. Mainly copy editing it. Please advise. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I am saying no such thing, but rather than Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) is himself an example of an IP from Sabang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, with such contributions who after his last edit as the IP, appeared by his own admission as Hammy0007 on a page in which you have a dispute with me. He fits the pattern of IPs who have appeared on pages in which you and I have locked horns. I have no idea who the IPs are, but there's a pattern. I'm laying out the evidence for the powers-that-be to examine, not making any accusations. Several of these IPs have already been banned, so there is something going on with these IP addresses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, all of your recent edits of Kurta, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, Talk:India, Indus Valley Civilization, History of India, and History of domes in South Asia are result of you stalker me. There are diffs that users can see who edited first in recent history. Who started causing trouble at each article? Pilaf and History of domes in South Asia are examples of articles I don't see you ever edited. But, you appeared once I edited it. You are the stalker. I don't know how you are getting away with these non-sense. All you do is bicker and edit-war. I at-least have 100s of articles I recently edited without any edit war or conflict, but all your recent edits are just that, POV pushing, bickering, and conflicts, not WP:Compromise and constant attacks close to WP:NPA. Our edit histories speaks for itself. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Notwithstanding the irony of the last line, are you serious that F&F is stocking as well as stoking you? FWIW, I concur with F&F that this needs a detailed look for the coincidences are too spectacular to be exclusive of meat-puppetry. ∯WBG^converse 19:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, yes, I got the spelling wrong once, but I clearly wrote "stalker" on the later sentence(s). But, now fixed in both. You did not have to be "fresh" and frankly insulting. Also, to think I will stay up all night to "meatpuppet" someone from a completely different timezone is probably the most asinine thing I ever heard. I have a life besides wikipedia, like work and family. Staying up all night to "meatpuppet" someone from another country, sorry, not happening. Believe what you want to believe. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I will leave the judgments to the experts, but meatpuppets do not have to be in the same time zone. I will note that there are New Jersey/Delaware IPs as well (see above); there is also a range of addresses which have been blocked, one of which you yourself used in January 2019: see here and the next edit. It may not mean anything, but the evidence needs to be explained in light of the POV pushing behaviour of the IPs, explained not by you but by the WP experts. You obviously are innocent, unless, and until, proven guilty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I can only do so much. If the Wikipedia community does not care about the reliability of its content, editors such as Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) and now Hammy0007 (talk · contribs)—recently registered from the IP ranks of Sabang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, which is the topic of this thread—will run riot on Wikipedia, promoting their peculiar brand of India-POV. Both have been warned by admins. Highpeaks35 has already been blocked by TonyBallioni (see here) with request to "take on board the concerns of Vanamonde93 in his AE report." The AE report closure is summarized: "I've blocked for 1 week as an AE action per BMK's diffs of personal attacks within the conflict area. Hopefully this time away from the project will also help them consider the other concerns that have been raised here. If it continues after the block expires, a new AE report can be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)" (See here) Vanamonde's AE report, see here, begins with, "Frequently, though presented as minor corrections, these edits have NPOV implications (they may or may not be violations of NPOV, but they do alter the POV of an article); .... There are a number of others, among which the unifying pattern is a tendency to add "Indian", "Indian subcontinent", or "Hindu", as descriptors for specific objects and customs. This, in and of itself, is concerning, as it appears to be subtle POV-pushing concealed by laconic and misleading edit-summaries," and ends with "In sum, Highpeaks has for several months now demonstrated an inability to use sources with the rigor necessary for a contentious topic, and an inability to work collaboratively, which required administrative intervention." Will someone on Wikipedia tell me if the mayhem that is being caused on just two pages: Kurta and Shalwar kameez and their talk pages, during the last two or three days, demonstrates that any lessons have been learned. I am tired. I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2006. But this is an all time low. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that there is a troubling pattern here. Lots of WP:OR (what's this about zero slits and side slits?) and then there's this obvious content or POV or both fork History of domes in India. If you can't get your viewpoint into an article, seek WP:DR, don't just create a fork. I recommend a topic ban on South Asian history for Hammy0007. I'm reluctant to impose a ban on @Highpeaks35: but they do need to come up with a satisfactory explanation of the fork given their history of substituting India for South Asia in a wide range of articles. About the possibility of sock/meat puppets, perhaps an SPI is warranted. Fowler? --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, I was not aware forking was an issue. I wanted to make a compromise, that is why I reverse the domes article version here and commented "bringing it to User:Fowler&fowler's version. Now, improve the article." Also, Indian domes have enough material to have its own article, as Delhi Sultanate, Deccan Sultanate, and Mughals are within modern-day India. Regardless, I don't have strong feeling for that article, as my main edits were copy-editing, as the diffs will show. I will not edit those articles for the time being until dispute is over. Cheers! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

• A few quick notes:
  • I have indeffed Hammy0007 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing under both the current account and the IPs listed in the original report (I am convinced that they are all one person; can spell out reasoning if needed).
  • I don't believe Highpeaks35 (talk · contribs) and the Hammy0007 are socks per se. But they were clearly tag-teaming to edit-war against Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) over multiple articles, which is troubling especially given the past history between Highpeas35 and F&f. I am not taking any admin action at the moment but if this type of battleground conduct continues, IBANs or topic-bans are not too far off.
  • I have redirected the newly created content/POV-fork History of domes in India to History of domes in South Asia. Whether the main article needs to be expanded, renamed, re-scoped, or split should be discussed on Talk:History of domes in South Asia.
  • I am skeptical that a rangeblock of the Malaysian IPs is needed/feasible but if the user returns (or other IPs, "now accounts" crop up) just ping me and I'll be happy to block the individual IPs/accounts or protect the affected article.

Abecedare (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @Abecedare:. @Highpeaks35:, and I'm looking at the link about forks from Hammy's talk page posted by Fowler below, you need to be ultra careful going forward. Any further attempt to use India in place of South Asia will lead to a topic ban of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]