It is with heavy heart that I come here to request help from user:Neutralhomer. We have been having a dispute over the silliest thing, but he has become increasing unhinged, finishing with a threat to "en masse revert every article you have touched". He has threatened to come to ANI because I continue to change coordinates from (for example) 41°39′26.00″N 83°36′57.00″W to 41°39′26″N 83°36′57″W. This is in keeping with WP:CALC policy, and guidance in many other places. When I showed him that editors at his project long ago decided the issue, he plays the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card and threatened me, "tread very lightly", ANI, and mass reversion. Please let him know that his behavior is not conducive to building the encyclopedia. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where does WP:CALC say to drop the decimal? (I know next to nothing about coordinates)--v/r - TP 04:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's rounding, a routine calculation. There is no carveout for coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: There is nothing "routine" about these calculations. These are the exact (or near exact) coordinations of radio station transmitters directly from the FCC database. What Abductive what's to do is input his own coordinates he has taken from Google Maps (see the history of WYFI, November 18, 2019) and that is clear OR. Not what we do here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I thought you were in the Air Force!? In this particular case [omit fascinating technical explanation related to how far from the equator you are] .01″ is roughly one foot. So what's with these ultraprecise values? Is someone planning a missile strike? The .00 were almost certainly simply tacked on and represent false precision. EEng 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a navigator.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nor the bombardier, I hope. EEng 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm a 3D0X4...Computer Programmer. Haven't even left the United States (except for a Wikipedia hack-a-thon).--v/r - TP 01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force has some really weird codes for job specialties. I'm a former Navy brat and my Dad was honorably discharged (after serving 14 years) with the rank of MM2, Machinist's Mate Second Class. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32 on April 23, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@EEng: I think the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something when it comes to their coords. Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin. As long as it's not in the next county. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Abductive has a habit of mismatching discussions, how they happen. This is one of them. This discussion is about Abductive's continued need to put the geocoords in radio station articles to the coords he finds on Google Earth. This is NOT how we do this. We use FCC documents. Numerous editors have told him this.

So today, April 22 of all days, he comes to me with an discussion from 2010 and tries to say that Dravecky, Closeapple, and I somehow came to an agreement that his way was how we were going to do things 10 years prior to him showing up.

Now, as most of you know, tomorrow, April 23 is when Dravecky left us 4 years ago. We at Wikipedia, we on this rock, are lesser for it every day. I miss talking science, talking radio, talking TV, just talking with Ed. He wasn't just someone I worked with, he was my friend.

So, for Abductive to bring up the name of Dravecky in his warped attempt to get his way, to change Wiki history, to change Wiki policy, is just disgusting and is a disservice to everything good about Dravecky. Yeah, I lost my temper, but all the good faith went out there along time ago for him and his "heavy heart". He can play the victim, fine. But he can do it away from the good name of Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I have no idea who the other editors are. The real question is, why do you care so much between 26.00 and 26? The articles you are exerting WP:OWNERSHIP over are the only ones like this on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse continues. Abductive (reasoning) 04:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky was an editor and admin on this project, mostly radio and TV stations, sci-fi too, from June 7, 2007 (with his first edit, fittingly of Starfleet International) until his last on April 23, 2016, the day he passed away. That's all you need to know.

He taught me that the FCC Database is the end all, be all database, it is a highly notable reliable source and none other is more reliable. When it says 26.00, you put 26.00. If it says 25.65, you put 25.65. Because a Federal Government Database is the end all, be all and in radio and television, the FCC is the top. That's not OWNership, that's what I was taught by an editor who knew exactly what he was doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Dude, you literally just said above that the FCC is erroneous: "Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin." Why then do we believe that it is so precise? Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the FCC and it's a source. Plus, 8 times out of 10, it's dead on top of the coord anymore. :) We still don't do original research regardless if a tower is in the woods 500 feet from where it should be. That could be a station lying to the FCC (it happens more often than you think). You don't get to pick and choose what policies you want to follow. OR is a biggie, everyone follows it. What you see on Google Maps, doesn't matter squat. FCC is golden. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It's a primary source and clearly incorrect in some cases. But that doesn't matter to rounding what they say to remove superfluous zeroes. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: Where is it incorrect and who says to remove superfluous zeroes and round? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

You said above that the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something. In light of that, giving decimal seconds (which translates to +/- 1 foot) is absurd. EEng 13:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Please, you're gonna have to explain decimal seconds and their "translation" into feet, I don't understand it. :( I was force-passed in Math 11 because I just didn't "get" adding decimals. Anyway, I said I think the FCC gives a margin for error. I pulled a number out of the air (among other places). The towers I looked at could have been mis-coorded by the station (again, it happens more-often than you think) and it was off because of that. I don't believe there is an official on the books margain for error at the FCC, just when you look at the towers, it seems that way. That could be the NAD27 to NAD83 coords, everything going to GPS now (along with NAD83). I don't know. It was my belief there was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Without going into a long song and dance, if you move from 41°39′26.00″ to 41°39′26.01″ you've only moved one foot (roughly); moving to 41°39′26.02″ is another foot away, etc. [1] So two questions arise.

First, even if a coordinate like 41°39′26.00″ is exactly right, what real purpose does it serve to give something so precise i.e. precise to +/- 1 foot? If you leave the .00 off i.e. just say 41°39′26″, you're giving the location to +/- 100 feet, and isn't that good enough?

But second (and more important), all those .00s are almost certainly not correct. It's like if a computerized list of people's heights listed 67.00 inches, 72.00 inches, 69.00 inches, 70.00 inches. Would you conclude that these four people were really measured to the nearest hundredth of an inch and that -- just by chance -- every one of them, when measured, all happened to have heights which are an exact, precise, whole number of inches, with no hundredths? Or would you conclude that the stupid computer just added the .00 because of the way it's programmed? Obviously the latter, and that's why including the .00 in these coordinates makes no sense. They're a computer artifact, not real data -- in technical terms false precision. I hope this helps. EEng 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Where were you when I was in 11th grade? :) I think the purpose has been to quote the source exactly as it is written to avoid OR and V/RS issues. Now, let me give you an example of where the issue lies there. Take WINC-FM for instance, currently showing the transmitter coords as 38°57′21.0″N 78°1′28.0″W. Well, according to the FCC database, that was correct...under NAD27. Under NAD83, their coords are now 38°57'21.30"N 78°1'26.90"W. That's far more exact. Instead of putting WINC-FM's tower somewhere in the woods, maybe near a cell tower. It has it dead next to it's actual tower. Most, if not all, pages, need to be updated to NAD83. That would make this entire discussion completely moot. That's a LOT of radio stations and typically it's Mlaffs, myself, and a few dedicated others doing the gnome-ish work around here. We would need help, a bot maybe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

When I was 17 years old, (decades before GPS) because he wasn't into latitude and longitude and maps, my boss had me fill those co-ordinates out for FCC applications for repeater type radio transmitters. Whatever I wrote on the form became the official FCC coordinate listing for the transmitter.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only responded to your abuse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• I just looked up "recalcitrant". adjective: having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline. noun: a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude. I'll take that as a compliment. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Wow has it really been four years already... :/

This seems like something that could be resolved by getting a couple other people involved in the dispute. Just to try to drill down to the specific issue: FCC vs. Google Maps. AFAIK we allow use of Google Maps to produce coords for articles on basically every other subject, so I guess it's probably considered a fine source for that? I think it's pretty standard to not even include a source, since it can be verified by clicking on the coords and seeing the subject? The how-to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates doesn't include adding a citation and I don't see anything about citing where you got it at Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates (maybe I've missed it). Putting aside the other issues here for a moment, I'm struggling to see why we would need to rely on the FCC specifically for radio towers, if they're sometimes imprecise, when we have other data available? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abductive: You've not demonstrated that there was a previous consensus for your view and WP:CALC is so generic that it's a mile long stretch to argue that it requires your viewpoint. You two need to go get a third opinion. Quit bickering and leave each other alone. And quit the mass changes until an actual consensus is developed. Start a formal request for comment if neccessary.--v/r - TP 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning: @Neutralhomer: I'm considering blocking you for a decent chunk of time for returning to the battlefield behavior that led to all your previous blocks (and which resulted in a block this past January). I thought we'd turned the corner on this; it is not acceptable to resume that. I very strongly suggest that you stop editing for a few days to regain perspective. Several of your comments above, and in diffs presented by Abductive, are beyond the pale. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute; for all I know, you're right. That can be determined when you've regained perspective. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, yes, TParis's suggestion that both stop with any mass changes until a clear consensus is formed is spot on too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam: I'm man enough to admit that I might have over-reacted...but I miss my friend. You know I found out on my birthday in 2016? So to have Abductive come up with a discussion that him and I took part in a little over 24 hours before he passed away 4 years ago, it really struck a nerve. I believe that was what it was meant to do. I fell for that.

Moving on, anyway, I have never used anything other than FCC documents to make changes to radio station (and other media) pages. That's just how I was taught. Plus, since that is our primary source, it is the Federal Government, it's always been considered something that's been allowed to exist as a unicorn (for lack of a better word, I just woke up) within CALC, within other rules because anything else could be considered OR when viewed beside the FCC source.

Generally, I don't make masses changes to radio station pages when it comes to their coords (ie: changing just the last couple numbers, rounding). I only change them when they have been updated (the FCC is doing that in their en masse update to NAD83 (and so there isn't towers 500 feet from where their coords are), when a tower has been moved (see WNOR), and when I'm updating a page (doing a page refresh, it's rare anymore). I don't mess with coords. I just don't do it. As I said above, I use what is on the FCC website, I take that as gospel, and that's it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:05 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• Just a comment here. I can see Neutralhomer's point. We report on what others say. What should be the coordinates of a tower is what the FCC says they are. Their databases are used for navigation by many commercial, government and private interests. For radio transmitters, it's what we should use. In other fields, yes, tenths and hundredths of seconds are completely superfluous and should be rounded. If your a matter of tenths of a second away from whatever you are locating, you are there. However, if you are 75 miles away from one transmitter you are triangulating off of and 100 miles from the other, those rounding errors multiply geometrically and now the location you've triangulated for yourself is off by thousands of feet. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other point: for most locations we give coordinates the worst end result is they are wrong. Radio towers are frequently used for navigation (air land and sea). Incorrect location information on them could be life or death information. John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Because a pilot might check Wikipedia to navigate while flying IFR? Seriously? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Levivich, on our airport pages, the layout and runway images all?? say, that they are not for navigation or pilot usage. When a pilot starts a flight, they check the NOTAM's and any information they need for the flight. They don't check Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Those NOTAMs Sir Joseph mentioned are based off FCC coordinates. They aren't always correct. Even FAA coordinates for radio/television towers are based off the FCC database. Those coords come from the broadcasters themselves. Here's an example of a station broadcasting from where they shouldn't be and getting busted for it back in 2018. So, while the FCC is almost always correct, it does rely on broadcasters in an almost honor system. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    If you're navigating based on a set of coordinates you imported from Wikipedia, you richly deserve the controlled flight into terrain that will probably follow. Choess (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, perhaps, but given wiki’s powers of citogenesis, it might be soon possible for someone to have that sort of error made for them. Better, always, to be right than consistent if it is a choice that has to be made. Qwirkle (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I would counsel sprinkling in intentional errors here and there, and advertise that we do so, as a way of convincing people not to fly their planes off our data. EEng 15:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I read Wikipedia while high, but I never use it to navigate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did it ever occur to any of you that there is a need to navigate things other than aircraft? I've found my way out of rugged territory on foot using radio triangulation, and a radio and compass were the only nav tools I ever used crossing Lake Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're saying Wikipedia was not one of those nav tools. I think we can agree nobody is using Wikipedia to navigate anything anywhere, so if our coords are off, it's not a life or death mistake. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The underlying content dispute here would probably best be addressed at some other forum, perhaps WT:WPRS though there may be a better one that I'm missing. I will add briefly that WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed as long as they are used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I will also add that rounding is covered by WP:CALC. Ultimately the choice of what degree of precision to display is an editorial one, and there is room for good-faith disagreement among well meaning people on that question. If there are concerns over the reliability of sources in context, that would probably be best addressed at WP:RSN. Finally, going forward remember to comment on content, not the contributor. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Popping in to add my two cents, just because I was name-checked earlier on. Is it worth going to the mattresses over whether or not transmitter co-ordinates should go down to the feet if the co-ordinate ends in "00"? Of course it's not, and this didn't need to escalate like that. Am I, personally, especially fussed if the "00" isn't included in a co-ordinate? No, not really, I guess – I'm just trying to stay alive right now. But would it be easier if there were consistency from radio station article to radio station article and they all used full NAD83 co-ordinates, including any "00"? Of course, because we can verify those co-ordinates with the FCC database, which is our gold standard in reliable sources for this information.

All that said, I'm not sure that I'd interpret WP:CALC as the policy to back up an edit to remove a "00" if I were asked to step in as an uninvolved admin, but okay. But more importantly, I don't see how removing the "00" adds value to the project and if WP:WHYWOULDYOUBOTHERDOINGTHATJUSTBECAUSEYOUCAN doesn't exist as a guideline, it probably should. I haven't reviewed the edits that kicked this off, Abductive, but if the only edit being made in those cases is the removal of the "00", and it's not just ancillary to other additive edits that you're making to the article, I just don't see the point. Again, I don't know if that's the case. Mlaffs (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been fixing other stuff, mostly removing the type "city" and making the coordinates appear both inline and title. This is my Wikignoming. People should appreciate other people's efforts to make the encyclopedia better. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: What do you mean you've been removing the type "city"? You shouldn't be removing the "city" field from any page, period. That is standard in all Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes. Please explain.

A radio station transmitter is not a city, it is a landmark in the coordinate parameter markup. I got this from your own Wikiproject talk page. You have ignored other people on that talk page for years. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: The city field in Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes is for the city or community of license. It has nothing to do with the actual location of the station's transmitter. Once again, this is dictated by the FCC license, per the FCC database, and not some information you pulled from Google Maps. Also, please link to this discussion.

Not the city field within the infobox, the type:city parameter within the coordinates template. That parameter (which may not even do anything anymore) tells the map what sort of object it is looking at. Others are "edu" for a school, "isle" for an island, etc. City means zoom out a lot, landmark means zoom in a lot. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's used in transmitter coords, it shouldn't be there. That we can agree on. City coords, like actual cities (ie: New York City, Metropolis, Illinois, etc.), it should be used there. For transmitters, it should be "landmark" because for lack of a better parameter, that's what we got to work with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:35 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Floquenbeam, would you like to deal with the above behavior from Abductive...or should I start my own ANI thread? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

I don't understand what you don't understand about this: deal with content disputes using the steps outlined at WP:DR. Admins don't solve content disputes. What you're complaining about is a content dispute. I suspect at this stage, after all these wasted electrons over the last few days, if you open a new ANI thread complaining about a content dispute, someone will block you for WP:IDHT or WP:TE or something. It won't be me - even though I'm not technically WP:INVOLVED, it's clear you think I am, and it's not worth the headache of arguing about it - but this is an honest warning. I believe you are much closer to a block for resuming the battleground behavior than you think you are. In the mean time, I have muted pings from you, so don't expect them to work anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: What you are not understanding is this is not a content dispute. Never has been. It has to do with Abductive not adhereing to the policies of Wikipedia, specifically OR, RS, and V. Now, since you are threatening me with a block, refusing to discuss anything, and have a clear bias against me and for Abductive, perhaps I need to start an ANI thread for you. I've tried to be nice, tried to get you to see both sides here, tried to get you into this discussion. But you clearly refuse to be anything but biased toward me. You are more than WP:INVOLVED here. So, block if you will, but it will be overturned in violation of INVOLVED. Also, your self-admitted evening gin isn't something you should use tools on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:30 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

A couple examples of Abductive's use of Google Maps (ie: original research) in coords can be found here and here where he says in the edit summary "Tower now visible on Google/Bing/OSM maps." Clearly a violation of a OR. In this case he removed marked NAD83 coords, ones correctly sourced by FCC documents, for ones he "found" somewhere. It's clear original research. There is no backing source to his edit. If I wasn't the subject of this ANI discussion, I would revert that edit, probably with an OR warning.

This is clearly the behavior that has pushed me to the end of my rope, my patience to the very end, and exhausted my good faith. I urge Mlaffs, Floquenbeam, TParis, and others to take a look at Abductive's edits as there is clearly an issue here. Yes, I may have lost my temper, but that does not excuse Abductive's editing behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:44 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

It is unreasonable to be "pushed to the end of your rope" by edits like this. If you can't manage your emotions better than that, then please don't edit until you've regained control of them. Assuming for the moment that these aren't useful edits (I have no opinion, except to note that it would make us look silly to list people's height as 6 ft 3.000 in, or as 1.91000 m, and this seems, superficially, like a similar case), your battleground approach to content disputes is still more harmful to the encyclopedia than Abductive's edits here. Get a third opinion. Ask at WP:RADIO. Start an RFC. But don't go seriously overboard, hurl personal attacks, threaten to revert all of their edits, and expect people to ignore that and focus on a minor content dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: How about, instead of "Neutralhomer has a problem and probably shouldn't edit, but I have no opinion on the current problem, which helps no one, let's throw the problem on someone else's lap", maybe just maybe actually help. Clearly there is an OR issue. Clearly there is an RS issue. Clearly there is a V issue. These are BIG policies here at Wikipedia. Now, I'm just an editor who "can't manage [his] emotions" because an editor brought up my friend on the 4 year anniversary of the death of my friend (no opinion there, either?) but, I think we should do everything possible to uphold these policies. Fight to protect these policies. If needed, warn and block people who disobey these policies.

So, yes, it is resonable for me to be "pushed to the end of [my] rope" by an editor who refuses to listen to the most basic of policies here at Wikipedia and basically do his own thing. It's also reasonable for me to get a little bit irked at an admin for allowing it and passing the buck.

So, I'm asking you, get involved in the discussion, have an opinion...please. You've made it very clear how you feel about me (repeatedly). But as an admin, your input about the heart of the this problem is what really matters. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:49 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Yes, I do have an "opinion there". I think you should be 100% ashamed of yourself for assuming that Abductive intentionally brought up a conversation your friend participated in to intentionally hurt you. 100% ashamed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Like I said, we all know how you feel about me. Since you don't have an opinion on Abductive's editing behavior, I thank you for your time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12 on April 25, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

This feud is not helpful to anyone, especially its two participants. I agree that the optics of [Added: Neutralhomer] invoking a dead Wikipedian as pertaining to this dispute was in poor taste. El_C 00:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you actually follow the links related to this accusation, that is not what happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I've been following along. I'm not sure what you think I missed. El_C 00:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just said something stupid. For some reason I thought you meant Abductive somehow "invoking" him, which is what NH claimed above, and which I'm saying didn't happen. Upon reflection that was a weird assumption to make, particularly in the context you made the comment. I think my Saturday evening gin and tonic might be a little too strong (in the sense that there's not really any tonic in there). Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, Floquenbeam. Cheers — enjoy your drink! El_C 00:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Actually, Floquenbeam, in an odd twist of edit (more gin for you), got this one right. Abductive invoked Dravecky first. Yes, I said him by name first (I'm allowed, his my friend), but he linked to a discussion which he took out of sequence, and having nothing to do with his constant end-round of the rules (plus from 10 years ago, he dug for that one). So, Abductive is in the wrong here. I can talk about my friend all day, he was/is my friend. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

As Floquenbeam notes, there's no evidence whatsoever that Abductive was trying to be hurtful to you in any way with that. El_C 02:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: You'll have to forgive me, but with the clear evidence presented by Floquenbeam that he has a clear bias against me (for whatever reason), I would rather his "notes" be stricken from the record as they are not helpful in any regards. I hate to say that of a fellow editor, but he has shown clear, and completely unnecessary bias towards me, refusing to see both sides of this entire mess. He has actually threatened to block me, twice, even though he is heavily INVOLVED and biased.

Abductive has warped multiple discussions (including the one in question), blatantly ignored multiple policies (ie: OR, RS, V to start), and no one has so much has batted an eye. Floquenbeam considers that a "content dispute", which it isn't. It's never been about "content", it's been about following the rules set out by this project, by this community.

So, for Floquenbeam to say that Abductive to wasn't "hurtful to [me] in any way with that" (ie: bringing up the discussion involving Dravecky form 2010) is something that is unbelievable, which means I don't believe it. I don't believe the words of a biased editor who says another editor (who he is clearly protecting) isn't trying to get my goat (and admitted did). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, on what basis do you assert that the mention was intended to be hurtful to you on Abductive's part? And on what basis do you assert that Floquenbeam "has a clear bias against [you]"? El_C 14:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: I don't see the intent behind Abductive's link that you do. Abductive's link isn't substantial enough to call it "consensus" but it was an instance where this conversation was briefly had. I'm sorry about your friend. I love Doctor Who and I live in Texas and I'm now considering going to the next WhoFest if they have one. Maybe we'll meet up there someday.--v/r - TP 14:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: It wasn't anything in the link, it was the introduction of the link a day and a half before the 4 year anniversary of his passing. If they don't have a WhoFest, try FenCon. Usually if they don't have a WhoFest, they have some WhoFolk at FenCon. You'll see Dravecky there in spirit, they keep him there front and center. :) I actually haven't seen Doctor Who, now I have PLENTY of time, so you'll have to give me pointers as to where to start. 1st doctor or somewhere more modern? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:40 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

As for Floquenbeam, I guess we could start with where he threatened to block me above (and only me), but I'd rather start here. I mention that Abductive had changed the coords on two pages mentioning in the edit summary "Tower now visible on Google/Bing/OSM maps." In this case he removed marked NAD83 coords, ones correctly sourced by FCC documents. I pinged Floquenbeam among others for their input. He did respond, saying I need to "manage my emotions better" (apparently he hasn't grieved before), and attempted to pass the back onto RFC or WP:RADIO, still calling this a content dispute. Not a violation of rules.

In his previous post, Floquenbeam said "[he had] no opinion", I attempted to the force the issue with this post. To force Floquenbeam to have an opinion on the issue of Abductive and his edits. He ignored everything I said of substance, the OR, the V, the RS, and told me he though I should be ashamed of myself, 100% ashamed. After that, I knew there was no getting through to him and thanked him for his time.

After this post, which I admit I missed due to the chaotic nature of this thread, I responded to Abductive here, ping Floquenbeam. Now, in that response, knowing full well I wasn't going to get a positive response, I asksed "would you like to deal with the above behavior from Abductive...or should I start my own ANI thread?". He responds saying he isn't "technically INVOLVED" but "if [I] open a new ANI thread complaining about a content dispute, someone will block you for WP:IDHT or WP:TE or something." He first tells me to start a new thread to a content dispute, then threatens to have me blocked for starting a new thread for a content dispute....again taken nothing into account of what I have said. Then, in the childish sticking-my-fingers-in-my-ears "I can't hear you", he turns pings from me off. He admits he's been drinking later (gin and tonic) when getting a timeline all screwed up from clearly not reading things himself. I responded to that, setting the record straight and a minute later to his "I've turned pings off" post. Ironically, the pings went through just fine. It is proper WikiEtiquette to send pings/talk notes.

In a slight bit of irony, after this post from Abductive, him and I actually agreed on something. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:35 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Neutralhomer: I’m sorry for your loss and the emotions that must have arisen on the anniversary of your friend’s passing. While you may have perceived the cause of this timing to be malicious intent, I don’t think it’s reasonable from an objective observer to assume that Abductive purposefully timed this content dispute + link to an old thread to be 3 years and 363 days after the passing of an editor who was your dear friend but with whom they were not familiar. Even if you still internally believe that this was a malicious and purposeful mention, it would be best to drop that stick. If that was Abductive’s intent, there’s not enough to demonstrate that intent to anyone else. Many of us empathize with your loss, please do be well during these troubling times. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Thank you. You stay well and stay sane too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, regarding Abductive, I'd like to piggy-back on MarkH21's excellent comment directly above. Well said. As for Floquenbeam, my experience is that he is fair and even-handed. So, I would be surprised to learn that the, at times, harsh exchanges between you two were without basis. I'm just not sure what that basis is to make an informed evaluation. As for many of the links you provided, and the technical facets at the heart of this latest dispute with Abductive, I'm afraid much of that went well over my head. Sorry for the loss of your friend. Some say time lessens the pain. It does and it doesn't. El_C 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks. Time does. It's the lead up to that anniversary that gets me every single time. I don't know any other way to grieve. Couple days before, I'm an angry, pain-filled mess. Working helps. Such as this kind of work is. On that day, I get to the depression. I still want to work. I want to find something to gloss over the issue with...anything. The next day was my birthday, so I had something good to look forward too, otherwise, it would have been that long bridge back up and working through. I don't do grief well, being Autistic (I have Aspergers), but I try to grieve "normally", but sometimes I get stuck in the "anger" phase and I just can't help it, it's my fall back, it's where my brain gets stuck for a couple days.

That said, I still do not believe that this entire thing, long before him bringing up the discussion from 10 years ago, is a content dispute. This has been going on for awhile. It has to do with policy, not the content of the article. Right now, though, I just don't have it in me to continue this any longer. I'll leave it up to you, Floquenbeam, TParis, MarkH21, and other admins who took part in this discussion to do whatever you see fit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Having read through this discussion, as a completely uninvolved party, I believe the core problem is a disagreement over interpretation of policy. As demonstrated through this thread, this seems to be a reasonable disagreement; this issue is not a hard-and-fast rule like WP:RS (and even that gets into disputes about "reliability" of a source). It would be a conduct dispute if the consensus was for a specific interpretation but one specific user refused to honor that consensus. In this case, there's a reasonable dispute over how precise we need to be within the policy, so consensus needs to be achieved via our dispute resolution processes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: I'm confused on what you are saying. Are you saying this is a policy dispute, a conduct dispute, or a content dispute? You mention all three, so I'm confused. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28 on April 27, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Effectively a content dispute, based on differing interpretations of policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: If it's going to be dubbed a content dispute, which I highly disagree with (but I'm on the losing end of this one), then Abductive needs to stop making any and all edits until a determination is reached on who is correct in line with policy. Because, if he continues and is found to be wrong, that's a lot of edits that can't be reverted by bot. Those are going to have to be manual and that's going to be a pain in the butt. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:02 on April 29, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

What's going to happen is that the .00 at the end of coordinates, which are only found on US radio station articles, will be removed eventually. As you should be able to ascertain from the comments in this thread, people don't understand why these superfluous zeroes are worth keeping. The more editors that are brought in, the more likely it is that an iron-clad consensus will form to remove them. Nobody other than you bothered to revert my edits as I was doing them, which suggests that nobody found them to be problematic. Abductive (reasoning) 10:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: There you go reading only what you want, seeing only what you want to see. Actually, everyone has said this needs an RfC and all edits need to stop from both sides. So, no, there is no "what's going to happen" and no "eventually". There will be an RfC, then maybe that stuff will happen, maybe it won't, maybe you will be slapped with a wet trout for doing all this crap in the first place. Regardless, RfC first, everything else...maybe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:59 on April 29, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Project much? Abductive (reasoning) 15:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was reposted here after mistakenly being posted at AN3.

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

In July 2018, language was added to the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality by Contaldo80 that included the phrase "desecrated the Eucharist." In October of that year, Contaldo changed it to "desecrated a Communion wafer." I objected and reverted. A discussion ensued on talk and Contaldo, myself, and a third editor all agreed to use the word Eucharist. Stop the Church was then spun off in January 2020, more than a year after the issue had been settled. It included the word "Eucharist." On April 8th, Contaldo changed the text from Eucharist to wafer once again. Again, he was reverted and I asked him to gain consensus first.

In the new discussion, Contaldo requested a third opinion. That brought in several new editors, including Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and JzG. On the talk page, Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and I all favored using the word "Eucharist." Contaldo changed his mind and now prefers wafer, and JZG has offered several other suggestions, but opposes "Eucharist." It appears to me that there is a preference for Eucharist (four users supporting, two opposed) and perhaps a weak consensus for it. At best, there is no consensus. As I read WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means we should "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case, that means using the word Eucharist.

As part of a series of edits which otherwise improved the article, JZG offered a new formulation for the disputed sentence. In JZG's world, his version is now the consensus version and I have to gain consensus to make any changes. He continues to base his edit warring on the claim that "Eucharist" is a "Catholic term of art," even after a majority of editors have explicitly rejected this assessment. While I was obviously OK with the old version, I was mostly OK with his new language, except for the fact that it didn't include the word Eucharist. As a gesture of good faith I kept most of what he said, but reinserted that one word. JZG reverted.

On April 19th, after he again accused me of making a contested edit and needing consensus for it, I responded by saying "You know that isn't true. You introduced new text. I partially reverted. You edit warred your preferred version back in without coming to talk first. It is you who is making a contested change, not me." Two days went by where JZG was active elsewhere on Wikipedia but not on this article. Since he did not respond, I assumed he understood that I was correct. I reverted back to his language with my tweak. JZG swooped right back in and reverted to his preferred language.

Discussion continued on talk. I again pointed out to him that it was him, not me, who was making a contested change and that NOCON says we leave the original language in place in these situations. His response was that "The status quo ante argiument (sic) does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given." I asked him where I could find that policy and he pointed me to WP:ONUS. As I said to him, I don't find anything like that in ONUS.

JZG then again accused me of being the one to make a disputed edit. When I asked him to show me the consensus against Eucharist and again where it says to ignore NOCON after "after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given," he again went silent for two days. After another 48 hours where he was active on the project but not on this article, I reverted back to the last stable language. Only then did he become active on this article again, reverting to his preferred language. He also ignored, again, my questions about where there was a consensus against Eucharist and where it said to ignore NOCON.

Tied up in all of this is a second disputed sentence in the lede. It is partially in dispute because it uses the word Eucharist as well, but also because I think it should remain in the lede, as it has since the article was created, whereas JZG does not. Without a consensus one way or the other (and with considerable sourcing to show that it was a major controversy during and after the event), my position is that it should stay. Again, after days of silence on talk I have readded the sentence, only to see JZG revert.

I have offered on multiple occasions to work on language on talk, rather than edit war. I've even gone so far as to paste the text into talk so that we could work on something there. Those offers have all been ignored.s

Also, while it is not directly related to his edit warring, JZG has continued to use language that he knows is offensive to Catholics, and continues to refer to me as one even after I told him I don't identify as a Catholic or any other religion on the project. Indeed, a review of my edits will show significant contributions to a number of articles about non-Catholic religious organizations and even more to secular topics. As pointed out to him, though, I do find acts of sacrilege and language that is deliberately offensive to any religious group to be beyond the pale. I think he owes Catholics and all tolerant minded people an apology.

Finally, to preempt JzG's favorite defense of turning things around on me, yes, I was once topic banned. I have apologized, abided by the terms of it, tried to make amends, and tried to improve my editing. For those times where I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize once again. It in no way, however, excuses edit warring. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is bizarre. It raises the question whether Slugger O'Toole's TBAN was too limited. He has been aggressive with weakly sourced material at Harvard Extension School, an article that's experienced some of the same problems we saw at Knights of Columbus. It doesn't surprise me to see this occurring at other articles JzG is trying to clean up. I'm not familiar with those and can't comment further on the diffs. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slugger O'Toole repeatedly reverts to his preferred version of an article that contains a specific term of art used by some Catholics but has to be pipe-linked because it is not the common meaning of the word. I have tried numerous versions of compromises, his "compromise" is to insist that his preferred term of art must be used, and must be in the lead. He reverts from several different attempts to produce wording that more closely reflects the sources and removes issue of ambiguity between religious terms of art.

SPECIFICO mentions the TBAN. Here's the debate. Same prolix style. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025 § Knights of Columbus

Slugger O'Toole was topic-banned from Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for similar WP:OWN behaviour. It seems that when editing articles on his religion, harmony is achieved solely by Slugger O'Toole getting his own way. Needless to say, the constant reverts to reinsert his preferred content and refusal to accept any version of policy that does not encompass his preferred content going in, which were also a hallmark at the KofC article and a major contributor to the topic ban, are wearing and cause tempers to fray. Guy (help!) 22:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Even a casual review of the article history of article will show plenty of your edits which I have not reverted. I've praised you for improving the article repeatedly, including on your talk page. We've also seen a majority of other editors reject your wording, including Drasser who said "...JzG is being obtuse by trying to ignore the significance of the action through a poor vocabulary choice. It's not a "term of art," it's a religious practice." I'll also remind you, again, that it is you who has made a contested change to stable language, against consensus, not me. If a new consensus forms, I will gladly abide by it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the same Drassow that referred to a cardinal as His eminence and likes to drop casual anti-Semitism on the regular. This is the person you choose to back you up?AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool dude, but eminence is still the correct way to address a cardinal, and adding a source is anti-semetic? Sounds like some laughable strawmen to me mate, and don't invalidate the correct vocabulary to use. Eminence is the correct way to address a cardinal just as the Eucharist is the correct way to refer to the item at hand. Drassow (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlmostFrancis, I believe this is my first interaction with Drasser, as it is with you. I am not aware of either of your past histories. As noted above, however, he is not the only other editor who holds this position. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this does not have to result in a new topic ban or an expansion of an old topic ban. Is Slugger O'Toole willing to walk back the behaviors that led to the original Knights of Columbus topic ban? Michepman (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michepman, As I have said repeatedly, if a new consensus forms then I will respect it. I am not looking for trouble, only for longstanding consensuses to be respected. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm genuinely confused by the constant insistence by Guy that the simple term "Eucharist" is somehow verboten and must unconditionally be replaced by "wafer" or something else, editorial opinions of others be damned, I also don't understand what exactly is being advocated for in this post on this noticeboard. What's been going on appears to be a heated but unfortunately rather standard debate on how to phrase matters on an article about a political protest, which inherently will be controversial. This is clearly not WP:OWN behavior as other editors take both Guy's side in the debate as well as the position of Slugger O'Toole. I'd like to see a conclusion reached that's fair, but that likely requires more eyes by different editors on the page and not administrative efforts to sanction specific people. At least, that's my opinion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  CoffeeWithMarkets, I don't say it's verboten - in fact I added Eucharist in the Catholic Church as a "see also" because it does provide a specific perspective. I have explained on the Talk page why the specific phrase "desecration of the Eucharist" is confusing for a non-Catholic audience and indeed for a lot of Catholics. The Eucharist is generally seen in non-Catholic churches as the entire service of communion, and the protest was a disruption of this, so disruption of mass AND desecration of the Eucharist looks redundant unless you immediately read Eucharist in a specific way that most people simply don't.

  I'd note that I have tried a fair number of alternative formulations, and Slugger rejects all of them. Guy (help!) 07:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  CoffeeWithMarkets, My point is that there was a consensus. JzG made an edit that went against the consensus and was reverted. Instead of trying to develop a new consensus on talk, he simply keeps reinserting his preferred language back into the text. That seems like a classic case of edit warring to me. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The type of belittling seen in this edit summary - here - is harmfully antagonistic. We shouldn't be using language like that. We rightfully wouldn't tolerate editors referring to the Kaaba as a magic box. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that edit summary is weirdly antagonistic and doesn't reflect super well on JzG. Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that JzG's general attitude through the discussion is belittling and discriminatory: "Your obsession with the magic bread is becoming tiresome" can be construed as harassment of those who think differently. Sanctions should be imposed. XavierItzm (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested - the discussion is continuing on the article's talk page [27]. This ANI thread might no longer be necessary Steve Quinn (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, While I am truly appreciative of all the new eyes looking this article, I am also a bit confused. It seems to me as if this is a clear cut case of edit warring. JzG made a bold edit against a perhaps weak but longstanding consensus. He was then partially reverted. Instead of coming to talk, he instead just reverted back to his preferred version. Multiple times. If that's not edit warring, could someone please explain to me why not? I am genuinely asking here. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it takes at least two to edit war, and in this case two were involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, Fair enough. Maybe I was in the wrong as well. If I was, I would appreciate it if someone could point out where I erred so as to be able to avoid doing it again. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator please look into Slugger O'Toole - frankly I think his editing behaviour is not conducive to the spirit of Wikipedia. He has been coming into conflict with a range of editors (including administrators) on a range of topics. I honestly don't think he's learnt anything from Knights of Columbus and has not altered his behaviour. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Looks like some icy winds have caused this boomerang to miss the user. SemiHypercube 18:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

---

Let's solve the crux of the problem. I propose the @Slugger O'Toole: is banned from adding article content sourced to primary sources or sources closely related to the article subject without prior consensus on the article talk page. This applies to any article on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, That's not what is at issue in this case so I fail to see how it would solve the crux of any problem. Also, I wasn't going to address it, but I will now point out that Harvard Extension School gained Good Article status with largely the same sources as it has today. The independent editor who certified it as a GA didn't raise a single concern about the sources. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll put a notice on the talk page there and we can get some more views from that article's editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole (former user name Briancua) has added over 50 assertions to the Harvard Extension School article that are sourced to 100th anniveresary commemorative volume published by the Extension School and written by its Dean. That's not the only such reference, just one that's easily identified. The article is full of promotional or UNDUE content of this kind. It's the same thing that happened at the Knights of Columbus article. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, Yes, I did so seven years ago. I think I did so with care, but have already offered to work with you to improve them. I'll ask again: would you like to work on it with me? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am only here because I see you making the same mistakes to this day, even after the Knights of Columbus TBAN. And apparently you think the Harvard Extnsion School article desrved the GA, even loaded with UNDUE promotional self-sourced content? I looked at the review. If I thought anything would change without a sanction, I certainly would not have proposed it. That's all I'll have to say here. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I suppose that's your prerogative, but I'd rather work collaboratively to improve the article. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Proposed excessive sanction is not even tangentially related to the issue at hand. Nice try, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a joke? - What exactly is the point of bludgeoning a user for taking a position held by multiple editors in a content dispute? Where does this notion that it will somehow magically stop the dispute come from? Why is our time being wasted by this "proposal"? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, it's rather astonishing to have this general discussion constantly pretending as if we can't go and look pages ourselves. It's not as if it's difficult. We have eyes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball proposals that have the sole purpose of intimidating the targeted editor are sadly over-tolerated here. Cjhard (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We really need some kind of wiki-SLAPP rule. Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm an uninvolved user but this seems like a ridiculous sanction. There's clearly no consensus, so why are we not following WP:NOCON and sticking with the original wording of the article? I have to agree with Cjhard, this seems like a sad attempt at intimidation that'll do nothing to solve the actual problem. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not involved, either, but a wide-ranging topic ban on the OP for acts unrelated to the current issue is the wikipedia equivalent of driving a tack with a twenty-pound maul. Come back with a suggestion that addresses the issue at hand, please. --loupgarous (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Also not involved, and I think the idea of sanctions against Slugger here is pretty ridiculous. Overall, I think JzG has been unnecessarily hostile to Slugger and to the concept of religion in general, but that Slugger appears to be overstating their claim to have consensus for their edit, as there's currently a section on the talk page where editors are basically split on the change. I feel like the thing to do here is for everyone to take a breath and calm down, and then hold an RfC for the proper wording. [failing that, I'd say default to the original wording of "Eucharist" but that doesn't seem like a great solution overall] Loki (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Also not involved. This proposal seems to have come out of left field and is not related to the original discussion. Also, Slugger has presented a reasonable argument (following NOCON) whereas Jzg has been making offensive remarks - perhaps as a way to be intimidating. Jzg's views in this matter do not speak for everyone. I think this proposal for a topic ban should be closed immediately because it is irrelevant and off topic regarding this discussion. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 2600:8805:1400:4CE0:BDE4:174D:461:1380/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edits from this range have been vandalizing Wikipedia articles since December. Initially, vandalism from this range consisted of the user randomly changing dates in articles ([40], [41], [42], [43])

Since March, this user has been mainly targeting the Nick at Nite article, changing airtimes ([44], [45]). Over the last few weeks, this IP has consistently been editing the Nick at Nite article by amending the lede to falsely state that Cartoon Network is "the nighttime branding of Adult Swim" (which is false; Adult Swim is the nighttime branding of Cartoon Network) ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50])

The user also did at least one similar edit at Adult Swim (falsely stating that Nickelodeon is "the nighttime branding of Nick At Nite", which is obviously false given the name of the block "Nick at Nite)[51].

You can get an idea of the user's disruption most easily by looking at the edit history of Nick at Nite (link); most of the edit history of the last month consists of the editor making edits and other editors reverting them.

In this IP user's defense, it doesn't seem like anyone warned them about their behavior until this past April[52]. I also gave a set of escalating warnings at User_talk:2600:8805:1400:4CE0:BDE4:174D:461:1380.

Looking through the relevant edits, it doesn't look like there would be any collateral damage if the /64 was blocked, so I'm requesting that range be blocked temporarily. Much thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with sourcing the time is it's literally just them looking at the on-screen logo at the time of day; I've restored the usual proper time range of the block (it was way too early for at least a few months, probably because of other past IP disruption making it seem like it was); probably best to institute protected changes on this page rather than playing IP Whack-a-Mole here. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me. Much thanks for making the other corrections to the page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the IP is at it again. As soon as a frustrated user corrected the false information, the IP came back and restored the false information within 20 minutes. While I would be OK with page protection, I still believe a block on the /64 is in order as the person behind the range has targeted other pages in the past, as I noted in my diffs above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again... Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the users monitoring this situation since yesterday, I think the best course of action to take ASAP would be to lock the page to unregistered users. That would immediately solve the ongoing vandalism issue and then we can move forward with potential blocks. Popfox3 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been protected, and contrary to what I said above, the disruption from the IP since the page protection has been minimal. This thread can probably be closed. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has been pushing fringe views at Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for some while, as I think we're all aware. I don't know the CIDR subnet and they flatly refuse to register an account, which has been a cause of drama in and of itself.

I would say that [53] is past the point of "enough already".

"None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out."

This in reference to NightHeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor in good standing. I mean, seriously, in that venue, to suggest that another editor is faking extreme liberal bias because they are really alt-right? Seriously?

I propose a topic ban. Guy (help!) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the topic is under arbitration enforcement, should this not be at WP:AE? By the way, the IPv6 range is massive, something like a /40, unsurprising as it's Verizon cell. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite as a general rule while Verizon ranges are massive they typically have relatively low collateral. It’s usually one person causing a ton of disruption because of the dynamic nature of the range, and in most of the “troublesome” Verizon ranges I’m familiar with its 1-2 people. I’ll also give my standard bit about people in the United States and Western Europe being able to create accounts on other ranges fairly easily. Not necessarily advocating for a block at this time, but Verizon ranges this wide have been blocked before over a limited number of bad actors. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW it's clear from looking at the edits at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 that there are at least 2 active editors, one who is obsessed with r&i and another who cares about hyphens and dashes. (They aren't the same because sometimes edits at different IPs interleave.) Maybe 3, if the college football person is different from the dash person. (I personally think the case for topic-banning this particular individual is strong, as is the case for selective blocks from r&i pages, but I have slightly mixed feelings about blocking college football guy and dash guy just for having the bad luck to share a range with r&i guy. Although I suppose they could always just create accounts.) --JBL (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if I wasn’t clear: I was saying there’s usually one or two bad actors and a relatively low amount of collateral on Verizon compared to some other ranges this size. There obviously will be some collateral for any range block. The question is if it’s worth it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you were clear -- I just thought others might be interested in the specifics of the present situation (at least, to the extent that they can be gleaned just by looking over the recent edit history for that range). --JBL (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I'm no expert in these things, but I think the range is 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. If you look at the Talk:, User talk:, and Wikipedia: namespace contribs on that range, there has been a great number of posts, including a lot of canvassing on user talk pages, all aimed at having the article promote a particular POV as mainstream. I agree the ARCA post against NH (who has probably been the editor who has engaged with this IP range the most) that the OP quotes was, as NH put it, a cockamamie conspiracy theory. A topic ban is long overdue but how do you enforce that against an IP range? After reviewing the contribs of that range in all namespaces, I'm in favor of a range block despite the large range (because I see almost no constructive editing on that range), or any lesser sanction. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dangit Levivich, I help teach you how IP ranges work, and this is how you repay me? Constructively using that knowledge before I can swoop in and show off? creffett (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that's his full name -- Dangit Levivich? Fits. EEng 04:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously this is long overdue. A partial block on the article Race and intelligence and its talk-page would be a minimal step toward improving the situation, but the level of shit-stirring by the IP (trying to hand-pick admins to close RfC, trying to goad at least a half-dozen other editors into going to AE, etc.) is really extreme and so I would support something stronger. --JBL (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. El_C 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do indefinite blocks on IP ranges.... I'll change it 3 months, which is plenty long enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is not plenty. This block is for one, single article talk page. An indefinite duration is fine. El_C 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the IP's posts to ARCA about editing this topic area because they are colleagues with Gerhard Meisenberg [54] [55] are tantamount to an admission of COI in this topic area. (Or at least WP:RGW.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, good spot. I think that removes all doubt. Guy (help!) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. IP has since written at WT:RFAR: The only time I've ever directly interacted with Meisenberg was last June, when we discussed the problems in his biography that the Wikipedia community had failed to address, and I suggested that he raise them with the WMF legal team. Amazing, indeed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I commend all of the detectives on duty in that ten hour period. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks v. bans

Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is blocked from this article. It seems to me from the above as if an uninvolved admin could also enact a TBAN on race and intelligence broadly construed, for the individual who edits fromt hat range. Guy (help!) 16:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The person behind this account is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above discussion. The IP has been disruptive in their admitted quest to WP:RGW on behalf of their colleagues. One of the reasons I support a topic ban in addition to any partial blocks is that the IP's disruption has occurred at many pages: not just the article talk page, but also FTN, ANRFC, ARCA, RFAR, and many user talk pages. This user should be TBANed from discussing this subject on any page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I just went through the discussion, and find a topic ban only fitting for the level of disruption caused. JavaHurricane 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitely NOTHERE. Seems to be on Wikipedia to only support their agenda. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This my usual "formal-bans-on-already-blocked-users-who-we-all-already-know-are-de-facto-bans-so-why-are-we-wasting-time-with-this-again-but-oh-what-the-hell-support-even-though-I-still-think-we-don't-need-to-go-through-all-this-bureaucracy" support vote. --Jayron32 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Jayron32, LOL! In this case though it's a pageblock only so it does make a difference. Guy (help!) 19:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per above - Given the amount of disruption I see no better solution than topic banning. –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schiindler is a sneaky vandal who has been warned many times about vandalism[57][58] for edit such as this and now just he just made edits which also constitute vandalism.[59][60] Time to show door to this typical WP:NOTHERE. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank5988, better to report to AIV. JavaHurricane 10:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JavaHurricane generally speaking ANI or AIV is fine. –Davey2010^Talk 18:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please keep an eye on the history of Sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden (the current title as of my writing this, but I expect it will change several times before I hit the send button). It's been moved to three different titles in less than 5 minutes, and there's no sign of the edit-move-warring ending. There was a move discussion barely started, but there's absolutely nothing resembling a consensus, it's just been moved rapidly several times. Can someone just put it back at the original title until such time as the discussion is resolved? Thanks! --Jayron32 17:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, that is some silliness (it has been moved again). I'd do it, but am I too WP:INVOLVED in these issues? (By the way, only 188 days left until the U.S. elections!) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse move protection (at the wrong title). This is beyond silly. Guy (help!) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note Volunteer Marek changed the name twice here and here in about 10 minutes despite an ongoing TP discussion and despite Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). Are sanctions in order? Also, will the title be frozen at the abusive 1RR change? XavierItzm (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  XavierItzm, admins don't get to pick the Right Version™ Guy (help!) 17:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems unlikely. As long as a person types in capitals the letter B, L, and P in their edit summary somewhere, they are immune from all sanctions for any behavioral violation.--Jayron32 17:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the other title got salted too, therefore assuring the desired result. Maybe I'll write an essay on how to game Wikipedia. BTW, I would argue the current title is quite a BLP vio as now you have a Wikipedia article where the female victim's name appears immediately before "sexual assault." XavierItzm (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that possibility. But when both are plausibly BLP violations but neither is a blatant BLP violation, the best we can do for now is just protect it at The Wrong Version^TM and wait for the RM to finish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't much like the current title, but SOMETHING has to be done to stop the move warring. I think someone uninvolved should move protect, with redirects from all the other proposed names, until consensus is reached at the talk page. Or hell freezes over. Whichever comes first. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, there was an ongoing TP discussion when some decided to just skip the line, so editor's likes such as yours no longer count, especially with the salting and what not. XavierItzm (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• MelanieN, I predict people won't care on November 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, I think Tara Reade would care. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolya Butternut, I'm referring to Wikipedia editors, long term and drive by. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your focus is on the election, but this story is about what happened to a woman and it will live on as evidence that mainstream media are often not RS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My focus is on the editing of Wikipedia articles, and it's not a stretch to presume that this will die down after the election, much as the crazy editing around Benghazi and Hillary's emails died off in November 2016. Your bias against the "mainstream media" is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @King of Hearts: 1RR was broken and a controversial move was done without proper procedure. Why did you leave these violations in place instead of status quo? It's not about "wrong" or "right" versions, it's about clear violations of policy dealing with these situations. Also, citing WP:BLP in moving the article to a title that mentions an office assistant but not a US senator is one of the most desperate cases of WP:CRYBLP, ever. --Pudeo (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I misread MelanieN's comment above as support for the current title no matter what it was; she later clarified her stance in the RM. Anyways, it's been moved back by another admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: When you bring up the name of a person or persons in an ANI discussion, you are required to notify them. I have done so for people who are named in this discussion but were not already participating in it. For anyone else, please remember to do so in the future.--Jayron32 18:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, you moved the page after it had already been locked down to stop the move warring. And now the main page and talk page are at different titles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now the main page and talk page are at different titles. Maybe for the better? --JBL (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed the talk page problem. (I swear I ticked the box to move the talk page too...maybe I closed the tab too early after confirming that I wanted to delete the redirect for the article and missed a second dialogue for the talk page.) As for moving a protected page, I stand by the edit summary. In general a rapid-fire move war shouldn't end with a title that hasn't achieved talk page consensus, particularly if the new title has potential BLP issues. ~Awilley (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact is a mess too. There are repeated edits in a direction favorable to Biden. The section header does not include "assault", and the 2nd and 3rd sentences from the NYTimes remain against consensus. This article needs admin attention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, and admins don't have special privileges to decide content. - MrX 🖋 18:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They can evaluate your arguments, and whether you and others have edited against consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the complaint is over MR. Elmoro's comment

https://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B9%3AVl5tww7scexssqjv&topic_showPostId=vlf2buv208o4to6u&fbclid=IwAR2jLAaphlTdPLS5s_F2LL5i1E5yg4FEwNaQQ-qGQgSnnp1gURwjS29zIj4#flow-post-vlf2buv208o4to6u

The literal translation is

"I don't have any contribution in this article, but be informed that any person either bosnian,croatian or icelander can edit any article. Wikipedia isn't a place for nationalism, patriotism, or " tatbeel" "

The expression Tatbeel in arabic means political propaganda, Mr. Elmoro assumed that we are motivated by political propaganda to request an edit which was already approved earlier.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shofolofo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is English Wikipedia. No one here has any authority over Arabic Wikipedia. You need to raise the issue on that Wikipedia. We have nothing to do with that project. --Jayron32 18:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Louismuyalde1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is renaming pages en masse without a discussion. I suspect that this is disruptive editing. Also a likely sock of User talk:Louisborromeo12; see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#ISIS_edits_and_socking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely Done No sleepers immediately visible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2

The user has returned with an account and editing my talk-page again[63]. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and protected. --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]