 |
 |
If you find this site useful or just support what I'm doing, I'd really appreciate if you could donate. To cover server costs and for the hundreds of hours I've put into making this happen.
|
 |
If you spot content on this site that is genuinely illegal or actually puts someone in real danger, contact [email protected]. We have multiple agents reviewing tickets 24/7. Note that we try to maintain as much transparency as possible, both about ourselves and of the actions of Wikipedians. For example, if we removed a live link to CSAM content that was posted by a Wikipedia admin, we would replace it a placeholder like "<link to CSAM that was posted by Demiurge1000 redacted by Undersight>". Note that "I don't like it" is NOT a valid removal reason. If instead you are a Wikipedophile trying to get all the dark secrets of Wikipedia censored, please follow this guide instead.
If you would like to contact the owner of this about something else (e.g. press inquires, feature requests, bug reports), e-mail [email protected] or [email protected].
|
Difference between revisions 920393603 and 920393613 on enwiki{{short description|Page for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors}} <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}</noinclude>__TOC__{{clear}} {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |maxarchivesize = 800K |counter = 1020 |algo = old(72h) |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c |archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d |headerlevel=2 }} <!-- NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--> == Ukrainian nationalist editor NachtReisender == {{userlinks|NachtReisender}} The user has 53 edits and none of them seem to be good, only pushing pro-Ukrainian POV (replacing Russian with Ukrainian where it is not appropriate, edit-warring etc, examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Potebnja&diff=prev&oldid=917342371], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Karinska&diff=prev&oldid=915277637], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Dovzhenko&diff=prev&oldid=917637655]). Could we please stop this before it escalates further? I believe an indefblock per [[WP:NOTHERE]] would be in order.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 19:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC) * “Ukrainian nationalist NachtReisender”, you baldly did it xD Where does this conclusion come from? In my defense, my edits are not unfounded and have sources. For example, the same Potebnja and Dovzhenko in other wikipedias are labeled Ukrainians, I just unified it. The user Ymblanter gives a mythical reference to the rule of Wikipedia, which seems to prohibit pointing the nationality of persona. Then, why the honourable user is okay with Scottish people and do not editing them into British? If my edits don't seems good to you, Ymblanter — well, sorry about that. —[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 20:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC) : [[WP:MOS]] is very clear that the ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lede. You are aware of this, you just do not think this policy has to be respected. Concerning unification with other Wikipedias - well, we definitely do not want to unify for example with the Ukrainian Wikipedias. where until recently it was stated that WWII had three sides, and still states, in Wikipedia voice, that [[Donetsk Peoples Republic]] is a terrorist organization.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) ** I'm not telling you about Ukrainian wikipedia only, just check the other versions. And for what reasons you have canceled my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passions_(1994_film)&type=revision&diff=917644206&oldid=896785290&diffmode=source edit] on 'Passions' film, which was justified as possible? When did [[Kira Muratova]] manage to become Russian? Who is nationalist now? xD -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 20:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) **: The fact that you can not understand this is actually a good argument that you should not be editing the English Wikipedia.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC) **: <s>I also suspect that you do not speak English.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)</s> *:::<small>(<span style="color:#555;">Non-administrator comment</span>)</small> Ymblanter, would you care to strike that last comment? NachtReisender obviously has a sufficient command of English, better than a number of native English speakers I know (not talking about anyone on Wikipedia, for the record). *:::On the topic of this ANI, I don't see a nationalist POV agenda or [[WP:NOTHERE]] in NachtReisender's edits so far. Time may prove me wrong, but as far as I can see the three diffs given don't support the accusation of NOTHERE behaviour. <s>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Karinska&diff=prev&oldid=915277637 This diff], for example, is just a wikilink correction from a red link that's never going to exist into two accurate blue links to existing articles.</s> With the other edits, [[MOS:ETHNICITY]] says not to include a person's ethnicity, but nationality is a different issue - [[MOS:OPENPARABIO]] says {{tq|The opening paragraph should usually state [...] Context (location or nationality)}}. A country with as complicated a history as Ukraine does lend itself to needing that kind of clarity when it comes to biographical articles. Any disputes over ''what'' that person's nationality should be in the article belong on the talk page ... which hasn't been used at all in this case. Actually, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion between these two editors outside of edit summaries and this ANI. Unless I've missed something really significant, I'd say this is a content dispute, not a behavioural issue. [[User:Marianna251|<b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b>]][[User talk:Marianna251|<b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b>]] 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC) *::::[[Special:Diff/915277637|The diff you mentioned]] is off by one; the correct diff is [[Special:Diff/913480378|the previous edit]]. (Forgive Ymblanter for making a common mistake; quantum physicists [[Uncertainty principle|aren't known for precision]].) <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 04:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC) *:::: I have striken the language comment, though I still have doubts, but this is not the main point anyway. The Ukrainian issues are indeed complicated, and we have a number of users who are ready to discuss them, look for proper sourcing, and generally to help creating patterns to be used across our project. Unfortunately, we have many more users who just show up, change Russian to Ukrainian, Russian romanization to Ukrainian romanization, making ridiculous claims such as that [[Vladimir the Great]] was the "King of Ukraine", and when reverted and reminded about our policies, they start edit-warring, at best using edit summaries. I have a number of such pages on my watchlist, and it is really frustrating to see that once in several months a new user comes and makes the same edits without even caring to look at the edit history, without using the talk page, and without presenting any arguments. They really think that there are grave errors in most pages related to Ukraine, and in 20 years on the fifth popular website in the world nobody noticed that. This is related to a number of events in the recent history of Ukraine, and I can partially sympathize with its population, but what happens here just needs to stop, the earlier the better.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 05:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC) ::::::Ah, thank you, Levivich - that makes a lot more sense. I feel daft for not checking that. I've struck out that part of my comment above, since I now see the issue Ymblanter was raising. Thank you to Ymblanter for striking the language comment, as well - I really appreciate that. ::::::I completely understand and sympathise with how frustrating it is to monitor pages and see the same unhelpful edits made over and over again. I've got a number of articles on my watchlist like that myself, some for the stupidest little things that just keep being changed over and over and ''over'' again. It's annoying, wastes time and sometimes makes me want to chuck my keyboard out of the window. I just don't think it's blockable behaviour except in extreme cases and I don't think this is one. A lot of the time I've found it to be a new editor genuinely wanting to help, who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works (and let's face it, Wikipedia is a bizarre, complicated mess at best). Like I said above, NachtReisender may well prove me wrong and turn out to be the kind of editor who needs a NOTHERE block, but then again they might not. My view is that they haven't had enough [[WP:ROPE]] yet to show either way. That's my tuppence and as always other editors will see things that I don't, so I'll leave things here and go with whatever decision the community makes. [[User:Marianna251|<b style="border:1px solid #000; color:#000; background-color:#CBD4E4; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b>]][[User talk:Marianna251|<b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b>]] 06:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC) ::::::: Most of us can not reliably predict the future, but on the basis of the battleground behavior I see (and we are talking about a user with only 50 edits), I see at best the potential to develop into smth similar to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#KHMELNYTSKYIA]], accompanied with an enormous waste of time of the community.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 07:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC) *The initial three diffs (1) [[Special:Diff/917342371|change "Russian" to "Ukrainian"]] and change the spelling of a city from Russian to Ukrainian spelling, (2) [[Special:Diff/913480378|change "Russian" to "Ukrainian" again]], and (3) [[Special:Diff/917637655|change "USSR | Soviet" to "Ukrainian SSR | Ukrainian"]], and (4) [[Special:Diff/896785290|this fourth one]] changes "Russian-Ukrainian" to "Ukrainian". '''None of the diffs include a change in sources.''' So unless the sources in each of those examples was wrong in the first place, and NachtReisender can show that his change aligned with the sources, these are all unsourced changes. So far, NachtReisender has said the sources supporting the change are other language Wikipedias, and of course, [[WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source]], so that raises a [[WP:CIR]] concern, as well as an [[WP:NPOV]] concern. Another concern is that these are just four diffs, how many more are there like this? <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 04:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC) ::'''Boomerang, warning for Ymblanter''': There is absolutely no communication with the user on their talk page telling them that their behaviour might be problematic([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NachtReisender&action=history History of the user talk page]. There is absolutely no communication with the editor beyond a one-off [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Dovzhenko&action=history edit war] with both editors communicating by edit summary instead of on the talk page, that stops when Ymblanter reverts and asks for them to come to the talk page. And what did Ymblanter do, instead of raising their issues with their edits politely on their talkpage? ::Run straight to ANI, calling them a nationalist editor. That's a good way to drive good - faith editors away, and definitely conduct below what I would expect from an adminstrator.[[User:Lurking shadow|Lurking shadow]] ([[User talk:Lurking shadow|talk]]) 22:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC) ::: Well, I actually have left a message at the talk page, which was a DS alert. Their only response to the message was to go back to the article and to revert my edit. However, I see that their only edit after this discussion has been constructive, so may be I overreacted indeed and there is some hope that they could become a constructive editor.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 08:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC) ::::Well, a DS alert is just a template notification, but it expressly says that it's not an indication of wrongdoing. Everyone but the worst vandals gets at least one warning about their behaviour on their talk page before they are being reported to AIV. Even if a person clearly pushes a POV exclusively that doesn't mean that they don't change their behaviour when you give them a polite message on their talk page why they should stop. After all, they might erroneously think that what they do is good(and often do). Doing that instead of blocking or banning right on the spot not only helps retaining potentially good editors but also increases the chance that people without potential leave Wikipedia peacefully.[[User:Lurking shadow|Lurking shadow]] ([[User talk:Lurking shadow|talk]]) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC) :::::And, please don't use phrases like "nationalist editor". It's better to say what's wrong with their edits instead of labeling the contributor. That only increases tensions and doesn't comply with [[WP:CIVIL]].[[User:Lurking shadow|Lurking shadow]] ([[User talk:Lurking shadow|talk]]) 12:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC) ===Arbitrary break=== *'''No boomerang''' or anything else for Ymblanter. Of course. This '''is''' nationalistic editing, just as Ymblanter said, of a type that we have seen far too much of over the past few years, on all articles that are even tangentially connected to Ukraine. We do '''not''' rewrite history, we do '''not''' change nationality retroactively, and we do '''not''' add material that isn't supported by reliable sources (and what other Wikipedias say is totally irrelevant, since using Wikipedia as source, regardless of language version, is explicitly forbidden). - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 12:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC) **Yes, we don't do all those "'''not'''" things. That doesn't mean that it's acceptable to skip steps in the dispute resolution and to go to [[WP:ANI]] without discussing the problem with the editor on their talk page first if it was never raised on their talk page before. If the editor got clear warnings in the past, sure, you can go to ANI. Even if the person is only on Wikipedia to advance their views and has no interest in anything else here a polite message that this isn't allowed and why is a much better method to make them leave Wikipedia. And if the person is actually interested to contribute in other ways then going to ANI right away increases the chance of them going away and not coming back.[[User:Lurking shadow|Lurking shadow]] ([[User talk:Lurking shadow|talk]]) 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC) : Of course we do not rewrite history, and that's why I, basically, did my edits, to file true statements. And I got reliable sources for every edit of mine. * Barbara Karinska - Robert Greskovic, Ballet 101: A Complete Guide to Learning and Loving the Ballet; Timothy R. White, Blue-Collar Broadway: The Craft and Industry of American Theater * Oleksandr Dovzhenko - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aleksandr-Dovzhenko, https://www.moma.org/artists/32230; Joshua First, Ukrainian Cinema: Belonging and Identity during the Soviet Thaw * Alexander Potebnja - John Fizer, Alexander A. Potebnja's Psycholinguistic Theory of Literature: A Metacritical Inquiry; American Association for Applied Linguistics, Meeting Handbook; Bohdan Rubchak, Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 13:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC) :: I admit that I was editing without communication with my 'thought opponent', and I'm sorry about that. I needed to have a discussion with them at the first place -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 13:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC) :::Why do you refer to the director as ''Oleksandr Dovzhenko'' when the article is named [[Alexander Dovzhenko]] and the sources you provide also use that form of the name? And why did you repeatedly ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Dovzhenko&type=revision&diff=914938927&oldid=912069215], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Dovzhenko&diff=917616502&oldid=914957967], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Dovzhenko&diff=917637655&oldid=917616767]) change his ''nationality'' from "Soviet", linking to the [[USSR]], to "Ukrainian Soviet", linking to the [[Ukrainian SSR]], when no such ''nationality'', i.e. "Ukrainian Soviet", has ever existed? - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC) :::: @ [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]], the Great Soviet Encyclopedia [http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/D/DOVJENKO_Aleksandr_Petrovich/_Dovjenko_A.P..html lists Dovzhenko as "Ukrainian Soviet"]. It was and a common way of describing identities both in the Soviet times, and surely also after the Soviet Union has collapsed. NachtReisender has NOT changed Dovzhenko's nationality retroactively, although the attempt to describe "8 New Dates" as a Ukrainian movie is admittedly nonsense. [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 12:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::: Now I doubt that you read the article at all -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC) ::: (ec) In the example of Dovzhenko, if you look at [[Talk:Alexander Dovzhenko]], you would see that the Britannica arguments have been already raised by your predecessor (who is currently on their track to get topic-banned from all Ukrainian topics), and they receivend an explanation that this is the style issue, and our [[WP:MOS]] does not (and does not have to) coincide with that on of Britannica. Moreover, I mentioned [[WP:MOS]] in this very tread (and previously in our exahcnge). but somehow you were not interested in following it, you were more interested in the edit-warring.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 14:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC) :::: Wow, it feels like you're allergic to anything that contains the word "Ukrainian", Ymblanter :p -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC) ::::: No one here is "allergic to the word Ukrainian", but we're sick and tired of people changing everyone and everything to being Ukrainian (up to and including claiming that Vladimir the Great, who lived a thousand years ago, was "king of Ukraine", linking to the modern-day countrry of Ukraine; you haven't done that though, AFAIK...). - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC) ::::: [[Wikipedia:Casting aspersions]]??--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 14:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Whereas I generally agree with {{re|Ymblanter}}'s position about Ukrainian nationalism, and I myself have to fight against them on WP pages, I think we need to think twice in that situation. *If we compare Ukraine ''vs'' Soviet Union/Russian Empire and Scotland ''vs'' UK, we see many parallelisms: they amalgamated into a single state approximately in the same time, the joint state was ruled by leaders of Ukrainian (Khruschev and Brezhnev) or Scottish (James I) origin, both Ukraine and Scotland had a right of secession, which Ukraine realized in 1991, and Scotland tried to realize (without a success) few years ago. Again, there are a lot of parallelisms, and, if you see WP articles about [[Walter Scott]], or [[James Clerk Maxwell]], they are described as Scotchmen, not British, and nobody claims that is nationalism. In connection to that, "Ukrainian Soviet" seems to be correct in many cases. Even [[Kira Muratova]], whose ethnicity was Russian, but who lived, worked and died in Ukraine, and associated herself with that republic/country, should probably be considered "Ukrainian Soviet", not Russian. Whereas I agree it would be incorrect to use just "Ukrainian" here. *As far as I know, currently, Ukrainian Wikipedia is fully dominated by nationalists, and it is in a very bad shape. One possible reason to partially help to that project is to allow some nationalists to stay here and to mentor them (for some of them are acting in a good faith, their problem is that thry are poorly educated). That is why a topic ban of such users may create a situation when they will focus all their activity on Ukrainian Wikipedia, which will become a ghetto ruled by extreme nationalists.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC) *: Whereas I do not completely disagree, the Kira Muratova case is not black-and-white: She obviously was am Ukrainian citizen since 1991, but before that she studied and started her career in Moscow, and shot some of her important work in Leningrad. At the very least, removal of the Russian category would require a discussion. Unfortunately I just often see editors with a low edit count, who appear out of the blue, make a cavalry attack by replacing a dozen instances of Russian by Ukrainian without any discussion, and then disappear for months. I am afraid we have such a case here. Though of someone wants to try mentoring them, I obviously would not object.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC) :::That is why I wrote she was "Ukrainian Soviet", nor just "Ukrainian". :::In addition, it is necessary to keep in mind that the meaning of the word "Russian" changed since early 1900s. Previously, "Russians" were Orthodox subjects of Russian Emperor. There were three types of Russians: Great Russians, White Russians, and Little Russians. (BTW, the term "Little Russians" was hardly derogatory, for, e.g. "Little Poland" means the historical core of Polish land.) Modern "Russian" is an equivalent of old "Great Russian", whereas old "Rissian" is closer to XX century's "Soviet". --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC) *Looking at the edits by NachtReisender, I think this not a case of WP:NOTHERE. Bias - yes, maybe, but not even remotely at the level that would require an immediate block. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC) :*I got into this discussion after someone proposed a boomerang for the OP, i.e. Ymblanter, a proposal that IMO is so ridiculous that I just couldn't stay away. Editors with a Ukrainian nationalistic POV (up to and including direct falsification of history) is a big problem here, with lots of articles in a very sorry state (one of them being the article about the [[Ukrainian language]] and articles directly relating to that, where I've just done some cleanup), so something has to be done. And I do not share [[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]]'s views about allowing the POV-pushers to edit here just to keep them away from the Ukrainian WP... - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 18:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC) :::I agree: there is no any reason for the "boomerang" either. Yes, any obvious misrepresentation of sources could be a reason for sanctions, but the worst I have seen was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Potebnja&diff=prev&oldid=917342371 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volodymyr_Zelensky&diff=prev&oldid=898294706 this]. First edit is at least partly defensible: the subject was an expert in lingustics and therefore being a Ukrainian may be relevant. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC) * Disruption is continuing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dnipro&diff=918571204&oldid=917536787]--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 09:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC) :* Oh, "disruption", listen to yourself, Ymblanter! I just put a template next to the controversial statement, that's all. I would never think that you are such a impressible person. I still cannot grasp how you managed to transform such a tiny misunderstanding into the full blown scandal. Clearly, calling Vladimir the Great Ukrainian is not correct. Conscious people understand this, it is, like, obvious. All I did was clarify the affiliation of people who had an obvious relationship with Ukraine. You are trying to accuse me of something like insulting, but even you all have no internal understanding. To take at least your local conversation about Kira Muratova: are you saying that this is not an identical case with Dovzhenko? User Ymblanter considers himself a fighter for neutrality, but all he does is swap one shortcut for another through his own preference. And then pinning a nationalist label to the editor, for sure. I am not trying to offer the community some pointless nationalistic or whatever idea that has no source. This is the point. —[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 13:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ::*A couple of examples to show what ''NachtReisender'' is doing here: they claim that [[8 New Dates]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=8_New_Dates&type=revision&diff=883921655&oldid=882792747 is a ''Russian-Ukrainian'' movie] for no other reason than that one of the actors is Ukrainian (in spite of production company, producers, director etc etc being Russian; by that logic hardly any American movie would be American, since they all have one or more foreign actors in the cast), claim that another movie ([[Passions (1994 film)]]) was Ukrainian (first claiming it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passions_%281994_film%29&type=revision&diff=886954753&oldid=833684747 Russian-Ukrainian] and then changing that to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passions_(1994_film)&diff=896785290&oldid=889192182 only Ukrainian]) for no other reason than that according to them the director, [[Kira Muratova]], was Ukrainian (which by itself is a ridiculous claim, and is made even more ridiculous by the fact that she was of Russian and Romanian descent, born in Romania, educated in Russia etc, but lived part of her life in the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times), and then repeatedly ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Dovzhenko&diff=prev&oldid=917616502], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Dovzhenko&diff=prev&oldid=917637655]) changed the nationality of [[Alexander Dovzhenko]] from Soviet, linking to the USSR, to Ukrainian, linking to the Ukrainian SSR, in spite of there not existing such a nationality, and also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mykola_Avilov&diff=849506349&oldid=833252445 did the same] in other articles. Etc, etc. All in around 50 edits (not counting the ones here), which '''is''' nationalistic POV editing, and not acceptable. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC) * I would appreciate uninvolved eyes on [[Ukrainian literature]], see page history and what I posted on the talk page of that article. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC) * Umm, honourable {{u|Thomas.W}}, you probably did not notice, that production company of [[8 New Dates]], Kvartal 95 Studio is Ukrainian? -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC) :: Ummm, no. According to the article the production company is [[Central Partnership]], which is Russian, and Imdb list it as a ''Russian'' movie. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 13:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ::: IMDB is the most immovable source or what? By the way, the same site submits Kvartal 95 Studio as one of the production companies. -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC) :::: Imdb is better than no source at all. So where are your ''reliable'' sources for either of the movies I mentioned being Ukrainian? Or sources for ''any'' of your edits, for that matter. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ::::: "Better than no source at all", who would doubt it. It seems like you only notice what you want, Thomas.W, because I was demonstrating sources on this same page. Speaking about "8 New Dates": [http://kvartal95.com/en/projects/8_new_meet/ 1], [http://kvartal95.com/ua/history/ 2], [https://delo.ua/lifestyle/o-novyh-zakonoproektah-sergej-sozanovskij-vladelec-filmua-grou-310845/ 3], [https://mediananny.com/reportazhi/2312225/ 4], [https://tsn.ua/ru/glamur/rossiyane-boykotiruyut-zelenskogo-on-pomogaet-boycam-ato-za-schet-deneg-zarabotannyh-v-rf-391257.html 5], [https://tvbesedka.com/anounce/8_novyh_svidanij_784 6] -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 11:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC) :::::: None of which supports your claims, stretching no farther than saying it was a co-production between ''Kvartal 95'' and a Russian company; and [https://tvbesedka.com/anounce/8_novyh_svidanij_784 this] ''Ukrainian'' source you provided (and also links to above) directly contradicts your claim, by stating that the movie is Russian. Did you really believe that no one would be able to check/read the sources just because they're in a foreign language? - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::: On the contrary, my colleague, I was hoping that the sources would read, but not everyone seems to read them with due care. I quote the source you are talking about: "The film "8 new dates" (2015) is a joint brainchild of Russian and Ukrainian filmmakers". I ask you to re-read the submitted sources, this time more carefully -[[User:NachtReisender|NachtReisender]] ([[User talk:NachtReisender|talk]]) 15:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::: ''"Joint brainchild"'' is totally irrelevant for deciding the "nationality" of a movie, lots of American movies were the "brainchild" of people of other nationalities, and/or entirely based on books by people of other nationalities, but are still American movies. So who do you think you're fooling? You added a fake claim, with "sources" you '''knew''' didn't support your claim, hoping that no one would check them. Period. And that's a clear violation of the rules here. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 08:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC) Ymblanter writes: "no such ''nationality'', i.e. "Ukrainian Soviet", has ever existed." Funnily, the [[Great Soviet Encyclopedia]] calls Dovzhenko [http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/D/DOVJENKO_Aleksandr_Petrovich/_Dovjenko_A.P..html "a Ukrainian Soviet cinema director"]. I think this is enough to show that [[User:Ymblanter]] engages in erasure of other nationalities, which I cannot see any other way than being nationalistically motivated. Dovzhenko's name is Oleksandr because he is a child of Ukrainian peasants who wrote books in Ukrainian, so the fact that he became known to the outside world through the language of the empire is no reason to translate his name into Russian now that the empire is no longer there. The empire itself, in its initial stages, supported the self-expression of different nationalities, which is right about the time when Dovzhenko's artistic genius was in full swing. (It is only later, starting from the second half of the 30s, that the bans on everything Ukrainian began to be re-introduced.) Dovzhenko's script for "Ukraine on Fire" was banned on the grounds that it "encouraged Ukrainian patriotism instead of Soviet patriotism." In [http://chtyvo.org.ua/authors/Dovzhenko/Schodennykovi_zapysy_1939-1956__Dnevnykove_zapysy_1939-1956/ his diaries, written in ''Ukrainian''], he notes (p.36) that he is not a nationalist (after having been accused of being a nationalist and removed from the committee that decided on awarding the Stalin prize to films), he simply loved his people. This situation here is a deja vu of being accused of being a nationalist on the grounds of simply being as one is. On page 786, Dovzhenko writes, "I am a son of the Ukrainian people." On the same page, the previous diary entry ''laments'' that in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, teaching in universities is conducted in Russian (he also refers to Lenin's policies, which belong to the time when nationalities were allowed to develop, and speaks of "cruel deceit" (being incorporated into a "brotherhood of people", where then all peoples except for the Russian one were gradually forced to give up their identity)). Do I understand it correctly that while Wikipedia will use the pronoun "she" for trans women like Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning because they wish to be known as women, a person who says "I'm a son of the Ukrainian people" will be denied the right to be called Ukrainian because an empire, and a Wikipedia editor who belongs to the people who were the bearers of imperial policies (and who says that something that even an imperial encyclopedia acknowledged—"Ukrainian Soviet", '''doesn't exist'''), say so? [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 11:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC) : The above user has 316 edits in total, 12 this year, the previous one was in June. Thank you for the original research performed here and for your appearance out of nowhere to defend a disruptive compatriot, but I am afraid you completely miss the point, on several counts. To start with, you clearly presume that I am Russian and defend some obscure imperial views, which is an incorrect assumption.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 12:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC) : And, for a starter, the Dovzhenko article discusses his ethnic origin in quite some detail.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 12:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :: My edit count proves what exactly? Will you please study my edits and topics they are focused on to determine whether your attempt at an ad hominem could even theoretically pan out? And leaving the ad hominem waters, do you have anything to say about the non-OR part of my argument, namely the reference to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which clearly states something that you said is a non-thing (and you included NachtReisender's repetition of what the Great Soviet Encyclopedia syas in the list of your charges against NachtReisender being nationalistic)? Back to ad hominem at yourself: your userpage says Russian is your native language. This proceeding here is a POV against a POV. The Dovzhenko article may discuss his ethnic origin at great length, however, we are talking about an identity here, not about something that you apparently view as second-rate circumstances. Being a "Ukrainian Soviet", "Estonian Soviet", etc. was a common way of giving a most general description of identity even in Soviet times (I was 13 years old when the USSR fell apart, and by that time I've read enough books including encyclopedias to not see "Ukrainian Soviet" as anything strange, while you seem to be unfamiliar with it). An article about Caitlyn Jenner may discuss that she "was born Bruce Jenner" and describe her "chromosome origins", but here we are talking about identity, and about your attempts to erase said identity in the case of Dovzhenko. Apparently trans people should be described according to their own chosen identity, while Ukrainians do not have that right, eh? (In the case of Ukrainians, the "chromosome identity" coincides with the "chosen identity", but some people keep wanting to '''erase it.''') [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :: A postscriptum of a general nature, not as part of bickering with Ymblanter: I will limit my objections only to the Dovzhenko matter, as calling "8 New Dates" a Ukrainian movie is admittedly exceptionally silly, and I haven't gone through all the other examples of NachtReisender's alleged "wrongdoings" to present a position on all of them. My aim here is to show that not all of NachtReisender's edits are nationalistic, some of them are actually grounded in fact (as per the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Dovzhenko's own statements about his identity), and in that particular case (of Dovzhenko), it's Ymblanter who is POV-pushing in a manner that amounts to nothing but identity erasure (and since Ymblanter is Russian, it is safe to call this a nationalistic POV). I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Wikipedia's "legal system", so I'm unsure as to what this particular proceeding here is supposed to end in, but I submit that the accuser is themselves nationalistic in at least some of the charges that they are making against NachtReisender, and at least some of NachtReisender's alleged "missteps" are something that requires other Wikipedia editors to take off their imperialistic goggles. Everyone here needs to be educated. [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::: I am not Russian, as I clearly mentioned just forty minutes ago in this thread. And I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia manual of style (which is btw in Russian) has absolutely, whatsoever no relation to [[WP:MOS]]. The same way as the fact that Britannica mentions ethnicity of Dovzhenko in the lede does not mean we should. And, again, the article discusses his ethnicity in quite some detail. You edit count just means somebody outside the project just provided you with a link to this discussion. As simple as that.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 13:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::: 1. Your haplogroup has no relation to your identity, Ymblanter. Your first language is Russian. :::: 2. "Ukrainian Soviet" is not an ethnicity, it's a nationality. The Ukrainian SSR was (yes, formally, but aren't you trying to appeal to the formal rules here?) a state that co-founded the United Nations. Cmd+F'ing "national" through WP:MOS, I'm not finding anything that relates to the issue here. :::: 3. And finally, that someone provided me with a link here is a BS accusation. I was on Reddit, reading [https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/deghh1/moving_away_from_protonmail_and_from_webmail_to/ someone's musings on Protonmail]. The discussion mentioned Riot/Matrix, which is something that is new to me. I googled what it was. Matrix protocol led to XMPP; as someone who used to have a Jabber account I decided to look through the article to see whether it mentions current popularity of XMPP; then I looked on the talk page to see if someone mentioned the need to update the article with respect to whether XMPP is dead or alive, and as I'm a linguist, my attention was drawn to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:XMPP#Please_discuss_changes_to_the_indefinite_article this discussion], which had a link to ANI, so I clicked on it, and what do you know, there is a Ukraine-related discussion right at the top of the page. It is an absolutely normal case of a Wikipedia rabbit hole. I tend to, from time to time, get embroiled in discussions on Wikipedia, as evidenced, e.g., by my edits from Nov. 20-22, 2017 (go ahead, check them out), where I decided [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_November_21&diff=prev&oldid=811483214 to take down a self-promoting writer of Bengali science fiction] who was publishing articles about his [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ekti_Ghrinyo_Golpo non-notable short stories], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_November_14&diff=prev&oldid=811485445 exposed a sockpuppet ring that he was running]. (The articles were removed, the sockpuppets were banned.) The behavioral pattern is clear: I edit only occasionally, but sometimes get into discussions. I will once again disappear once this thing here is over (or even before that). Your accusations are BS. :::: — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 13:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::: Sorry, I am unable to answer this flow of bad faith. What haplogroup? Did I mention any haplogroup? Concerning the sources, you miss the point again, sorry. You need to read the manual of style before you continue reverting.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 13:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::: I guess [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation&diff=prev&oldid=920191191 this] would be a clear example of my imperialist pro-Russian POV pushing. Just today several hours ago.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 13:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::: What bad faith? You've accused me of having been provided with a link to this discussion (thus alleging a concerted effort), and it's me who's in bad faith? And if you are using ad hominem arguments, then it's fair game for me too, you are claiming to not be Russian while your userpage lists your native language (the only one) as Russian. At this point I'm guessing we need to get into a discussion of whether you mean "Russian" as an ethnicity or a nationality. And the outcome of this discussion will probably be closely related to whether Dovzhenko is "Ukrainian Soviet." If I'm missing the point, please, be so kind and against just ''stating'' that I'm missing a point, lay out where I'm missing it. I usually try to lay out my arguments, you clearly feel no need to do so—and you are accusing me of bad faith? Once again, state where WP:MOS prohibits stating a person's nationality. (You haven't addressed my point that "Ulrainian Soviet" is not an ethnicity.) :::::: Re your recognition that Crimea was annexed, hat off to you. But sometimes you need to recognize that you may be evolved in one respect, but not in the others. I can see that NachtReisender is in fact making some absurd edits to the tune of "Jesus Christ was a Hutsul", but not all of them are like that, is my point. And I feel that, in the same vein that someone up here suggested educating Ukrainian Wikipedians, there is a space for other Wikipedians to be educated where they write that "no such thing as Ukrainian Soviet ever existed" and erase an identity of an artist who felt strongly about that identity, who was oppressed in the Soviet empire... while the empire himself did not deny him the right to be named "Ukrainian Soviet" (as the votes in the UN were important).[[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 13:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::: First, my apologies. In 99.9% case an appearance of a new editor in this discussion means an external invitation (and we have seen Ukrainian editors specifically invited not just to discussions, but to edit-warring in order to trick the 3RR). I am glad to hear that you are in 0.1%. Second, concerning my edits, you miss the essential point again. In the example with Crimea, it is absolutely irrelevant what I think about the subject. You do not know and will never know what I think about it. What is relevant is what is consensus of Wikipedia editors. In 2014, I, together with other responsible editors, invested a lot of time into producing consensual formulation for this kind of events related to Crimea. This is not just one article, it is the whole bunch of articles related to all various aspects. This consensus was worked out and implemented. (It is also documented somewhere, though I would have difficulties finding it, there must have been some RfCs deep down in archives by now). My business is to implement this consensus, not my own political views. When a pro-Russian user comes and changes to "annexation" to "ascension", I revert. If they do it in multiple articles and repeatedly, and do not know how to stop, I block or present them to ANI if I am too much involved. If a pro-Ukrainian user comes and writes about state treason and all Crimeans being criminals, I revert. If they do it in multiple articles and repeatedly, and do not know how to stop, I block or present them to ANI if I am too much involved. That's it. Nothing in this workflow depends on my own political views. The same is in the Dovzhenko article. There is consensus, written down in WP:MOS, that ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lead. There is consensus among uninvolved editors (and you have already been clearly shown this down the thread) that, according to consensus, there is no such nationality as Soviet-Ukrainian. This means that, at least until consensus has been changed (for which one needs to go to the talk of WP:MOS and open an RfC), the lead of the article can not define him "Ukrainian filmmaker" or "Ukrainian Soviet filmmaker". The body of the article can, and, actually, already does. This is the consensus I uphold. My own political views do not play whatsoever no role here. I can think that Dovzhenko was Russian, Ukrainian, Soviet, Nigerian, or Valinorian. This is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is not what I think but what WP:MOS says, and how it is currently being interpreted by the community. If you look through my contributions (and have some patience, since there are currently 145K of them), you will see that I consistently revert Russian, Ukrainian, Nigerian, Indian, Pakistani, Israeli, Palestinian, and sometimes even Valinorian POV pushers. The only thing I care about (in this context) is the policy, and the policy is very clear on the matter we are discussing here. Now, finally, third. You made some personal comments about me, based on the only piece of data you have - that my mothertongue is Russian. I mentioned that your conclusions are incorrect. You insisted that they are correct (implying I am lying). Let me try again. I AM NOT A RUSSIAN CITIZEN. Is this sufficiently clear? I believe you own me an apology on this point, otherwise we are moving to the casting aspersions and personal attack territory.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::: @ [[User:Ymblanter]] I apologize for having alleged that your stance is motivated by whatever connection you have to whatever understanding of what "Russian" means. The thing is, I still maintain that there is not a clear case of applying WP:MOS guidelines but a matter of interpreting them in a certain way, a matter of perception, this perception being a case of an international blindness to Ukrainian issues, precipitated by the policy of narrative of erasure pursued by, first, the Russian Empire, then, the later stage of development of the Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation (the narrative of "we are one people, and Ukrainian language is an invention"). The thing is, once again, WP:MOS deals with "ethnicity", and the matter here is whether "Ukrainian Soviet", or "Latvian Soviet", or "Uzbek Soviet" is an ethnicity. Arguments used in this discussion about how "Ukr. Soviet" isn't a nationality provide analogies with Idaho or California, which are, again, not co-founders of the UN. Neither [[User:Paul_Siebert]], nor myself have heard an explanation for why the status of Scotland in the Union under the British Crown is different from the status of republics within the Soviet ''Union''; there is no Scottish citizenship that I'm aware of that is separate from the British citizenship (so far); and yet, for the English Wikipedia, Robert Burns is "a Scottish poet". I'm seeing a clear case of double standards (and the only explanation I can come up with is people having fallen prey to the Russian/Soviet propaganda of "there is no such thing as Ukraine" and ignorance about Ukraine). Nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines is there (or I haven't been shown) an explicit rule saying that "Kazakh Soviet" or "Estonian Soviet" are ethnicities and thus barred from being used in ledes. I guess if I were feeling disruptive I could go ahead and edit the article of Robert Burns to say that he is "a British poet" and get some editors from Scotland in a tizzy. But, given the double standards, I think I need to aim for an explicit consensus on whether this designation is an ethnicity or not. I'd be grateful if you could point me to a manual of how one initiates an RfC for WP:MOS. [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 16:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::: Look, like now you are the '''only''' person around here who thinks that Soviet Ukrainian qualifies as nationality in the context of the English Wikipedia. Your edits on the Dovzhenko page have been already reverted by two different editors, which means you should start with reading [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. I have no idea about Scottish / Welsh nationality, I know that some people are oversensitive to these issues, and we also have of course [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]. However, if indeed you want to start an RfC to change [[WP:MOS]], you should be doing this at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]].--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::: I'm aware about [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], but I believe the issue of double standards merits discussion. Moreover, from the practical standpoint, the reason that you are getting so many editors who do disruptive stuff like describing everything and anything is Ukrainian, is that there _is_ the problem of erasure, so people overreact. It's not that I'm dead set on including "Ukr. Soviet" or "Estonian Soviet" in the definition of nationality, as one probably wouldn't be able to achieve the same with "Scottish", given the modern English understanding of "nationality". I just think that there is a merit to, in cases of "nationalities" in oppressive empires (or not so oppressive?? as the UK was/is clearly a more civilized entity than several latest incarnations of Russia), to include the person's identity in the lede. Apparently, no one sees a problem with that with respect to Scotland. Thank you to the link to the talk page of MOS, I'll get around to this in the nearest future. Funnily, there is currently a discussion there about particles in names, and there are question being pondered like, "Is van der Merwe South African or Dutch? At which point does a name become Australian? Are the names that came over with William the Conqueror now English?" These things are complicated. Thus, your (and Thomas.W's) categorical assertion of "this thing doesn't exist" is far from being a clear-cut and undisputed truth. People are also bringing up "arguments" like "being unhistorical", but it's them who are being unhistorical. Under Lenin, the Soviet Union was not that much different from the UK. There was Union Treaty creating the Soviet Union (like Acts of the Union in the UK). The definition of the Union citizenship in the Soviet Constitution did include the concept of "citizens of the republics": (1924) "For the citizens of the Union(-constituent) republics, the single Union citizenship is established"; (1936 & 1977) "Every citizen of a Union(-constituent) republic is a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". There '''was''' a concept of a "citizen of a Union(-constituent) republics". Anyways, I'm not expecting that you will change your entrenched perception about something that "doesn't exist" (although mentioned in the USSR Constitutions), and this is not my practical goal. Thanks again for the pointers to how to approach this matter (through an RFC). [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 17:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::: No, I am sorry. The reason why we get so many disruptive editors is not because they understand some fine details of MOS which we do not or because they want to compare Ukraine with Scotland. The reason that they know THE TRUTH and they try to get ot to the articles, and they do not care so much about the policies (only inasmuch as the policies help them to get THE TRUTH to the articles). I do not think I should discuss hete fine details of MOS. It is enough to make it clear that currently consensus is that Ukrainian is not nationality until 1991. If you want to discuss and change this, please go to [[WT:MOS]].- This is not the right place for discussing policies.-[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 17:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::: {{re|Ymblanter}} Please do not twist my words. I haven't said that editors become disruptive "because they understand some fine details of MOS which we do not" or "because they way to compare Ukraine to Scotland". I said they (at least partially) are overreacting because there is a pervasive narrative of erasure, and this is a point that it would do you good to ponder in one of those moments when/if you sometimes get philosophical about life and whether you are fair and just to other people. It was me who brought up the finer points of MOS, not Nachtreisender. Besides, the matter of whether a policy is correctly interpreted and applied is totally fair game in a quasi-legal proceeding. I have simply come to a conclusion that against such a large blind spot and such egregious double standards there is a merit to trying to get the policy to explicitly say something, and in a wider circle of discussion than here. I am not the only one in this conversation to think that using "Ukrainian Soviet" in the lede is proper, and it was you who hasn't proved that "Ukrainian Soviet" is a designation of ethnicity. Only then would your mentioning the WP:MOS (relative) prohibition of mentioning ethnicities in the lede be applicable; I contend it is not, because we are speaking of a concept that is best defined as identity, not even of whether "nationality" (in modern Western understanding—that for some reasons has exceptions for some exceptionally deserving nations) applies. "X Soviet" is not a designation of ethnicity. For example, Effendi Kapiyev is a [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%AD%D1%84%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 "Dagestani Soviet" writer, who was "of Laks origin/ethnicity"], so "Dagestani" refers to the administrative unit within the Soviet Union, first an oblast, then an autonomous republic (anything that has "stan" refers to a country, not to a people). The fact that "Ukraine" does not have a "stan" in it doesn't mean it is a designation of ethnicity and not of a belonging to a country (that was one of the signatories of a freaking [[Treaty on the Creation of the USSR|Union Treaty]], and later was a freaking co-founder of the freaking UN). — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 18:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::::: I am sorry but I already cited [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. If you still, after so many iterations, do not get the point I am afraid I can not help. May be someone else will be more successful here.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 18:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::::: It is you who are not getting the point. There is consensus on WP:MOS, but you need to prove that this policy applies. If policy ("in general") prohibits citing ethnicity, you need to show that it's ethnicity that was cited. WP:OTHERSTUFF is partially applicable in the Scotland analogy (and there we need to examine double standards), but WP:OTHERSTUFF is not applicable here in the "Dagestani Soviet" example. I'm not saying "because someone is cited as Dagestani Soveit, let's cite ethnicities", I'm showing you that '''this language usage is not used to describe ethnicities.''' You are clearly not a lawyer and have trouble understanding of how cases are adjudicated and that you cannot just point to a "law", you need to show how that law applies in the particular case. I'm also afraid I can't help you understand it, and for anyone who understands (I suppose administrators should understand these things), I've said enough, so I rest my case :). — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 18:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::::::: Get real. Before the break up of the Soviet Union ''there was no Ukrainian '''nationality''''' (by the definition used in English), so any and all mentions (in English, which is what we're discussing here, on the ''English lannguage'' Wikipedia...) of someone being Ukrainian before then referred to ''ethnicity'', not ''nationality''. And there's no way for you to get around that, so you might as well find something else to do. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::::::: See both above and below. Above for the fact that the concept of "citizens of the Union(-constituent) republics" is contained in the Soviet Constitution (and btw, there was a Constitution of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), and below, after "Another arbitrary break", for a demonstration of how your claims about what "English-language usage" is are clearly conjured out of thin air. You need to educate yourself about history before claiming that there was no this or no that. The fact that hardly anyone in Idaho was knowledgeable about the constituent republics of the Soviet Union during the Soviet times, and that the intricacies of the Soviet constitution(s) were not discussed to the degree that "the perfect call" is being discussed now, doesn't mean there was no "unitary one-party socialist soviet republic" (as English Wikipedia, in what I presume is a consensus, defines the [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic]]). — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 20:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::: Well, now that really starts getting disruptive, [[WP:IDNHT]]. You were told three times that this is not an appropriate venue to discuss the issues of ethnicity vs nationality, and you still continue discussing them. Now everybody can see for themselves what editing in Ukrainian topics actually means. Any moment an editor with 300 edits can appear out of nowhere and start building walls of completely irrelevant text even after being told to stop. And of course they know everything, and everyone else josu do not understand Wikipedia policies and must prove them that they are not correct.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 21:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ===Yet another arbitrary break=== Not sure what this '''"boomerang"''' thing is that some people have mentioned here, but at this point [[User:Ymblanter]] is removing a [http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/D/DOVJENKO_Aleksandr_Petrovich/_Dovjenko_A.P..html sourced (from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia) edit about Dovzhenko's nationality/identity as "Ukrainian Soviet"], and the number of their edits to that effect is already at least three; so we are dealing with a nationalistic POV-pushing that goes against authoritative, reliable sources. [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 13:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :Which would make sense '''within the Soviet Union''', just like a website or encyclopaedia aimed exclusively at Americans would stress if someone was from Idaho or California, or whatever, but makes no sense whatsoever in an ''international perspective''. There '''is''' no "Ukrainian Soviet" ''nationality'', and has never been any. And stop the "boomerang" thing, it's just plain silly. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 14:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :: The Ukrainian SSR was a state that co-founded the United Nations, unlike Idaho or California. (Latreia, on mobile and not logged in) [[Special:Contributions/37.73.213.88|37.73.213.88]] ([[User talk:37.73.213.88|talk]]) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::That doesn't change the central argument - that there was no "Ukranian Soviet" nationality distinct from a Soviet national identity at the time. Trying to impose such is unhistorical and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::: I fail to see how there was no distinct identity. For internal consumption, there is the identification as provided in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (and I’m told it’s irrelevant). For the outside consumption, there was the subject of international law, the Ukrainian SSR, that was presented as a separate entity. Yes, both cases were lip service (although a greater degree of national self-determination ‘’was’’ in fact allowed for at the initial stages of the Soviet Union’s existence). But these are all matters of legal fiction, and legally, the Ukrainian SSR was a separate entity that had the right to leave. And here I would like to return to the analogy mentioned above by [[User:Paul_Siebert]]. Acts of the Union between England and Scotland were adopted in 1707. Robert Burns was born in 1759. Why is he a Scottish poet??? Or is one nationality/identity that is within a “Union” (the Soviet Union was a freaking ‘’’Union’’’) intrinsically better than the other? Again, legally the situation is indistinguishable from Scotland. It’s just that the cultural and political ‘’narratives’’ were constructed in a way that erased anything but Soviet and Russian. So the problem here is not the legal status, it’s your ‘’perception’’ that allows you to deny someone the right to a nationality/identity that you accord to others. (again not logged in, Latreia) [[Special:Contributions/37.73.213.88|37.73.213.88]] ([[User talk:37.73.213.88|talk]]) 15:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::{{re|Simonm223}} The problem seems to be in a different meaning of the word "nationality" in Soviet Union and in a modern Western world. Under "nationality" we mean "citizenship". A nationality of a person named Takeshi Watanabe (an arbitrary name, not any concrete person) is American is he has an American passport, and Japanese if he has a passport of Japan. In contrast, according to Soviet standards, his nationality would be Japanese, but his citizenship would be American, Japanese, etc, depending on a colour of his passport. A formula "Ukrainian Soviet writer (actor, artist, etc) " was quite common in Soviet time, which meant "A Soviet writer of Ukrainian ethnicity". In Soviet Union, the concept of nationality was strictly separated from a concept of citizenship. It was equivalent to our "ethnicity", although there was one more nuance. The term "nationality" was reserved for those ethnic groups that had some officially recognized autonomy (either Soviet republics, or Soviet autonomous republics), whereas ethnicity was related more to those small ethnic groups that had no own official autonomies (although that was not strict).--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 15:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::And since this is the English language Wikipedia we use the "international" definition of nationality (i.e. citizenship), mentioning only the nationality/citizenship in the lead, and then specify their ethnicity further down in the article. Just like it is in the Dovzhenko article. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 15:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::: @ [[User:Thomas.W]] I'm aware of the "international" definition of nationality. So, what do you say about the British poet Robert Burns? [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::{{ping|Latreia}} In the ''English'' language England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland are, based on a long-standing tradition, exceptions to the normal rule, and treated as separate nations (as can be seen also in the world of sports, where they, in many sports, have separate national teams...). But they're the only exceptions there are in the English language (which as the name implies originated in England...), and thus nothing you can compare Ukraine to... - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 16:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::: {{re|Thomas.W}} See my reply below. — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 17:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::{{re|Paul Siebert}} I'm not referring to the Soviet-time definition of nationality. The issue here is how the current wording of either "ethnicity" or "nationality", as used in the current WP guidelines according to the modern-Western-world understanding of either of those words, correlates with the reality that we are trying to describe when we are writing about people like Oleksandr Dovzhenko in the English Wikipedia, and '''how''' and '''why''' the application of these guidelines is different when we are talking about similar realities in other countries like Scotland. I'm not aware that there is a Scottish citizenship distinct from the UK citizenship, starting from 1707 and at least until now, and yet the English Wikipedia writes about Robert Burns as "a Scottish poet". Why? [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 16:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::See my reply above. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 16:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::I am not sure if this is a rule of the ''big'' English, or just of the British English. I believe majority of Anglophone population is not aware of that. In addition, if I am not right, and this exception is universally accepted, Ukraine, as well as other post-Soviet republics, may also be considered an exception, for they were parts of a bigger state and then became independent. --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 17:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::It's "common use" that controls what can and cannot be used in English, and which exceptions there are and aren't, and seeing England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland as separate nations has been in common use in the English language for centuries, while there is no chance for seeing the Ukrainian SSR as having been a separate nation during Soviet times to become common use in English, since that period in history is long gone. So learn to live with it. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::: {{re|Thomas.W}} It is my understanding that the rules of the English language, which originates in England, have until very recently mandated that the pronoun "she" be applied only to persons with the XX chromosome pair. This has meanwhile changed. This is a matter not of the rules of language, but of identity, and the fact that some people continue to be unaware of a separate Ukrainian identity which was there long before 1991 does not mean that they can continue to carve out exceptions for some identities. According this right to Scots, who joined a Union, but not to Ukrainians, who joined a Union (Dovzhenko was a fighter in the Ukrainian People's republic of 1917-1921, and being of Communist convictions, he was part of a political movement that gained the upper hand in Ukraine and was the one that joined Ukraine to Russia (that had recognized Ukraine's independence in December 1917)), is plain racist. Several consecutive Constitutions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have spoken of "citizens of Union(-constituent) republics". What we are dealing here is just the fact that you don't know this, and not the rules of the English language. [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 17:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::: I hope that was intended as a joke, because it was probably the silliest comparison I have ever seen on WP, comparing the generally accepted right for people to self-identify when it comes to gender identity, to an imaginary right for Ukraine to decide what "common use" in English should be. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 18:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::: It is about the right to self-identify in both cases, and in both cases the groups that were originally denied a such a right had to fight an uphill to change what "common use" is against "grumpy old farts" (I'm quoting your user page and your self-identification, so I don't think I'm offending you in any way). That said, you seem unable to refute the fact that the Constitutions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics contained a concept of "citizens of Union(-constituent) republic" and that there was a Union Treaty; either that, or you seem unable to grasp the significance of that; or we have a willful refusal on your part to try and grasp the significance of that. And that is a political stance, not a stance of someone who cares about "common use". Again, the N-word was common use at some point, and the change of what's common use in the ''English'' language occurred because of the fact that some people of non-English origin were not happy. But you can continue treading in the steps of your predecessors who were protectors of common use. — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 18:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::: This discussion has degenerated to nothing but silliness. We, that is the English language Wikipedia, go by a strict definition of nationality (with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being the only exceptions, for historical reasons, as has been pointed out to you), so anyone born, living in and a citizen of the Soviet Union was "Soviet" (regardless of if their enthnicity was Russian, Ukrainian, Tajik or anything else), anyone born, living in and a citizen of Austria-Hungary was "Austro-Hungarian" (regardless of if their ethnicity was Austrian, Hungarian, Croat, Ukrainian or anything else), and so on. So it's not just Ukrainians that are being "unfairly treated", but also a lot of other people. And the reason for it is that we '''do not''' rewrite history, and '''do not''' apply nationality retroactively (how can anyone be a citizen of a country that doesn't exist during their time?), as you and a whole bunch of other Ukrainian editors want to do. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 19:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::::: {{re|Thomas.W}} What you are saying is untrue on multiple counts. Austria-Hungary existed as a joint nation between 1867 and 1918, which is barely over 50 years so it's hard to find someone whose lifetime was strictly within these limits, and it is questionable whether Hungary was more subordinate to Austria before or after the Ausgleich, but you laid out some claims mentioning specifically Austria-Hungary, so here goes, to show that your claims are empty invented bluster: ''Endre Ady'', 1877-1919, called Hungarian or "Hungary's", not Austro-Hungarian in '''English-language books''': [https://books.google.com/books/about/Poems_of_Endre_Ady.html?id=RMSUPQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y 1], [https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=RJzkg6o_dm4C&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=%22andrew+ady%22+hungarian+poet&source=bl&ots=N2xupiXN3v&sig=ACfU3U0QNp6mD2lvze1J-8Uh_knEwcvzZw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi23fGGtI3lAhUN6KYKHYhSD3Y4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22andrew%20ady%22%20hungarian%20poet&f=false 2]. ''Mor Jokai'', while born in pre-Ausgleich Hungary, was most prolific in the Austro-Hungarian times. He is [https://www.amazon.com/Works-M%C3%B3r-J%C3%B3kai-ebook/dp/B00FAY0PZQ called a "Hungarian dramatist and novelist"] on Amazon.com, a website from an Anglophone country. Even as Jokai was still alive and his works were translated into English, he was called "the Hungarian master" and "the Hungarian novelist" [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18705/18705-h/18705-h.htm in the preface to a '''book published by Doubleday in 1899'''], in the heyday of Austro-Hungary. ''Sándor Bródy'', who was 4 years old at the time of the Ausgleich, is called [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3733-brody-sandor "Hungarian author and journalist" '''in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia published in New York'''], again while Austria-Hungary was still in existence and there was no need to bow to demands of newly independent Magyars. So your theory about "only Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland get a pass" is clearly your private invention meant for use in this particular discussion, and not "common use English" or "a rule." ::::::::::::: No one retroactively rewrites history, it is you who are either ignorant of history or willfully trying to erase history. After being a citizen of the Russian empire, Dovzhenko was first for a short time a citizen (and even a fighter in the army) of the [[Ukrainian People's Republic]] and then a citizen of the [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic]], which (I'm presuming by consensus) Wikipedia calls a "unitary one-party socialist soviet republic", and which was a founding member of the UN, and which joined the Soviet Union by signing a Union treaty. The modern state of Ukraine didn't exist at that point, which is why I'm not calling him Ukrainian (although by the example of Sándor Bródy, Endre Ady, and Mor Jokai called Hungarian in the Anglophone world, I don't see why we couldn't). But the designation "Ukrainian Soviet" (for a citizen of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) is completely reasonable. ::::::::::::: Please cite some historical facts and provide some logical chains of what follows from this or this fact or designation instead of postulating "silliness" and "retroactively rewriting history", otherwise it is you who are looking silly, inventing non-existent "rules of the English language" (evidently hoping that with your supposed authority as a native English speaker you will crush a foreigner.... only the foreigner happens to be a linguist and able to research sources). ::::::::::::: — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 20:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::::: Yet another wall of irrelevant text, in the usual Ukrainian way. I'm sure it's possible to find a book or two that will "prove" literally anything, heck, you can even find books claiming to "prove" that Earth is flat or that Obama was a Martian, but "common use" isn't a single book, and using ''nationality'' in the lead instead of ''ethnicity'' is Wikipedia consensus, so I can't see how ''anything'' of what you wrote above has anything to do with what we're discussing here. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 20:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::::::: Keep showing your condescension and racism ("the usual Ukrainian way")—this is a wonderful way of showing who you are (I'm not saying "Anglophone people are", I'm not racist). "Common use", among linguists and not lay native speakers of a certain language, is routinely proven by showing _several_ examples of usage, which I have done as a counterargument to your theory which you've pulled out of thin air (without bothering to show at least the same number of examples that I've provided). Why make provably false claims about tangential topics (Austria-Hungary), if you then declare that counterarguments are irrelevant? And then you try to put my stance alongside obviously absurd things like flat-Earth or Obama being Martian. That you ''can't see'' how what I've written applies—well, here I agree. You can't. Have a nice evening. — [[User:Latreia|Latreia]] ([[User talk:Latreia|talk]]) 21:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::::::: Since all Ukrainian editors who pop up here to [[WP:FLOG|beat the same dead horse]] over again, for the umpteenth time, post walls of text that is usually both incoherent, illogical and irrelevant it's hard to interpret it as anything but "the usual Ukrainian way". - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 22:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC) == QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and [[pod mod]]s == :{{la|Pod mod}} :{{user|QuackGuru}} WP:AN is pushing a backlog drive on AfC. Accordingly {{u|RoySmith}} took [[pod mod]] into mainspace [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&type=revision&diff=917887555&oldid=902474094] (so thanks for that). {{u|QuackGuru}} has now removed it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&type=revision&diff=917909384&oldid=917888467] as "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See [[WP:CIR]]." I was thus prompted to raise the following with them: :; [[Pod mod]] : I'm concerned about your removal of this article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=917909384&oldid=917909025]. : Firstly, we have an AfD process. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It's fundamental here that we operate by consensus. We do not support single-handed deletion of articles like this. : Secondly, your reason for removing this article was "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See [[WP:CIR]].)" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=917909384&oldid=917909025] That's four separate claims as to why it should be removed. Yet these are unrelated claims, and you have shown no reason to support any of them. In particular, alleging a "hoax" article is a strong allegation against the editor who created that article and should not be made without some evidence to back it up. Importantly though, you then went on to add content from this article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes&type=revision&diff=917968106&oldid=916107124] to a new section [[Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods]]. So which is it? If this is a "hoax", why are you propagating it further? If these sources failed verification in one article, why are they now acceptable in another? : I'm also less than happy about you using inlined ELs rather than correctly formatted citations and references. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juul&type=revision&diff=917973979&oldid=917912960] Is there any particular reason for this? : Once again, your editing raises concerns. You are quick to add a warning banner about Discretionary Sanctions to this article, but you don't point out that ''you'' were the editor warned when such sanctions were applied [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned]]. : This blanking of an article was inappropriate and disruptive. It goes against our accepted practice re AfD, should such an article really be inappropriate. Your allegations against it are unsupported, and also targeted against a specific editor, {{u|Sydneystudent123456}}. Your re-use of some content from the article also rather defeats the claims you made against it originally. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC) QuackGuru blanked that without reply (they habitually blank all items on their talk:, rather than archiving). They similarly blanked a second request to discuss this. I don't see this as acceptable editing, especially not when it's WP:OWN over a whole topic space, one which QuackGuru has got into trouble over before. We work by consensus here (do we still?) Single-handed deletions are not how we do things! I don't myself know if pod mods are notable (to the level of a distinct article) and had already asked as much on the talk: page. (I'm in the UK, I don't vape, I'm unfamiliar with the subtle variants). It does appear now that [[pod mod]]s are a topic of some debate and we have coverage of them under the broader e-cig articles and also at [[Juul]], the major commercial brand. But this is primarily a behavioural problem – single editors don't get to blank articles, the reasons given are hand-waving at best, certainly not supported by any evidence or specific claim, and when challenged like this it's incumbent upon WP:BOLD editors to be ready to at least discuss it. I would have un-redirected the article and AfDed it myself, except for the second refusal to discuss. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC) :Huh. QuackGuru said failed verification, so I was expecting something really ridiculous like the sources didn't actually exist, but that's not the case. Haven't looked into it thoroughly yet but I'd say whatever QG saw that led him to just instantly blank the page is not obvious, at least to me. I think it's possible this is a reasonable action (the redirect only, not the subsequent interactions), but it really needs to be explained. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 13:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC) :* Agreed. If it had been a "hoax article" then we have [[WP:CSD#G3]] for that and at least an admin and a second pair of eyes would have seen it. :: They still haven't communicated, but they have been busy editing and they've added a comment as an edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&curid=60359397&diff=917993028&oldid=917909384#] about "Please don't restore content that failed verification or use poor source such as a blog. See https://www.caferacervape.com/blogs/news/a-brief-history-of-pod-mods-and-open-system-low-wattage-devices" However that source ''wasn't being used in this article'', so I fail to see the relevance of mentioning it. Nor is a misleading note in an edit summary an acceptable substitute for discussion via a talk: page. :: I half expected QuackGuru to take their usual line that "all sources must meet WP:MEDRS". Except that here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=917968106&oldid=917968036] at [[Construction of electronic cigarettes]] they're happy to reference [[The Verge]] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/21/18105969/juul-vaping-nicotine-salts-electronic-cigarettes-myblu-vuse-markten] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juul&diff=prev&oldid=917973979] at [[Juul]] they're adding links to the [[SF Chronicle]] [https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-voters-must-be-told-Juul-s-measure-may-14420091.php]. Maybe they think that it's OK if these ELs are inlined, rather than presented as citations? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC) I have undone the redirect. If anybody feels this article should not exist, please to take it to [[WP:AfD]] for a proper discussion. {{ping|QuackGuru}} I explicitly draw your attention to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#QuackGuru Warned]]. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) * And now of course, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&diff=917999530&oldid=917805750 a personalised warning], and some [[WP:CANVASS]]ing in another [[WP:FORUMSHOP|WP:FORUM]], [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pod_mod]], but ''still'' no discussion. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC) * QuackGuru is now proceeding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&type=revision&diff=918004082&oldid=917999584] to strip sections out of the article, by their usual process of denigrating sources. This is inappropriate: they show no issue with those sources, the claim "commercial source" is ''not'' enough to start section blanking, they have shown no error in those sources, they have shown no error in the content and it is against [[WP:PRESERVE]] to act in this way to dismantle an article with no effort made to find other sources. We are still awaiting any response from them here at ANI. These edits are disruptive, and they are disruptive in the way for which an explicit DS has been in place on QuackGuru themself for some years. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 15:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) * And now pejorative comments like this, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&type=revision&diff=918026684&oldid=918026326 "please stop restoring original research"]. But there was no such restoration. This is just throwing phrases into the edit log and hoping that some mud sticks. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC) * I got a failed verification tag from QG for something that I thought to be uncontroversial. Not sure what is going on but it seems QG is holding this article to a higher standard than others. I added a section to the talk page to discuss and hopefully he responds. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">[[User:sp|<font color="#000">spryde</font>]] | [[User_talk:sp|<font color="#000">talk</font>]]</small> 18:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC) ** It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC) ::* QuackGuru seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with other editors. They will adopt some particular idea, then defend it to the death and happily edit-war to do so, but simply will not express to others what it is beforehand, thus avoiding a whole lot of argument. I cannot understand why this is, but it does make editing around them particularly difficult. They seem to go out of their way to post half-truths to talk: pages: something which can't be said to be definitively ''wrong'' afterwards, but is especially unclear and misleading at the time. So when complaining of a source, they refer to it by a URL that isn't even used in the article, rather than pointing to its use in that article. They complain "don't restore OR" when nothing has been either deleted or restored. They will insist that all sources meet MEDRS, even for simple matters of commercial business (but are happy to use non-MEDRS sources themselves). They remove content as "not relevant" even though it is highly relevant to the broader context of understanding the article, just because it doesn't contain a specific easily-matched word (I've written AI [[reasoner]]s which suffered much the same problem). And throughout all of this, other editors are simply wrong: there is no room for debate or opinion, it's QuackGuru's version or nothing. That is ''not'' how we operate. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC) :::* Quick example: Tagging the text, ''"Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices."'' as "fails verification [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=918036065&oldid=918035567 " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content."] from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive". :::: So, sorry QuackGuru, but that is ''not'' an ''obvious'' verification failure and you have failed to state what particular arcana is offending you. This is a collaborative project involving other editors and if you are going to oppose other editors over minutiae such as that, it is incumbent upon you to at least explain the issue. :::: Similarly, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=918007027&oldid=918005197 "they do not prodcue smoke"] when tagging "Pod mods are portable devices that people use to [[Smoking|smoke]]" as OR. Well, sorry QuackGuru but this ''is'' [[smoke]]; smoke by its technical broad definition includes pretty much any particulate aerosol produced by heat and that includes [[pyrolysis]] rather than [[combustion]], and e-cigarettes et al certainly perform pyrolysis. Also modern language has yet to catch up fully with its terminology and possibly "[[smoking]]" may not be the best verb to apply here, but in no way is this [[WP:OR]]. It is simply another pejorative use of terminology by you to tag it as such, as an inevitable waypoint towards its removal. This is sheer sophistry on your part, to a level where it's deliberate and it's disruptive. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC) :::::Andy Dingley: technically the content did fail verification since AFAICT, no where does the source say "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes", it only suggested one possible shape (and possibly size). But I'm not sure that tagging it FV was the best way to handle it. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::::* This is not a problem of content, it's a problem of behaviour: that's why it's at ANI. :::::: Far better editing by QuackGuru would be to ''list'' any problems on the article talk page, to make ''specific'' statements about what is wrong with them, then to put forward intended solutions: a change of wording, a need for a better source, even the need to remove a section. There might not even be much need for discussion: maybe some of these problems and remedies would become so self-evident that all would be in immediate agreement (there seems to be zero evidence of a POV disagreement). But they are doing ''none'' of that. Instead we see unexplained changes made directly to the article. We see threats [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pod_mod&diff=prev&oldid=918074006] to delete the article again as "unsourced", when this is a clearly untrue and hyperbolic statement to make. QuackGuru's editing style makes collaboration impossible: in a context where reversions are restricted (and they've made that sanction threat clear enough, even though it's not even clear it applies) their technique is to "capture the high ground first". Anyone disagreeing with QuackGuru will be described as edit-warring and instantly reverted. The changes they're making are unexplained and unjustified (even if correct, or at least their underlying reason needing to be addressed) and they're making the change ''first'', then being forced to provide some sort of justification afterwards. This makes it very difficult for another editor to provide a different remedy to the same (agreed) problem. :::::: Consider the case of the physical resemblance to USB sticks: this is a most trivial issue. Yes, there may be some minor inaccuracy in there and it might need to be fixed by some very minor copyediting on non-contentious wording. But ''instead'' QuackGuru is attacking the sources, slapping on a "failed verification" tag, advocating deleting the entire article because "100% fails verification". An editor trying to fix the descriptive wording problem then has to fight uphill, justifying their changes in terms of dire actions like "removing an {{tl|OR}} tag from an article subject to MEDRS", "Re-introducing content that failed verification", "Using sources that do not meet MEDRS". This is to skew the entire editing process unfairly in one editor's favour! They might as well start asking, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Quora?" :::::: This is a behavioural problem (and they ''still'' refuse to engage here), it's disruptive, it's a severe form of [[WP:OWN]] and it needs to stop or be stopped. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 08:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::::::Andy Dingley, except that you explicitly said ::::::::Quick example: Tagging the text, ''"Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices."'' as "fails verification [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=918036065&oldid=918035567 " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content."] from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive". :::::::You cannot have it both ways. You made a big deal over the fact that the content does not fail verification because the source explicitly mentions it resembles a USB flash drive. But you completely neglected to mention that in fact the source only says that. It does not support the claim "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes". Therefore as I said, the failed verification tag was technically correct, regardless whether or not it was the best way to handle it. (And I've already said it wasn't.) :::::::I would note that the reason I realised this is because I nearly faulted QuackGuru on my talk page for them adding a failed verification tag when it wasn't justified since I [[WP:AGF]] that you were correct. Thankfully this didn't happen since I double checked myself before leaving my comment. :::::::If you want us to focus on the problems with QuackGuru's editing you need to avoid making misleading claims. From my experience a good way to ensure any complaints you have at AN//I get ignored is by ensuring that we are pointlessly arguing over what the person complaining about said because they are careless or misleading in what they say. As I've said, it seems to me QuackGuru's editing does have problems, so I have no idea why you insist on bringing up stuff that detracts from that point. :::::::[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::::::* This has never been about the accuracy of the article complaints here, so much as the ''appropriate'' remedies for how to fix them. The text in the article was over-specific for what the source literally stated. If an editor sees that as a problem, then there are quick, easy fixes to that such as either rewording to only match what can literally be supported (''one'' observed device resembles such a device) or else (as appears likely to be the case) noting that resembling USB devices seems to be an ongoing theme across the market and finding additional broader sources to support that broader claim. But shouting "FAILS VERIFICATION!!" from the rooftops and demanding the article is deleted as a consequence is an over-reaction. A disruptive over-reaction. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::::::: Here's a straightforward example of disruptive tag-bombing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&curid=60359397&diff=918186115&oldid=918145408] ::::::::: ''"...however the health risks are currently undetermined as they are new productions."'' '''{{tl|CN}}''' ::::::::: ''"...the health risks of these are also unknown and not well-studied."'' '''{{tl|CN}}''' :::::::: Two tags of those added, where a high school philosophy freshman should be able to spot the fallacy. :::::::: If the text read, "the risks have been quantified", then that would be a [[WP:biomedical]] claim rightly needing [[WP:MEDRS]]. But it isn't, it's the ''opposite'' of that. It falls under [[WP:BLUESKY]]. They are new (this is unchallenged, and anyway met by RS elsewhere) and there are no known studies. If an especially pedantic editor wanted to qualify the wording of the statement (at the cost of losing clarity as an encyclopedia) then they could reword as "No studies are known at present (2019) to the authors of this WP article", which would be pointless yet justifiable. But to demand citations is ridiculous: "New things are unknown" is not merely uncited, it is ''unciteable'', and that is a matter of classical logic, not medical quackery. To then take that as an excuse for deletion (read the edit summary added) is disruptive above all else. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC) * Without wanting to express any strong views about Quack's overall editing, I request that, if any decisions need to be made, you all please kindly limit the number of RFCs involved. A couple of months ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology&oldid=904036415 QuackGuru had ten (10!) separate RFCs about e-cigs underway at one time]. As some of you know, I've followed the RFC advice pages for years and years, and I cannot recall a single instance in which another editor had even half that many content RFCs underway at one time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC) *Agreed that this is [[WP:OWN]] behauvior, and QuackGuru has staggering 2,449 edits in [[e-cigarette]] according to [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/QuackGuru Xtools edit count]. Not everything related to e-cigs should be vetted by one person. --[[User:Pudeo|Pudeo]] ([[User talk:Pudeo|talk]]) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC) *My impression which seems to be supported by [[WP:AfD]], [[WP:ATD-R]] and [[Wikipedia:Merging]] is that it's not always necessary to AfD something where merging or redirection while keeping the old article is the desired outcome even if these are possible outcomes of an AfD. If it's expected to be uncontentious, no discussion may be needed. It may also be acceptable to rely on other forms of discussion like RfCs. This is in part because merging or redirecting (while keeping the article) are explicitly not a form of deletion as no admin action is needed and the edit history is still there. These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. However it's recognised that many editors will not be aware of this, so care needs to be taken and sometimes AfD may be better. Note that this is explicitly not an endorsement of QuackGuru's actions. If you've found a hoax, it needs to be deleted so you should use some deletion process. It's harmful to simply redirect or merge a hoax as you're running the risk someone will revert to the hoax either intentionally or accidentally. But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources <s>and the fact the info was merged anyway</s>. QuackGuru's other actions here also seem concerning. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 05:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC) ::It's been pointed out to be my QuackGuru they didn't merge content so I've struck that portion of my comment above. Instead I will say "But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact that the info or very similar info already existed in another article they redirect to. It possible that some of the content in the original article failed verification and this needed to be dealt with, but it's clear that the article itself and the concept it dealt with was not a hoax. To reiterate what I said, if it was a hoax it needed to be deleted outright not simply redirected." [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :* ''" These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. "'' :: No, they can't be "reverted by anyone". It needs a particularly thick-skinned editor to disagree with QuackGuru. Their immediate reaction is to place a dire warning box on the editor's talk: page, threatening sanctions (despite the fact that ArbCom's ruling behind such sanctions was directed ''at QuackGuru''). Then they fire up threads in the walled garden of the medical project, demanding the use of sources to MEDRS, just to say what year a commercial product was launched or whether it's the shape of a USB stick. And they will ''still'' not join the debate here at ANI, a thread specifically about their behaviour. This is QuackGuru going out of their way to place barriers in front of other editors, and that's usually an effective strategy to imposing their single viewpoint onto articles. This has nothing about article quality or verifiable standards, it's about refusing to cooperate. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::So, you're saying that "dire warning box" is too frightening? --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 08:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::* I've ''always'' said that. It's completely unfit for purpose. It threatens other editors, it's unclear as to what it means, it's unclear as to how other editors ought to respond to it or should change their editing. It's used by a handful of established editors in order to intimidate others, and it's often highly effective against blameless new editors (read some of the Teahouse reactions to being hit with it). :::: Worst of all is its lack of clarity. It doesn't link to any good explanation of what "Discretionary Sanctions" are and what they mean for ongoing editing. The justification for them (i.e. the source ArbCom case) is hidden and mostly irrelevant to the current situation. These DS boxes are mostly used by two editors: one who favours a DS box linking to an ArbCom case that was rescinded or else (in this case) a case where the editor pasting the warning box was one of those being admonished by ArbCom. :::: So yes, this is just a scary stick to try and frighten other editors with. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::Regardless, that has nothing to do with my point which is that there has never been any policy or guideline requiring that redirects and merges must go through AfD. Nor my point that redirects and merges are explicitly not a form of deletion and can technically be reverted by anyone (given the limits of page protection, edit filters, and editor blocks). Note I also said that QuackGuru's actions were wrong here but that doesn't change the general point I made which you challenged. QuackGuru should be called out for their problematic editing. What you've alleged of their behaviour may be a problem, but failing to use AfDs for merges or redirects it not itself a problem unless the conditions when they did so is a problem. Likewise, if QuackGuru prevents people reverting when they should and can that's a problem, but that doesn't change the way merges and redirects operate. That said, I'm not sure that QuackGuru is even putting barriers in place for reversion. Giving a discretionary sanctions notice to someone who had not been notified seems fair enough. I'd note an editor does not need to be "thick-skinned", they just need to properly understand the notice or the discretionary sanctions process in general to know that such notices are irrelevant to whether or not they can revert if justified and of course that QuackGuru's actions would also be covered under the discretionary sanctions regime if their actions are. Not to mention skin thickness does not matter if the editor has received a notice within the past year meaning they cannot receive another one. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::* I've no objection to the use of ''either'' AfD or talk: page discussion, or anything similar, but there needs to be ''opportunity for discussion'' by some means, and QuackGuru is doing their best to avoid it at all. Their actions are instant, so that [[WP:FAIT]] applies, and they're hedging even the smallest issue around with the biggest obstacles of MEDRS etc that they can. :::: [[Juul]] is pretty obviously investing in high quality design to make an attractive product, more than a merely functional one. It does have resemblances to a USB stick, in both size and shaping. The amount of arguing against this and the sources involved, and the implication that the article needs to be deleted as a result, are out of all proportion to the underlying issue. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::::[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], the discretionary sanctions notices are scary for most people – perhaps for almost everyone except the few editors who like to spam them around at every opportunity. We've tried to clarify the wording – I was involved in the effort to specify that this situation exists because of other editors, and doesn't say anything about your own contributions – but they are still perceived by the recipients as direct and immediate threats. I have been wondering whether it would make sense to ban their delivery by people who are in disputes. In the current free-for-all situation, an editor who is edit warring can drop that notice on your talk page. In that situation, it is no wonder that people think the underlying message is "Let me own this article, or I'll get you blocked". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC) ::::::Have to disagree. For new editors, yes I agree they are often scary and confusing. For anyone familiar with the regime, they are generally not scary. For editors who aren't new but are also less familiar with the discretionary sanctions regime IMO it varies. I have said before that IMO it's best if an editor involved in a dispute with another editor, or who simply often disagrees with the other editor doesn't hand them out. Instead an uninvolved editor or even better someone friendly with the editor should hand them out. But I also feel that any ban on people who may hand them out would carry a reasonable risk of making the regime less effective. I myself have handed them out on a few occasions, mostly when I see someone at one of the ANs who is editing the area and where I feel there is a chance the regime may be useful. I admit this may not be ideal, but I generally avoid simultaneously criticising the editor a lot or getting involved in any dispute. Thinking more of something I said above, I wonder if it may be helpful to add something to the template emphasising they apply to all editors including the one handing out the notice if they are involved in the topic area. But this is perhaps getting too far off topic. I stand by my claim that you do not have to be a thick skinned editor to be largely unaffected by the possibility of notices. For example anyone familiar with the regime or anyone who has already received a notice and some other editors. This is particularly significant here since RoySmith and Andy Dingley themselves seem to be 2 of the major editors involved in the article and I do not believe either of them should be affected by receiving a discretionary sanctions notice. The creator [[User talk:Sydneystudent123456]] doesn't seem to have received a notice either [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sydneystudent123456&action=history] [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::::::It's possible true that "anyone familiar with the regime" will be unaffected. However, that restriction basically excludes 99% of registered editors. In my experience, it's really hard for long-time editors like us to even imagine what our system looks like to people who aren't us. For example: Less than 10% of registered editors (all accounts, ever, specifically at this wiki) are autoconfirmed. The median number of undeleted edits for registered accounts is zero. Think about what that means for our assumptions about what "most" editors do or think or feel. We are not like most editors. I might receive these notices with the realization that another editor is trying to escalate a dispute. The median editor receives them with as little nonchalance as they would receive notice of a dispute from their nation's tax agency. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC) :::::Well I never disputed that discussion should be allowed. My point was and remains that we should not conflated merging and redirection with deletion, and also that other processes can be used instead of AfD for that discussion. I felt this was important since the initial comment seem to come close to suggesting the opposite. I don't really see a point to argue content issues like what Juul makes and USB sticks on this page and was never suggesting we do so. My point with that was that the content did fail verification. As I said, I don't think adding a failed verification tag was the right way to handle that but I stand by my view it's very confusing to imply the content did not fail verification when it did fail verification (even if some part of the content was verified by the source). [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC) * So, still no response from {{ping|QuackGuru}} and the WP:OWN continues on the article(s). Per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned]], is it time to escalate to [[WP:AE]]? The edits themselves might be debatable as a content issue, but the refusal to discuss is disruptive. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC) **My original post a couple of days ago got lost in an edit conflict. It may be time to escalate this to [[WP:AE]] if you think that helps resolve this issue. **After I read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APod_mod&type=revision&diff=918641018&oldid=918638705 this comment] I decided to make a quick post here. **I am discussing the issues on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APod_mod&type=revision&diff=918638705&oldid=918497864 talk page], but this is a new article and there are very few editors watching the article. The edits themselves can be considered a content issue. I made a bold edit to redirect it because the Construction of electronic cigarettes article discusses the different types of devices and there was a lot of [[Misinformation on Wikipedia|misinformation]] about the pod mods in the new article. There is new content about pod mods in the Construction of electronic cigarettes that is 100% sourced. See [[Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods]]. I wrote the content myself and I did not copy content from any other article. Having a splinter article seems more like a [[WP:REDUNDANTFORK]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC) :::I've had similar problems with Quackguru, and I haven't managed to discuss most of them them productively: see [[User talk:HLHJ#Criticism of nicotine-related editing|this discussion]], and much of my talk page. Aside from my own ignorance and mistakes ([[User talk:HLHJ|advice welcome]]), there are a few recurrent sources of conflict, which it would be good to have resolved. :::On merging, redirection, and deletion, I'd like to raise <u>what I see as</u> obfuscation of article and talk histories ([[User talk:HLHJ#Loss of history for the "Marketing of electronic cigarettes" article|example]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes&redirect=no original article]) and, more trivially, QG's own draft space (for instance, pages titled with totally unrelated word, or an IPA [[schwa]] character). QG's manual archiving of talk page discussions, which matches the clear-desk ethos of QG's talk page, can be inconvenient to part-time and intermittent editors. [[File:Minenräumpanzer Keiler im Gelände.jpg|thumb|Draft-replacing content is fast, but it feels a bit like driving a [[flail tank]] through a community [[old vine|vinyard]] to [[tillage|till]] it.]] :::I really don't like it when QuackGuru privately writes a parallel article in the draftspace, then overwrites the multieditor article. It is especially frustrating when QG has, while writing the draft, been asking other editors to fix problems identified by QG in the article (or delete or redirect the article), without telling them of <s>the</s> <u>any</u> plan to replace their work with the draft. If editor efforts are in competition, anyone who spends less time editing than QG, or edits more slowly, is at a disadvantage. :::QG sometimes uses language I find needlessly threatening ([[User talk:HLHJ#Proposed deletion of Marketing of electronic cigarettes|prod example]]). I have, in the past, overreacted to QG's warnings (though not that one). I've learned that the best response to threats of formal complaints is to urge QG to follow through with them. QG often repeatedly raises issues with my editing. When the issues are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or when I have acknowledged faults, apologized, and fixed, or when the forum is one I only come across by chance, this feels like [[mudslinging]] ([[User talk:Sunrise/Archive 5#Nicotine articles|example]]). :::I strongly support inline tagging, but I often find QG's tags trivial (some phrasing and page number requests) or incomprehensible (many [[:Template:Failed verification|fv]] tags). Quackguru seems to mostly think that every sentence must have exactly one source at the end of it. It is also difficult to steer [[between Scylla and Charybdis]] with closeness to sources; QG opposes both excessively close paraphrases as copyvio and excessively loose ones as failed-verification. This leads to passages in the first style below: {| class="wikitable" |- |- | scope="col" width="50%" style="vertical-align: top" | Anon was born in the 19th century[1]. She was born in Nowheretown[2]. Her parents worked as cobblers[3]. Her mother was named named Anan[3]. Her father was named Anen[4]. Anon attended Nowheretown School[4]. She studied basketmaking in her first two years at Nowheretown School[4]. She also studied applied agrostology in her last year at Nowheretown School[5]. In 1882, the Nowheretown Post described her as a "elderly lady".[6] In 1882, the ''Journal of Applied Agrostology'' said that she was well-known to for her "application of agrostology to basketmaking"[7]. She died in 1882[8]. Her son gave the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum her collections[7]. Her collections included herbarium specimens and furniture[7]. | scope="col" width="50%" |Anon was born in Nowheretown[1] in the 1880s[1] to two cobblers[3] named Anan[3] and Anen[4]. At Nowheretown School, she studied first basketmaking[4], then applied agrostology[5]. In later life,[6] she became well-known for her application of agrostology to basketmaking[7][8]. When she died at an advanced age in 1882, the ''Journal of Applied Agrostology'' published an obituary praising her work. Her herbarium specimens and furniture were donated to the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum[7]. |} :::Example obviously made up, to avoid using a controversial topic. I'll also give a real [[Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing|style example]]; readers may also wish to see if they can spot the two paragraphs of QG's style in [[Nicotine marketing]]. A few examples of citation disagreements, all from one page: :::*[[Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive 2]] :::*[[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 1#Confusion]] :::*[[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 3#Copyright violation]] :::*[[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 9#Bogus_citation]] :::QuackGuru has argued that that <s>all</s> sources must include wording matching the article title. This severely constrains editor judgment in determining the article scope and providing context ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_2#Recent_changes example]). Likewise constraining is Quackguru's view that an image cannot be included in an article unless a source says that it illustrates the article topic ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pizza_image one "humorous" example]). :::Because we have a history of conflict, I probably don't see QG's best side; we all tend to give more consideration to those we respect, an [[positive feedback loop|exacerbating feedback]]. The next two paragraphs may therefore be unduly harsh. :::I rarely get the sense that QG is intellectually engaged in a content discussion, and discussions with QG tend go nowhere via long strings of characters. I often find QG's posts unclear, and it takes several exchanges to extract a meaning I'd expect to get in two sentences. QG often does not answer direct questions, and reiterates the same points or ones I find logically unconnected, until I've wondered if my own posts are even being read. This communications burden often puts off other editors who would otherwise engage on topics of interest to QuackGuru ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicotine/Archive_1#Trace_quantities_in_plants example]). I think a majority of my talk page posts have been made in response to QG; I never came in contact with QG for the first decade or so of my editing. :::Obviously I disagree with some of QuackGuru's interpretations of rules, and formal guidance on these issues might help reduce conflict. However, more generally, I feel that QuackGuru tends to focus overmuch on using rules to control article content, rather than on understanding and improving content. I'm therefore not sure that providing more rules would help much (especially since combativeness tends, even with the best will in the world, to be infectious). I'm not sure what would help, though QuackGuru [[User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia|has some views]]. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ::::Edited in response to [[User talk:HLHJ#Allegations without supporting evidence]]. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 22:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ::::: This very much matches my experience of dealing with QuackGuru. They seem to be more interested in content as a sequence of matching text strings and they have no interest in or understanding of any meaning behind that. They are also persistently either unwilling or incapable of communicating with other editors to any normal level: they see interaction as a series of barriers and obstacles, not as an opprtunity to share information. The "I would have commented to this ANI thread about me days ago, but there was an edit conflict" claim is simply not credible. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC) ::::::Actually, I do think that QuackGuru is interested in the meaning of content, as QG edits on specific topics of interest, with an identifiable point of view on those topics (which I do not consider unacceptable, or avoidable). I find I can often predict which statements QG will tag and remove, and if and how QG is likely to alter statements, but I find it harder to predict what objections QG will make to the statements. I haven't gotten the impression that QG is very interested in teaching me or learning from me, which I would be OK with if we were not in conflict. I'm not very good at social interactions myself, and I have sympathy with editors who want to minimize the social side of editing; there are unobjectionable ways of doing this. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 00:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Well I am out. I normally don't edit controversial things and I try to avoid WP:MEDRS sections of articles as I don't feel comfortable judging if sources are reliable enough. I still think this is a valid article separate from e-cigs as there are a few articles on Google Scholar from JAMA and NEJM which focus on Pod Mods in general.There are also a handful of articles in mainstream sources that also focus on the category rather than a specific brand. That makes it pass WP:GNG in my eyes but apparently not in others. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">[[User:sp|<font color="#000">spryde</font>]] | [[User_talk:sp|<font color="#000">talk</font>]]</small> 11:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC) :<p>I've stayed away from this discussion for a few days since I felt I'd said enough and it was better to let others comment. Since it still doesn't seem to have achieved a clear resolution and there are suggestions for AE I'll just make a few final comments. </p><p>One, I think QuackGuru's refusal to engage in this ANI is concerning. While sometimes when it's without merit it's fair enough to just let others deal with an ANI on your behaviour, and it's easy to harm yourself with poorly considered posts at ANI; IMO there were enough serious concerns here to warrant at least some comment. It's clear QuackGuru was paying attention since they quickly approached editors who had commented when they had concerns (me and from the sounds of it HLJH). </p><p>Two, I'm also concerned there has been no real engagement with QuackGuru on [[Talk:Pod mods]] over article content issues. Whatever concerns there over QuackGuru's conduct, I do not believe they warrant ignoring their attempts at engagement, especially since one of the concerns was their refusal to discuss their concerns over article content. To be fair (paraphrasing here) 'should I delete half the article content as unsourced' is not something that's easy to engage with. But when QuackGuru raises specific concerns over specific text failing verification (or whatever), I think at least some action should be expected even if it's just a quick comment 'no you're wrong, the source says XYZ' or minor rewording to fix the problem or finding a new source or whatever. </p><p><small>Three, and bear in mind I have basically no experience with AE and I'm not an admin, I feel if an AE case is raised it would be best to concentrate on clear cut examples. For example whatever problems there may be with posting discretionary sanctions notices unless these are clearly inappropriate (user is already away, user never edited the area) I have doubts they'd get much heed. Likewise saying something did not fail verification because it mentions USB-likeness when it didn't mention the other stuff may not be a great example. Either say that even if it technically failed verification blindly tagging it along with a whole load of other content was not the best way to handle it. Or find refs which do support this content add them and if QuackGuru continues to complain because they don't like 2 sources then maybe you have an example. (I think the former already happened but it's still IMO an example of what happened early in this case that would best be avoided at AE.) </small></p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)</p> *Gah the article on [[pod mod]] needs work. These are simply a form of [[electronic cigarette]]. Does it need its own article? Not convinced... [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC) :* No-one is disputing that it needs work – except perhaps QuackGuru, who thinks that such work is impossible and the whole lot needs to be deleted. :: Are they notable? Well, my first comment on the talk: page was to ask just that. QuackGuru thinks they're distinct, and has created a CFORK on that basis. I'm still unconvinced (I am too busy to do any editing for the next few weeks), but if they are (and I think they are) it's because the [[Juul]] is ''not'' merely another e-cigarette. Whether there are any pod mods other than Juul is a separate question. But it seems (from what little I've had time to read) that the difference with them is nothing to do with replaceable coils and it's actually about the chemistry of the fluid used. Juul is using [[nicotine salt]]s, which appear to have significantly different biological effects. If pod mods are really different from other e-cigs, it's this different chemistry which makes it. However QuackGuru has already stripped the redlinks and decided that it's "just not notable". :: They are impossible to work with. They do not engage with others, they do not engage with serious efforts to try and answer specific issues, they just keep re-posting "Can I delete all this yet?". They don't need ''permission'' to do so in the first place: they need to ''justify'' it. But asking over and over again is a way to get this "permission" by attrition and omission. If they simply persist long enough, more and more editors will say ''"Well I am out."'' and when it goes quiet, they can delete the article "because no one complained beforehand". That is ''not'' acceptable editing: we have to collaborate here, and none of us get to simply ignore the others. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC) As someone who is a domain expert in certain topic areas who, like QuackGuru, has a massive edit count in those articles and been involved in numerous content disputes, I have also had [[WP:OWN]] thrown at me in content disputes by other involved editors. It is both really disingenuous and a very clear case of [[fundamental attribution error]] (i.e., a cognitive bias) to ascribe another editor's reversion of your edits and those of others who are a party in the dispute as [[WP:OWN]] without a clear statement of ownership. An editor is violating [[WP:OWN]] if the they make a statement of ownership and/or take action to prevent all others from modifying an article so as to effectively retain an ''exclusive right to edit an article, decide what content it shows, or otherwise dictate what an article states'' (that's also what ownership of literally anything entails). If you don't have clear evidence of an editor making such a statement or rolling back everyone's edits to an article, do not cite that policy. It is pointlessly inflammatory and I've personally found it annoying to be on the receiving end of that. Frankly, I don't know what experienced Wikipedian would actually believe that they have, or could possibly retain for any length of time, an exclusive right to anything on Wikipedia (the only exception would be the copyright to any CC-BY-SA-3.0-licensed article text that an editor contributes, as that is an exclusive right). [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC) :* Read the other page discussions. There's little edit-warring in mainspace, because they've already slapped warning dialogs around to threaten some unspecific editing restriction. But on the talk: discussions, we keep looping through the same sequence. "There is a minor wording issue over a very minor topic, where the source does not use those literal words" – 'OK, what change is needed? Just do it' – "This source ''FAILS VERIFICATION'' so I've removed it altogether." – 'Don't do that. It means the content doesn't match, not that the source is bad' – "I'm going to delete the whole article again" – 'Why are you ignoring the ANI thread?'. :: This is OWN, even if not in mainspace. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC) :::I have been thinking over my last post, and I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_2#Pharmacy_Student_Peer_Reviews an example of QG responding to new editors]. QG reverted the mostly-easily-salvagable edits, but spontaneously posted on the talk page with some explanation of why. This suggests to me that QG is willing to teach newcomers, but is not always using [[Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers|effective methods]] (in this case, the new editors did not engage). Sometimes QG has spent far longer getting me to fix problems than it would have taken for QG to fix them and post saying "You should have done this" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_2#Discusssion_moved_from_User_talk:HLHJ example]); I think this is partly communications difficulties. :::QuackGuru often adds very high densities of inline tags to content I've written, and insists that I fix the content. Some of the reasons behind the inline tags are trivial fixes, things you'd think would be easier to fix than to tag, but most of the problems QG points out are not obvious, and I find many debatable. Any fix I attempt is usually swiftly re-tagged, accompanied by talkpage posts that my changes have made the content even worse, and it would be best to delete the lot and start again. When I add templates criticizing content in articles in which QG takes an interest, QG has reverted the addition (invariably, as far as I can recall). QuackGuru occasionally reverts edits of mine that QG requested via inline tags (for instance, the addition of a large number of verifying quotes, accompanied by translations from the French and German, which took me some hours of editing time: [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_1#Confusion|1]], [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_2#QuackGuru's_concerns|2]], [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_8#Mass_quotes|3]]). :::I don't think this behaviour motivated by bad faith. QuackGuru believes that I lack the [[WP:CIR]] to edit, so I think the motive is to improve the content by protecting it from me, keeping me busy with makework until I move to another content area. This is logical and effective, in the short term. Taking the long-term consequences into account, though, it also turns editors wanting to work in this area into opponents instead of collaborators. :::For me, this discussion is therefore not primarily about the [[podmod]] article (I've been uninvolved with it, apart from a point-of-information talkpage post in answer to a question), or any one article. :::I'm a bit uncomfortable addressing all this in the third person. QuackGuru, I know you are reading, and I'm not intending to ignore you, slight you, or speak behind your back. I'd be happy to discuss the roots of our editing conflicts with you in another forum, including a more private one. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC) * Without recommending a remedy, I would like to say that QG has severe OWNership issues with regard to e-cigarettes. I mean, he truly believes he owns the subject and no one else should be allowed to edit there. I tried to get involved with the coverage about recent illnesses and deaths from vaping, but was totally stonewalled and eventually gave up. His style includes spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that he can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. His articles are so technical and detailed, and so focused on single individual studies (quite the opposite of how MEDRS is supposed to work), that there is literally no way for a reader to gain an overall understanding of the subject. I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck. I tried to get him to tone down his promotion of the theory that the recent illnesses and deaths are caused by Vitamin E acetate; no luck. The investigating agencies are saying over and over that they don’t know the cause and there are many different histories of what the affected people used in vaping, but he is convinced acetate is the issue and his articles convey that. I know he is a very prolific editor, but IMO what he produces is non-neutral and unreadable, and his attitude is the very opposite of the collaboration that Wikipedia is supposed to be about. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 15:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC) **Please provide evidence of spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that I can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. The only recent spin off was "2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products". It is way too long to merge. There is a summary in the safety article. I also started "Vaping-associated pulmonary injury" after discussing it with WikiProject Medicine. **You stated "I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck." Can you provide diffs where you tried to make them more readable? **See "The CDC stated that the cases have not been linked to one product or substance, saying "Most patients have reported a history of using e-cigarette products containing THC. Many patients have reported using THC and nicotine. Some have reported the use of e-cigarette products containing only nicotine."[5] Many of the samples tested by the states or by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) as part of the 2019 investigation have been identified as vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, a psychoactive component of the cannabis plant).[8] Most of those samples with THC tested also contained significant amounts of Vitamin E acetate.[8]" **The CDC and the US FDA have both reported similar things. I included content from both of them. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC) ***I’m not inclined to spend much additional time over this, but if you insist: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&type=revision&diff=914461033&oldid=914424851 Here], on September 7, was where I updated the article and put the CDC warning into the lead. This was the “Safety of electronic cigarettes” article (before you spun off the separate article about recent illnesses), so a CDC warning about safety seemed like the single most important thing to have in the lead. But you immediately removed it,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=914482352&oldid=914477442] <s>falsely citing “failed verification” when in fact it was well cited.</s> Correction: your reason for removing it from the "safety" article was that it was mentioned in two other articles. So that means it can't be in the "safety" article where it is clearly relevant? That's an example of how you use (and misuse) subarticles. :::For some reason you strongly objected to putting any warning into the "safety article" lead, leaving the lead full of years-old studies indicating that vaping could be relatively harmless or even beneficial. As recently as September 11 the lead of the safety article still didn’t mention the outbreak of disease and death. In fact it said (based on a 2016 report) that the risk of serious adverse effects was low, while it rambled on about possible battery explosions. I remember arguing with you about the necessity of putting the warning in the lead of that and several related articles; that argument is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Recent_reports_of_lung_disease_and_deaths_related_to_vaping here]. Finally on September 11 I was able to get a sentence about the outbreak (without mentioning the CDC warning) in the Safety article lead.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=915160059] :::Now that I have researched this, at your request, I see that this issue wasn’t just with me and it wasn't just one article. Doc James inserted the CDC warning into the lead of the main Electronic cigarette article three times on September 7, and you removed it three times, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=next&oldid=914415110] prompting him to issue a warning on your talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=prev&oldid=914417750] In other words, you kept insisting the warning couldn’t be in the lead of any article, even though that was only your own opinion, vs. well supported arguments to include it from two other people. Like I said, you don’t believe in collaboration or consensus; you believe you OWN these articles. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC) ::::You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&type=revision&diff=914461033&oldid=914424851 added] on September 7, a CDC warning. This was added to the Safety of electronic cigarettes article before I created a spin-off. I removed it, along with rewriting other content, correctly citing "failed verification" for "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=914482352&oldid=914477442 WDHS2019]". Both citations did not verify the same claim for "In 2019 hundreds of cases of severe lung disease were reported among users of e-cigarettes." The US-centric view for "recommending against the use of e-cigarettes because of their association with severe respiratory disease." was not a neutral summary for the lede. It was replaced with neutral content. See Safety of electronic cigarettes: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US has been linked to the use of vaping products.[23]" Also see Electronic cigarettes: In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[105] Adding a US-centric warning to the lede of "Safety of electronic cigarettes" or "Electronic cigarette" is not neutral. The outbreak is in the US only. More than one editor objected to including a US-centric warning. See [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 31#US-centric]]. Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. I did add the CDC warning to the Electronic cigarette.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&diff=prev&oldid=914388820] It is still in the Electronic cigarette. See [[Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations]]. I did add it to the lede of the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Positions_of_medical_organizations_on_electronic_cigarettes&type=revision&diff=914417090&oldid=910544761 article]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC) :::::{{tq|Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning.}} And that's what I did, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=next&oldid=915160059 here], although apparently even that wasn't worded to your satisfaction and you reworded it. I'm done here, but my comments stand: you insist that everything at these articles, great or small, has to be done your way. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 19:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::You added "In September 2019 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak of severe lung disease in the US associated with the use of e-cigarette products.[16]" The CDC reported an outbreak in September 2019, but the outbreak started before September 2019. I fixed the inaccurate content. When did the outbreak start? "Cases involved in the outbreak of severe lung illness associated with vaping products were first identified in Illinois and Wisconsin in April 2019.[13]" I wrote accurate content without misleading or biased content. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 19:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_United_States_outbreak_of_lung_illness_linked_to_vaping_products&diff=prev&oldid=919784057 here]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 19:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC) ===Propose ban=== {{archive top|1=This proposal is [[WP:SNOW|unanimously opposed/not going anywhere]] after (hours short of) 7 days. --[[User:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)}} I've largely stayed out of this, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that {{U|QuackGuru}} is a lost cause. We should just [[WP:CBAN]] him and stop this endless time sink.<p>I made an attempt to work with him. See the [[Talk:Pod mod#Failed verification content]] thread. He questioned whether {{tq|Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced}} was verified by the cited reference. I decided to investigate.<p>My first task was to find a copy of the reference, and discovered that it existed on-line, so I updated the reference to include the URL, and some other minor reformatting while I was at it. This earned me a complaint 10 minutes later that, {{tq|The citation was formatted but that does not solve the FV problem}}. I continued to read the cited source and concluded that QuackGuru was correct; it did indeed not verify the claim made in the article, which I stated on the talk page. Amazingly enough, his response to my agreeing with him was yet another salvo.<p>Somewhere in there, he dropped a [[:Template:Ds/alert]] on my talk page. What purpose this served other than an attempt at intimidation, I can't imagine. I've got a pretty thick skin, but I imagine most new editors would be scared by this and disengage. Which I assume is exactly the intended result.<p>Irksome habits like continually blanking their talk page, while not forbidden, certainly does make it more difficult to interact with them.<p>Every interaction between him and other editors that I've observed over the past few days is aggressive and just attempts to bludgeon the enemy into submission rather than engage in a productive discussion with them. It is good that they insist on correctness and verification through reliable sources, but they take it to such an extreme that nobody can work with them. This makes them a net negative to the project.<p>I count 19 blocks, spanning 12 years, for QuackGuru already. It's hard to imagine that any additional attempts at behavior modification will be any more successful than the past ones. It's time to cut our losses. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC) :QuackGuru has been <u>very productive</u> in Wikiproject Medicine articles...IMO--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 19:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC) QuackGuru has done good work over the years. I agree with a fair number of the concerns they raised at the pod mod article. Their redirect with the claim that it is a "hoax article" however is not accurate and I would advise them to be more careful with their words. Not sure I see the issue with this notice.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoySmith&type=revision&diff=917999808&oldid=917988981&diffmode=source] I had a personalized notice placed upon my talk page about the existence of DS with respect to gun related issues a few days ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James&type=revision&diff=918271457&oldid=917922072&diffmode=source] I took it as a useful FYI. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC) :Agree with Doc James. Clearly some concerns raised here are valid, but just as clearly some are overstated. The volume and quality of QuackGuru's work is impressive. I agree they need to improve their collaboration. But a ban is over the top. [[User:Cloudjpk|Cloudjpk]] ([[User talk:Cloudjpk|talk]]) 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose ban''' QuackGuru operates in Wikipedia's most controversial medical spaces. I perceive QuackGuru to be an advocate for the consumer, medical journals, and [[WP:MEDRS]] standards. Most commonly QuackGuru is in conflict with editors who advocate for or sympathize with the position in alignment with corporate industries well known for aggressive propaganda in favor of harmful health practices. In this case we are talking about nicotine use where a billion-dollar industry is selling a drug with health effects and which is lobbying globally to control the conversation. Everyone who edits the Wikipedia nicotine articles will be read by a billion people including all journalists, lobbyists, doctors, policy makers, and the lawyers in the related lawsuits. The money tied up here is obscene considering that advocacy for science in this space has no budget, and in large part is defended by QuackGuru with support of others. When Wikipedia is the target of hundreds of paid lobbyists I expect missteps and misunderstandings from any volunteer editor. I do not perceive the problem here to be QuackGuru, but rather, the center of the problem is the topic itself and the infinite funding available to pay people to endlessly argue the minutiae of the topic to the limits of the Wikipedia process. Most people who edit here are not lobbyists but propaganda is in the heads of everyone who thinks about this topic and extreme caution is a useful norm for this space. QuackGuru knows the wiki bureaucracy and runs discussions and editing discussions by wiki process. I expect content in this space to move slowly and be more cautious than in other articles where a billion dollars and national economies are not the stakes of what Wikipedia publishes and which politicians read when they are making laws. If anyone enters such controversial topics then they should expect bureaucracy, be forgiving, move slowly, and feel free to call on mediation processes such as seeking comment from WikiProjects such as [[WP:MED]] or any lightweight process such as [[WP:3O]]. I understand why anyone would be frustrated in such unusual articles but this is how extreme controversy works on wiki. The environment is crazy and everyone who enters it will have to abandon some humanity and become a bit of a robot and bureaucrat. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 21:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose ban''' per Bluerasberry. It is regrettable that QG causes frustration but the topics are frustrating with conflicting interests colliding. I have not checked all relevant edits, but I have seen that QG is on the side of reliable sources. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC) :* And by implication, anyone who disagrees with him ''isn't''? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC) :*He is on the side of the reliable sources that support his position, but resorts to all sorts of tricks to ignore or downplay those that don't! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 03:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose ban''' after reading the thread, the underlying issue is literally just a content dispute in a contentious topic area which has gotten out of hand. Content disputes in such subjects are not unexpected/infrequent and sometimes editors who are party to one − myself included − make errors in judgment. That is absolutely not a suitable justification for a site ban unless said error is ''particularly eggregious''. Personally, I think everyone involved should just take a step back, take some time to cool off for a day or two, then come back to the table to discuss the issue and sort out the underlying problem. I don't think anyone who is a party to this dispute is currently acting in an appropriate manner for the purpose of dispute resolution; dispute resolution involves identifying underlying issues, correctly interpreting and applying relevant content policy, and trying to find common ground. In other words, take some time to cool off and make the effort to talk it out; do not neglect engaging in a discussion with all involved parties on a talk page or escalate further argument by making baseless inflammatory accusations pertaining to behavioral policies, applying unfaithful interpretations of content policy as justifications, or otherwise undermining the dispute resolution process. [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - The basis for this complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect in good faith, per both [[WP:ATD-R|deletion]] and [[WP:BLAR|redirection]] policies. If such an act is contested, it can be [[WP:BRD|reverted and discussed]] and proceed to [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], just like any other content dispute. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 23:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - No good reason given. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. As other's have mentioned, the basis of the complaints were invalid, and the doubling down trying to get a site ban after the initial section didn't gain traction looks like battleground behavior that has no place in a DS topic. If RoySmith was actually a regular in the topic I'd suggest a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] in the form of either a topic ban or interaction ban for RoySmith to try to settle the topic down, so I'd at least suggest a decent sized [[WP:TROUT]] instead. :My understanding based on when I see QuackGuru's editing pop up here is that QuackGuru often acts through [[WP:STEWARDSHIP]] in e-cig topics, and those in content disputes with Quack are trying to portray that as [[WP:OWN]] here instead. If advocacy is still a problem in this subject that gets stewards acting terse while still engaging in discussion (which seems to be the case when you look at diffs or lack thereof vs. claims made at this ANI about Quack), the DS need to be enforced more stringently to the cut to the source of the disruption. I haven't seen anything presented here that indicates Quack is a true source of disruption in the topic (and I'd change my mind if I did), much less the entire project. This ANI reads as an attempt at a gotcha of a frustrated editor in order to win a content dispute though. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''': I fail to see a legitimate policy-based reason for this suggested sanction. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em"> — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]])</span> 14:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} ===Propose small measures applying to all parties=== <small><u>(originally part of ban discussion)</u></small> QuackGuru is a bit of a Wikidragon, and does write large amounts of content. As BlueRaspberry points out, this is an area in which content is expected to move slowly, so QG's wish to make drastic changes causes more conflict. I do not see QuackGuru as always being on the side of the evidence: [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_2#Unknown|short example]]. However, I do not see this as sufficient reason to ban. I'd suggest the following remedies, all of which should apply to everyone in this topic area, not just QuackGuru: :*the same standards should apply to one's own edits as one applies to the edits of others. Editors should avoid [[conflict of interest|COI]] by not removing templates criticizing their own content, unless they have a good-faith belief that the problem has been fixed (not the belief that it never existed). :*we should not template things that are easier to fix than to template. :*fv tags may be hard to understand. Inline tags in this topic area should have a informative |reason= parameter, and may be deleted if none is supplied by an editor aware of the need. :*all edits in this controversial area should initially be made incrementally. Only after incremental addition of content fails should an RfC be used to add the content. An RFC should not be started before the matter and the RfC question have been discussed on the talk page. :*any <u>[[Help:Minor edit|non-minor]]</u> edits suggested by declared COI editors should seek talk page consensus before inclusion in the article. :*long reverts, especially reverts of several weeks of complex good-faith edits by multiple editors, should be clearly labeled as "reversion to version of [timestamp]". Discussion should not be avoided. :*it is not OK to follow the letter of rules, but circumvent their spirit. Misuses of process, such as getting a consensus for deleting an article in order to replace it with a version one has already written, should not be undertaken. :*in this controversial area, we should avoid doing things that curtail or hide talk discussions, such as needless discussion forking, manual archiving, and using [[WP:G7]] to delete and immediately recreate pages. :*DS notifications, formal or informal, should not be repeated more than once a year, or <u>made</u> in a way that implies personal criticism or threat. Generally, the matter should only be raised with the formal template. :*per [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill]], two or three citations may be used to support a single sentence. Per convention, different citations may be used to support different parts of the same sentence. Where it is simple, these citations should be separated so that it is obvious what section of the sentence they support (for instance, a citation at the end of each [[clause]]: Smith said X[1], and Jones said Y[2]). Where this would contort the sentence structure or otherwise impede readability, [[:Template:Refn]] may be used to insert a note clarifying which fact comes from which source. :Is there anyone who feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following these guidelines? [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC) ===Proposed editing restrictions short of a ban=== I don't think a ban as justified at the moment, but having read this thread its clear that QG's approach to editing in this is not without problems. Accordingly I think restrictions should of a topic ban should be tried first - I'm thinking perhaps in the eCigs topic area: #1 revert restriction. #A revert of anything that is not self-evidently vandalism or a personal attack ''must'' be explained on the relevant talk page. #Prohibition on converting an article to a redirect. They may propose merging and/or redirecting on the talk page, and they may nominate for deletion. #Prohibition on moving any page to or from draftspace. They may propose doing so on the talk page. #No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page. #No placing tags (including failed verification and citation needed) on an article without first either (a) rewording the content to match the source, and/or (b) attempting to find (alternative) sources that do verify the content. In all cases the actions must come with explanation that allows other editors to understand both what the problem is and the reason for it - including use of the reason= parameter. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC) * '''support''' [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC) *'''oppose''' per reasons given in previous section by <u>half a dozen editors</u>, to restrict such a capable editor is not beneficial to anyone--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 16:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC) **Being "capable" is not enough - you need to be able to work with others in a collaborative environment. Without restrictions QG is not, presently, able to do that per all the evidence in this and previous discussions. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC) ::*Ive worked w/ QG on [[ Vaping-associated pulmonary injury]] which is all over the news, there have been some 17 deaths(and cases here in the U.S. and Canada) we both worked '''together''' to form/create the best article with the current information available on this condition... that is being ''capable''--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 15:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC) * Unable to support "No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page." Not clear what "significant" means. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 16:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) **{{replyto|Doc James}} instead of throwing out the whole thing over a minor detail, propose either a way to determine what "significant" means or propose an alternative. This isn't dissimilar to the attitude that's causing many of the problems in this topic area. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC) ***[[User:Thryduulf]] I have received death threats via twitter and requests that my university fire me for my editing of e-cig content. To say it mildly this is a controversial topic area with editors with financial conflicts attempting to suppress concerns (to be clear I am not making this claim about anyone involved in this discussion currently). Well QuackGuru and I do not always agree we are generally able to find something we can both live with. Of your suggestions which I have numbered I would support the 6th (but I would support it for all involved). [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ****That is horrible. I'm sorry you are both dealing with death threats and intimidation. It says something that anyone edits in this area voluntarily. ::::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]], are you thinking of some limit on the proportion of the article, or number of facts, changed in a given period? I said "incremental" above, which is not much more concrete than "non-significant"; I meant changes submitted to the article as they are written, and not en-masse. Belatedly, I think there might a problem with [[WP:FIXED]] here. Reverting excessively large undiscussed edits is an option, but then the article still turns into a series of RfCs about warring versions, rather than a collaboration. I'd prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles; the discussion is apt to be more substantive, and the end article better. It might get us a bit farther from arguing over sourcing rules, and towards assessing balance of evidence. Maybe we could try presenting an argument for both sides in discussion, reciprocally? Sadly, I've found myself spending more time on the less content-concerned discussions, like this one, simply because they are more antagonistic and thus clamour for attention. [[User:HLHJ|HLHJ]] ([[User talk:HLHJ|talk]]) 03:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC) :::::Why do you "prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles"? Is it because I proposed a draft and I gained consensus to replace the older versions with the expanded version? Read this comment: "there are so many problems with the main article that it is a bit shameful WP allows work like this to remain."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heat-not-burn_product&diff=prev&oldid=883010698] Editors were disappointed with the older version. [[User:Sunrise]] closed the RfC. See [[Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive_8#Older_versions_or_expanded_version]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 04:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC) :::::{{replyto|Doc James}} I am not attempting to defend or downplay any of that behaviour from SPAs et al, it is indefensible, but none of that excuses the bad behaviour exhibited by QG. Proposal 6 (thanks for numbering them by the way, that is helpful) could indeed be applied to editors generally - and discretionary sanctions are authorised for the topic area. However I don't think that alone gets to the heart of the issues with QG's editing.<br>{{replyto|HLHJ}} I don't regard proportion of an article as a useful measure as it categorises rewriting two sentences of a one-paragraph stub is vastly more significant than rewriting two sentences of an article that is multiple pages long, yet the effect of the changes may be more significant on the latter (depending on the detail, obviously). Number of facts changed is a better measure, but again it depends on the detail - if you're updating figures to match the latest released version of statistics everyone agrees are relevant then that is really only one change despite many different facts being changed and in many circumstances wont be controversial. However changing just one fact by switching from one source to a different one could be very significant, especially if one or both are (allegedly) partisan. It really needs to be something like "does this materially change what is being said?" or "is the source used to verify what I'm adding/removing/changing controversial?" and if the answer is yes, then it's a significant change, and if the answer is no then it wont be in most circumstances.<br>{{replyto|QuackGuru}} RfCs only really work when the question being asked is focused and specific. This is almost always vastly easier to achieve when dealing with individual items of content than dealing with whole articles. The comment you quote is a good example of one that is unfocussed and woolly essentially to the point of being useless. Be specific - explain what the problem is, why its a problem, what would be better and why that would be better. Then do the same for the next problem. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::The HNB article was like a stub by my standard. There was little content in the lede and the writing was incoherent. My proposal was to expand every section of the article. HLHJ was still complaining about the article after I expanded it. The solution was to start specific RfCs to resolve the remaining disputes. There was a previous RfC that was malformed. See [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_7#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources]]. Those issues were unresolved. I eventually started RfCs to address the concerns. I left it up to the community to decide. See [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#IQOS_content]] and see other RfCs such as [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC) *'''oppose''' Agree with Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James. I also agree that QG has problem behavior. But this is not the solution. [[User:Cloudjpk|Cloudjpk]] ([[User talk:Cloudjpk|talk]]) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC) **So what is? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC) *** I've added proposed editing restrictions for e-cigs[[User:Cloudjpk|Cloudjpk]] ([[User talk:Cloudjpk|talk]]) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' per nom. I personally don't want to see QG banned, and I think this is a reasonable stopgap measure. [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 10:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per Doc James. I've had a fair bit of contact with QG. I won't deny QG can be a little stubborn and pedantic, but I've never had cause for a second to think he is biased. He genuinely has neutrality and the interests of the encyclopedia at heart and these proposed sanctions are an over-reaction. --<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#004d80;"> [[User talk:Begoon|Begoon]]</span> 10:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC) **I too don't doubt QG's motives, but that doesn't mean his behaviour is not disruptive. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC) * Honestly, I think banning QG from ecigs would be a net positive for him and the project. Of all the editors with whom I agree (and I do agree with almost everything he writes), he is the closest I have come to asking for a siteban. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 11:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ** I am doing a fair amount of editing across multiple e-cig articles. There is bound to be some conflict with the amount of editing I have been doing. The RfCs helped resolve the issues. You closed two of the RfCs. See [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#WHO_claim]] and see [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Nicotine_and_Passive_vaping_sections]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - As I said above, the complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with this user performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect, per both [[WP:ATD-R|deletion]] and [[WP:BLAR|redirection]] policies. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. It should be treated like any other content dispute, not dragged to AN/I. Looking at the above section, this was already pointed out, and the OP seems to be ignoring it. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC) *:I don't think I support this proposal but as I think the first person to point out redirection does not need an AFD and may not even need discussion (05:58, 27 September 2019), can't say I agree QuackGuru did nothing wrong. As me, DocJames and others have said, calling it a hoax was clearly wrong. Firstly while the article had problems, it was not a hoax. Regardless of the merits of the blank and redirect, you can't just go around using misleading summaries when doing so. It confuses the hell out of other editors and provides no understanding of why you did the blank and redirect. Frankly no edit summary would be better than the one they provided. QuackGuru was an experienced editor, so they should have recognised this was not a hoax and they should have not called it one. Second, if QuackGuru genuinely believed the article was a hoax, then simply blanking and deleting was not the solution. Perhaps blanking and deleting was okay as an interim measure, but they should have immediately moved to having the article deleted after that. We cannot allow hoax articles to hang around in main space lest people accidentally or intentionally revert to them, or copy their content. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *::Please see my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=next&oldid=917909384 updated edit summary]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 23:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *:::Your second edit summary was better but still somewhat unclear. The fact that a blog is used or some of the content failed verification is not itself a reason to blank and redirect. AFAIK at least some of the content did match the citation. You seem to have a decent level of English, so I have no idea why you couldn't have just left an edit summary like "Blanking as most of the content appears to fail verification" if that was your opinion. Frankly though, if you had just left the second edit summary the first time around I think me and at least some others wouldn't care so much. Again, as an experienced editor you should not need someone bugging you on your talk page to tell you how utterly confusing your first edit summary was. Further (other than the updated summary) AFAIK you never provided an comment on your use of such an utterly confusing edit summary or at least you hadn't on the original ANI discussion despite having multiple days to do last I checked. And as I said elsewhere it's not like you were super busy doing something else, you were able to directly respond to people who posted to the ANI when you had issues with what they said. A simple "sorry I was wrong to call it a hoax, don't know what I was thinking" or whatever would have at least provided some clue you recognised the problem. Ultimately though, whatever you did do afterwards, my main point stands which is I disagree that you did nothing wrong since you did initially use that edit summary and it took someone asking on your talk page for any clarification. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per DocJames. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per Swarm, DocJames, and others. Discretionary sanctions are already in effect in the topic, and any restrictions through them should apply to all editors, not just one who actually seems to be following [[WP:FOC]] here. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''': But definitely would also strongly support a compromise in specifics with the issues presented by Doc James and those who feel similarly as I feel their concerns have merit. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''': per the good Doc James. Significance differs from person to person, and there's really nothing wrong with what QuackGuru did, as Swarm rightly notes. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em"> — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]])</span> 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support''' [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]]'s proposal, largely with the same feeling as [[user:JzG|Guy]]. If "don't place tags without genuinely trying to [[WP:SOFIXIT]] first" is too complicated, then a full TBAN is an option. For context, I just had a long and frustrating chat at WT:MED (until I gave up, because life's too short to keep explaining simple facts to people who are very highly motivated to not listen). In this conversation, Quack was apparently able to look at images like [https://www.podmodturkey.com/315-large_default/smok-rolo-badge-pod-mod.jpg this shield-shaped product] and [https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2018/nejm_2018.379.issue-12/nejmp1805758/20180914/images/img_small/nejmp1805758_f1.jpeg this long, skinny one] and still desperately trying to convince everyone that "different sizes and shapes" was a hopelessly unverifiable claim that urgently needed to be removed from the article. I don't think that the inability to see what's plainly in front of your nose is either "nothing wrong" (to quote [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]]'s description) or what we need in an editor who gravitates to controversial subjects. I'm thinking about the intersection of [[WP:COMPETENCE]], [[WP:THERAPY]], and [[WP:BOGO]]: If you are unable or unwilling to admit that those products aren't all the same size and and shape, then I really don't think that the rest of the community should spend this many hours (for years and years and years – has anyone ever written a complete list of the many previous bans and restrictions?) to you overcome your limitations. I'm perfectly willing to take names for the list of volunteer mentors, though. If others really want to dedicate their wiki-lives to mediating these questions, then that's okay with me. "Y'all should just put up with his rigid thinking and obsessiveness and find ways to work around it. I'm gonna go do something easier and more fun" isn't what the project needs. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per DocJames and BMK. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy,''' <small>the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per Swarm. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ===Proposed editing restrictions for e-cigs=== A key part of the problem is unsourced and failed verification content. Accordingly I suggest these restrictions on policy violations: #Prohibition on unsourced content. If there is no citation at the end of the claim it is considered unsourced content #Prohibition on failed verification content. If the citation does not completely verify the claim it is considered failed verification content. Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned. They would have to be warned about the first violation before they would be topic banned for the second violation. * '''Support'''. [[User:Cloudjpk|Cloudjpk]] ([[User talk:Cloudjpk|talk]]) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Oppose''' Missing the whole point. No-one is trying to push unverifiable content here. Rather QuackGuru is using that as a dogwhistle complaint against our normal standards for what really constitutes "unreliable" or "failed" sourcing. To implement this would be to also give them a tban-on-request stick against other editors, contrary to all our normal TBAN process. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC) **For almost all content related to nicotine, it is against our normal standards to add or restore "unreliable" sources and "failed" content. See [[WP:MEDCITE]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Oppose''' per Andy Dingley. There is no need to define unsourced content and/or failed verification any differently to the way it's done everywhere else on the encyclopaedia. Indeed, doing so would likely do more harm than good. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC) **!00% of the content in [[Electronic cigarette]] is sourced and it is peppered with hundreds of MEDRS-compliant reviews. Following V policy is very simple, IMO. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support''' This is ''already'' the case everywhere. [[WP:V]]: ''Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.'' And it is a blockable offence to restore it without a valid source. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 23:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC) ** "Violating" WP:BURDEN is not generally considered a blockable offense, especially, and most relevantly, when we're talking about restoring blanked content that (a) doesn't actually need a source according to any editor except one who wants every single sentence followed by an inline citation to a plagiarized or near-plagiarized reliable source, or (b) the content is already cited elsewhere in the article. [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing]] and [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] will both get you blocked, though. Have a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=QuackGuru&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= Quack's very lengthy block log] if you want proof of what we actually block editors for. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support''' both 1 and 2. There are issues with unverifiable content being added and restored here. Recently sourced content has been replaced with failed verification.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&type=revision&diff=919259639&oldid=919040708][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=917607871&oldid=917606398] There was a RfC about the safety content. See [[Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Safer_than_tobacco_claim]]. I started RfCs to deal with failed verification content. For example, see [[Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse]]. If anyone feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following verifiability policy then maybe they should not be editing this topic area. This will help with behavior modification and to cut our losses with repeat offenders. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support''' - It is not quite correct to say that this is already the case throughout Wikipedia. [[WP:V]] doesn't '''''prohibit''''' unsourced content, it can be added to articles, but is subject to removal at any time, and can't then be restored without a source. That's not the same thing as is being proposed here, which is that unsourced content is '''''prohibited''''' from being added in the first place. There are no sanctions specified (which is a problem with the proposal) but I would assume that any editor making multiple infractions of this would be subject to blocks. I do wonder, though, if it would not be better simply to place E-cigs under [[WP:General sanctions#Community sanctions|community general sanctions]] as a tidier solution. (See [[WP:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions]] for a list of currently active community-imposed general sanctions.) [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC) **{{replyto|Beyond My Ken}} Per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#Discretionary sanctions]] the previous Community-authorised sanctions for this topic area were withdrawn and replaced by arbcom discretionary sanctions. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ***Ah, thank you, I wasn't aware of that. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 13:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) **{{replyto|Beyond My Ken}} maybe I've misunderstood what you're saying but this proposal explicitly says (and said [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=919460759]) "{{talk quotation|Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned}}" if they've been warned. Once an editor is topic banned, the norm is they will be subject to escalating blocks if they edit in violation of their topic ban. Technically this doesn't cover people who violate these restrictions once every week but such gaming of restrictions tends to be dealt with the same as violating them. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *<s>'''Support'''</s>: Clearly QuackGuru is a little too aggressive in this topic area, and hasn't backed down from that stance despite people raising concerns. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :: So you want to give them the power to TBAN opposing editors, just on their say-so? Did you intend your support comment to apply to the proposal it's tagged beneath? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::DS are already in effect in the topic, so "opposing" editors (or anyone) can be topic banned if their behavior is disruptive, contributing to a battleground mentality, or causing other editors to be terse. For instance, when an editor such as Andy Digley exhibits battleground behavior in their comments at this ANI towards QuackGuru, that can be a good indication to admins that they should be topic or interaction-banned in order to cut down disruption in the topic. I went looking at the talk pages to try to verify some of your claims about Quack, but I'm already seeing some hounding of Quack on the talk pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pod_mod#Pod_mods_do_not_produce_smoke here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pod_mod#More_than_half_the_article_contains_unsourced_content here] where you're unable to [[WP:FOC]] at article talk pages and more interested in hounding QuackGuru who actually was engaging in content. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::Hi {{u|Andy Dingley}}, not based on someone's say-so. Concern has been raised, and after reviewing the situation QuackGuru is, in my opinion, clearly overly aggressive in this topic area, based on own behavior. I also do believe that you are correct in that I posted my support in the incorrect proposal here. I have struck my support here. I support Thrydulff's proposal, as I believe that will yield sufficient results in this situation. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 23:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' the ideas in theory, but the discertionary sanctions should already be tamping down or removing editors that are causing problems in these two areas, so any admin can enforce this already. Given the battelground behavior I'm seeing at this ANI that appears to be mostly one-sided after not looking at an e-cig page for some years, it's clear the discretionary sanctions '''need''' to be enforced in general to cut that behavior out. I'm mostly seeing QuackGuru sticking to content while others are more focused on QuackGuru here, so fixing the latter battlegrounding should alleviate some of the terseness coming from QuackGuru (which isn't sanctionable in the first place). I'd sure stick to focusing on content and not responding to [[WP:BAITING]] comments like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pod_mod&oldid=919093289#More_than_half_the_article_contains_unsourced_content this section]. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :: Battleground? I'd remind you that QuackGuru began this by falsely describing this as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=917909384&oldid=917909025 "Redirect non-notable hoax article."]. It is ''not'' acceptable to attack multiple other editors like this and to accuse them of creating hoaxes. This isn't merely a difference of opinion, it's an accusation of fraudulent editing. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 22:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::What did the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&diff=next&oldid=917909384 updated edit summary] state? [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 22:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::: Funny looking sort of apology. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - using a sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut. Will cause more trouble, not less. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. Near the start of this thread, [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] stated, "''It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source.''" I've seen QuackGuru do this various times, and his odd interpretation of verification has gotten him in plagiarism trouble before. As seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&oldid=640862118#Plagiarism here], an editor brought plagiarism to his attention. Also, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#User:QuackGuru and Judeo-Christian related_articles|here]] in a different ANI thread, Doc James stated, "''They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more.''" Needless to state, his '''faulty "failed verification" tags''' are a big issue. Somehow QuackGuru got it in his head that we can't summarize a source's words, like we are supposed to do if not quoting the source and if [[WP:LIMITED]] doesn't apply. If an editor uses their own words to summarize a source's text, you can expect QuackGuru to add a "failed verification" tag. This has got to stop. It is one of the more problematic aspects of his editing. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 00:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' the requirement that every fact be followed by a citation. The table that [[User:HLHJ]] put above is, in my experience, a remarkably accurate illustration of what's Quack wants. We need well-writing articles that contain verifiable contents and present all perspectives in [[WP:DUE]] weight. The overall goal is almost unrelated to whether or not there's an inline citation after every piece of terminal punctuation. Nobody wants {{tl|fv}} content. The problem here is what happens when one editor perseverates in declaring a fact to have failed verification after multiple other editors tell him that he's wrong. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC) == Dispute == [[User:Smoothswim|Smoothswim]] and I have been in a dispute for several days. It started when I was new page patrolling and found an article he had created, [[Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics]], which I tagged for a deletion discussion because it violated notability policies. He reverted my notice of the deletion discussion on his talk page, saying it was "vandalism." We argued with a back-and-forth for some days. He was problematic, to say the least: he reported me for vandalism (and thus implied that he accused me of bad faith) and tried to educate me about AfD, plus commenting on AfD's talk page that it would be the downfall of Wikipedia (obviously a silly statement, considering that it started more than a decade ago and Wikipedia's still around and improved). Finding him problematic, I looked at his contributions to ensure that he was not blatantly violating more policies. I improved some articles that he had been working on in good faith, but he reverted them and called them vandalism. Please help resolve this dispute, since this drama is taking us nowhere. <span style="font-family:Times"><span style="color:#2a52be">''From'' [[User:AnUnnamedUser|''AnUnnamedUser'']] [[User talk:AnUnnamedUser|<sup>''(open talk page)''</sup>]]</span></span> 02:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC) :Diffs would be helpful. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 03:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC) :From what I can tell, Smoothswim is reacting aggressively and throwing accusations of vandalism and trolling around rather too liberally: their entire debating style [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics|here]] is combative and repeatedly comments on the other editor rather than on the merits of the article under discussion, and they have resorted to reverting constructive edits by AnUnnamedUser with edit summaries of "vandalism" e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Buszy&diff=prev&oldid=919490046 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Buszy&diff=prev&oldid=919489837 here]. Smoothswim is a new editor and clearly passionate about their favourite subject, but they need to start assuming good faith; I have given them an AGF notice. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 13:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC) ===Response by [[User:Smoothswim|Smoothswim]]=== Not sure if this is the right place to post this here but anyway: I feel that I and potentially others (new to Wikipedia and less likely to want to defend themselves against trolling attacks) have been seriously grieved by [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]]. Within four minutes of the first commit to the newly created page [[Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics]], [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] flagged the page for deletion. I then requested a response as per guidelines via the talk page for the article. It took a while but I finally received a very terse and aggressively toned reply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Skateboarding_at_the_2024_Summer_Olympics where [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] refuted that the page's three sources confirmed the provisional inclusion of Skateboarding at the 2024 Olympics. [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] used the term "crystal ball". The person's tone concerned me and made me not want to login to Wikipedia any more. Never the less, I added reasoned arguments against deleting the page, despite [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] attempting to assert incorrectly that I own some sort of "crystal ball." By that point I could tell that something about [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] was not right. I scanned their public commit history and found that they were flagging numerous articles for deletion. My concern became not about the page [[Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics]] but about [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]]'s conduct on the website. Trolling Wikipedia looking for articles to delete, four minutes after they were created is possibly the most toxic behaviour I have witnessed online for a long time - And I'm someone who has been to the alt/far right and asked them about why they have the views they do to try to understand their behaviour. After the exchange on the talk page, which I consider a considerable waste of my own time, I then witnessed two pages I had been working on (one I had created) had been vandalized by [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]]. Some were petty (2 instead of two) and destructive edits which changed the tone of the article and it concerned me that: * A: [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] had decided to edit pages related to skateboarding without joining the skateboarding wikiproject. * B: [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] had not discussed any big changes they wanted to make on the talk page for the article. * C: That [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] was editing a topic about a place that I am 99% sure they have never even visited. [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] even added a flag which meant that they had not visited enough of the linked sources to understand the topic at hand at all. After spending so much wasted time communicating with [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]], where I feel that there has been a concerted attempt to victimise me for creating a single page here and then defend the reason for it's creation, I feel that Wikipedia has missed out on content i would have added instead during that time. [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]]'s tone concerned me so much that I started editing without logging in because I could see all the signs of a pattern of trolling. I warned [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] on their talk page about their vandalism on Wikipedia And should they continue on their destructive path I would attempt to pursue a block. I would also like to make clear my intentions here on Wikipedia: I feel that the quality of content, especially Skateboard related content is very poor and often at times, hardly relevant. The skateboard community does not find Wikipedia credible enough to store their history, evidenced by the lack of activity documenting it, the lack of sources, huge number of missing articles, etc. I came to Wikipedia to try to sort this out and add as much as I can about '''my''' history and the fantastic and amazing people I have shared seriously happy times with. The kind of experiences which need to be shared using facts, especially the organic movements which happened around my time growing up as a skateboarder and part of the evolution of skateboarding. Please check my commit history. I didn't come here to be dragged into a political process by a troll. Thanks! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Smoothswim|Smoothswim]] ([[User talk:Smoothswim#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Smoothswim|contribs]]) 23:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :{{ping|Smoothswim}} Please read [[WP:Assume good faith]]. One way to practice that is to read other people's messages in the nicest tone possible, as if you were writing them to someone else. :{{tq|It took a while}} -- This is an international and volunteer driven project, immediate responses are the exception and not the rule. :{{tq|but I finally received a very terse and aggressively toned reply}} -- You are imagining the aggression. :{{tq|despite [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] attempting to assert incorrectly that I own some sort of "crystal ball."}} -- Don't take other users' comments out of context to build a victim complex, that's just bringing a bad time on yourself. :{{tq|Trolling Wikipedia looking for articles to delete}} -- That's not trolling, that's required maintenance. :{{tq|is possibly the most toxic behaviour I have witnessed online for a long time}} -- You've seen literally nothing, then. I don't care if you've had pleasant conversations with Nazis. :{{tq|A: [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] had decided to edit pages related to skateboarding without joining the skateboarding wikiproject.}} -- That's [[WP:NOTVAND|not vandalism]]. To call that vandalism is toxic behavior. :{{tq|B: [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] had not discussed any big changes they wanted to make on the talk page for the article.}} -- [[WP:BRD|Not actually a requirement]]. :{{tq|C: That [[User:AnUnnamedUser|AnUnnamedUser]] was editing a topic about a place that I am 99% sure they have never even visited.}} -- Not relevant at all, or else most of this encyclopedia's geographic articles simply would not exist. :{{tq|I would also like to make clear my intentions here on Wikipedia}} -- Your intentions are fine and [[WP:AGF|we try to assume everyone's intentions are until they give us reason to believe otherwise (a courtesy you clearly never even considered giving to AnUnnamedUser)]]; you just need to make an effort to learn how things work here. :{{tq|I didn't come here to be dragged into a political process by a troll.}} -- AnUnnamedUser is neither a troll nor engaged in vandalism -- if you continue to apply those words to them, you could be blocked for making personal attacks. :''''Pay close attention''''' (to this if nothing else): You're clearly looking for reasons to get angry because you imagined you're some kind of victim instead of considering the possibility that you are welcome to edit here ''if you are willing to make an effort to learn how to do so''. [[User:Ian.thomson/Guide|I've written a guide that covers a variety of issues new users face]], including [[User:Ian.thomson/Howto|a section specifically on writing articles that won't get deleted]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 23:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC) You are attempting to vilify me here. There is a toxicity in your response which is nothing short of [[fascism|Fascist]]. Telling people to read things, Exhibit A. I have said all I want on this issue. May history judge you more fairly than the courtesy you extend to others. [[User:Smoothswim|Smoothswim]] ([[User talk:Smoothswim|talk]]) 00:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC) :Do you seriously not see the irony in using text to say that telling people to read things is fascist? I mean, nevermind how ridiculous the argument "telling people to read and improve themselves is fascist" is alone, using text to make that argument is so laughable that you've just burned away any sympathy you might have garnered. Have fun making things harder for yourself. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 03:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC) :Expecting people to read is toxic, and even fascist? Oh boy...you're going to have a very brief wikicareer. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC) ::[[User:Smoothswim]] - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what [[WP:VAND|vandalism]] is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know [[WP:NOTVAND|what is not vandalism]]. Obviously you have not been editing Wikipedia long enough to know either, so you should pay some attention to those who do know. Otherwise you will not be around long enough to know the difference. Read [[WP:YELLVAND|Yelling Vandalism]]. Yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute does not win, because it is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]], and those lead to [[WP:INDEF|indefinite blocks]]. Try listening first before yelling. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC) === Community ban proposal === Given this user’s repeated personal attacks, their belief that the project is “toxic”, and that they refuse to collaborate with the community, I suggest that we move straight to a [[wp:ban|community ban]]. This person clearly doesn’t have what it takes to work with us here. Their belief that [[wp:crystal ball|crystal ball]] somehow is referencing an actual crystal ball or psychic powers, is rather stunning. We should respectfully show them the door before they do damage to the project. This clearly isn’t the place for them. —[[User:Adamfinmo|AdamF in MO]] ([[User talk:Adamfinmo|talk]]) 01:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :Just give Smoothswim an only and final warning. He's acting in good faith, and we should give him another chance. <span style="font-family:Times"><span style="color:#2a52be">''From'' [[User:AnUnnamedUser|''AnUnnamedUser'']] [[User talk:AnUnnamedUser|<sup>''(open talk page)''</sup>]]</span></span> 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::I agree with {{u|AnUnnamedUser}}. Smoothswim is very new with a lot of misconceptions about how wikipedia works. Whether they're willing to learn is up to them, but I think they should be given the chance. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#8B008B;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#8B008B;">''(talk)''</span>]] 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :A ban seems a bit premature. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 18:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *I agree, a one-time-only final warning is sufficient at this time. If they continue their '''''behavior''''', a CBAN can be considered. Their rhetoric of "toxicity" is unfortunate, but they would hardly be the first to make that claim. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' A ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=Smoothswim&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter= before we've even tried a block] seems VERY premature... [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *Comment Oookay friends. I’m glad that there is so much patience. I just wonder how fair we are going to get with a user who has no intentions of abiding by community standards. —[[User:Adamfinmo|AdamF in MO]] ([[User talk:Adamfinmo|talk]]) 00:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :*What's interesting is that he cherrypicks what policies he wants to follow. For example, he accused me of a misleading username (unnamed = IP? of course not), but he rejected AfD's mission. <span style="font-family:Times"><span style="color:#2a52be">''From'' [[User:AnUnnamedUser|''AnUnnamedUser'']] [[User talk:AnUnnamedUser|<sup>''(open talk page)''</sup>]]</span></span> 00:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC) == Cross wiki harassment == [[WP:LTA]] Multi IP handler [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.85.58.215 85.85.58.215] again into cross wiki harassment. [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/85.85.58.215 Fresh block in es:wiki] and again just moved here to engage into [[WP:NOTHERE]]. See previous reports on these IPs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.85.56.126 85.85.56.126] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.85.59.70 85.85.59.70].--Asqueladd ([[User talk:Asqueladd|talk]]) 19:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC) *The complete /16 range would be [[Special:Contributions/85.85.58.0/16]]. Some admins have recently blocked some individual IPs within the range. It would take some study to figure out if a wider block would be justified. [[:es:User:Ezarate]] has already blocked [[Special:Contributions/85.85.56.0/22]] on the Spanish Wikipedia for one month. Here on Enwiki, [[User:Berean Hunter]] has blocked [[Special:Contributions/85.85.56.0/18]] for two weeks. The guy's edit summaries frequently say they are reverting [[User:Asqueladd]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC) == Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans == See archived link at [[wp:ANI]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#User_2001:D08:DB:C337:2195:E1CA:C9E4:78E1_(Malayasian_IP_attacks_Singaporeans)][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Malayasian_IP_attacks_Singaporeans][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Malayasian_IP_attacks_Singaporeans]<br><br> * {{IPvandal|2001:D08:2082:72C9:1:0:C89:93B6}}<br> * {{IPvandal|2001:D08:1013:B64A:1:2:84C3:E309}}<br> Vandalism by Unintelligible personal attack. [[User:Gundam5447|Gundam5447]] ([[User talk:Gundam5447|talk]]) 15:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC) : Blocked these two for 48h--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 15:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC) :: {{Ping|Ymblanter}} This is a long-term problem (search AN and ANI for "2001:d08") that I think could benefit from a longer-term rangeblock. At [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans]], I've identified the seven (of 256) /40 ranges within 2001:d08::/32 that are the source of the problem. I think this user does more damage by attacking other IPs than any possible inconvenience that may occur to others in that range that would have to create accounts. IIRC, they also perform lots of unsourced, mostly chinese-language edits to Singaporean television shows that I doubt are getting any sort of verification. <span style="color:red">—[</span>[[User:AlanM1|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">Alan</span><span style="color:blue">M</span><span style="color:purple">1</span>]]([[User talk:AlanM1#top|talk]])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 16:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC) ::: I am familiar with the problem, but I prefer to leave range blocks to administrators who can better estimate the effect of collateral damage from the range block.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 18:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC) * {{IPvandal|2001:D08:DB:E328:BD96:FAC1:2763:881B }}<br> Vandalism by Unclear personal attack. Even if I warn, an IP address is changed and repeated. [[User:Gundam5447|Gundam5447]] ([[User talk:Gundam5447|talk]]) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) == Sir Joseph topic ban violation == {{archive top|Sir Joseph blocked for one month and subjected to an interaction ban with TonyBallioni. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] [[User talk:Yunshui|<sup style="font-size:90%">雲</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|<sub style="font-size:90%">水</sub>]] 11:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)}} {{user links|Sir Joseph}} After being banned from antisemitism and the Holocaust, and accusing editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial, Sir Joseph has decided to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019%2FElectoral_Commission&type=revision&diff=919827538&oldid=919826688 blatantly violate] his topic ban. This is after these hints at it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Electoral_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=919825797], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Electoral_Commission&diff=prev&oldid=919825928], where he says he can't say anymore because he'll be blocked. The only thing he can't say anything more about is antisemitism. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 02:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *If you respond to me and mention the TBAN, then I think it's appropriate I can mention it. I do understand that you have a need to get me blocked or banned, but I do think you need to stop already. Your bias against me is really getting out of hand. And again, you accuse me of "hinting" at it, when I do no such thing. Where in those diffs do I violate any TBAN? What I suggest is a BOOMERANG and a one-way IBAN at this point. Your behavior towards me is shocking and unbecoming a sysop and functionary. Notice how you don't mention I am responding to YOUR comment where you mention the TBAN, why is that? [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 02:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:{{u|Sir Joseph}}, please see [[WP:BANEX]]. Someone mentioning your TBAN does not give you permission to violate it. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 02:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:{{ec}} {{tq|all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial}} (taken from Tony's first quote) - this is almost word-for-word what the topic ban explicitly says you cannot say. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::How else am I to respond to an admin then who mentions the TBAN at a page when he is requesting a comment for Election Commissioner and he brings up the TBAN? Note how I didn't bring up the TBAN, I just said at first that I can't say anything, and then TB, brings up the TBAN. It's extremely unfair to have an admin, and a functionary, bring up a TBAN and then say, "too bad, you can't respond." That's called baiting. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 02:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::You could have stopped at {{tq|Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, but that is not my issue with you.}} The bit in the middle is what's currently landing you here. I see no evidence that Tony was baiting you into talking about or violating your ban. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::I was responding to you to give people context as to why you were commenting about Vanamonde93 and myself, which given the criticism you leveled, I think is fair. You could have said "My TBAN from antisemitism isn't what this is about. Instead you said {{tq|all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial}}. Additionally, saying that you can't comment anymore or you'll be blocked when the only thing you can be blocked for commenting about is antisemitism, is just a clever way to imply that you have issues with someone surrounding antisemitism.{{pb}}Also, as to your claim below, I don't know why I'd be trying to relitigate: the community agreed with me that you accused editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 02:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *Further, TB is trying to relitigate, I never accused editors of antisemitism and Holocaust denial and I ask him to strike those claims immediately. It's clear he needs to stay away from me. That is why I want a IBAN. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 02:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::Sir Joseph, did you really think that comment wouldn't be a violation of your TBAN? You're clearly aware of your topic ban, and what it prohibits. I'm rather curious, because it would seem you're taunting the admins into blocking you. This comment doesn't even remotely fall under WP:BANEX. What are you really trying to accomplish here? [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 02:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::{{u|Sir Joseph}}, you're not just topic banned from accusing people of antisemitism - you're banned from "{{tq|the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed}}". This is a clear violation, and your comments at ECom and here are simply about revenge. Don't try to relitigate it - accept that you made a mistake and maybe this won't end up with a site ban. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 02:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::Then ask TB to LEAVE ME ALONE. I get how you and him want me out, but that is not how it works. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::{{u|Sir Joseph}}, hate to break it to you...but you started this. Nobody made you comment on TB's ArbCom election entry, but you did, he replied, and now here we are. [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 02:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::*'''''This''''' is how it works, Sir Joseph: the community had a very long, very contentious discussion about your behavior, in which you participated vociferously. The end result was a topic ban. For whatever reason, you decided that you could violate the topic ban under the present circumstances, despite it not being an exception allowed by BANEX. For that, you will be blocked, and if you do it again, you will again be blocked, for a longer period of time. The third time you do it -- if there is a third time -- there will undoubtedly be a call to site ban you as being unable to control yourself and follow the restrictions the community placed on you. I have no idea how that discussion would end up, although I have no trouble predicting that it, too, would be a contentious discussion. '''''That''''' is how it works, Sir Joseph. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::*Like a cancer, I guess, it's a slow process, right? [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 03:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::*{{u|Sir Joseph}}, what is this supposed to mean? – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 03:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::*{{ping|Bradv}}That is referring to one of the nasty and vile names BMK called me on the ANI thread that only recently was revdeled by El_C (after my request), even though many admins saw it but didn't bother to do anything about it. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 03:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::*So you asked to have my comment rev-del'd, and it was -- to which I did not object [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=919606703&oldid=919522392] -- but, despite the fact that it so offensive to you that it had to be removed from Wikipedia, you feel free to refer to it when ot gives you a chance to jab at me? So ... your rule seems to be that you can do anything you like, but others must be held to a higher standard? Not only that, but you claim that I called you other "vile names", but '''''no one can determine if that is factual or not because you asked for the comment to be rev-del'd!''''' [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::*:Sorry, are you seriously trying to cast yourself as a victim here, after a comment of yours was found to be so offensive that it was rev-del'ed by another editor, who also admonished you about it? Are we supposed to be grateful that you did not object to that disgraceful comment being rev-del'ed? [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]]) 03:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::*Are you serious in saying -- as you did below -- that when Sir Joseph wrote "all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019%2FElectoral_Commission&type=revision&diff=919827538&oldid=919826688] he wasn't violating his topic ban from "{{tq|the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed}}"? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::*I've said what I had to say on the proposed ban and alternative sanctions, below. What I am saying '''here''', is that someone who calls another editor "a cancer" is not going to get any sympathy from me, and should consider himself lucky ''he's'' not being up for a community ban. If it were up to me, you would. [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]]) 04:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::*I consider myself very lucky that I get to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a great project of tremendous social value. I also consider myself extremely concerned about editors of all types who are more attached to promoting their political and ideologcial points of view then they are to actually '''''improving''''' Wikipedia by the standards it holds us all to. I come across those kinds of editors every day, they come pushing many different ideologies, and they are '''''all''''' dangerous and debilitating to Wikipedia, '''''<u>every</u> <u>single</u> <u>one</u> <u>of</u> <u>them</u>''''', without exception. I spend a great deal of my time removing their biased editing from the encyclopedia, and dealing with them is sometimes frustrating, because as true believers, they are all highly motivated to get their "truth" in front of our audience. When the chance comes to stop one of them from editing, I applaud that effort, and am glad to do whatever small part I can to help eliminate POV editing. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *A clear, unambiguous violation by Sir Joseph, which was not enticed, baited, or entrapped. Sir Joseph could easily have expressed his concerns about Vanamonde and Tony Ballioni, as Primefac demonstrated above. Sir Joseph has been on Wikipedia for over 14 years, so there is no conceivable way that he couldn't know that referring to the subject that he was explicitly banned from discussing is a straight-forward no-brainer violation of his topic ban. The claim that Tony Ballioni is trying to "relitigate" anything is absurd on its face. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *It's an obvious violation of the tban, made worse by the fact that Sir Joseph is trying to pin the blame on Tony. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 02:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :*I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just saying I was responding to TonyBallioni who first mentioned to TBAN, not me. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 03:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::SJ, please, calm down. You are not in a good mood to edit Wikipedia. Really, why cannot you take some break? Nothing terrible will happen in one month. Just stop responding, and everything will be ok. ::::When a discussion about lifting of your TB will be initiated, I will vote for you.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::{{ping|Paul Siebert}}People are trying to not just block me, but SITE BAN me below just for a TBAN violation. That is why I'm upset. I didn't mention my TBAN, TB did, so I responded. He then brought me to ANI and this all happened. As I said, I just wanted to voice my opposition to his candidacy, and that was it. And I note that I only made a few comments in this section explaining my comments, that I just responded to his comment, nothing that would justify a CBAN. I do think TB needs to leave me alone. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 04:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::*Just to state the obvious, Tony Ballioni is not topic banned from "{{tq|the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed}}", while you are. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::*{{ec}} You are complaining that Tony needs to leave you alone, even though it was you who went after Tony on the ECom page. You can play the victim all you like, but the diffs don't lie. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 03:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) === Proposal: Community ban === {{atop|This is not going anywhere; jumping to a CBAN after the first TBAN violation is a bit much. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 01:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)}} This entry boils down to an editor who violated a TBAN and does not seem to be getting why their action was problematic. Looking at their block history, this isn't the first time this editor has had problems with a TBAN, and has had several AE blocks. When confronted in these cases, Sir Joseph's reaction seems to generally be to blame others for causing the issue and to bludgeon and wikilawyer. Instead of going through that process yet again, I'm cutting to the chase: as an uninvolved editor, I'm proposing to CBAN Sir Joseph for repeated disruptive editing in controversial areas and knowing TBAN violations. [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 03:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' SJ's responses here clearly indicate that no lesson has been learned. We can kick the can down the road or take decisive action now. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 03:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' sigh, here we are again. Sir Joseph has asserted above that if others respond to his comments about them, they are at fault for whatever he says, and that his response should be allowed to violate sanctions and policy. He has also decided to call for sanctions in response to his own sanctions violations. Since the last thread, he has attempted to [[Gaslighting|gaslight]] anyone he can about the cause of his ban, and tonight he attempted to game the ban by saying "he couldn't say more", before deciding to comment directly on the thing he was banned on doing from the first place. This is someone who is completely and utterly incompatible with a collaborative project, and no amount of sanctions is going to change that. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' – it's clear that SJ isn't going to take advice from anyone here or acknowledge his mistakes. He is not going to accept the result of the previous TBAN discussion, nor do we have any evidence whatsoever that he intends to abide by it. I see no other option. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 03:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' of course. If there is a violation, then TonyBallioni knows how to proceed, but bringing it to ANI 1)is overkill knowing that proposals can open up, 2) CBAN is not the first course of a TBAN violation and 3) I never said I didn't violate anything, I just said I was responding to TonyBallioni who first brought up the TBAN. There is absolutely no reason for a CBAN and no reason for a block, people just need to chill out. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 03:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''- I'm sorry, but I don't see how the links provided above by TB are a violation of the Topic Ban. Saying a candidate is not suitable for a position of trust or power is not a comment on antisemitism or the Holocaust. [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]]) 03:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:{{u|Here come the Suns}}, did you miss the part where he mentions antisemitism and the Holocaust? – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 03:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::See the comment below , by Levivitch. [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]]) 04:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:That portion of their post wasn't the issue, it was the comment about antisemitism on Wikipedia that is the concern here. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 03:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Weak support''': I keep thinking that short term blocks, or topic bans, etc., will help Sir Joseph realize that his overly confrontational behavior isn't constructive. Then I keep looking back at the block log, and the discussions on their talk page, the previous ANI discussions, and at the various talk pages SJ frequents. I'm concerned that SJ is contributing to a toxic atmosphere with their behavior. I would hope that they will back off a bit and start listening to and collaborating better with people that disagree with them. One doesn't have to agree with folks in order to get along with them and/or work with them. SJ simply doesn't seem to understand why he keeps getting sanctioned, and I can't see why it's not obvious to them. I ''really'' hope they get it, but I don't see much to be done for it at this point. I'd rather have a month-long block, though, in the hopes that they would have a chance to regroup and realize that the encyclopedia won't fall apart if things don't go entirely their way. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 03:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *I should hope the people commenting SUPPORT are commenting on THIS action and not on the prior ANI and trying to get the prior site ban discussion re-opened. Where in the above section is the proof for a CBAN? That's what you should ask yourselves before voicing your opinion. I made a few comments in this ANI discussion and that's about it. Nothing to warrant a ban that I can see.[[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 03:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::*But, then again, you didn't think you had done anything that merited a topic ban, and the community disagreed with your evaluation and levied a topic ban anyway. What the community needs to decide here is whether this instance, a clear and straight-forward violation of your topic ban, is an indication that you are incapable of following that ban and it should just mvoe ahead to what would then seem inevitable, and ban you from the site, or whether, as Waggie says, escalating blocks would be effective in getting through to you that there are now two subjects about which you cannot refer to '''''anywhere on Wikipedia''''', except in the circumstances outlined in [[WP:BANEX]] (which you should read, if you haven't already). In making that determination, '''''the community can take notice of any data they wish to use''''', <u>including</u> your [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] behavior on the previous AN/I discussion (in which the proposal for you to be site banned had 20 supports and 25 opposes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Proposal:_Sir_Joseph_is_site_banned] not enough to enact, but not exactly a landslide in your favor either). It does not need to take heed of whatever self-serving restrictions you wish to put on it, and probably will simply ignore your comment. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :*Your attitude surrounding the topic ban and your long history of failing to understand why you are being sanctioned is the reason people are proposing this, nothing more and nothing less. ''Please'' take it down a notch, because all you're doing now is making it worse. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::One issue is that bringing it to ANI is not the proper venue and TB knows that. He could have told me to remove that one sentence, he could have asked an admin to block me, or something similar, or he could have even gone to AN, but going to ANI knowing that ANI is out of scope of the TBAN. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 03:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::wikilawyering. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]])W *::::No, it's not wikilawyering to point out the correct venue and escalation. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 04:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::{{u|Sir Joseph}}, there is no "correct venue" for drawing administrator attention to a TBAN violation. Any uninvolved admin could have blocked you for that comment. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 04:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::::That's my point, TB chose to bring it here, knowing that ANYONE can open a proposal. Maybe someone should ask TonyBallioni to also take it down a notch, not only is he an admin, he is also a functionary. Let him act like one, it does take two to tango. I note I made only a few edits to the section above, explaining myself. Nothing remotely that justifies a CBAN, yet you and others jump to that. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 04:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::::::::Ah, so it's Tony Ballioni's fault again. Is '''''nothing''''' ever your fault? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::::::It has long been the case that ban requests which are started from scratch are opened in AN, but when a ban proposal flows naturally out of a discussion which has already been opened on AN/I, it is kept there, and not moved to AN., to avoid the disruption that causes. So, yes, it is Wikilawyering, and bad Wikilawyering at that. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' on the grounds that this is not the correct chain of escalation. Blocks starting with short to long are the next steps. SJ's last block was 60 hrs. I would suggest 1-2 weeks in this case. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC) **{{u|Springee}}, the issue is that Sir Joseph is completely and utterly incompatible with the behavioural standards of the English Wikipedia. If we block him, we ''will'' be back here indefinitely until he is banned. A block would only help him because people will forget about this once he's blocked, and he'll then find new ways to insult people claiming he's learned. That's ''exactly'' what happened this time. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ***I'm sure you won't forget about me, that much we can see already. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|<span style="color: Green;">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 04:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' as over-escalation at this point. If Sir Joseph does not understand or accept after a one-month block that he needs to be rigorous about avoiding the topic, then strong action can be taken. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 04:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' If this was just about the TBAN, I think escalating time-limited blocks could be effective. But this isn't just about the TBAN, and this isn't the first time Sir Joseph's been down this road. SJ has recieved numerous blocks for various types of tenditious and disruptive editing, and it continues right into this very discussion. That's the behavior that needs changing, and I don't think a one month block will change anything. The only block lengths that would have a net positive effect on the encyclopedia would be functionally indistinguishable from an indef. Since indefinite blocks after community review are considered community bans, that leaves me here. Oh, and for the record: {{tq|This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} This counts as both. --[[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|talk]]) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - This editor needs to be gone, per Tony Ballioni and bradv. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' – Over-escalation. The offending words were: {{tq|Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you.}} I don't see how that's siteban-worthy. He's not calling any editor antisemitic or a Holocaust denier. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 04:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC) **He is not topic banned from "calling other editors anti-semities or Holocaust deniers", his ban reads: <blockquote>'''Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the Holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed.'''</blockquote> Is it your position that <blockquote>'''Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with <u>antisemitism and Holocaust denial</u>, but that is not my issue with you.'''</blockquote> is not a violation of that blanket, broadly-construed ban, or simply that it's not egregious enough to warrant a sire ban? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC) **::{{re|Beyond My Ken}}, it seems SJ took my advice and stopped responding at ANI page. I think it would be fair to tone down this discussion, for it is obvious SJ is a very emotional but straight person, and he is not in an appropriate emotional state after he was topic banned. I think it would be noble to agree to stop, and to limit sanctions with 1 month block. Nobody prevents us from returning to this story later.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ***It is my position that there is a scene in [[Monty Python's Life of Brian]] about this ''exact'' situation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ****{{u|Levivich}}, if it were just about this one TBAN violation, I would agree with you. I proposed a siteban only because SJ's past behavior and block log (including a past TBAN violation) suggests to me that this is a recurring problem which is not going to be solved by a warning or even a timed ban. Those have been tried before and clearly weren't sufficient since we're here again. Further, SJ either should have known that his post would be problematic and didn't, or knew it would be and went ahead with it anyway, neither of which I find acceptable for someone who has been around as long as him. Now, if I thought some lesser ban enforcement would work here, I would pull my support for a CBAN and vote for that. I wish there were something like that. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Creffett|Creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Creffett|contribs]]) 06:47, October 6, 2019 (UTC)</small> *****I see the statement as a pretty minimal violation of the TBAN, {{u|Creffett|Creff}}, which I opposed in the first place because I read the statements (on TB and Sandstein's talk pages) that led up to the TBAN as not being particularly problematic, because they described a general issue on WP, and were not explicitly directed at any particular editor (though community consensus was that they had a clear-enough implication of such). But in my view, it's a minimal violation of a questionable TBAN. Going backwards from there, there was a month of no issues, and the O300 thing in early August (IIRC). A month before that was a block for another TBAN violation that I also rather strongly disagree with–an instance where SJ called a statement antisemitic which I agree was antisemitic. About two months prior to that (again IIRC) was the AE TBAN for basically repeating a famous quote attributed to Golda Meir (I disagree with the sentiment of the quote and I agree that an article talk page isn't the appropriate place to debate politics). Before that, the previous block was February. So it's like two sanctionable statements in six months, is what I'm seeing. That's not siteban worthy–many, many editors say much worse things much more often and don't get anything more than a warning. I don't see the ongoing serious disruption or incivility that others see–I see a couple of instances of crossing the line, and a whole lot of false alarms and exaggerated offenses or ABFing. SJ and TB need separation so I'd support a warning to stay away from TB or an IBAN at this point, but not a block or a site ban, because SJ's not actually going around accusing people of antisemitism or Holocaust denial, although he may be using those words. It's like stoning someone for saying, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehova". <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 07:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ******Thanks, I think I get your point of view on the matter now. No opinion on the merit of the TBAN, I don't think I paid much attention to that discussion. The reason I proposed sanctions is because, to me, SJ's actions here (and in the past) look to me like intentionally dancing right up to the line of the TBAN (all of those "I can't comment more" statements in particular) , which is definitely a bad-faith action in my book, and then it's compounded by blaming others for something he instigated. Is a CBAN too harsh for that? Perhaps, I think this is actually the first time I've proposed CBAN, and I'm open to the possibility that I suggested too severe a sanction. At this point in the argument it's looking like "no consensus" or "consensus to not CBAN," and if that's what the community decides I'll accept it and remember this for next time I want to propose a CBAN. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *******I didn't notice who proposed it when I opposed it, and let's be honest, if you hadn't proposed it, 100% someone else would have. I get that you made the proposal, as you said, "as an uninvolved editor", which would spare other editors who might have made the proposal from the accusation of axe-grinding. I more or less agree with your approach for those reasons; I've done similar things myself (and sometimes I've received a lot of backlash for it). I also agree that SJ has been dancing up to the line–as if saying, "I'm going to keep talking about this until they kick me out for it", and an ever-increasing segment of the community is willing to oblige. I disagree with the TBAN, but it passed, there was no need to poke the hornet's nest by bringing it up in the course of opposing TB's nomination for election commission. The part of the statement, {{tq|but that is not my issue with you}}, gives that away: if that's not the issue, why mention it? Anyway, despite my minority contrarian opinion, community consensus on how to handle this is becoming clear. I agree with Guy's comment below that if there is a next time, the CBAN proposal may pass easily. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 19:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' SJ does not get it, and does not get why the original behavior was disruptive. A simple ban is the best remedy, one which can be appealed in six months with a firm commitment to avoiding the problem. Use another website to complain about how awful editors are, and how unfair Wikipedia is. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' I voted for the second proposal, so I am not sure if my vote here can be counter, but just in case...--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' I think we are not at this point quite yet, I view the one month block as appropriate for a last chance. SJ needs to stop mentioning anything to do with this TBAN outside of an appeal, and find a less contentious area of WP to edit, there are lots to choose from. [[User:Agent00x|Agent00x]] ([[User talk:Agent00x|talk]]) 09:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. A site ban for a first breach of a TBAN is excessive. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. A site ban for a first violation is indeed excessive. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 11:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' as draconian overkill. --[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) *'''Oppose''' too much for first violation --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' This witch hunt has gotten tedious. The overreactions and quest to crucify for what is essentially a spitting on the sidewalk offense done by an editor in the recuperating stages of a preposterous penalty have reached the harassment stage.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 14:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' per AntiCompositeNumber, Johnuniq, Lepricavark, et al. This is far from the first time that SJ has exhibited this exact same behaviour when called out for knowingly breaching a restriction they've been under. Enough is enough. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. I have some sympathy for this proposal, inasmuch as it's obviously not for a single topic ban violation, but for Sir Joseph's history, illustrated by his block log, his combativeness for years (''and'' seen in this very thread), the quote at the top of his talkpage, and, to mention a slight I took personally, the time he called my home country a shithole. And so on. He does that kind of thing a lot. But I still think a one-month block, per below, is more proportionate at this time. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC). *'''Support''' per AntiCompositeNumber and Johnuniq <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:Stwalkerster|stwalkerster]]</span> ([[User talk:Stwalkerster|talk]]) 16:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''': Of course, I sympathize with the proposer and supporters. It's rather clear to me to Sir Joseph has indeed violated his topic ban. I don't believe this is the correct action, however: by and large, as much as I don't enjoying kicking the can down the road a bit more, it's not the right time to enact something so definitive and final as a [[WP:CBAN]]. Naturally, should his behavior continue in this scornful manner, I will gladly consider increasing levels of stringency. But, for now, it's simply too much. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em"> — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]])</span> 16:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per Bish and Boing! I hate timesinks like this. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 23:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC) {{abot}} === Proposal: One month block === {{archive top|Clear consensus exists that the topic ban was breached and that a one month block is an appropriate response. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] [[User talk:Yunshui|<sup style="font-size:90%">雲</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|<sub style="font-size:90%">水</sub>]] 11:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)}} As mentioned above, I would prefer a one month block, as TBAN enforcement is generally done with a block, rather than a site ban. While I recognize the reasoning for the community ban proposal, I'm hoping that a less drastic option may yield fruit. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''': As proposer. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 03:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''': All those involved here need to take it down , several notches. [[User:Here come the Suns|Here come the Suns]] ([[User talk:Here come the Suns|talk]]) 03:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' pointless as blocks are meant to be preventative, and nothing would be prevented by a time limited block. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as the correct next steps. I'm not sure 1 month vs 1-2 weeks is the correct number (last block was 60 hrs). [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - I'm still undecided about a ban, and am hopeful that SJ won't talk themselves into one. But at the very least, their behavior needs a strong rebuke and perhaps a very last opportunity to rethink their behavior so that step isn't necessary. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 03:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Strongly support'''. My rationale is as follows. SJ seems to be not a pleasant person. However, to write balanced content, we need users whose views are similar to SJ's views. In addition, SJ's aggressiveness may be a result that he feels he is surrounded by enemies. We must demonstrate that is not the case, and that should be a message to all other users who are fighting against real or perceived antisemitism. :''I think we should block SJ to protect him from his own actions.'' By doing that, we are giving him an opportunity to calm down after that ban story. It seems he is a very emotional person, and his current emotional state is not good for editing Wikipedia, so he may do some harm to himself (as this thread demonstrated). However, we definitely have to let him know that he is welcome to Wikipedia in one month. SJ, consider this block a non-voluntary sabbatical. :-) :{{re|TonyBallioni}} In your case, a solution could be just to ignore SJ for a while. I believe you see he is really very emotional (but open and honest) person. Believe me, it is not that hard: I am telling that based on my own experience. Yes, during your last exchange SJ's behaviour was by no means appropriate, and your behaviour was formally ok. However, you are a reasonable person: don't you see that SJ reacts at you like a bull on a red rug? If you haven't answered, all conflict would have stopped.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::{{ping|Paul Siebert}} I think you should re-word your phrase: {{tq|his current emotional state is not good for editing Wikipedia, so he may do some harm to himself}} - it conjures images of [[self-harm]]. If you do that, feel free to remove this post-of mine. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 05:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::I don't think so: we all are reasonable people, and we all understand that I meant only a harm to an account "Sir Joseph". Nothing what happens here can lead to any physical harm to any real person.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 01:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as the appropriate next step in this circumstance. If Sir Joseph does not understand or accept after a one-month block that he needs to be rigorous about avoiding the topic, then stronger action can be taken. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 04:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support''' per [[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]]. [[User:Lupin VII|Lupin VII]] ([[User talk:Lupin VII|talk]]) 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *<s>Oppose</s> unless SJ gives us some indication that we won't be back here in a month. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 04:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:I advised SJ to stop responding, because his responses do not improve a situation. I believe if he will follow my advise, that can be an indication that you want to see.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::+1 <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 04:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:'''Support''' as second choice. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 18:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - second choice, if site ban fails. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Suppose''' per Brad and BMK only as a second choice, no sanctions is obviously not the correct choice here. --[[User:AntiCompositeNumber|AntiCompositeNumber]] ([[User talk:AntiCompositeNumber|talk]]) 04:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::{{ping|AntiCompositeNumber}} - you voted {{tq|Suppose}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - last chance - let's escalate appropriately. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 05:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - at this point I really wonder if he's getting some sort of amusement out of this... — [[User:Frood|Frood]] <small>([[User talk:Frood|talk!]])</small> 06:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' – Same reasons I posted under my oppose in the prior thread. Namely, {{tq|Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you.}} is venting about a recently-imposed sanction, and we generally don't block editors for doing that. I would support a warning for SJ to steer clear of TB and possibly an IBAN. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 07:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:{{u|Levivich}}, they've vented plenty about their recent sanction. I don't really have a huge problem with that, I get it, they're pissed off and think they've been wronged. The problem is that they directly violated their topic ban by discussing the topic they had been explicitly prohibited from discussing. "I'm upset about my recent topic ban because I don't see the evidence showing what they say it does." is NOT equal to "I'm upset about my topic ban because Wikipedia doesn't deal with <nowiki><insert topic-banned topic></nowiki> like I believe it should." Do you see the difference between those two things? It was already pointed out above that if they had stopped at "Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia." then we wouldn't be here now. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 08:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::No, I really don't see any meaningful difference in those two statements. I understand not editing articles related to antisemitism or the Holocaust, I understand not accusing other editors of being antisemitic or Holocaust deniers, but I don't understand why "I'm upset about my topic ban because Wikipedia doesn't deal with <insert topic-banned topic> like I believe it should," should lead to a sanction. It's not hurting anyone for SJ to have said that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 16:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::: Wikipedia draws a distinction between behaviour and content. SJ was sanctioned for behaviour. That can happen when you are 100% on content (e.g. ScienceApologist, who was banned for advocating correct content in a way that was impossible for others to work with). We don't actually sanction based on content, with limited exceptions (BLP violations etc). The admins and ArbCom leave content to the community and only address behaviour. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::::Not exactly though. This ANI thread is 100% because SJ's edit contained the following four words: "antisemitism and Holocaust denial". See BMK's excellent illustration of this in the previous sub-thread. Multiple editors have said that if SJ's statement didn't contain those four words, it would have been non-problematic. So... tell me again how it's not about content? I mean it's literally about four words in a sentence. That's content, not behavior. The ''behavior'' is, or was, ''accusing'' editors of being antisemitic or Holocaust deniers. Note emphasis on the verb–"accusing"–and not on the use of any specific "banned words". That's the difference between behavior and content. If we sanction somebody for ''doing'' something, we sanction behavior. If we sanction someone for ''saying'' something, we sanction content. Here, we're sanctioning someone for saying "banned words", and not for actually engaging in the behavior the TBAN was intended to prevent (making accusations). Editors don't want SJ to say the words "antisemitism" or "Holocaust". OK, consensus can do whatever the hell it pleases, but don't expect me to think that's not weird, cuz it's weird. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 18:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::{{u|Levivich}}, he's topic banned from the Holocaust and antisemitism, broadly construed. That means he can't mention those things anywhere on Wikipedia, except to appeal the ban. The behaviour in question is the mention of those topics, full stop, not only their mention in accusatory terms. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 19:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::Levivitch, besides for violating his tban with those words, SJ was making the accusation that WP itself condones antisemitism. That is egregious behavior. [[User:StonyBrook|StonyBrook]] ([[User talk:StonyBrook|talk]]) 21:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::{{re|StonyBrook}} That is a interesting questio. I think it would be interesting to check AE/ANI history and calculate how many users were topic banned/banned/blocked for antisemitsm/Holocaust denial, and how many users were topic banned/banned/blocked for throwing false accusations of antisemitism. Right now, I have no time to do such research, but I think we will have a right to characterize that SJ's statement only after some neutral and independent validation of it will be performed. So far, we have a couple of reliable sources saying that, yes, there are some serious problems with coverage of some Holocaust related topics in Wikipedia.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::Paul, the point is both of these behaviors need to be handled with equal severity. And false accusations of antisemitism have a way of creating more of same. [[User:StonyBrook|StonyBrook]] ([[User talk:StonyBrook|talk]]) 21:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::The point is that it seems the validity of accusations are much more difficult to prove than the validity of the fact of an accusation. As a result the user who throws this accusation is at greater risk that the one who is accused. And, under "false accusations" I meant the accusations that were recognised as unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, my analysis of SJ's ANI thread demonstrated that at least some accusations of false accusations of antisemitism were in reality ''false accusations of false accusations of antisemitism''..--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 01:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *::::::Yes, I understand, and as I said in my earlier post, this is just like the [[Monty Python's Life of Brian]] "Jehova" skit: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI]. If an editor is TBANed from "Jehova", broadly construed, and they say, "My TBAN is a disgrace!" that's OK, but if they say, "My TBAN from Jehova is a disgrace!" the community may exclaim, "He said 'Jehova'!" and issue sanctions. This is silly, as the Monty Python skit well illustrates. No one was harmed by SJ saying {{tq|Yes, the TBAN is a disgrace to Wikipedia, all one has to do is read the latest Haaretz and see how Wikipedia deals with antisemitism and Holocaust denial, but that is not my issue with you.}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 19:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::::{{u|Levivich}}, SJ did ''not'' say: "My TBAN from Jehova is a disgrace!". If he had, I probably would have written it off as venting and wouldn't have started this proposal for a block (and supported a CBAN as an distant second). He took a direct potshot at Wikipedia, making it clear that he disapproved of the way it handles antisemitism and Holocaust denialism (or at least his perception of it). There's a substantial difference there. He was "topic-banned from the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed" yet he brought up the Holocaust and anti-Semitism directly, and made a critical statement about Wikipedia as a whole while doing it. Wikipedia as a whole is harmed by such comments. Your concerns about TBAN enforcement in general may have merit, but this really isn't the hill to die on. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 23:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::::It's not a question of whether anyone was harmed. SJ is tbanned from discussing the topics in question and he discussed them anyway, albeit briefly. It's difficult to entertain an argument for overlooking this when SJ clearly knew what he was doing. He even admitted that he could not say more, and then turned around and did it anyway. Mind you, most of his reply to Tony was not a violation of the tban and he didn't need to include the problematic excerpt, so he actually could have said more without getting in trouble. To take it a step further, he wouldn't be in this spot right now if he hadn't decided to play the 'I don't like these people and I can't say why' card in this first place. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 19:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::::::::It ''should be'' a question of whether anyone was harmed. Otherwise, we're sanctioning for a technical but harmless violation, which we should not do. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 19:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::::::No, that's not how topic ban enforcement works and we are not going to change the rules for Sir Joseph. He's already been repeatedly protected from the consequences of his sanctions. Enough is enough. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 19:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *::::::::::Yes. I've been expressing disagreement with how topic ban enforcement works, in case you missed that in my numerous previous replies. Anybody else want to explain Wikipedia to me again? Or do you guys just want to let me express a dissenting opinion without explaining to me "how things work around here"? Disagreement does not come from ignorance, my dear colleagues. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *:::::::::::I get that, but I don't think it's feasible to only enforce topic bans when someone is harmed. That's a subjective metric and I fear it would open the door to endless wikilawyering. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - I voted against their recent community ban, and still think they should not be outright banned for 1 violation. I think a one month block should provide a long enough cool off period for this violation. Agreed with above users that this is last chance. [[User:Agent00x|Agent00x]] ([[User talk:Agent00x|talk]]) 09:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support, if''' he removes the quote from another editor about anti-Semitism he placed at the top of his [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Joseph UTP]. Otherwise, I go with a community ban. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 12:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' Too much for the first violation week is more then enough. --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 13:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) **{{replyto|Shrike}} Have you even read the thread? This is ''far'' from a first violation. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) **{{u|Shrike}}, if it gets to the point where there's already a TBAN in place, it's not the first violation. Since 2014 he already has nearly a month of blocks under his belt, including an indef for apparently calling somebody a terrorist, and another indef for a legal threat. Almost two weeks of that comes from the last year. — [[User:Frood|Frood]] <small>([[User talk:Frood|talk!]])</small> 18:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' Excessive overkill.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 14:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' Having looked at the interaction, I don't think any sanction is warrented. I essentially agree with Levivich. Sir Joseph has a right to oppose TonyBalloni's candidacy if he wants to and this was clearly venting. Sir Joseph should be warned to be more careful in the future.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 15:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) **{{replyto|Ermenrich}} Sir Joseph has a right to oppose TB's candidacy, he doesn't have a right to break his topic ban and, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, it would have been trivial to do the first without doing the second. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as a second choice per Brad, BMK, etc. <sup><small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 15:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as a second choice. Per all the evidence presented in the thread, this is just yet another instance of the exact same behaviour that has been exhibited every other time they've knowingly breached a restriction they're under. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support'''. I believe a siteban is over the top at this time. Perhaps a one-month block will give SJ leisure for reflexion on the things that have brought him to this pass. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 15:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC). *'''Support''' as second choice, as this isn't the first time this issue has arisen. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">[[User:Stwalkerster|stwalkerster]]</span> ([[User talk:Stwalkerster|talk]]) 16:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''': Regardless of SJ's presence on this website during that time. Far more proportionate response than an immediate site-ban; the punishment certainly fits the crime. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em"> — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]])</span> 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' SJ needs to take time off and understand the issue with the comment made and how it violates policy. It is apparent that SJ cannot stop themselves when it comes to this area (hence, the TBAN), but since it has already failed, the next step is to de-escalate the situation (an one-month block). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Despite some creative efforts to rationalize SJs behavior, this was a blatant violation of their topic ban. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 17:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support'''. It's gone on too long now. SJ needs to actually drop the stick, otherwise a CBAN is going to pass easily. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 17:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Appropriate escalating response to an obvious TBAN violation. One can hope that a cooling-off period will work to change behavior, but if it doesn't, a site ban remains an option. [[User:StonyBrook|StonyBrook]] ([[User talk:StonyBrook|talk]]) 21:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''', as last chance. SJ should be made aware that a Community ban will probably be on the table for him unless he seriously change his ways, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support'''. Standard remedy in response to a topic ban violation. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''', as a more-appropriate sanction at this time. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 23:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support'''An outright full on block is a bit much. This was the point made last time and a part of the consensus. The theory was that we could perform escalating blocks or bans for any violations. I would have suggested less than a month, but I can also see the fence testing that everyone else sees.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 00:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC) ::Not just fence testing after all. The evidence clearly shows that Sir Joseph sought out TonyBallioni and initiated his own violation and now not only claims innocence but he's a Victim. He was also claiming innocence and and that he's a victim in the post that started this. While the month should probably be shaved by half, in the event of a consensus the closing admin should perhaps also consider and indefinite block. An indefinite block until such time that Sir Joseph can show that he understands why his actions were inappropriate here and that he understands the sanctions placed.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 04:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''', a bit harsh for a first time violation of a T-ban. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 01:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as per proposer. [[User:HurricaneGeek2002|HurricaneGeek2002 ]] ([[User talk:HurricaneGeek2002|talk]]) 03:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *:<s>'''Oppose''' No. A <ins>month-long</ins> block at this point would be purely punitive, especially for a first time TBAN violation. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 04:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)</s> <small>(supporting instead) [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC) </small> :*Hi {{u|OhKayeSierra}}, just to clarify for you and {{u|GoodDay}} why I thought a 1 month block was appropriate here. If you examine SJ's block log, you'll see this would not be their first TBAN violation, just their first violation of ''this'' TBAN. In addition, given that this TBAN violation happened so quickly after the TBAN itself, it's clear that they need time to cool off, they are clearly upset about the situation as they see it. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 05:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Site ban for this particular instance is OTT but I don't think what happened falls within the usual latitude given for venting. Given the previous history a block of this length seems appropriate. [[User:Scribolt|Scribolt]] ([[User talk:Scribolt|talk]]) 06:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Disruption regarding the core problem has been ongoing for a long period and no clear understanding has been demonstrated even in this discussion. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Sir J clearly violated the t-ban. This isn't a last-straw situation, but it's clear there needs to be a response. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' per norm of escalation following TBAN violation. I'm not sure why this is controversial. [[User:WMSR|WMSR]] ([[User talk:WMSR|talk]]) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' but prefer the block were indefinite. Sir Joseph's retaliatory behaviour has been reprehensible, and we should have some assurances that it won't continue before they're allowed to edit again. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support''' <small> (switched from oppose above) </small> Reconsidered my original rationale. It's clear that {{u|Sir Joseph}} clearly and willingly violated the TBAN, and it's also clear that there's an ongoing history of tendentious editing and harassment, and a clear case of [[WP:IDHT|just not getting it]]. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' for a blatant violation, although I doubt their battleground attitude will be much different when they return. Should be an indef.-- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' per Brad and BMK - It's a blatant violation and the only person that started '''all''' of this was SJ ..... Clearly he's not understanding his topicban so having a months forced break might let the TBAN sink in..... –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per Levivich, but recommend an IBAN between Sir Joseph and TonyBallioni. There is clearly nothing positive that will ever come out of this, the two hate each other, it's time to just stop this entirely. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 00:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - clear violation, not first offense, and should be tried before site ban. [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 03:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *A '''1 month siteban''' might be effective in cooling down the situation, giving them time to re-assess their approach. And it makes clear what comes next.[[User:Lurking shadow|Lurking shadow]] ([[User talk:Lurking shadow|talk]]) 04:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Despite Levivich's opposition (which I read with great interest), the problem is that he was told by the community to stop discussing such topics. While I don't particularly agree with the previous TBAN, it seems clear to me that he knew where the line was and intentionally crossed it. I also think that TonyB was baiting SJ and his input/reference was unnecessary goading. Given previous blocks for other such failures, yep, 1 month makes sense. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 05:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} === Proposal: boomerang interaction ban === {{atop|Like the similar proposal that was closed last time, this isn't going anywhere and leaving it open will only lead to more drama. [[User:Money emoji |💵Money💵emoji💵]]<sup>[[User talk:Money emoji|Talk💸]][[User:Money emoji/CCI Sort|Help out at CCI!]]</sup> 20:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC) {{nac}}}} After [[Special:Diff/916891691|a 21 September 2019 support for CBAN]] by TonyBallioni against Sir Joseph failed (under a section TB had started), TonyBallioni again [[Special:Diff/919835466|on 6 October 2019 supports a CBAN]] against Sir Joseph (under a section TB had started). That's a difference of 15 days. I propose a one-way interaction ban between TonyBallioni and Sir Joseph in case the CBAN proposal fails again. I do not have an opinion on the exact situation here, but many editors do and I am seeing significant opposition in the above CBAN proposal. It will likely fail and in that case I am proposing something no one else probably would since Icewhiz has been blocked for having the audacity to fix a 15-year-old hoax. <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 08:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :{{ping|Wumbolo}} - for the record, Icewhiz was banned for because ArbCom said they {{tq|received convincing evidence that Icewhiz has engaged in off-wiki harassment of multiple editors}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 09:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as proposer. <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 08:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''': I don't see any reason to prohibit TonyBallioni from interacting with SJ. Tony did not initiate the interaction that led to this discussion. I should add that there is nothing wrong with supporting a CBAN. Are you suggesting that I should be 1-way IBANned also? I voted support in both the referenced proposals, too - and everyone else who has done the same? That seems pretty absurd to me. Or are you saying that someone bringing another editor to ANI to raise behavioral concerns (that have clearly disturbed multiple editors - enough to warrant a TBAN) is problematic? [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 08:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - {{u|Wumbolo}} - CBAN section is currently 8 supporting and 6 opposing. It is not an unreasonable proposal worth an interaction ban. Were it unreasonable, there would not be such support. Tony did not start this incident, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission#Comments about TonyBallioni]]. The [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#TonyBallioni - boomerang - desysop|previous boomerang proposal]] was effectively snow closed. Simply put there is no egregious activity by Tony warranting an interaction ban. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 08:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - Ludicrous [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 12:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' as I pointed out above, TB didn't start this, and his decision to vote in two CBAN discussions doesn't justify a one-way IBAN. [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 12:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''': No. Violation was clear. Tony didn't start it. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em"> — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]])</span> 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' I don't think this is how boomerangs work. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 17:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' SJ is a problematic editor with a significant block log and Tony is an excellent administrator who has done nothing wrong here. Tony should be keeping an eye on SJ. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 17:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Oppose''' but support a boomerang sanction against Wumbolo for this rather obvious bullshit. <b>[[user:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]])</small> 17:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' – while I think there were better ways for Tony to handle this than filing the two ANI reports, both reports were prompted by interactions that SJ, not Tony, initiated, so a one-way IBAN of Tony against SJ is not necessary or justified. But I '''strongly''' disagree with Cullen's statement above; TB shouldn't "keep an eye on" SJ; rather, both editors should keep their distance from each other. I actually think the kind of thinking that Cullen's statement expresses–that one editor should keep an eye on another editor–is very dangerous, and leads to all sorts of hounding-type issues (issues with which we are all familiar and have just dealt with extensively). <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 17:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' Tony has done nothing wrong here. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' per Cullen and Thryduulf. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 18:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' what Wumbolo failed to mention is that both threads arose after Sir Joseph went after Tony. That's an important detail. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 19:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) {{abot}} === Proposal: One way interaction ban enacted on Sir Joseph to leave TonyBallioni alone === {{archive top|Consensus exists for a one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] between Sir Joseph and TonyBallioni. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] [[User talk:Yunshui|<sup style="font-size:90%">雲</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|<sub style="font-size:90%">水</sub>]] 11:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)}} *Both this thread as well as the previous ANI thread about SJ were the result of SJ showing aggression toward TB. Re-posting part of what I posted before because diffs are no longer available due to oversighting, "Tony ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=916692090&oldid=916691078 had declined]'' the invitation to run for Arbcom more than 20 minutes before SJ [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&diff=916695119&oldid=916694785 decided to interject] into a thread with "criticism" where the issue was already resolved. He brought heat and no light because he cannot drop the stick. Logically, if Tony isn't going to run then there is no reason to butt in after the fact to explain why SJ thinks he wouldn't make a good candidate. ADMINACCT is for ''queries'' of admin actions but that wasn't what this was. There was no constructive criticism and the timing is badly off. What he did was tried to hijack a thread by butting in off topic as it had since become a discussion of other potential candidates. It was impulsive and part of a larger pattern of problems as exemplified by his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Sir_Joseph lengthy block log] to treat WP as a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]]." *What SJ tried to do this time was poison the well in the Electoral Commission selections and his motivation is clear. {{green|"I just don't want you to get selected to this commission without someone voicing disapproval."}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Electoral_Commission&type=revision&diff=919827538&oldid=919826688&diffmode=source#User%3ATonyBallioni diff]) It was more about vengeance than the suitability of the candidate. *SJ started both of these incidents and I think that a one-way interaction ban should be imposed to prevent this from happening again. Sir Joseph's very survival on Wikipedia counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin. *'''Support''' as proposer.<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 19:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' in spite of the truth of everything written above, SJ had the nerve to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=919830734 suggest] that Tony needs to leave him alone. Let that sink in. [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 19:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' – {{tq|SJ started both of these incidents and I think that a one-way interaction ban should be imposed to prevent this from happening again.}} I agree. SJ has been unfortunately "pursuing" TB and while I think the reactions to that have been mostly over-the-top, it's SJ who initiated both interactions, and it's causing disruption. (It's also distracting the community from actually tackling non-neutrality problems in Jewish-related articles.<sup>[''[[Euphemism]]'']</sup>) I would have hoped that SJ would have agreed to steer clear of TB voluntarily, but without that, an IBAN seems necessary and justified (though I continue to disagree with the TBAN, a CBAN, or block). <span style="white-space:nowrap;">– [[User:Levivich|Leviv]]<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">[[User Talk:Levivich|ich]]</span></span> 20:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''': Whether or not any other proposal passes, this one should. <span style="font-family: serif; letter-spacing: 0.1em"> — [[User:Javert2113|Javert2113]] ([[User talk:Javert2113|Siarad.]]|[[Special:Contributions/Javert2113|¤]])</span> 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' – What they said. [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 20:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' in conjunction with one month block. SJ is pretty consistently the antagonist in every interaction he has with TB. — [[User:Frood|Frood]] <small>([[User talk:Frood|talk!]])</small> 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Weak Oppose, per below''': SJ's problems don't appear to be limited to their actions surrounding TB. Berean Hunter even says "...the patience of the ''community'' is wearing thin" (emphasis added). This is affecting the community at large, and the comment that led us here was SJ taking a potshot towards the community at large, not just at Tony. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 21:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :*[[User:Waggie|Waggie]], this proposal is designed to accompany other sanctions above and not displace them. It isn't an either/or situation but an additional measure to be enacted and opposing does not elevate the support of other proposals above. They are not mutually exclusive. He needs to leave Tony alone.<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 22:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::*Thanks for replying, {{u|Berean Hunter}}. I modified my oppose, with the understanding that it would not exclude any other proposal here. I do agree he needs to leave Tony alone, but I still think that this goes well beyond their interaction with Tony and that a 1-way IBAN wouldn't really accomplish much on the whole. Sorry we don't entirely agree here, but I'm glad to discuss with you, regardless. It looks like I'm part of the minority, anyway, and that's fine with me, too. Best wishes! [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as necessary, in light of the above. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 00:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Under the circumstances this seems apt.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''', considering that SJ clearly sought TB out in order to denigrate him. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' per Levivich. I think that such an interaction ban would seriously help prevent future issues. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 02:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' Looking at SJ's contribs, I don't think this user should be touching the site for a while. [[User:HurricaneGeek2002|HurricaneGeek2002 ]] ([[User talk:HurricaneGeek2002|talk]]) 03:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Weak support''' I'm not too fond of one-way IBAN's (IMHO, they have a tendency to create more issues than they solve). In this instance, however, I don't see a better solution, and this is most likely the most effective way to curtail disruption. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 04:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC) * '''Support''' per [[User:HurricaneGeek2002|HurricaneGeek2002]] in case the one-month block proposal fails. Sir.Joseph has tied up enough of admin time on ANI. [[User:Lupin VII|Lupin VII]] ([[User talk:Lupin VII|talk]]) 16:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' because it is the right response, but I don't think it will help (generally per Waggie's comments). Sir Joseph seems to be putting everything else aside to pursue this vendetta against Tony, which is well into [[WP:HARASS|harassment]] territory. Whether we add another limited ban on top or not, this looks like it's going to be an indef block before Thanksgiving. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' as the only way short of an indef to get SJ to stop hounding TB.-- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support''' - Something tells me SJ's going to be sitebanned before he even gets to test the IBAN but either way this is better than nothing. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color:blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color:orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color:navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 21:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support'''. If the block fails to reach consensus this will be needed in very short order, if the block passes this will hopefully prevent the need for a follow up. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Support'''. [[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 02:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' SJ has a right to oppose an admin who initiated actions against him; I see no reason to disallow that and the community should be able to distinguish consensus. I support a 1 month block for his TBAN violation. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 05:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} {{archive bottom}} == Potential conduct issues with [[User:Simmerdon3448]] == At [[2018 in American television]], I had reverted an edit by an IP editor ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_in_American_television&diff=919759213&oldid=919688752]) for unsourced content pertaining to the show [[Pig Goat Banana Cricket]] ending. Simmerdon3448 then proceeded to re-add the information ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_in_American_television&diff=919825438&oldid=919770539]) citing a [[Twitter]] user as a source. Per [[WP:RSP]], Twitter is classified as a generally unreliable source - in this case, it was exacerbated by the account not being verified nor being a subject-matter expert. Two reverts later, Simmerdon re-added the information '''without a source''' ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_in_American_television&diff=prev&oldid=919841129]). It was at this point that he started taking on a passive-aggressive nature when confronted about the reliability of their sources. Later on, at [[2019 in American television]], they added that [[Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]] was moving from [[Nickelodeon]] to [[Nicktoons]], citing a [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright-infringing]] [[YouTube]] upload of a promo ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_in_American_television&diff=prev&oldid=919841839]). After I reverted the edit, he restored it and said that "You can’t call everything you don’t like as 'unreliable'" - it's not that I "don't like" the source, it's that the source was violating Wikipedia policy. Once more, after the second revert, he reinstated it without a source ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_in_American_television&diff=prev&oldid=919844970]). He later reverted me a fourth time, passive-aggressively saying "You’re LUCKY that Nick Animation’s Director of Current Series and Development is so active on Twitter that they were able to clarify this" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_in_American_television&diff=prev&oldid=919846322]). Additionally, there is currently a talk page discussion on [[Talk:2018 in American television]] regarding the citations for PGBC - I feel like it's self-explanatory once you delve into it. Honestly, I feel like Simmerdon3488 does not have the emotional stability or competence required to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. He brushed aside my legitimate concerns about the reliability of his sources as me "not liking them", even though I cited Wikipedia policy in my statements, and when confronted about it, he acts in a passive-aggressive manner. Should any disciplinary action be taken? [[User:The Grand Delusion|<span style="color:#6600ff;">The</span> <span style="color:#6666ff;">Grand</span> <span style="color:#6699ff;">Delusion</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:The Grand Delusion|Send a message]])</sup> 05:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::What makes it appropriate exactly to question my competence and claim I’m not a positive contributor ''without ever looking at my contributions''? You have come at me with hostility, I try to calm you down and you think it’s okay to report me to admins just because you disagree? Even when I did the work to actually find a source that meets your standards, you still mark it as a demerit. How am I ever supposed to get along with anyone if you’re going to paint me in such a negative and biased light?--[[User:Simmerdon3448|Simmerdon3448]] ([[User talk:Simmerdon3448|talk]]) 05:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::{{ping|Simmerdon3448}} - when you're in a hole, don't keep digging. Acknowledging your errors and trying to avoid them in the future is an alternative. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 05:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::What hole? Why am I the only one who’s made errors? Why is it that I’m the only one being judged? Because he reported me to a place I had no idea about and only learned about after he reported me?--[[User:Simmerdon3448|Simmerdon3448]] ([[User talk:Simmerdon3448|talk]]) 05:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::{{ping|Simmerdon3448}} - [[Whataboutism]] will not save you. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::There are no examples of Whataboutism in my argument. Please don’t disrespect me like that--[[User:Simmerdon3448|Simmerdon3448]] ([[User talk:Simmerdon3448|talk]]) 05:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::Well, restoring and edit warring over unsourced content isn't exactly a good way to be constructive on Wikipedia. Surely you realize that? I spent quite literally thirty seconds looking at your contribs and see several such instances. You should, before anything else, acknowledge that this is a violation of [[WP:V]]. Arguing in edit summaries that consensus is needed to remove unsourced content is absurd, WP:V is a policy. The Grand Delusion may not be faultless here, but if you fail to understand WP:V and why it's important, you're really going to be fighting an uphill battle here. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 05:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::{{ping|Simmerdon3448}} - you asked {{tq|Why am I '''the only one''' who’s made errors? Why is it that I’m '''the only one''' being judged?}} That's pointing to other users - a form of whataboutism. That also avoiding self-reflection of your own issues. From the diffs above, it seems like you need to read [[WP:VNT]] and [[WP:RS]]. Reliable sources can be found at [[WP:RSP]] or search [[WP:RSN]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 05:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::I already had. The thing is, I’m not the only one at fault here. I made mistakes, but that doesn’t mean nobody else did, and no, that’s not a Whataboutism argument, that’s asking you to assess a situation fairly and not just go after the reported person just because they were reported to be bad--[[User:Simmerdon3448|Simmerdon3448]] ([[User talk:Simmerdon3448|talk]]) 06:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC) {{od}} "I already had." Oh really? The edit you made *right* before coming here was {{diff||prev|919848269|this}}, reverting The Grand Delusion to restore unsourced content. Come on, just relax, learn from your mistake, and we can all move on. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 06:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :Tell me, was I not supposed to restore the content that was the focus of a “More citations needed” template at the top of the page? The mistake was removing the content instead of doing what the template suggests. I even ''did'' add a source for one of the items, which means it was then reverted back ''in spite of it''. Framing every single one of my actions as a demerit against me when it was one step in a process is really the wrong stance to take--[[User:Simmerdon3448|Simmerdon3448]] ([[User talk:Simmerdon3448|talk]]) 06:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::[[WP:V]], as policy, takes precedence over guidelines and maintenance tags by a long way. So to answer your question, no, you were not supposed to restore the challenged and unsourced content, period. That was a pretty big mistake on Wikipedia. Just acknowledge that and move on. As I said, The Grand Delusion may not be faultless here, either, but your refusal to accept constructive criticism is completely overshadowing that right now. I've only referred to your re-adding unsourced content, that's not "[f]raming every single one of [your] actions as a demerit." Being offered constructive criticism does not imply a "demerit". Simply not understanding policy is not a "demerit". Refusing to acknowledge that constructive criticism ''is'' a demerit and continuing to not acknowledge it could lead to sanctions - we take WP:V violations very seriously. Please listen and learn, I'm really trying to help you here. Thank you and best wishes! [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 06:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::I would like to add that at [[2015 in American television]], Simmerdon reinstated unsourced content that I removed ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_in_American_television&diff=919902121&oldid=919900491]), saying "You can’t do that just because you’re done. This is a community project". Apparently he has the audacity to make a backhanded accusation of [[WP:OWN]] against me, when I'm just following [[WP:V]]. [[User:The Grand Delusion|<span style="color:#6600ff;">The</span> <span style="color:#6666ff;">Grand</span> <span style="color:#6699ff;">Delusion</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:The Grand Delusion|Send a message]])</sup> 14:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :I too have had issues with the user, and can support a report against their conduct behaviour. They have constantly reverted my edits across three articles ([[Change Your Mind (Steven Universe)]], [[Steven Universe]] and [[Steven Universe: The Movie]]), and when presented with a discussion (see [[Talk:Steven Universe#End date]]) and reliable sources that support the edits that I made (and when they reverted these edits, I reverted them in response, but later had to cease to make the edits to prevent an edit-war with them), they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Universe:_The_Movie&diff=prev&oldid=919732323 based] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919732733&oldid=919732247 their] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919734713&oldid=919734478 edits] solely upon the contents of other articles instead of any guideline or policy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919732733&oldid=919732247 created fabricated claims], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919733068&oldid=919732935 "shouted"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919735344&oldid=919734996 feigned ignorance] after being presented with a source (after which I had to repeat myself and the source), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919735655&oldid=919735441 misinterpreted] the source and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919741536&oldid=919738276 claimed] ''I'' misinterpreted what they said when I corrected them and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Universe&diff=919847344&oldid=919842249 tried to dodge] the subject of the source's comment. :I understand that the editor in question may want to contribute to the site and edit articles, but they need to understand that the articles are not theirs to command and control, and their edits may come into question and when they do, they have to act collaboratively, not edit-war and discuss civilly. This is only proved further above when they only responded with "what about" replies, instead of focusing on their conduct issue, which has now been comments upon by multiple editors. Unfortunately, my response will undoubtedly be responded to by the reported editor with something along the lines of "what about you" and "you did this" and "I didn't". -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/[[User:Alex 21|<span style="color:#008">Alex</span>]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|<sub style="color:#008">21</sub>]]''</span> 13:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *Not to close this out but just wanted to mention that both [[User:The Grand Delusion|The Grand Delusion]] and [[User:Simmerdon3448|Simmerdon3448]] have received short blocks for edit-warring from NinjaRobotPirate. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 16:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Looks like some related ban evasion may be happening [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_in_American_television&action=history here]. Would an admin please care to take a look and handle appropriately? [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 21:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) : Article briefly semi-protected. I doubt it's block evasion, though. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 00:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC) I was apart of the dispute that was going on at the Steven Universe page, and I'm disappointed that this is what it's come to. [[User:HurricaneGeek2002|HurricaneGeek2002 ]] ([[User talk:HurricaneGeek2002|talk]]) 03:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC) '''Re-opening:''' Simmerdon continues to refuse to accept responsibility for his behavior, and it has become apparent that he has no intention of ever changing - see [[User talk:Simmerdon3448#Ok then]]. [[User:The Grand Delusion|<span style="color:#6600ff;">The</span> <span style="color:#6666ff;">Grand</span> <span style="color:#6699ff;">Delusion</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:The Grand Delusion|Send a message]])</sup> 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC) : Users are allowed to engage in [[thoughtcrime]]. If it moves into ''actual'' disruption, the editor will be blocked again. Please don't report users for engaging in thoughtcrime. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 20:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC) == Editor altering Content assessment importance values at a fast clip == {{user|GeneralPoxter}} (reg. 2017; 684 edits) has altered the "importance" [[WP:ASSESS|value assessment]] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=GeneralPoxter&namespace=1&tagfilter=&start=2019-10-03&end=2019-10-05&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions about 75 articles in the last couple of days]. I've dropped them a note about it, and will add a template to advise of this notice shortly. As of this moment, it's every Talk page article from now back to [[Special:diff/919406828|this edit]] of 15:36, October 3. I haven't examined every single one, but the ones marked "+15" that I spot-checked, are all the same, and all add "importance=low" to a WikiProject template. Noting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#New IP editor altering Content assessment importance values at a fast clip|this similar discussion from Archive 1016]], and pinging {{re|NinjaRobotPirate}} who acted in that case. In the meanwhile, is there a bot that can be run to remove these? Thanks, [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 06:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC) : I'm pretty sure this is unrelated to the previous case. As long as people don't engage in outright trolling or vandalism, I don't generally consider it a big deal if people want to reassess articles. If they do a very poor job of it and refuse to stop, the community could topic ban them, though. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 06:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :: Thanks. My sense from looking at [[Wikipedia:Content assessment]] Project is that assessment is a more deliberate process and requires some experience at the encyclopedia before taking it on, but perhaps I'm mistaken. As GeneralPoxter is relatively inexperienced, and appeared to be assessing rapidly, and constantly assigning the same assessment ("low") with no apparent rationale, it looks like it's not well thought out. My first inclination would be to revert all of them, but I'd prefer to hear from some members of the Content Assessment team, to see what they think about it, and also from the editor, to find out what {{their|GeneralPoxter}} intent is or was, as none of these edits have an edit summary. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 08:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::I'm wondering if [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assessing_articles&action=history&offset=20190906000000&dir=prev these edits] should be retained or reverted. There are some quite substantial changes to [[Wikipedia:Assessing articles]] there, one of which I reverted because it seemed to be stating that MILHIST's grading scheme was the standard to follow, rather than being noted as a tolerated anomaly. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 19:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::::I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as an anomaly; MILHIST has rating-sharing agreements with other projects, including Australia, Aviation, Colours, Ships and Spaceflight. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :I looked at several of GeneralPoxter's edits linked at the top. All were ''adding'' an importance rating where there was none before to poetry articles, and doing nothing else. This can certainly be done very quickly with ''subject'' knowledge, which I rather think he has - importance is a rating of the subject, not the article, and it isn't strictly necessary to look at the article at all. By no means all were "low". I saw several "mids", some possibly a tad generous, but all for more than averagely important subjects. The great majority of ratings should be "low" - over-rating is the usual problem here. Frankly his edits are a great improvement on the typical mass-rater, who shows no sign of subject knowledge, and rates quality only on length. Since in practice importance ratings below "high" have virtually no effect on anything, the main question is whether he realizes he is wasting his time. As to the different editors at [[Wikipedia:Assessing articles]], I'd be inclined to revert back hard. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::Agreed. This sort of assessment can easily be done very quickly by an experienced editor. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::: The issue raised by [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] concerning possible reverts at [[Wikipedia:Assessing articles]] <small>(unfortunate shortcut, there)</small> seems like a separate issue, unrelated with GeneralPoxter's edits. ::: I must've missed the "mids", because I merely spot-checked a few that all seemed the same. GeneralPoxter has a Poetry userbox on {{their|GeneralPoxter}} user page, so maybe there is domain knowledge there. In {{their|GeneralPoxter}} last 500 mainspace edits, I see a lot of music and art, some military, a bit of sports, no poetry that I can tell— but that's also easy to miss, especially if the edit summary doesn't offer a clue. ::: OTOH, as far as who does assessment of importance and how, what I see [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic|here]] is this: :::: {{xt|This is judged using both manual assessment by a WikiProject member, and "external interest" judged by [[Help:What_links_here|links-in]], [[Wikipedia:InterWikimedia_links|interwiki links]] and number of hits. For more details, and the formula used to balance these parameters, see [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot]].}} ::: That seems a bit more than just subject knowledge without a look at the article; but I admit to being unfamiliar with the assessment project, so perhaps I'm reading it wrong. In any case, doesn't seem like any action is needed here. If there's nothing else, I'm content to let this be archived. Thanks for the feedback. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 02:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC) ::::I think I'm right in saying that the Version 1.0 Editorial Team (who you quote) is a wholly separate process from Wikiproject ratings, and now a completed process. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 04:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC) ::::: That could well be; I don't see any recent edits there. I followed the links from Content Assessment <small>(from the first sentence)</small> and ended up there; maybe the CA page needs their links updated. Not sure if there's a "Version 2.0" page somewhere that should be linked instead, or where the instructions for assessing "importance" might be, if that's not the right one anymore. The [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|parent page]] does have edits from yesterday, however. If that's the current project, would be good to tighten up the project pages, and give some clearer guidance on how this is all supposed to work, and by whom; and maybe archive or mark "obsolete" any pages that aren't relevant now. The whole thing seems a bit fuzzy. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 04:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC) == Daily cross wiki harassment == {{archive top|1=[[Special:Contributions/85.85.0.0/18|85.85.0.0/18]] and [[Special:Contributions/83.213.200.0/22|83.213.200.0/22]] blocked for 2 weeks by {{noping|Berean Hunter}}. --[[User:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.213.202.229 83.213.202.229] [[WP:LTA]] Multi IP handler again into cross wiki harassment. He/she does not really like me. [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/83.213.202.229 Fresh block in es:wiki] and again just moved here to engage into [[WP:NOTHERE]]. See previous reports on these IPs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.85.56.126 85.85.56.126] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.85.59.70 85.85.59.70] & [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.85.58.215 85.85.58.215] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.84.112.122 85.84.112.122].--Asqueladd ([[User talk:Asqueladd|talk]]) 12:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC) : IP blocked, all edits reverted. We might need a long-term range block here.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 12:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::I've blocked [[Special:Contributions/85.85.0.0/18|85.85.0.0/18]] and [[Special:Contributions/83.213.200.0/22|83.213.200.0/22]]. The blocks are not that long considering this person has been at this with Asqueladd for [[Special:Contributions/83.213.200.27|some time]]. I did not block the range for 85.84.112.122 as it has not been used heavily.<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 15:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} == Paid editing == [[Taras Dron]] article is shown in the portfolio of the company that proposes writing articles for money. Please help to put appropriate template. [https://www.wikibusiness.com.ua see the article PrintScreen in the page bottom]--[[User:Anntinomy|Anntinomy]] ([[User talk:Anntinomy|talk]]) 19:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *Machine-translated from the article on the [https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%8C_%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Ukrainian WP]... - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 19:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :* And [[Special:Contributions/Ласті|the creator]] of the article was blocked last March as part of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazyalien|'''this''']] sock farm. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 19:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::* And [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%96 '''here's a list'''] of other articles created by the same user (including one that was deleted, but has since been recreated...). - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 19:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::*Hit a few articles with {{tl|UPE}}. Can anyone identify the articles on the website to see if (1) they're telling the truth, and (2) we've tagged them as spam? [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 19:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC) ::*I have nominated one of their creations, [[Allset]], for speedy deletion per CSD G4 since it is a recreation of an article that had previously been deleted at AfD. - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC) *The company claims (on their web site) to have created 224 WP articles, and "protected 72 articles from being removed", most probably by using multiple socks at AfD. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazyalien]] could give a clue to how many articles they have created here on en-WP (the sock that created [[Taras Dron]] created a total of 10 articles here, and there are many more socks listed in the SPI...). - '''Tom''' | [[User:Thomas.W|Thomas.W]] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 20:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC) * I would have AfDed the article, since the sources are shaky at best, but I have already so many times been accused recently in being anti-Ukrainian editor and even in using my admin bit in promoting anti-Ukrainian interest that I will give it a bye this time.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) * See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub]] for a new listing of accounts.<br /> — [[User:Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">Berean Hunter</span>]] [[User talk :Berean Hunter|<span style="font-family:High Tower Text;color:#0000ff;font-weight:900;">(talk)</span>]] 22:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC) == CS1 error - Italic or bold markup not allowed in publisher == Seem to be a lot of red <nowiki>Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=</nowiki> CS1 errors appeared ... has someone done a change ? I'm colour defective so I don't notice this stuff so good on some screens. Could be me being stupid. Thanks. [[User:Djm-leighpark|Djm-leighpark]] ([[User talk:Djm-leighpark|talk]]) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC) : This isn't the place for this, but the issue is that you shouldn't use italics with the {{code|publisher}} parameter – that's what the {{code|website}} or {{code|work}} parameter is for (they italicize automatically...). --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 20:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :: @{{U|IJBall}} thankyou for that information, I wa really seeking if a change had been made than the fixing of content that may or may not have been my doings, though in the use case I first seen it was mostly likely mine (Walt Disney World News) but it other examples I suspect not. I might raise at the village pump. Thankyou.[[User:Djm-leighpark|Djm-leighpark]] ([[User talk:Djm-leighpark|talk]]) 21:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC) :::{{yo|Djm-leighpark}} markup is indeed not allowed in the publisher parameter, there was an extensive discussion about it here recently and may still be ongoing at [[Help talk:CS1]]. The rule of thumb is if you want that information to be in italics, do not use {{para|publisher}} but one of the periodical paramaters ({{para|journal}}, {{para|newspaper}}, {{para|website}}, etc.). [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC) == Request to re-open RfC == {{archive top|There is consensus that [[WP:AN]] is the proper venue at which to challenge RfC closures, and this issue has now been raised on that board. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 01:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)}} An RfC was recently closed assessing consensus. The close has been discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Closed?]] and there seems rough consensus there that the close is unsafe (but I am involved in that discussion). I have requested that the closer re-open the RfC [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Gnome&diff=919265275&oldid=918391925] but they have not responded. But the close is now being cited ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music&diff=919767846&oldid=919696024 example]) as establishing a new guideline. I am therefore requesting that the RfC be re-opened by an uninvolved admin, to be closed in due course again by an uninvolved admin. There is no suggestion of behavioural problems. It is just honest disagreement. I have informed the involved editors of this discussion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dicklyon&diff=prev&oldid=919964418] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Gnome&diff=prev&oldid=919964520] [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC) :Why is this naming dispute at ANI? Why not just start a new RFC? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC) ::This is not a naming dispute. It is of course relevant to some recent moves in which you are involved, in that you have cited the RfC to justify them, and if the close is reverted then these will of course need to be reviewed in the light of that... as another editor has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music&diff=919696024&oldid=919463290 already pointed out to you]. ::A new RfC would be borderline [[wp:disruption|disruption]] IMO if the disputed close is OK. But if the close is not OK, and if that new RfC closed as ''no consensus'' then it would mean that in practice the bad close was affirmed. And either way that's not a good process! ::So if there was in fact no consensus in the RfC and the close was in error, as I and others believe, then the first step is for the close to be reverted. There have been discussions at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Reopening an RfC]] and elsewhere as to how this should be requested, and the result of those discussions is this request. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 05:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC) * This thread is on the wrong page. RfC close challenges are entertained and resolve at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. —[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC) **Happy to move it there, as was initially suggested. I actually began to raise it there, following discussion at wt:RfC, but as described there I then saw the edit notice at WP:AN which reads in part ''If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you.'' So I cancelled the edit and came here instead, because it seemed to me that this was a ''specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator)''. Happy to go with consensus here, and if no other opinions I'll take your word for it. But there must be '''some''' way of requesting a review of an RfC close, and I'm of the opinion that the good folk at WP:AN would be well within their rights in sending it back here. I could be wrong. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 08:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC) **:{{ping|Andrewa}} this board says at the top that it is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which the "The" disambiguator issue doesn't seem to fall under, except insofar as pages still seem to being actively moved by one or two editors. I don't really know what the procedure for challenging RFCs... not sure there even is one, [[WP:RFC]] is silent on the matter. But it seems like enough people have now said the RFC in question should have been no consensus, and RMs attempting to implement it have not achieved consensus to move. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC) ::::There is a procedure: [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]]. But it is vague. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions#Appeals this essay] WP:AN is one appropriate board. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 15:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC) :::If you believe the RfC closure should be edited or overturned, then you should post at AN: the history is at [[WP:AN#Closure review archive]]. I think CLOSECHALLENGE is actually pretty explicit on this: it's in the section [[WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures|Challenging other closures]]. You would post here if you were asking for a review of editorial behavior relating to the close. (And as you have noted, a new RfC would not normally be appropriate, unless e.g. you aren't challenging the previous result but you believe that consensus may have changed.) [[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i> 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC) OK, thanks to all who have participated. I'll try WP:AN. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 21:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC) :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=920137133&oldid=920100000 Done]. :I request that this thread be closed and archived, so I can point the new request to the archived version. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 21:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC) {{archive-bottom}} == Nonsense from Malaysian IP continues == Update regarding [[#Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans]]: * {{IPvandal|2001:D08::0/34}} * List of seven relevant /40 ranges is at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans]] [[Special:Diff/920192220|This]] post, mocking {{u|Gundam5447}}, is really something. I think we should do as they ask so we can devote the time spent mopping up after them to more useful endeavors. {{Smiley|frown}} <span style="color:red">—[</span>[[User:AlanM1|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">Alan</span><span style="color:blue">M</span><span style="color:purple">1</span>]]([[User talk:AlanM1#top|talk]])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 11:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC) == HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld and ENGVAR == *{{userlinks|HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld}} [[User:HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld|HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld]] was edit-warring at [[Kaliningrad]] trying to impose British English here (the article is written in American English). I reverted them a couple of times, saying that since Kaliningrad has no relation to any variety of English, the consistency argument, that all articles on Russian localities are written inAmerican english (for the reason I am completely ignorant of) takes precedent. They opened a discussion at the talk page, did not get support, but still claimed to have obtained consensus for British English [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld&diff=918240433&oldid=918160323], and continued reverting me. I went to [[WP:3RRN]], and on 28 September [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] blocked them for edit-warring for 72 hours [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld&diff=918410797&oldid=918299461]. They also remarked that the ENGVAR issues are a concern and have been going for quite some time, and they continued to impose their variety of Engish even as others disagree [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld&diff=918299461&oldid=918247129]. HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld|HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld never accepted that, they think this was a bad block, and that I am bullying them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld&type=revision&diff=919398020&oldid=918410797] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaliningrad&diff=prev&oldid=920227511]. Today, they returned to editing and edited a number of articles imposing British English, including [[Tver]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tver&diff=prev&oldid=920230385] (where they have previously made the same edit) and [[Leo Tolstoy]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_Tolstoy&diff=prev&oldid=920229408]. Whereas I am in principle prepared to discuss ENGVAR, and it should be done not just article by article, but for large groups such as all Russian localities, this guerilla edit-warring is really annoying and we have to stop this. I am afraid topic-ban would be the best way to stop the edit-warring, but may be someone has better ideas.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 13:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :I would be inclined to block for a week for immediately resuming the same problematic behaviour following a 3 day block. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">[[User:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish</u>]]+[[User_talk:Fish and karate|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate</u>]]</u> 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::A block seems wise, perhaps indef. Judging from both the username they have chosen and the pattern of edits, I don't think they are here to help the encyclopedia. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Immediately resuming disruptive behaviour which got you blocked less than a week ago merits an indef and assuring the community that the behaviour will not continue before they are unblocked. Any admin is welcome to do so if such an explanation is forthcoming. I will post a note on the user's talk page momentarily. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC) *<small>Heck of a username there, I must admit.--[[User:WaltCip|WaltCip]] ([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]]) 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)</small> :: ''Agree'' Totally with [[User:WaltCip]]. That's ''way'' too long of a username, perhaps a name change should be done as well. [[User:Wekeepwhatwekill|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">'''Necromonger...'''</span>]][[User_talk:Wekeepwhatwekill|<span style=";text-shadow:Grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">''We keep what we kill'']]</span> 20:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::: To be fair, it's named after [[A Huge Ever Growing Pulsating Brain That Rules from the Centre of the Ultraworld|an article]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::::After a ''song''--a really, really good one. ''The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld'' is still on regular rotation in my household. I see now that I noticed this user before. Good name! [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :::::... ''purple and red and yellow and on fire''... I [[WP:YOUTUBE| looked to see if there was a YouTube video that wasn't a copyright violation to link here, and couldn't find one]]. For the record: please remember to not [[WP:COPYVIOEL|link to media that is a copyright violation]]. --[[User:Shirt58|Shirt58]] ([[User talk:Shirt58|talk]]) 10:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC) == [[User:Pilose399]] == [[WP:SPA]] and probable [[WP:COI]] editor on [[Judge Rotenberg Educational Center]]. The user is whitewashing the facility's human rights violations. Most of this user's edits are reverts and he has never discussed on the talk page. --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 17:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :This is clearly slow-motion edit warring from Pilose399 and, unless there's some compelling answer he gives here, given the lack of effort to discuss I think an indefinite block is in order; indefinite in this case would mean until he agrees to discuss these edits on the talkpage. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 17:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC) == Open proxy == *{{IPvandal|89.248.248.2}} – On <s>{{No redirect|:Joshua Wong}}</s> {{No redirect|:Anti-mask law}}: account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. I know the IP is blocked, but it should be blocked for at least one year, since it fails [[WP:PROXY]]. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 20:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :* As a better idea, since there are likely to be many proxy issues here, I have semi-protected [[Anti-mask law]] for a month. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :*I agree that it is an open proxy and should have been blocked on that basis alone, although I personally don't normally block open proxies for as long as a year unless there have been previous blocks. I should probably just go ahead and block, but I would feel more comfortable given my existing 48h block for "vandalism" (which probably should have been for disruption or some other weasely basis) if another admin did so. For one thing, we have a very belligerent IP on our hands at the moment. In addition, I don't think things will improve after the 48h block expires.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC) ::*I'm happy to block the proxy (it's somehow related to https://vpn.hkfree.org (not related to Hong Kong) but I've no need to confirm more than that). There is a complication in policy I should point out - a proxy block in cases like this is not aimed at the user, so even if I block the IP for a year the 48 hour block will stand for the user, unless someone lets them know otherwise. Thus it'll just be shifting the problem down the line. I will add a note to the unblock request, but not formally respond to it. On a side note, this is all very sockish. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 21:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :::*Late arriving comment, but this appears to be sockpuppet of {{User summary|Claíomh Solais}}. ::::During my previous research [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Suspected_use_of_117.54.250.2_by_banned_user here], I noticed an pattern of long-term abuse. ::::In addition to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Claíomh_Solais/Archive|these]], there is also [[Special:Contributions/1.0.186.79|this]] and [[Special:Contributions/80.111.44.144|this]]. ::::I don't have time right now to go into detail on all my observations, let alone set up a proper [[WP:LTA]] file. But in addition to the unusual topic overlap shown between the above accounts, also look for frequent and aggressive edit-warring and reference, usually in a manner that misrepresents the actual policy, of WP:BRD and WP:WIKIHOUNDING among others in edit summaries. Given another 48 hours I may find the time to give more details if requested, but I'm sure there are others more qualified than I to dealing with this situation. ::::Also pingbacks are probably useless as this is a dynamic IP, best to all. [[Special:Contributions/2601:5CC:8301:FD00:F1AF:15FB:104:4B6C|2601:5CC:8301:FD00:F1AF:15FB:104:4B6C]] ([[User talk:2601:5CC:8301:FD00:F1AF:15FB:104:4B6C|talk]]) 01:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC) == User:Bankster edit wars over terminology == {{userlinks|Bankster}} This user has had a recent pattern of engaging in changes in terminology on television channel articles that contradict regional terminology (particularly, using "[[pay television]]" as a catch-all term to denote any channel not carried FTA - despite the term being synonymous with "premium" services, e.g. [[HBO]]). There has been consensus against the changes among other users, as they, as mentioned, do not align with the terminology used in their respective broadcast areas. Bankster performs little meaningful communication with other editors regarding said edits, often not using edit summaries on their reversions. Though at one point they admitted to me on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ViperSnake151&diff=prev&oldid=913608869 my talk page] that this was an effort to "standardise" these terms across all articles. On October 4, Bankster had been given a 72-hour block for edit warring of this nature on [[Freeform (TV channel)]] (generally the U.S. uses the term "basic cable" or just "cable channel" to refer to channels of this nature, and services such as HBO actually ''are'' pay television or premium television). On October 6, a second user, {{user|Goliathmob}}, performed a similar edit to Freeform's article using "subscription television" this time, but linked to [[multichannel television]]. Which is a bit more reasonable but not quite, as you usually don't have a choice to subscribe to individual channels. They're usually forced upon you in packages and tiers). Goliathmob was given a checkuser block as a sockpuppet of [[User:Architect 134]]. On October 8 in their first edit after being unblocked, Bankster [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freeform_(TV_channel)&oldid=920267569 reverted an IP's reversion of Goliathmob's change of "basic cable" to "subscription television".] Do you think we need to take a further look at this? <span style="border:1px solid #445A38;padding:1px;">[[User:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#8f5902">ViperSnake151</span>]] [[User_talk:ViperSnake151|<span style="color:#fff;background:#88A976;"> Talk </span>]] </span> 22:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC) :{{Non-admin comment|admin}} If it's edit warring, make a proper report (see [[HELP:DIFF]] at [[WP:3RRN]]. It doesn't have to break 3RR to be edit warring or to be reported there. If its resumed edit warring as soon as the block expires point that out too and mention [[WP:Gaming the system]]. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 00:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC) *Blocked indef. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 02:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC) ::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BET_Her&diff=prev&oldid=919148199 edit on] [[BET Her]] where they switched the term "African-American" to "Black American" was definitely an example of them thinking their opinion meant more than the local vernacular. They never responded to any of my talk concerns brought up several times on their talk page, so this and the socking makes this a good block. I'm really getting worn out by editors who think being a mime and not using talk pages works here. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:Mrschimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:Mrschimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 05:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC) == New editor of to a bad start == {{Resolved}} Could I get someone to try and get [[User:GrandLucky]] talking. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GrandLucky As seen here] they are hard pressed to remove maintenance tags from an article ([[Mexico]]). I have tried to engage the editor ...but to no avail. I see [[User:Muboshgu]] has also tried to talk to them with zero reply yesterday. Should we nip this in the butt or get them talking?--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User_talk:Moxy|Moxy]]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 04:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC) : [[Wikipedia:Competence is required|Competence is required]], and this user isn't demonstrating it. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 04:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC) ::I've left the user a uw-3rr warning. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 04:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :::No luck they are now reverting other reverts on other pages with zero attempt of real communication.--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User_talk:Moxy|Moxy]]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 04:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC) ::::Blocked for 36 hours. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 05:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::Wonderful fast response. .....thank you !!--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User_talk:Moxy|Moxy]]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 05:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :::::Thank you! – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC) *Now blocked indefinitely as a sock.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC) == [[WP:NOTHERE]] by 68.198.161.155 == {{user links|68.198.161.155}} I'm not even fully sure what to do with this, but this ip editor does not appear to [[WP:NOTHERE|be here to build an encyclopedia]]. If they are, they certainly are unable to adopt a [[WP:NPOV]]. Looking at the IP editor's block log, edit summaries, and filter log, they have a history of [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. While I gave them a level-3 warning just now, I think that the editing history strongly suggests this is one individual who, having received multiple warnings and one block, does not need a repeat of escalating warnings before a block. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :Blocked for one week. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 04:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :: Appears to be a sock of indefinitely blocked user {{U|Jb3842}}. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Jb3842 this previous discussion] (pinging {{ping|Tgeorgescu}} and {{ping|DMacks}}) [[User:Dorsetonian|Dorsetonian]] ([[User talk:Dorsetonian|talk]]) 06:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC) == Please restore the stable version of [[MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis]] == The stable version was damaged by recent deletions of highly relevant information as if it was unreliable. The motives seem to be personal and the abusers are not inclined to discuss. I think that the version before 2019 must be restored and the page must be protected from hypocracy. [[Special:Contributions/90.154.70.193|90.154.70.193]] ([[User talk:90.154.70.193|talk]]) 12:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :[[Talk:MacCullagh ellipsoid]] is empty. It's therefore very difficult to conclude "not inclined to discuss" unless we're referring to everyone including you. No one seems to have tried. Further, in terms of the editing of the article, this edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MacCullagh_ellipsoid&diff=920286724&oldid=920272182] is completely useless since it calls edits [[WP:vandalism]] which clearly weren't so we have no idea why that edit was made. These edit summaries [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MacCullagh_ellipsoid&diff=920272182&oldid=920136006] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MacCullagh_ellipsoid&diff=920288472&oldid=920286724] by comparison given policy based reasons for the changes, which aren't so obviously wrong. (To be clear, I'm not saying those links weren't RS. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. They aren't so clearly RS to made the edit summary obviously flawed. Disagreements about whether or not those videos are RS can be discussed somewhere appropriate. By comparison, it's trivial to see that those edits weren't vandalism. They were clearly a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia whether or not they did.) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC) == [[Vitas Varnas]] == * {{userlinks| Danozzz}} * {{userlinks| 202.76.176.30}} * {{userlinks| 115.187.131.141}} * {{userlinks| 115.187.131.157}} Danozzz and multiple IPs are edit warring at [[Vitas Varnas]] and across multiple other articles, with multiple reports at [[WP:AIV]]. The IPs appear to have concluded that Danozzz is a promotional (self-promotional?) account whose purpose here is to promote a non-notable individual. I think they might have a point. Perhaps some admins can have a look and see if page protection and/or blocks are needed here. Thanks. [[User:PCock|Peacock]] ([[User talk:PCock|talk]]) 12:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC) : The IP users shouldn't be edit warring, but Danozzz seems to be spamming this person's name into as many articles as possible. I've indefinitely blocked pending an explanation and possible COI declaration. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 12:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC) :Is the subject of the BLP notable enough for a page? Though there are lots of references in the article, the sourcing seems weak at best. [[User:PCock|Peacock]] ([[User talk:PCock|talk]]) 13:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC) == IP editing other user's sandboxes == * {{userlinks|111.217.48.20}} Not sure what is going on here, but this IP editor has been editing several logged-in users' sandboxes in their user space, one of whom ([[User:JCC the Alternate Historian]]) has already complained about this (rather theatrically) on the IP's talk page. The sandboxes they edit all contain content about 'alternate history' so there's a good chance it's some kind of alternate history roleplay thing and thus a waste of everyone's time, but either way I figured I should bring this to your attention. [[User:Kinetic37|Kinetic37]] ([[User talk:Kinetic37|talk]]) 14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)⏎ ⏎ == Hi, i was born in may 15, 2001. I am a gay boy and i am going to get a chainsaw to kill myself because i am depressed. == Hi, i was born in may 15, 2001. I am a gay boy and i am going to get a chainsaw to kill myself because i am depressed. [[User:Octnine|Octnine]] ([[User talk:Octnine|talk]]) 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC) All content in the above text box is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license Version 4 and was originally sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=920393613.
  This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|