Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Contents


Acupuncture: not sure what to do here[edit]

I have two questions about this edit/revert[1][2]
and about these two talk page discussions:[3][4]

Question #1: Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? Is there something that needs to be done about Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture, or should I advise Roxy and JzG to stop questioning Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture?

Question#2: If something needs to be done here, is this something that should be discussed at ANI, or should I go to WP:AE?

I don't know what the right thing to do here is.

Possibly related:

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I think it's actually fairly straightforward - the RfC said "Do practitioners of alternative medicine ... have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice? - in other words, do they automatically have a COI - this was opposed. It did not say "Can practitioners of alternative medicine ...", because clearly, yes they still can, depending on what and how they're editing. Indeed the RfC close specifically said this - "Editors are reminded that any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged.". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. Should Middle 8 be requested to not make the claims he makes on User:Middle 8/COI and on the two talk pages I cited above? Should I withdraw this ANI report and bring up the question of whether Middle 8 has a COI at WP:COIN? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • An editor's on-wiki conduct bears on problems like TE and ADVOCACY, not COI. Per EXTERNALREL and the recent RfC clarifying same, COI arises from an editor's external relationships "within their field of expertise" (e.g. The Who's manager has a COI for The Who but not band manager). Otherwise we'd be seeing COI tags and COI/N cases with lots of professional fields. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC); edit for clearer example, 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't want to re-litigate something that has been the topic of one Arbcom case, at least two RfCs and a boatload of talk page discussions (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content), but I would like to address Middle 8's "it isn't a COI at all and thus I am not guilty of any COI violation" argument. The counterargument (which may be something Arbcom needs to rule on -- I still would like advice on that) is that our band manager article doesn't contain anything remotely resembling the "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge" claim that is currently in our accupunture article. If our band manager article said that bands that only pretend to have a band manager work just as well and make just as much money as bands that have them then the band manager for The Who shouldn't edit that article. The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter whether you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You already made those exact same reasonable arguments at the RFC (right down to the band manager example), where they were duly considered alongside other reasonable arguments. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 02:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That RfC was about whether alternative medicine practitioners in general have a conflict of interest. This ANI report is about whether you personally have a conflict of interest, and was triggered by you repeatedly claiming that the RfC in question had a result of "It is impossible for Middle 8 to have a COI regarding acupuncture". And you were the one who brought up the band manager argument. Did you really expect such an argument to stand unchallenged? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if you're having difficulty extrapolating from the general case to a specific one. Please see my comment here. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, good, give a pointer to a place where you tried to explain basic logic to a PhD mathematician after they corrected you. Brilliant. The RfC as decided cannot possibly settle the question of whether any particular individual has a COI. (Although probably at this point you should be blocked for tendentiousness and wikilawyering.) --JBL (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You're not wrong about negation, you just picked the wrong statement to negate. Take the heat down a notch, please, and see my reply below ("If A, then B"). addendum: No, the RfC can't say that a given editor has no COI of any kind, but it can and does say that the principle that profession doesn't cause COI generalizes to CAM professions. This, as far as I can tell, is what Guy Macon disputes: he thinks I might have a COI because acupuncture (.... repeat arguments from RfC). --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC); fixed 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, this isn't the right venue to (re)litigate my putative COI -- COI/N is. The "is it impossible" issue is really a red herring (the article tag being minor) -- the main question IMO is whether am I being accused of COI, and why, and whether in light of the RfC result it's even proper to do so. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 09:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll just repeat what JBL said, in slightly different wording: It is not possible for the RfC you are trying to rely upon to make it "improper" to raise CoI concerns about your or anyone else's editing. This is a WP:IDHT act you can drop now. At best, the RfC indicates nothing beyond the fact that for WP purposes, you don't automatically have a CoI just because you're an acupuncturist. You may well still have one (or may not; it depends on the evidence). This thread seems mostly to be about where to present it, and it probably would have just been more productive to present it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure I or anyone could have a COI for lots of reasons,[5] but not simply because of their profession -- even for alt-meders. That's what the RfC said. Remarkably Guy Macon, while arguing that this result was merely "general",[6] has come here offering no specifics about me -- did you catch that part? The main drafter of the RfC close did.[7] As for whether it's proper for Guy to start[8] an RfC because of me,[9] then after not getting the result he wanted[10] go to different forum repeating the same old arguments, I leave that up to you. --Middle 8 (s)talkprivacy 16:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the point of your response. I said that you don't automatically have a CoI just because you're an acupuncturist, and that evidence behind why someone thinks you have a CoS should be presented [i.e., rather than further argument about where to present it]. You've simply reiterated the same two things.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's because we agree on those two things. :-) Which is good, because they're central (where we're at, where to go). --Middle 8 (s)talkprivacy 09:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As it applies to this instance, would it be fair to state the RfC question as, "Do acupuncturists have a conflict of interest with regard to Acupuncture?" (Acupuncture being "content describing their field of practice".) Levivich 18:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Simply having a profession (doctor, engineer, needle poker) doesn't create a COI for that profession, including CAM's -- that's how I read the RfC. And remember, COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits. So I can't imagine any other way one could have a COI for their (or any) broad professional area, can you? If I'm wrong, then I retract my assertion that it's impossible. But I maintain that that COI tag doesn't belong on any article about a profession, and that being an acupuncturist doesn't give me a COI for acupuncture. I really thought that RfC laid such issues to rest, and that we could refocus on content, not contributors. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 01:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Just get an admin or two to tell me that your interpretation of the RfC is correct, and I will gladly switch to telling Roxy and JzG to stop complaining when you make edits like these[11][12],[13][14] Clearly neither of them agrees that you don't have a COI. I am fine with telling them to stop accusing you of having a COI and I am fine with telling you not to edit pages where you have a COI, but please don't expect me to decide which to do simply because an acupuncturist tells me which he thinks to be correct. You are hardly unbiased. There is nothing wrong with me asking what to do in this situation, so please stop implying that there is.[15] I will get an authoritative answer, either here or from Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
      • This seems like IDHT. You already have a clear and authoritative answer from the RfC (which was closed by three uninvolved, experienced admins). --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
        • ...and doesn't say what you have repeatedly claimed that it says. Don't forget that part. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
          • If it doesn't mean that simply being an acu'ist doesn't confer a COI, then Aristotle was wrong. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 06:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
            • As I've already pointed out to you elsewhere, the negation of "X is always true" is "X is sometimes not true", not "X is never true". This is, literally, a basic failure of logic, and the fact that you repeat the error after being corrected reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Actually, JBL, it's "If A, then B" ("If I practice a CAM profession, then that causes a COI for that CAM profession"), the negation of which is "A and not B" ("I practice a CAM profession and that does not cause a COI for that CAM profession"). --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC); improved wording 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • P.S. More than happy to reword my comments to clarify [16], fwiw. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy)
    • Middle 8 seems to be interpreting "COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits" (which is Middle 8's own wording, not any RfC's) to mean something more like "CoI cannot be demonstrated by one's on-wiki edits, only by WP:OUTING-style connection of the editor to real-life role at particular organizations". This isn't a correct position (wasn't before or after the RfC we've been talking about). Maybe I'm misreading Middle 8, but everything I'm seeing here amounts to "it's impossible for me to have a CoI, because some RfC said so", yet it's not what the RfC said, and it's not how it works. Cf Black Kite's comment below: "the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits."  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      • SMcCandlish: see WP:COINOTBIAS, that's what I mean, also ACTUALCOI underneath. If it says elsewhere in PAG (or an RfC) that COI is also demonstrated by edits, I stand corrected. Also read our article Conflict of interest, esp the lede, 2nd para. And no, it's not about outing (straw man), it's about disclosure. Again: yes, it's perfectly possible for me to have a COI, just not because I'm an acupuncturist. But I have no other off-wiki connections that might apply, so.... --Middle 8 (s)talkprivacy 16:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh, who cares. We are talking about two edits about an edit notice that no one has probably even read. If it stays or goes who cares really? Other than drama what is the point of this and why did you ping JzG? If you have an issue then take in to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I pinged JzG because, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI, JzG and Roxy are the ones who I will be telling to stop saying that he does. Likewise, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 does have a COI, I will be telling him not to edit pages where he has a COI. So far no admin has advised me to close this and go to AE, but I am perfectly willing to do that. I just want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes you think any of the people involved need your input? You already opened an ill advised RFC that wasted countless hours and ended in the obvious conclusion. If you want to do something then do it but this is just a drama magnet, and you don't need permission to go to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Guy, don’t bother to tell me that M8 has no COI. I won’t believe you. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I haven't completely decided, but I am leaning towards Middle 8 having a COI. Clearly you, I, and JzG all think Middle 8 has a COI, and the existence of an RfC that essentially says that alt med practitioners don't automatically have COIs has not convinced any of the three of us that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI. Of course Middle 8 thinks that it should convince us, but he would say that, wouldn't he?
That being said, if I were to see several admins (or Arbcom) tell us to stop saying that Middle 8 has a COI then we need to abide by that decision whether we agree or not. It doesn't look like that is going to happen here, so if the admins continue to be silent on the question I intend to take it to AE as something that ANI is unable to resolve. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I think, as I said above, the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits. If he's making neutral sourced edits then it doesn't matter anyway. If he's making disruptive or anti-consensus edits that show a clear POV then he may well be said to have a COI. But more importantly in this case, he should not be removing the edit notice because COI editors - whoever they are - should not be editing any article that they have a COI on; this one is no different. Not only that, but (as I quoted above) the RfC that Middle8 is using to justify removing the notice actually backed up this fact. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow: could you specify which fact you say the RfC backed up, and why? And again, you're mistaken re how COI arises. It doesn't come from biased edits. It comes from one's off-wiki roles. See WP:COINOTBIAS. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. What behavior of Middle 8 is being contested here? Which edits were problematic? What has been done in response to those edits? Has Middle 8 showed a continued pattern of bad editing after being warned about such? Your focus on the conflict of interest is a distraction. The focus should be on good or bad editing behavior, and that's it. The minutiae of the COI policies are a distraction, so focus instead on the behavior. --Jayron32 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Paul August 00:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd love it if we could refocus on content; then bad reverts like this would be avoided (cf. WP:PRESERVE). --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 21:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); revise and abridge 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Guy, if Middle 8 was defending his particular practice, then yes - absolutely a COI. But the sidebar tactic of declaring someone has a COI because they practice a certain whatever, then you'd be preventing every declared liberal from editing Dem political articles and the same as it would apply to conservative who support Repubs. The same would apply to every dentist, dermatologist, massage therapist, etc. I think you see my point. Worse yet, we can't even get a majority to agree that paid editors should be prevented from editing articles they were paid to edit. Major time sink here. Provide the diffs you oppose or just start an RfC at the article, and get ready for the "come what may". Just my 5¢ worth. Atsme Talk 📧 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, agreed re other professions, and the thing is, this was all discussed in the RfC and the "No COI" arguments (like yours) were found to outweigh the "Yes" ones. Yet Guy Macon is now suggesting I have a COI using -- wait for it -- those exact same arguments from the RfC (i.e. alt-meds like acupuncture are pseudoscience-y etc.). [17] How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC? And why isn't this at COI/N? --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 09:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Nice obfuscation. First you tell a blatant lie about what is in an RfC ("it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture, per recent RfC")[18] then when someone calls you on it, you write "this was all discussed in the RfC" and "How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC?". I predict that if this ANI report closes without a consensus that you do have a COI and without a consensus that you do not have a COI, you will start claiming that "Per ANI I have no COI" and if anyone disagrees you will say that ANI settled the question and ask "why did we have a discussion on ANI?". --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Not a lie at all, a reasonable inference from the RfC result[19] as I've explained before you even posted here,[20] in this thread,[21] and later on your user talk page,[22] which at the moment you're still ignoring[23] in favor of this war/drama forum. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 04:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There's nowhere in the RfC that someone can claim that acupuncturists cannot have a COI at least. The RfC can mostly be summarized as while having a numerically higher oppose count, the arguments for the supports have stronger arguments, but a specific proposal wasn't needed since current guidelines already cover those viewpoints.
Comments like simply having a profession isn't COI tend to come up here a lot which is true, but that doesn't exclude that specific professions can have one. The key determinant is if that profession runs counter to Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. Being a university professor, etc. doesn't have very much COI aside from an editor promoting their own research, etc. since their job is essentially presenting encyclopedic knowledge. Someone engaged in alternative medicine or pseudoscience though has a conflict since furthering encyclopedic knowledge runs counter to their profession as outlined in the first paragraph of WP:COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You read the RfC closing wrong, Kingofaces43. Consensus was on the 60%-ish majority "oppose" side. It said "We find, however, that the oppose arguments are stronger. ... Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."
I agree that the financial connection is tighter for the average alt-meder than the average professor, but you can read (or may recall) counterarguments from the RfC (that the slope is slippier than that, and that financial connections for any broad area are much more tenuous than the classic COI example of one's own business, et cetera). --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 00:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll pile on here as well, the RfC very obviously decided against singling out alt-med practitioners as having an inherent COI relative to any other area of interest or specialty. It refused to make a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners have a COI by default. That does not make it a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners cannot have a COI, and that is what Mid 8 is quite literally arguing here. Mid 8's supposedly-amicable demeanor is severely betrayed by his inability and/or unwillingness to accept that his unrealistic interpretation of the RfC is not correct. This alone is grounds for serious consideration of sanctions. That said, if accusations of COI are being made, the underlying evidence should be examined. There is no pre-emptive default stance either way as a result of that RfC, beyond the default stance that accusations of any kind need supporting evidence. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
As an authority on my own views, I object to being soundbited and misconstrued. I agree 100% with how one of the RfC closers paraphrased the RfC result:
  • "The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."[24]
Compare that to "what Mid 8 is quite literally arguing here":
  • "P.S. In a nutshell, simply having a profession (broadly, like "electrical engineer") does not create a COI when editing in that topic area. The RfC clarified that this indeed applies to CAM professions."[25]
Of course an alt-med professional can have still COI's for aspects of their topic area, e.g. for their own writings/inventions, but not for their alt-med area broadly, and not simply because of their being a alt-meder.
A brief talk-page exchange would've sufficed to clarify all this. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And I do regret removing the COI tag from the talk page. It was put there several years as part of a "singling out" campaign, and AFAIK hasn't been used on the article talk page of any other alt-med profession (let alone any other profession). --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Specific edits[edit]

As requested,[26] and without receiving a definitive answer regarding whether Middle 8 has a COI, I am posting a summary of Middle 8's edits that may or may not be COI violations, depending on whether or not he has a COI.

If you are looking for a smoking gun edit where Middle 8 has made blatantly biased or incorrect edits that would be sanctionable whether or not he has a COI, you can stop reading now. That did not happen. If you are looking for edits that paint acupuncture in a favorable light -- the kind of edit that would be OK if he has no COI but not OK if he does have a COI, read on.

(If you are sensing an undercurrent of me disagreeing with the basic plan of examining his edits without a determination of whether he has a COI, you are correct. I am not looking forward to the inevitable criticism that will follow me posting the following edits, but I realize that I will also be criticized if I don't post them.)

Middle 8 has spent the last ten years editing on and off in the area of Acupuncture. Middle 8 also has a direct financial interest in the Wikipedia acupuncture page and related pages painting acupuncture in a favorable light. I do not believe that Middle 8 is editing in bad faith. I believe that he wants Wikipedia to lean towards portraying acupuncture in a favorable light because he honestly believes that the existing content is too unfavorable.

In my opinion, the COI question is the key. If he doesn't have a COI, then making edits favorable to acupuncture would not be a problem. If he does have a COI they are a problem. That being said, here are some diffs:

His very first edit after registering was to change

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials."

to

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials (RCT's). A review of 26 RCT's studying acupuncture for nausea and vomiting showed some effect, but those effects were equivocal for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting."

Diff: 10:56, 28 January 2009 [27]

The next day he changed

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. "

to

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. (Hypotheses exist, however; e.g. Langevin and Yandow (2002) postulate a relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes.) "

Diff: 05:46, 29 January 2009[28]

I am not going to list a bunch of edits from years ago unless specifically asked to do that, but here are a couple of samples.

"Unlike established "woo", acupuncture's efficacy and mechanisms are unclear. The jury is out..."

Diff: 10:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) [29]

"A perusal of Pubmed and Cochrane reviews also shows that acu is taken seriously and shows some evidence of efficacy (see here and here, as does the fact that it's used at numerous academic centers] including some of the best (Harvard, Stanford etc.). Yes, for most conditions acupuncture has been shown not to work, but certainly for pain and nausea there is mainstream debate, cf. Cochrane. All these results are the fruit of recent, "wide and serious study". In fact, the single best MEDRS there is -- Vickers et. al. (2012) -- concludes that acupuncture "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option."

Diff: 10:25, 8 January 2015[30]

This brings us up to recent edits:

"Harrison's states that acupuncture is of some benefit in dysmennorhea, and lists it as a non-pharmaceutical treatment for pain in ADPKD and an adjunctive treatment in knee osteoarthritis, for which it "produces modest pain relief compared to placebo needles" According to Harrison's, acupuncture can be considered a useful adjunctive treatment in PTSD and comorbid depression in war veterans if, despite the lack of evidence, patients find it calming and relaxing."

Diff: 05:47, 5 January 2019[31]

Removed "Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

Diff: 07:48, 7 April 2019[32]

Again, I posted the above edits because I was asked to, not because I believe that they answer the question I asked. And I really am asking whether Middle 8 has a COI, not trying to prove that he does have a COI, so please put your flamethrowers down. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


Middle 8 here. The advice from Jayron32 above is superb, but that's not (at all) what Guy Macon is doing. The diffs are selectively quoted (hence the wall of text and not just links), omitting material critical of acu, sources used, how I responded to any reverts, et cetera.
COI arises from one's off-wiki activities and not one's edits (a too-common misconception). Of course some of a non-COI editors' edits could be improper if they had a COI, but it's illogical (and unfair) to insinuate that such non-COI edits imply a COI. That's putting the are-my-edits-conflicted cart before the do-I-indeed-have-a-conflict horse. It's not how you handle either COI or editing concerns. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another view[edit]

It seems to me that proponents of pseudoscience, in which category accupuncture clearly belongs, must be held to the highest standard when making claims about their particular brand of woo. For a start WP:MEDS edit +WP:MEDRSend edit seems like a bare minimum when making claims about possible health treatments. Whether of not an editor is a practicing accupuncturist or whether or not they have a COI, all edits about such subjects need impeccible citing to reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia correctly subscribes to the mainline scientific view of such subjects and it is always going to be problematice when proponents edit in the areas of their particular interest. It is not akin to an engineer editing an article on engineering practice because there are going to be multiple RS to back up the engineer's claims. The same cannot be said for accupuncture. - Nick Thorne talk 03:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC) edit to correct link - Nick Thorne talk 03:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, and will add that it is important for us to exercise a level of caution in order to avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia; i.e., all relevant views presented with proper weight and balance per NPOV. We provide the whole picture, not a Photoshopped version of it in an effort to pursuade readers to accept a particular POV - we simply present the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view. If material is poorly sourced, UNDUE, etc. it is subject to removal. If the editor in question has created disruption (such as 3RR or is repeatedly citing unreliable sources) or has acted uncivil (PAs, threats, etc.) in an effort to prevent removal of poorly sourced/UNDUE material, then you have an actionable behavioral issue, but I have not seen any evidence to support such a claim. Circumstantial evidence may establish patterned behavior but is the behavior actionable if there is no evidence to support an actionable claim? What I'm seeing is an editor with a professional perspective. What professional doesn't have a noticeable POV involving their chosen profession? NPOV tells us to include all relevant views published by/cited to RS so our readers can make their own determinations. ??? Just curious...in comparison, do you consider Britannica's accupuncture article to be overly promotional or possibly authored by proponents of pseudoscience, or well-presented? Perhaps such a comparison will help answer your question about COI. Atsme Talk 📧 12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Good points that apply all around. When acupuncture has mainstream acceptance such as use in academic medical centers[33] and the National Academy of Medicine calls it a "powerful tool" in pain management,[34] perhaps the pseudoscience and quackery aspects shouldn't overwhelm our treatment of the subject and its practitioners and their possible COI's. One might wonder based on this thread, and the lede of acupuncture, how well we're doing that. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I see that Brittanica are parroting the chinagov deception that the Chinese use acu to anaesthetise patients for surgery. How accurate is the rest of that article? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
What Britannica does is irrelevant to this issue, because they do not claim to follow anything like our WP:NPOV policy. Many of their articles are written by a single person and reflect that person's point of view. That is a feature, not a bug. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Re Atsme's insightful comment above about avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia and simply presenting the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view, in the cases of acupuncture, the proponents really do believe that the scientific mainstream view is far more favorable towards acupuncture than the Wiipedia article is.
As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it".
So, how do we reach a balance between avoiding the exclusion of well-sourced material and the natural tendency of someone like Middle 8 to not understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it? We simply require him to read and obey Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. Right now the problem is that he honestly believes that an RfC was closed with a conclusion that Best practices doesn't apply to him. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I do take COIADVICE seriously, and am careful, but I'm not 100% all-the-time bound by its mainspace-avoding-advice without a COI finding -- and it's disingenous to suggest I should have one in all but name. You may recall that you opened an RfC with me in mind that concluded (paraphrase, from one of the closing admins): The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."[35] Instead of forum-shopping and repeating old arguments from that RfC, please offer a reason why its result doesn't cover me -- IOW why my case is somehow more financially-connected than the default alt-med practitioner. Which per Ernst is small -- he thinks the idealogical "COI", almost evangelical fanaticism, is the much bigger problem. Which we call bad editing. If that's your concern about me, handle it the proper way, not underhandedly like this. Like an actual conversation on user talk, which you have been avoiding. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 23:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC), 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC), clarify to avoid another soundbite 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't feel like you need to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, you have a good-faith belief that you don't have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one. And likewise JzG and Roxy shouldn't feel like they need to stop telling you to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, they have a good-faith belief that you do have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one.
It is clear from your disparaging comments about my filing this ANI case and about the second RfC that you do not want any definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom. You clearly want us to simply agree with your arguments. It is equally clear that Roxy (and I presume JzG) will never stop telling you that you have a COI and that you should follow COIADVICE unless they receive a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom telling them to stop doing that. So what do we do when editors are unable to agree about how to apply Wikipedia policy and ANI is unable to resolve this disagreement? We take it to arbcom, which I intend to do once this thread is auto-archived without a definitive answer.
Related discussion: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Is it impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please stop IDHT-ing and address the crux of the matter: exactly why I should be an exception to the RFC that you brought because of me. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll weigh in as the main drafter of the RfC close. Acupuncturists don't have an inherent COI when editing Acupuncture. That means that acupuncturists are not forbidden (or even strongly discouraged) from editing Acupuncture simply because they are acupuncturists. That doesn't mean that their edits don't deserve scrutiny. Discretionary sanctions apply to this topic and misuse of sources, POV-pushing, edit-warring, combative talk-page participation, wikilawyering, uncollegial or battleground editing, or just about any other sort of tendentious or disruptive editing should be reported to AE where admins willing to take arbitration enforcement action can do so.

IMO, editors on both sides of this dispute are much too fixated on the question of COI. On the one hand, some editors are still pushing the theory that because acupuncturists depend on the reliability of acupuncture for their income, they have an inherent COI with regard to acupuncture, despite the RfC clearly rejecting this line of reasoning. Some seem to be arguing that acupuncturists as a class don't have an inherent COI per the RfC, but that any particular practitioner necessarily depends on the efficacy of acupuncture to make a living and so does have an inherent COI. It is a bit hard to understand the internal consistency of this position. While I can see the advantage to these editors in classing those they disagree with as COI editors, the community has disagreed with them and it's time for them to drop it. If the editing itself is problematic, there is easy admin action available via AE. On the other hand, Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly: no, being an acupuncturist doesn't inherently give you a COI that rises to the level of WP:COI; but yes, it is still perfectly possible for you to misuse sources, use poor sources (and MEDRS applies here), edit disruptively to make a point and generally edit in a way that seeks to promote acupuncture rather than improve the encyclopaedia. I haven't had a deep dig through their contributions, but if their user page is at all indicative of their approach to sourcing regarding acupuncture, I'd say they were on thin ice. GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what in my userspace could be construed as my not grokking medrs or rs; I've asked at GoldenRing's usertalk. That said, grateful for this clarification. --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 02:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've responded at my usertalk; see there for details. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That's helpful, glad we clarified that.[36][37][38] For the record: I have no idea, though, what "Middle 8 appears to have taken the result of the RfC much too broadly" means. Taking my "not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture"[39] soundbite in context, it's clear that I mean "...simply by virtue of being an acu'ist". See e.g. my talk-page follow-up to said soundbite[40] (posted six hours before this ANI post) and my initial response in this thread.[41] Where then is the evidence that I stated or implied that the RfC somehow made it OK to "misuse sources, use poor sources (and MEDRS applies here), edit disruptively to make a point and generally edit in a way that seeks to promote acupuncture rather than improve the encyclopaedia"? --Middle 8 (tcprivacy) 10:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC); fmt 10:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC) strike text -- I can see how it'd sound like bludgeoning. It's not, I just don't do well at war/drama venues, sometimes losing sight of "less is more" and "forest for the trees". Remember the human. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (s)talkprivacy 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Guy Macon: This needs to go to AE if and when you wish to pursue it. Middle 8's hardheadedness and bludgeoning make it impossible to move forward. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I figured that it would come to this. :( I am on a hot project for the next week or two, so I won't be able to get to it immediately. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Swarm and Guy Macon: Huh? I responded to both your latest comments above,[42][43][44] on point, citing the RfC, and neither of you has replied. Now you're talking AE? Over what exactly? --Middle 8 (s)talkprivacy 22:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC); clarify latest 22:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC); diffs 22:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC) ; struck per strike above. --Middle 8 (s)talkprivacy 13:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree this should go to AE (to get back to the original question: what is the right venue?). The posting-length limits there will prevent the WP:BLUDGEON problem. That said, I would advise reading a bunch of AEs to see what sorts of evidence are expected in what format, and what tone, and so on. It's a rather legalistic and persnickety venue.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

AEscalation?[edit]

It can be hard to deal with soundbites once they've caught on, cf. "You didn't build that".

When I said it's "not possible to have a COI for acu" remark, I meant that it's "not possible to have a COI for acu simply by virtue of being an acu'ist". I think that's a fair paraphrase of the RfC.[45] I don't mean it's impossible to have a COI in any other way, which would be silly. In my case, apart from profession (which I haven't practiced in years and likely won't again, due to unfortunate factors beyond my control), I have no other off-wiki connections that could cause a COI. The only plausible MEDRS I've written is too old, and I don't edit other possible COI-invoking articles, mostly because they don't exist.

I realize it looked horrible for me to remove the COI tag[46] at Talk:Acu, but FWIW it's used on very few, if any, of the talk pages of other articles on professions, including alt-meds.

That tag-removal, and my single "not possible" remark,[47] caused Guy Macon to start this thread in less than a day. Two talkspace edits, after three months of no activity (by me) in the area. Guy could've noticed my subsequent partial clarification[48] and said "Hey, Middle 8, before I put you in an invidious position on WP's most notorious war/drama forum with an odd-sounding comment, what did you mean?" Instead, he escalated, and made the curious argument that I should be an exception[49] to the RfC he brought because of me,[50] yet offering no specific reason. One could be forgiven for getting exasperated at this.

Under wikistress, I've expressed the above points sometimes awkwardly and forgetting to omit needless words.

The reader can decide if this amounts to an AE case. If this does go to AE and I'm not around, someone please repost this as my comment. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (s)talkprivacy 20:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others[edit]

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

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

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [51] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair[edit]

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC) While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[52][53][54] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ... I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a [better source needed] tag.

One example alternate term: "Wilson-Raybould scandal", 75,800 hits
"LavScam", 71,500 hits

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

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

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin. Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [55] [56][57][58][59]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

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

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

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[60][61][62] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [63], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the {{Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
(Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)
We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).
Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[64][65][66] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.
So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.
Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:
DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."
CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."
DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."
CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that"
DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)
CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."
DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)
Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":
CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader."
Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose against its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI -- I have restored this matter as Safrolic did previously, as this matter is not yet resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James[edit]

Per the clear consensus below, Oldstone James is indefinitely banned from all articles and edits on the topic of creationism, broadly construed.
There is no particular consensus on when an attempt to remove this restriction might be made, but my advice would be to edit productively in other areas for six to twelve months and then ask for it to be removed at WP:AN.
Oldstone James has self-requested a one–month block, which has been implemented. Some editors have expressed a desire to see him mentored on his return, but I see the consensus for the ban overriding this. Mentoring may still be of benefit, but for now this is up to him. GoldenRing (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the discussion at Answers in Genesis#Lead sentence editing by jps and Roxy the dog, and considering that the previous block and page protection had no effect, I believe that Oldstone James should be topic banned from creationism.

Also see [67][68][69][70][71][72] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This is unbelievable! What have I even done after the block? Even if you don't consider these diffs: [73] [74] self-reverts, which they are (I have simply restored the version before I started editing; here is the lede section as of 11 April: [75])), I'm only on two reverts in 24 hours. Furthermore, please consider the context of the situation: jps and Roxy the dog were constantly restoring a version which not only had no consensus but also wasn't even discussed on the talk page, amid a month-long discussion concerning the lede section. Even so, I at first tried to find a compromise ([76]). Only after my compromise was reverted did I restore the status quo.
Also, please consider the blocking of user:Roxy the dog, who launched numerous personal attacks on me ("Would you like me to recommend an optician for your much needed eyesight test?", "Grow a thicker skin or fuck off" as some examples) and appears WP:BATTLEGROUND on me, as this is not the first time he reverts my edits with no explanation. This time in particular, though, he appeared to restore an edit with no consensus. OlJa 16:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not what a self revert is. A self revert is when you make one edit, then you make another edit that undoes your first edit. When you make the same edit multiple times, that's edit warring, not self reverting. You appear to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just fine when is suits you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly what I had done. I had first introduced an edit; then it was modified; I reverted my initial edit and hence restored the version prior to it. Your last sentence is pure gold, as it sums up your behaviour better than I could have ever put it myself. Apparently, Wiki policies only apply when they suit you. WP:CONSENSUS only applies when it's me editing. WP:SYNTH only applies when it's anyone but you editing. WP:BRD only applies when it works against me.OlJa 16:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
If that's what you did then it's not a self-revert, but a revert of both yourself and the person modifying your edit. This isn't any comment on the rights or wrongs of what you did, which I haven't looked into, but simply a clarification of what "self-revert" means, which does not include reverting anyone else's edits along with your own. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know this, although this rule seems kind of silly: getting blocked for 3RR for reverting your own edit which was later corrected (e.g. after identifying some possible problems with it) seems very unreasonable to me.OlJa 16:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually it makes complete sense. The only edit you "own" is any edit you make. If someone else makes an edit, that's not your edit. It's someone else's edit. If I make an edit and it's reverted by person A and then person B comes along and reverts to my version the latest reversion is not my edit. It's the person B's edit. I cannot self revert anymore than I could when person A first reverted me. I could revert person B's edit but that's reverting person B's edit, it's not reverting myself since my edit was already reverted. If person A and person B engage in a 10 revert war in the next 1 hour, I am only responsible for my first edit. I'm not responsible for person A and person B seriously violating 3RR. Likewise when someone else has modified my edit, any reversion of their changes is not a self revert since it's not my edit. If it's possible to self revert without affecting their changes then I can simply self-revert, but if it's not than any revert is not simply a self revert since I'm changing someone else's edit. Otherwise we'd have the ridiculous situation where I change 1234567890 to 2134567890 and someone else changes it to 3214567890 and so on until it's 0987654321 and I come along and change it back to 1234567890 and claim all I did is self revert which is clearly nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a weird one, people. I don't know why Oldstone James doesn't want to collaborate. It seems like maybe he is suffering a bit from WP:OWN? I actually don't know what to make of it. jps (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I did collaborate... until you simply reverted one of my compromise edits. In hindsight, you did add in some pieces of my edit, but most of your errors still remained. Remember that your edits had zero consensus, so I was in full right to restore the status quo. We eventually managed to work our versions into a satisfactory compromise. A better question to ask would be why Guy Macon, Roxy the dog, and some other editors stubbornly refuse to collaborate at all costs, reverting every new edit done to the page and refusing to give explanations. WP:OWN would be a very appropriate explanation for this type of behaviour, I believe.OlJa 16:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
On 29 March 2019 I told Oldstone James:
"You have two choices. [1] create a specific proposal and see what the consensus is for your change, or [2] Go ahead and assume that your change is OK without checking, make the change, and get blocked. Most administrators have a very low tolerance for someone who edits after edit-warring protection expires without a clear survey of participants asking if they object to that specific change. When in doubt, ask. If you have no doubts, ask anyway."[77]
He chose #2, and as I predicted, was blocked for it. After the block expired he went right back to the same behavior that got him blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I note, also, that Oldstone James wikistalked Roxy the Dog to fascism. [78], [79]. It's surprising to me that he is then turning around and citing WP:BATTLEGROUND above. jps (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Important clarification: I was not wikistalking; this was a coincidence. I had edited on related pages in the past, too.OlJa 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is a behavioural slam dunk James, sorry. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Really, Oldstone James? You had never edited Fascism before. And purely by coincidence — not by following Roxy there — you reverted a Fascism edit by Roxy, after consulting the book sources for the sentence. That happened only 11 minutes after you posted a long argument on Talk:Answers in Genesis in which you attacked Roxy ("out of nowhere yet comes Roxy the dog and reverts my self-revert..!"). Is that what you're saying? Bishonen | talk 09:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC).
Yep. When I edit on Answers in Genesis, it is usually because I am looking something up on Wikipedia and, using the opportunity, check my watchlist (AiG was one the most recent entries at that time, following an edit by jps). At the time, I was looking up information on WWIII, which eventually got me to WWII and hence fascism. I had edited on articles related to WWIII and WWII before (MAD as one example, there are others). I must admit that seeing that the most recent change was made by user:Roxy the dog encouraged me to check into what the edit actually was, but I was not in any way houding the user. Please assume good faith, and that's what my edit was. I myself was very surprised to see the same user who had just reverted my edit on AiG was also the user who made the most recent change to the page I was then viewing.OlJa 11:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from the topic of creationism as proposer. Recent comments by Oldstone James have made it clear that he intends to continue to try to get his way through reverts rather than through discussion and consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Note I restored the above !vote by Guy Macon, after it was deleted by Oldstone James with the edit summary of "Not sure you can vote on your own proposal". Paul August 00:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
My apology. This has previously been done to me a couple of times, so I assumed it was within my right's to do - which, in hindsight, I absolutely shouldn't have done. Once again, I apologise for this edit.OlJa 00:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support mostly because of the historic problems combined with the fact this is a contentious topic but the editor seems to lack the most basic WP:competence given their claims above that reverting someone else's changes along with their own counts as a simple self revert. I think the editor needs to edit less contentious areas until they understand better how wikipedia works. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I had an interesting discussion with this user which ended with this comment: [80] I think that this, perhaps, indicates we are working with an editor who may need to get a little perspective on their editing and perhaps mature just a bit (although I bet he won't take kindly to me saying this). In any case, this is the advice I gave him. This is one of the extremely rare cases where I think mentorship may help, if he would be open to it. Unfortunately, none of the people with whom he's gotten into arguments (including me) would be appropriate. We'd need to find someone he would listen to. jps (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@ජපස: Yes, I absolutely do need a decent perspective of why my editing is considered unconstructive, while the editing of Macon and Roxy is condoned; so far, this perspective hasn't at all been provided. And you may be surprised to find that I do appreciate your sincerity, as you could have easily supported my topic ban by citing one of my reverts as evidence, and you haven't done so; instead, you opted to give your honest take on the matter. Also, "lack of maturity", in the sense of being to rash and (perhaps unnecessarily) aggressive with editing, is not one of the qualities that I would argue with if they were attributed to me. Following that up, I would indeed be very open to mentorship, if it is given that the mentor knows very well and respects Wikipedia polcies, and that the mentor can explain to me why my some of my particular edits are unconstructive. Based on my experience, user:EdChem would be a good candidate. Lastly, I am still very open to your advice, too, and will absolutely listen to you. The fact that I've gotten into an argument with you means nothing. Users that I wouldn't listen to include only those who have repeatedly demonstrated either a lack of WP:CIR, a lack knowledge or respect of Wikipedia policies, delibarate bad-faith editing, or a complete lack of understanding of the situation.OlJa 12:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you're open to advice and don't want a topic ban (which looks like it may come through according to my wiki-divination), I would recommend (a) apologizing for reverting and personalizing the disputes and by all means stop being argumentative, (b) explain exactly what you think mentorship will entail -- including an endgame which might be agreement by your mentor that the relationship is finished and then perhaps informing the community of such on WP:AN, for example -- and make it binding (I don't know that EdChem will want to mentor you, but if he does, I would recommend saying that you will run by all your edits on creationism-related topics with him first before you do them and wait for his advice on how to proceed even if it means not doing anything for days or up to a week.), and (c) maybe commit to moving to some other articles other than AiG for a bit to show that you can stick to such a plan. Right now, it seems like you are just setting yourself up for more and more disciplinary action. jps (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. I avoided commenting here at first because I was so baffled by Oldstone James's statements about "self-reverting": I thought I might be getting dumber. Thank you for clearing it up, @Phil Bridger and Nil Einne:. I agree the editor needs to gain more understanding of how Wikipedia works. Controversial articles about creationism and their talkpages aren't good places to practice. I notice that the user comes across as self-righteous and aggressive, even here, even when they're wrong and an experienced editor attempts to explain, as above: "Apparently, Wiki policies only apply when they suit you. WP:CONSENSUS only applies when it's me editing. WP:SYNTH only applies when it's anyone but you editing. WP:BRD only applies when it works against me."[81] Admittedly, that was in response to a somewhat aggressive post by Guy Macon, but even so: Guy's post had explained self-reverting clearly and correctly. In view of this, do you really think mentoring is indicated, jps? Also, it's hard enough to find a mentor under the best of circumstances; if it's conditional on "someone he would listen to", it may be impossible. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC).
@Bishonen: Just a comment: I did not get aggressive because I thought I was right; I was wrong, and I admitted I was wrong in a reply to Phil Bridger's comment. I got aggressive in response to Guy Macon's aggressive post and his hypocrisy (also, please note how users like Guy Macon and Roxy the dog have talked to me in the past; their manner of speech is just as "self-righteous" and aggressive as mine was in that comment). Also, when you say that I need to gain more understanding of how Wikipedia works, I assume you do so based on my (former) incorrect understanding of what a self-revert is. However, can you really make such a big statement as that I need to gain a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, and hence such a big conclusion that I need to be topic-banned, based on only one instance? Such instances occur also with experienced editors and even admins such as Doug Weller, who cited "If it isn't broken, and I agree that it isn't, don't fix it" as an argument against a proposal, which contradicts WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Of course, that does not mean that they don't understand how Wikipedia works - they are an admin, after all. Finally, even if you do believe that my understanding of WIkipedia is not good enough for me to have the right to edit on contentious topics, why topic-ban me? I've just recently been blocked, and I haven't violated any Wikipedia policy that warrants a block, like 3RR, since. I would politely ask you to reconsider your !vote.OlJa 00:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Shrug? Oldstone James seems to be thin-skinned and when he perceives himself as under attack he lashes out in a spectacularly hypocritical fashion. If we cannot find someone that Oldstone James will check in with or listen to, then certainly mentoring won't work. jps (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Oldstone James has been told -- repeatedly -- what he should do when he knows that the change he wants to make is opposed by multiple editors (stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change). He has been told this by a wide variety of editors. He has been told this gently and respectfully. He has been told this aggressively and forcefully. He has been told this in the form of a block by an administrator. He has been told this by an uninvolved administrator who reviewed the block and denied his appeal. I question whether any mentoring will be acceptable to him. I think that the moment the mentor tells him to stop edit warring and seek consensus he will instantly add the mentor to the list of inferior beings who he will not listen to because it is all their fault. I also question whether, given his present attitude, he has the ability to contribute constructively on any page related to creationism. I have not yet concluded that he cannot contribute constructively on other topics, which is why I am asking for a topic ban and not for another block. This may be one of those cases where someone is topic banned, learns how to get along with other editors on articles where his feelings are not quite so strong, gets the topic ban lifted after six months, and goes on to make real improvements to the article that he formerly edit warred over. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve with this comment. My reverts have not been making any change to the status quo. Instead, they reverted such changes, because the user who made these changes had not followed the steps that you have described in your comment. Furthermore, if you believe that your advice ("stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make his arguments, and try to get consensus for the proposed change") is right (which it is), why did you not follow your own advice? Why did you make a change to the status quo, which was opposed by at least one editor (me) and not post "a specific proposal on the article talk page", made your arguments, and tried "to get consensus for the proposed change"?OlJa 00:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect, Oldstone James, your edits here and (good faith but mistaken) removal of another editor's comments seem to me to be doing irreparable damage to your cause. Just something to think about. Dumuzid (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You're right. It's just that the same thing was done to me on numerous occasions, so I assumed it didn't violate any WP policies. Of course, I absolutely shouldn't have done that. I'll think extra carefully before any following edit I opt to make.OlJa 00:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Re: "I don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve with this comment", what part of "stop edit warring, post a specific proposal on the article talk page, make your argument, and try to get consensus for the proposed change" are you having trouble understanding? And yes, you have been edit warring. An actual self-revert undoes an edit that you made without undoing any edits (additions or deletions) by any other editor. Re "It's just that the same thing was done to me on numerous occasions", if someone has been editing your comments outside of the exceptions listed at WP:TPOC, report them at ANI. Someone else violating a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not give you permission to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BTW, you are wasting your time pinging me in a conversation that I am already participating in. In the preferences tab there is an option to mute users, and I have set it so that I don't see any pings or username mentions from you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Having been on the receiving end of advice given from people whom I don't respect, I think it unsurprising that it does not work, and it's not really up to us to decide who it is anyone respects. To that end, you may be 100% correct that he may not find any mentoring acceptable. If that's really the case, my idea is flushed. jps (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't violated 3RR or any other policy that warrants a block or topic ban (since my last block). On the contrary, I have now reached an agreement (in terms of what the lede should be) with the editor I was accused of edit-warring: [82] ("the edit you just made was fine"). If some users are not happy with my editing, a good compromise would be limit my edits on creationism-related topics to 1RR or similar. Although if editing is anything to go by when considering a topic ban, I believe a similar ban should be imposed on Roxy the dog and Guy Macon, who have repeatedly ignored several Wikipedia policies such as WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DONTREVERT, WP:PERSONAL among others. OlJa 00:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Diffs or it didn't happen James. I'd also like you to stop talking about me all over the project without notifying me, and ask you to read WP:NPA and WP:HOUNDING. Support topic ban. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Already quoted some of your comments at the top of the page. You had violated both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DONTREVERT with this edit: [83]. I mentioned you once in this thread, so what's the point of mentioning you again?OlJa 11:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It isn't just Roxy who you have been accusing of wrongdoing.
You have accused me of violating WP:BRD. Please post diffs showing this behavior.
You have accused me of violating WP:CONSENSUS. Please post diffs showing this behavior.
You have accused me of violating WP:PERSONAL. Please post diffs showing this behavior.
You have called for me to be topic banned from creationism. Please posts diffs showing the behavior that requires a topic ban.
In fact, if I am as evil as you imply, you should file a separate ANI report laying out the evidence of my disruptive behavior. Be sure to include all of my previous blocks and all of the the times that I ignored warnings. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's an easy task: [84] There you go. Reinstating an edit that had no consensus at the time. That also happens to violate WP:BRD, as you have been bold and you have reverted, but you haven't discussed. But there's more: this quote "but so far there is no such consensus, so my preference is for the existing wording" means you don't understand Wikipedia:TALKDONTREVERT; this edit: [85] is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. I have not accused you of WP:PERSONAL, but there are many other WP violations by you, too. These are just some notable, defining examples.OlJa 15:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It is now clear that you are unable to tell the difference between a content dispute and a policy violation, and you appear to lack the ability to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Go ahead and file an ANI report naming me if you think you have a case. I am going to stop responding to you and disengage for the obvious reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Despite the scrutiny this ANI filing has drawn to their editing, they are still reverting, and are still taking it upon themselves to be the judge of what's consensus. If you can't step back when your behaviour is under scrutiny, when can you? Guettarda (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Guettarda: Please see what the edit actually is. The edit summary of the edit reads: "Please revert this edit if you believe my judgement is wrong". The revert was simply because the user who made the edit appeared to contradict the apparent outcome of a recent discussion on the talk page, and hence just follows WP:BRD. Judging by the fact that the following edit after my revert appeared to fix the issue, I would assume that my judgement was indeed correct.OlJa 11:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The actual edit is immaterial. The advice here to you is, in essence, to disengage. The fact that you won't take that advice is the problem here. The issue isn't whether you're right or wrong on content, it's behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I did disengage as soon as you've given me this advice. Giving an advice and then claiming that I didn't follow it in the same comment is a bit like blaming someone for not doing something that's about to be asked of them. Prior to your comment, the only advice I was given was to stop edit-warring, which I did. OlJa 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Answers in Genesis is on my watchlist and I finally got around to looking at recent activity. Oldstone James is not able to collaboratively edit according to policies in this area. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If you don't believe my edits were appropriate, that's fine (although I would still be very grateful if you could provide an explanation). However, please also assess appropriateness of user:Roxy the dog and Guy Macon's edits, which simply reverted my edits entirely without any explanation. This alone contradicts WP:DONTREVERT. However, if you look at what they were actually reverting, you will see that they simply reinstated an edit which had no consensus (or any attempt at being discussed, for that matter) at the time. The manner of the mentioned users' editing is continuous. If I am to be topic-banned, which, based on the number of 'support' !votes, will most likely happen (whoever eventually imposes the ban, please don't use this comment as evidence that I agree with such a decision), I believe Guy Macon and Roxy the dog should be topic-banned as well, if the reason for my future topic ban is my edits being unconstructive or uncollaborative.OlJa 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (1) I sympathise with the feeling of being hounded in this situation and responding defensively. (2) It seems clear that both sides have contributed to some extent, if only by choice of words, to heating up this conflict. (3) Bishonen is correct in that creationism is not the best playground for learning the wiki ways. (4) Guettarda is correct in that continuing to battle while a discussion is ongoing is disruptive. I think this is not really excusable by lack of wiki experience, it's just an obviously generally bad idea. (5) This is a major conflict that needs to be resolved. (a) It is a topic of global interest and importance, and thus, a core part of our mission. (b) Aside from that, it is a well-documented source of conflict for Wikipedia specifically. (c) This is a case of a dispute that's survived a period of full protection and is thus, at this point, a hardened dispute. (6) Many of the issues raised w.r.t. article content have come up before, like softening the wording to be more sympathetic towards creationism. Given the very intense and lengthy discussion around these very points in the past, there is no sensibly foreseeable need for discussing them again. Enforcing the established consensus on creationism seems extremely reasonable. (7) At this point, I'm not sure what the chances of any sort of amicable solution are, so as an overall less preferred but apparently necessary option, I hereby endorse the proposed topic ban. In doing so, I would not like it to go unmentioned that Oldstone James has, considering the situation, civilly and constructively argued his case. Even if not everyone here may depart as friends, I think a certain amount of mutual appreciation is appropriate. Samsara 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Samsara: Just a few clarifications:
1) Note that the edit Guettarda was referring to was not continuing a battle but instead following WP:BRD on a completely new issue. The editor didn't appear to have read a particular talk page section which contradicted the edit, so I reverted it as per WP:BRD, with the edit summary "Please revert this edit if you believe my judgement is wrong". My judgement turned out to be correct, and an appropriate edit followed straight after.
2) Also note that my edits are not aimed at softening the wording in favour of creationism. In fact, it wouldn't make sense for them to be, me being a convinced atheist. Instead, most of my edits are simply aimed at correcting grammar and/or better reflecting the source cited. There is nothing in particular that makes creationism stand out among the numerous other topics in which I edit, with the exception of the many stubborn editors who are, in opinion, refusing to collaborate.
3) Here is a proposed amicable solution: give me the last chance (I haven't even been warned of a topic ban after my block) and limit me at 1RR. I make more than a single revert in 24 hours, and I am blocked. Surely, that is an amicable solution?
4) I appreciate your understanding of my position, and it's refreshing to find someone who can see both sides of the coin, though you appear to be in a very insignificant minority.OlJa 11:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment James appears to be exhibiting fairly classic WP:IDHT. I have left him the advice to stop while this discussion is ongoing. I sincerely hope he heeds it. - Nick Thorne talk 12:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The funny thing is that I was actually arguing from consensus. If you look at the page history, you will see that it was me who was restoring the satus quo, while other users kept reinstating an edit that had no consensus at the time. Furthermore, my edits all address different sections of the article, so I am not sure WP:IDHT applies here. Frankly speaking, I am not sure what it is exactly that I am to be topic-banned for, but my two best bets would be "unconstructive editing" and "lack of understanding of WP policies". I'm not sure IDHT is relevant.OlJa 13:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This comment, Oldstone James, is an example of being argumentative and it is the kind of response that is doing you no favors here. See WP:JURY. jps (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Another page with relevant advice: Law of holes. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I was pinged above in relation to the question of mentoring. I am aware that our AiG article is again being edited heavily. I have not been watching, having been distracted y other matters both on and off wiki. I have read this ANI thread and looked at some of the diffs, but certainly not all. Some thoughts:

  • As can be seen on talk:AiG, I tried to distill some coherent progress from a dispute there, which I think produced some progress.
  • Oldstone James ("OJ") expressed appreciation on his user talk page, and we had a useful conversation. Others can comment on how it went, I know I'd be interested in other views.
  • OJ did have concerns that were valid and his approach was hindering this being recognised. In some cases, it took a while for me to figure out what concerned him, and in at least one case my first impression of one of his issues turned out to be completely wrong. I think he does have valuable contributions to make to this article.
  • Unfortunately, his style and approach are problematic at times – the effort put in above to concerns about other editors is familiar to anyone who has seen many previous disputes / ANI discussions as a strategy from the "shooting yourself in the foot" school. (Sorry, OJ, but there is quite a bit in this thread that looks bad and which has caused the number of support !votes to increase. You make think that is unfair, that you are putting forward reasonable points, but you really need to focus on you here.)
  • I'm willing to discuss the possibility of mentorship in some form, but only if OJ really wants it and will abide by some restrictions, such as:
    • Contributions to talk:AiG will be about content only, not about other contributors. If some contributor issue arises, OJ can raise it with me and I'll do something if I think it is worth it.
    • No edits to the AiG article – not grammar corrections, not fixing typos, nothing – without talk page agreement (as in, other editors saying "yes, that's a good idea", not OJ deciding independently there is a consensus) or agreement from me.
    • Following editors from AiG to other pages (wikistalking) is disruptive. If you come across something problematic and it is by an active AiG editor, start a talk page discussion but don't revert / modify their edit. If others agree on the talk page, the change will happen; if they don't, it doesn't have consensus support. Disputes between editors that cross into other topics / articles are a fast way to earn a block, so avoid even the appearance of doing this.
    • You need to learn when your style is not helping pursue your goals. Above, for example, you have reflected on most Wikipedians saying that being able to see both sides of an issue is rare. Most people don't become more open to considering suggestions if the speaker starts by insulting them. There could be times when I would refactor / redact unhelpful comments from article talk pages and discuss them on your user talk.
  • I haven't done a formal mentorship, so any other suggestions are welcome. I'm also not an admin. However, OJ, for this to work you need to understand and accept that I will tell you if I disagree with you, or if you are being disruptive, and if needed I would call for a block or a t-ban. You'd be free to disagree or try to persuade, but you'd need to agree that if I say "don't" you need to not do whatever it is, or you need to end the mentorship arrangement.

The issue of scope would also need consideration, because the amount of time I have is limited. EdChem (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: Honestly, I am very happy to follow all the rules that you have described here. In fact, your mentorship would at most times be better than me editing by myself, as most of my edits will get reverted straight away simply because of the reputation that I have built for myself. I will definitely respect your time, and, trust me, I won't be proposing nearly as many edits as I have on the talk page, as I believe that most of the issues in the article have now been fixed. Furthermore, I won't have to spend nearly as much time justifying my points when there is only one user I can communicate my points to.
P.S. I think your 4th bullet point describes the issue very well. I was wondering what was causing such an overwhelming amount of support !votes: but it appears it's not so much the gist of my editing as it is my behaviour and aggressiveness which accompanied my edits. I've definitely created a bad first impression of myself, of an editor that is "self-righteous", "uncollaborative", and "aggressive", and my most recent edit summaries certainly did not help. I know this might seem obvious to other editors, but no one has yet brought this up, apart from a slight allusion by user:jps, so the fact that it's my behaviour that's causing the stir-up is very valuable insight for me. Not to accuse anyone, but giving me pieces of advice on my editing which, when taken, do not seem to make the situation much better, only make me more confused, hence more deluded, and hence you hear more angry claims from me of other editors being unfair on me. If anyone had taken the time to explain what exactly it wass that I was doing very wrong, you'd hear much less aggression from me. Of course, that's not at all to say that I'm not at fault here.OlJa 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. They have been blocked 4 times over the course of 4 years for the exact same reason, yet no sign of improvement has been seen. This may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. However, I definitely support a topic ban because to my points stated, and per all of the above. The Duke 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: On his talk page and in this ANI case Oldstone James has indicated that he was confused over what a revert is and appears to be surprised by the "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" part of the edit warring policy.
I find it difficult to believe that there has been the slightest confusion. Oldstone James was informed of the exact wording of the policy at least four times:
  • "To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC) [86]
  • "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) [87]
  • "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC) [88]
  • "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." --Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC) [89]
In addition Oldstone James has been to WP:3RRNB an additional four times,[90][91][92][93] twice as the one doing the edit warring (blocked both times) and twice as the one doing the reporting (One was declined as a "pure revenge report",[94] the other as "no violation" along with a note from the closing admin regarding Oldstone James' claims of consensus "Even a cursory look at the talkpage would reveal this to be flat-out false."[95])
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the above shows evidence of confusion or of purposely ignoring multiple clear warnings. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's not have this turn into a competition in vindictiveness - you may yet inadvertently win. Samsara 00:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no desire to be vindictive. I don't even want Oldstone James to be blocked. What I would really like is for Oldstone James to stop edit warring, stop saying that his proposed changes have consensus without asking whether anyone agrees that they have consensus, use the talk page rather than trying to get his way though repeatedly reverting, and to either stop accusing other editors of wrongdoing or to put together some evidence and report them at ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If you would really like for me to stop edit-warring, shouldn't you support getting me a mentor? Surely that would keep me from edit-warring?OlJa 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I choose to not state my position on whether you are a good candidate for mentoring or whether mentoring would stop your disruptive behavior.
I want you to stop edit warring. I don't care why you stop or how you are forced to stop, just that you stop.
I want you to stop saying that your proposed changes have consensus without asking whether anyone agrees that they have consensus. I don't care why you stop or how you are forced to stop, just that you stop.
I want you to use the talk page rather than trying to get your way though repeatedly reverting. I don't care why you do this or how you are forced to do this, just that you do it.
I want you to either stop accusing other editors of wrongdoing or to put together some evidence and report them at ANI. I don't care why you do this or how you are forced to do this, just that you do it.
I want you to stop blaming other people for your actions. I don't care why you stop or how you are forced to stop, just that you stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James is not the only editor to AiG with problematic behaviour. Just yesterday:

  • OJ added a hyphen to the phrase "Noah's Ark themed amusement park" with a strange edit summary... I think it was a copy and paste of a summary but it had nothing to do with the edit.
  • Calton reverted with an edit summary "It'S not that I don't trust you ... wait, I don't trust you." – if not a violation of NPA, it's very close.
  • I posted to talk:AiG to ask about the revert. Calton has not edited since making the reversion.
  • Roxy the dog responded blaming OJ (who he described as my "potential protégé") and characterised Calton's revert as a null edit (which it was not... it was not even a dummy edit as it removed the added hyphen, even though both the edit and the revert involved size changes of 0 bytes).
  • Guy Macon responded by starting a discussion at WT:MOS.
  • I thanked Guy for starting a helpful discussion for outside input. I also responded to Roxy, explaining that Calton's action was not a null edit, noting Calton's problematic edit summary, and pointing out that reverting OJ is ok if his edit is disruptive / flawed but not ok if it's basically "I don't like OJ."
  • Roxy's response did not actually address the points that I had made, instead implying that I was wrong and politely asking that I "read carefully."
  • I asked Roxy to be direct if he had a problem with me and again explained why Calton's edit was not a null edit. I also noted the accuracy of Guy Macon's observation that both OJ and Calton's edit summaries were out of line.
  • OJ subsequently explained his edit summary, which highlights (amongst other things) that he is not always sure what an edit summary is for and doesn't know the difference between a null edit and a dummy edit.
  • Meanwhile, Guy Macon's post at WT:MOS had been productive, leading to the advice that an ndash was needed (rather than a hyphen), which is what he then added to the article.

I'm not here to defend OJ, but I would note that Calton's edit was not appropriate and the edit summary was worse. Roxy defended Calton (inaccurately) and criticised OJ for making a mess without acknowledging that Calton did change content and in a way that was unjustified. Guy actually looked at the issue, got advice, and made the appropriate correction (thank you, very helpful). I leave it to others to evaluate my actions. I, however, am disappointed that OJ's problematic behaviours are the sole focus here. There are topic ban discussions at ANI where one editor is the problem and source of all conflict and needs to be removed. In this case, OJ is a problem, but so is the failure of others to recognise when he is making helpful edits or raising legitimate concerns. I have expressed willingness to become a mentor, which will include OJ not editing the article without consensus or my agreement, as that is needed to reduce tensions and the temperature. If I thought he was simply a disruption, I would have supported the topic ban proposal (which I recognise may still be the result). Note: Just to prevent any confusion, I am not advocating that ANI impose a sanction on Calton or Roxy, but they do offer a timely example of how the problems in this area have issues with behaviour of editors other than OJ as well. EdChem (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my part in this was owing to a misreading on my part: I thought I was reverting some wording, not a punctuation change. I apologize for that.
However, maybe you shouldn't be trying to draw attention away from Oldstone James's severe IDHT problem, especially given his obviously bogus claims of not understanding what he's doing wrong: look at the history of his talk page and you'll see YEARS of warnings regarding edit-warring -- and not just on Answers in Genesis -- that he claims to be unaware of. So no, I don't trust him. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I am in 100% agreement with EdChem above. In particular, I would encourage Roxy to dial it down from 11 to 2 or 3. Calton, nobody at ANI will do any more or less about Oldstone James because of the behavior of others. ANI sees the Tu quoque fallacy a lot -- most recently by Oldstone James -- and will not allow anyone else's behavior to excuse bad behavior. (There is a minor exception; if someone is being extremely insulting we tend to give less weight to someone insulting them back than we would to an unprovoked insult). It is perfectly reasonable to look at my behavior, your behavior, and Roxy's behavior while dealing with Oldstone James' behavior. The key is how we respond when we are informed/warned that we could have reacted better. If we apologize and make a good faith effort to not do it again, that is usually the end of it. ANI isn't here to punish, but rather to prevent future disruption.
On a personal note, Early off (after being a real jerk when I first started editing Wikipedia as an IP in 2006) I figured out something that has kept me block-free for 12 years and 45,000 edits: I try to follow the rules, and If I get a warning from an administrator or an established editor I immediately stop doing what they warned me not to do. Even if I am convinced that they are completely wrong I stop doing it and start discussing it with them. I also don't do the kind of things that result in instant blocks, like WP:OUTING, but nobody had to tell me that. This is fiendishly clever; as long as I stop when warned the only possible block would be a block without any prior warning, which is frowned upon. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: On many YEC-related articles, there is also problematic behavior on the "other side," from WP:POVFIGHTERs who claim to be fighting for science against those dumb Trump-loving YECers. This often leads to over-the-top edits that give YEC articles a POV in the opposite direction (like these, for example, in a another article where editors have since reached a consensus:[96][97][98][99]--also, see EdChem's examples above). However, despite this POV, I've only seen editors like Oldstone James, who's edits do not have a clear anti-YEC tone (though I think he's stated he's an atheist), be targeted. I don't endorse the aggressiveness of his efforts but I also oppose the behavior of some of the other editors. Thus, a topic ban is way too extreme and one-sided for this dispute. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If there are other editors exhibiting the same behavior and causing the same level of disruption, then start bringing specifics. Saying a problematic editor's behavior should be ignored because it balances out other problematic editors is an underwhelming argument. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I did provide specifics (see the diffs above), in addition to also referring readers to EdChem's specific examples above. I'm not interested in bringing anyone to ANI, if that's what you're implying. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm saying. When someone causes problems, an appropriate response is not to point to other people causing similar problems as an excuse to allow this person to continue doing what they're doing. Instead, we recognize that we should also hold other people to the same standard. In other words, your rationale is really for bringing other supposedly problematic editors to ANI, not for excusing the behavior of this editor. Grandpallama (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You have presented no evidence or argument to oppose a topic ban other than four unrelated diffs by unrelated editors. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly tendentious editing. And it seems obvious to me that, assuming good faith, this is a clear-cut case of IDHT. Because it's otherwise some catastrophic competence issues, which I don't believe is at all justified from the edits and the articulation of rationales. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
What has been deemed to be my tendentious editing - more specifically, the violation of 3RR - has already warranted myself a week's block ([100]). From then, the only reverts that I have made apart from this one: [101] (whose edit summary, by the way, said "Please revert this edit if you believe my judgement is wrong", and the following edit respected this revert) were all reverts to the WP:STATUS QUO, of an edit that had no consensus ([102], [103], [104]). I haven't even violated WP:3RR. Can you please explain why you believe this is a case of IDHT?OlJa 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
You do realize that addressing every single person who supports this topic ban in an attempt to argue with them is counter-productive, right? Grandpallama (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
We do give quite a bit of extra leeway to the editor who's behavior is being discussed and who is facing potential sanctions. It wouldn't be fair to give a dozen accusing editors several comments each while limiting responses by the accused.
For those who are convinced by Oldstone James' arguments/explanations his 22 comments so far insure that he was able to clearly state his case. For those who are not convinced his 22 comments are an example of the Law of holes, under the assumption "if this is how he behaves when he is on his best behavior, how will he behave after the ANI report is closed?"
If you watch enough ANI and arbcom cases, you will notice that immediately ceasing all editing of Wikipedia as soon as the report is filed gives you the best chance of escaping sanctions if the case is marginal. I have seen plenty of editors talk themselves into a block or topic ban by pounding on the "I am right, everybody else is wrong, those who complain about my behavior should be sanctioned" drum. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, in no way did I suggest his responses should be limited. I suggested he should reconsider his current strategy, with pretty much exactly the same thinking you just laid out. Grandpallama (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. To the point that we have a handy page about it: WP:BOOMERANG. -- The Anome (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I see your point, and, indeed, it is a strong one and has probably already had effect in this thread; however, please note that "I am right, everybody else is wrong, those who complain about my behavior should be sanctioned" is not at all my position; my position is more closely represented by "I am wrong; two other editors - specifically, you and Roxy the dog - are also wrong and should be sanctioned if I will be; I will listen to those who complain, but I will respond if I don't agree with their argument", which is a bit different.OlJa 14:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I feel this discussion is now coming to a natural end, per WP:STICK. I suspect that if Oldstone James quietly walks away at this point, and bears in mind the advice given them above, and changes their editing behavior to match, everything should be well. Otherwise, I suspect that someone is going to close this soon by imposing the topic ban. -- The Anome (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that has probably run its course, Oldstone James, your position here is entirely counterproductive if your goal is to continue to volunteer your time at this website. The variety of defense (such that it is) that you are contributing here is to complain that other people who got here first are also doing bad things. Aside from the obvious tu quoque cringe-worthy-ness of this argument, it's also been philosophically lampooned in other contexts at Wikipedia with the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tag. The way Wikipedia disciplinary actions function is that people who make these kinds of arguments get shitcanned on the regular. And anyway, Yeah, but they're just as bad! is just about as weak an argument you can make... so don't make it. I know it probably frustrates your sense of justice and fair play, but you're really much better off if you just let it go as The Anome intimates above. jps (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
That's just my position - not an argument. Never said stating this position is a good idea; likewise, never said it would make a good argument: I just pointed out that what Guy Macon described in his comment didn't represent my position at all well. That said, I've already stomached the fact that tu quoque isn't going to help my case.OlJa 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've reopened this as per below - there's still an unresolved topic ban proposal. And per "Please feel free to reopen the discussion if you like, per WP:BOLD" from the closer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Community-imposed topic ban?[edit]

So the result is nine editors in favor of a topic ban, two (one of whom is Oldstone James) opposing, and the additional oppose !vote having a very weak argument ("there is also problematic behavior on the 'other side'"), but this report is closed with "This discussion now seems to have naturally come to a close" and no sanctions? Not even a warning? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the close does not reflect the course of the discussion, nor does it take into account the consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the implication, given the benefit of the doubt, is that my behaviour has changed, and that if it is found otherwise, I will probably get topic-banned: I am already de facto unable to edit the AiG article. This thread in itself is one massive warning. Also, not that it's relevant, but saying an argument is "weak" is subjective, and I believe some of the 'support' arguments were weak, also.OlJa 10:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, a quite stupid close. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)-Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:BOLD applies :) I don't think the close has been invented that can't be reversed.Except, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 10:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I closed the discussion on the basis that the message had got through, and Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place. If that's not the case, a topic ban would be the next port of call, all the discussion having been done already above. Please feel free to reopen the discussion if you like, per WP:BOLD, or just ask me on my talk page, and I will do it for you; closure is not an act of final authority, but an editorial function to summarize discussion when a process had come to a close, which in this case seemed to to me to have happened by editor behavior change rather than sanction. -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that further discussion would be useless, and would advise against simply opening the discussion so we can get more of the same. What I disagree with is the lack of sanctions given that there has not been a single administrator who expressed an opinion that there was nothing sanctionable. I think pretty much everyone expected a topic ban, block, or an agreement to be mentored. I do not agree that "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place". To be specific:
  • I asked him to stop edit warring. He appears to have stopped and he appears to agree that edit warring is bad. I haven't seen him agree that he was using the wrong definition of self-revert, but maybe he accepts that as well.
  • I asked him to stop saying that his proposed changes have consensus without asking whether anyone agrees that they have consensus. I have seen zero evidence that he has agreed to do this.
  • I asked him to use the talk page rather than trying to get his way though repeatedly reverting. So far so good on this one.
  • I asked him to either stop accusing other editors of wrongdoing or to put together some evidence and report them at ANI. I have seen no retraction of the accusations against me personally, nor have I seen an ANI case with my name on it.
  • I asked him to stop blaming other people for his actions. He denies that he ever did that. I could put together a long list of diffs and we could spend a week discussing exactly what he did and did not mean, but instead I will leave it as this: if you believe him, mark this as resolving the problem. If you believe that in the future he will respond to ANI reports , user page warnings, etc. with Tu quoque, mark it as not resolved.
Finally, even if everyone agrees that "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place" it is an established fact that he didn't do that until faced with sanctions at ANI and that in the events leading up to this report he refused to listen when a dozen different people told him he was violating our policies and guidelines -- and he continued the behavior after his block expired. At the bare minimum this should result in an unclose followed immediately with a new close that contains a clearly worded warning (keeping in mind how often he misunderstands our basic policies and guidelines) telling him exactly what is expected of him going forward. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've accepted I was wrong about the definition of a self-revert and stated that in several comments: [105] [106] are some examples. If anything, I didn't know that I was, nor did I intend to, edit-war, limiting myself at 1RR ever since the block. Of course, it turned out that my understanding of what a self-revert was wrong, so I did end up edit-warring, but that was not my intention.
  • I will not claim consensus ever again, even when it seems obvious to me that there is consensus, as a safety measure. I will, however, say that I believe where there is consensus and where there is not; I will of course not use this as a justification for my edits.
  • I do not want to file an ANI report, as I already have a lot of things to do both here on Wikipedia and in real life. I did, however, already provide you with diffs backing up my accusations.
  • I do not deny I ever did that, and, furthermore, I have repeatedly said that I will stop doing that. Here is one example: [107], but there are many more.
It is not at all an established fact that I didn't listen to advice I was given - especially after the block. I am not going to list pieces of advice that I took on before the block, because that wouldn't be of any use, but here is such a list for advice that I took on after the block and before ANI:
  • "Do not reinstate your edit without having first reached consensus"
  • "Do not edit-war (as stated above, the edit-war that I did end up being involved in was due to my misunderstanding of what a self-revert is, but my intention was to limit myself at 1RR)"
  • "Discuss your changes on the relevant talk page if you see that your edit has been reverted"
  • "When you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns"
There are more examples, but these are some important ones.
Finally, I have only misunderstood two subtle WP policies so far - what counts a self-revert and what counts as a dummy edit - which isn't that many, as I've even seen some admins misunderstanding a few policies here and there (and sometimes later admitting to misunderstanding them).OlJa 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just another comment on my reopening. A close should summarize the consensus, and the close summary didn't really address anything that was covered in the discussion. I don't see a consensus that "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given". As a topic ban was proposed, I think a close should address that explicitly - and I'm happy to leave that to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I guess we're going to keep talking about this[edit]

An object lesson: Discussion on my talkpage about an edit Oldstone James did not like at AiG, Discussion at WT:MOS about this. Arguable as to whether these venues are the correct ones or not, and perhaps not everyone would have taken as kindly as I did to the level of belligerence that Oldstone James evinced on my talkpage (There are people on this site that would feel justified in lashing out violently if you told them something like "...when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false. I've already noticed that some of your earlier good-faith edits were attempts at correcting grammar but turned out to be unnecessary/incorrect in the end. I may not be a good editor when it comes to behaviour, but I do believe I know a thing or two about grammar...", but it amuses me more than bothers me.), but in any case, I think this indicates the right direction that things can go in. jps (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the "Gosh, eight people disagree with me on this and nobody agrees with me, so I am going to go along with the consensus here" post. Note that I am not talking about that subset of his proposals that some other editors support. I am talking about that subset where everybody disagrees and WP:1AM applies. If you can't reach a compromise even when you are sure you are right, you are unable to work with others on a Wikipedia article. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that as long as disruption in articlespace isn't happening, that's a positive. I'm inclined to accept implicit sorts of acquiescence. If a person lets the other side have their way but does not post that they were wrong, does it matter? jps (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Please read these two diffs from today.[108][109]
Would you describe them as:
[A] Oldstone James explicitly asking on the talk page whether his proposed changes have consensus instead of assuming without asking that they have consensus?
or as
[B] Oldstone James trying to get his way through reverting rather than using the talk page?


Now look at this conversation at MOS Talk:[110]
Would you describe the conversation as:
[1] Oldstone James hearing the arguments of the multiple editors who do not agree with his preferred wording and deciding to go along with the consensus?
or as
[2] Oldstone James stubbornly continuing to argue for his preferred wording no matter what?


He is not, as you claim, letting the other side have their way. Go ahead. post a diff where he agrees to go along with consensus instead of continuing to argue in the face of significant pushback by multiple editors.
If this is how he acts as his behavior is being scrutinized at ANI and the consensus is to topic ban him and after several people have told him to back off of the creationism pages until the ANI case closes, that tells me that he is incapable of letting it go.
And he is now in the middle of Yet Another Creationism Content Dispute.[111][112] This one is just starting, but would anyone like to take bets on whether he will end up agreeing with the other editor? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that the results are what matter. I don't really care if Oldstone James never says he agrees to go along as long as he doesn't muck about in articlespace with the attitude that it is his and his way alone. jps (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have to achieve consensus for every edit that I make – that would make Wikipedia uneditable. I need to achieve consensus if and when there is disagreement about the edit that I just made, which is what I am trying to do at Talk:Genesis creation narrative. I don't see any problem with me continuing to argue for my wording on the TP, although I'm not sure why you feel I'd do so "no matter what", given there are already several examples of me changing my stance following arguments provided by other editors.
As for the discussion at MOS, here are two examples of me agreeing with other editors: [113] [114]. Either way, I really don't see why I must definitively concede that I am wrong even when I believe that I am right. If I don't agree with some other editor, that does not mean that I haven't considered their arguments – it means that I've considered their arguments and concluded they weren't strong enough to convince me. You are making a lot of big claims about me, but big claims require big evidence. I don't see any evidence of me assuming consensus or neglecting other editors' arguments just because they contradict my pov or me not letting the other side have their way ever since this thread was posted at ANI. Speaking about the latter, the current version of the article in question (Answers in Genesis) is against my preference; I have accepted that and do not try to force my preferred version into the article.OlJa 13:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Just note that I did not mean to belligerent as you claim. I just wanted to share something that I've noticed, even admitting you may take it with a grain of salt. I apologise if you found my approach to be aggressive. That said, I've been addressed with a far more belligerent approach, including by you as well ([115]), and I've been rightly told that responding violently is never justified, even in such situations.OlJa 11:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And the purpose of once again pointing to the misbehavior of other editors is? If, as you claim, you are not trying to point at the misbehavior of others to justify or excuse your own misbehavior, why are you once again pointing at the misbehavior of others? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not fishing for an apology here, and I am personally fine with upping the level of critique at Wikipedia. Just be aware that in community discussions there is a reasonable aphorism that "impact does not equal intent". In that vein, there is no reason to apologize to me, but instead you should be aware that this sort of engagement style could cause problems with others. On Wikipedia, people will throw around WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in regards to such. jps (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
If I might throw in my two cents here, I have had some minor interactions with Oldstone James recently, and they were fine. That being said, if I could give one piece of advice, it would be that the editor in question needs to watch his (or her?) defensive reflex. It is fine to argue for one's point, of course, and in a one-on-one context, I really don't think it's a problem. However, when one gets the same message from four or five other editors, or, say, an entire noticeboard, it's time to accede, no matter how righteous one's cause or how justified the conduct. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James: Call for close[edit]

It is my opinion that there is 100% agreement that further discussion will not change the final result here. If you think this should not be closed yet, please speak up now. I am calling for an uninvolved administrator please write up a summary that reflects their evaluation of what the consensus is, close this discussion, and apply any sanctions or warnings that are appropriate. If anyone has an opinion as to what the consensus is, please post that opinion below (just that one narrow point without repeating anything that is covered in the sections above, please). Please note that it is perfectly reasonable for someone who !voted for A to then opine that the consensus is for B.

  • Consensus is for a topic ban, possibly put on hold with mentoring. My count is:
  • Two Editors (one of whom is Oldstone James) called for no sanctions of any kind.
  • Three editors (one of whom is Oldstone James, another is the proposed mentor) were for mentorship. jps wrote "This is one of the extremely rare cases where I think mentorship may help, if he would be open to it. Unfortunately, none of the people with whom he's gotten into arguments (including me) would be appropriate. We'd need to find someone he would listen to". Oldstone James wrote "I would indeed be very open to mentorship, if it is given that the mentor knows very well and respects Wikipedia policies, and that the mentor can explain to me why my some of my particular edits are unconstructive. Based on my experience, user:EdChem would be a good candidate." EdChem wrote "I'm willing to discuss the possibility of mentorship in some form, but only if OJ really wants it and will abide by some restrictions" followed by a list and by Oldstone James replying "I am very happy to follow all the rules that you have described here".
If Oldstone James and EdChem agree on this, I would like to see any topic ban be put on hold, this discussion closed, and a new discussion between Oldstone James and EdChem started on EdChem's talk page. I would also call for the closing admin to evaluate whether a topic ban should or should not be applied if the mentoring falls apart and EdChem resigns from it.
I don't see any point in collecting the inevitable slew of !votes agreeing with mentoring, but if anyone opposes mentoring, please speak up now or we will assume that everyone agrees.
  • Ten Eight editors were for a topic ban from all pages relating to creationism, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Consensus was initially for a topic ban, possibly put on hold with mentoring. To make the job easier for whoever will close this, here is the actual !vote count:
  • 2 oppose !votes
  • 7 support !votes
  • 1 weak support !vote

And here is the opinion count for editors involved in this thread:

  • 8 editors directly for topic ban
  • 2+1[1] editors agree that mentorship would solve the problem (me, user:EdChem, user:ජපස)
  • 2+1[1] editors say no ban is necessary (me, user:1990'sguy, user:The Anome)
  • 1 editor doesn't express a strong opinion but says their interactions with me "were fine", also warning that I should listen to other editors' advice in the future
Feel free to comment down any errors with my counts underneathOlJa 18:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. Support --Guy Macon 02:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Weak support --Nil Einne 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Support topic ban --Bishonen 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC).
  4. Support --Guettarda 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support --Johnuniq 09:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. Support --Samsara 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. Support topic ban. --The Duke of Nonsense 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  8. Support --Grandpallama 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  9. Support topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, "ජපස" and "jps" are the same user. Also The Anome did not !vote on this proposal. Please don't confuse closing an ANI thread (which is supposed to involve evaluating and reporting what the consensus is) with being part of that consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@The Anome: Yes, they did not, and I did not claim they did. However, I did take closing the thread with the comment "Oldstone James has taken to heart the advice given, resolving the problem that required the topic ban in the first place" as meaning they did not think a topic ban was necessary. I can't exclude the possibility that I'm simply being biased, though. The best way of finding out would be to ask user:The Anome themselves.OlJa 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was pretty discouraged by this. I don't see that Oldstone James has run this escalation by his proposed mentor. jps (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Let me take this opportunity to state/clarify that I think the ban is necessary. Starting yet another fire in a new venue is starting to make this whole affair rather unbearable, and OJ was under no duress to do so. Samsara 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── There is an edit war going on at Genesis creation narrative with plenty of blame to spread around.

  • 20:07, 22 March 2019 [116] In this edit, Oldstone James makes a bold edit, changing a claim that reading the Genesis creation narrative as history rather than theology is misreading it, to a claim that either reading is valid. No problems so far; this is the B in BRD.
  • 09:42, 19 April 2019 [117] Pico reverts Oldstone James. This is also fine; it it the R in BRD.
  • 10:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [118] BRR instead of BRD.
  • Revision as of 10:39, 19 April 2019 [119] Theroadislong reverts Oldstone James. BRRR.
  • 11:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) The edit/revert is first discussed on the talk page (Initiated by Theroadislong, not by Oldstone James. An extensive ond ongoing discussion ensues, with no agreement so far. BRRRD.
  • 17:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [120] Oldstone James makes an unrelated edit that improves the wording without changing the meaning. Nothing wrong at all with doing this. Another B
  • 22:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [121] Pico reverts Oldstone James and another editor. No good explanation for the revert. BR.
  • 23:41, 19 April 2019 [122] Oldstone James reverts Pico. BRR.
  • 04:59, 20 April 2019 [123] Pico reverts Oldstone James. BRRR,
  • 13:06, 20 April 2019 [124] Oldstone James make a very different edit. Definitely not a revert. B.
  • 20:22, 20 April 2019 [125] ජපස /jps reverts Oldstone James. BR.
  • 21:07, 20 April 2019 [126] Oldstone James reverts ජපස /jps BRR.
  • 21:15, 20 April 2019 [127] Theroadislong posts an EW warning on Oldstone James' talk page
  • 21:24, 20 April 2019 [128] Oldstone James self-reverts. This converts the previous BRR to BR.

While this ANI report is about Oldstone James, it sure looks to me that some of the other editors on that page are worth looking at. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, if I can just comment since I'm mentioned: you say that I didn't give an adequate reason for my revert on 22:59, 19 April 2019, so I'll explain here: Oldstone James had made a minor edit on a point of grammar, which I found problematic because it broke the link with the preceding sentence; at this point another editor, Epiphyllumlover, made an edit which had nothing to do with Oldstone James's edits but was substantive and looked like leading to yet another long thread on the talk page. I felt it would better to avoid that (we have only so much time and energy) and so reverted with a request (I said "please") for editors to refrain from editing for a while. I'm trying to preserve the article at the last stable stage. But, if my editing is a problem, I'll offer to stay out of it for a week or two.PiCo (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As the "proposed mentor," I'll offer a few thoughts:

  • jps commented that he Example text and that he doesn't see that Oldstone James has run this escalation by his proposed mentor. I have already encouraged OJ to use dispute resolution procedures, so I see a positive in the approach taken. I wasn't consulted, but then with no agreement in place, I also see no obligation. To me, moving to DRN is reasonable in theory. Without looking in detail, I can't comment on it being wise, but it certainly better than edit warring. I also note that GM's summary above shows edit warring behaviours from several editors and the self-revert to return from "BRR" to "BR" (as GM puts it) shows willingness to follow policy.
  • Guy Macon and Oldstone James, you have both offered summaries to assist the closer. No doubt your intentions are good, but neither of you is exactly an unbiased observer. I would like to see more thoughts on mentorship from contributors to this thread (including those who expressed views on a topic ban) and anyone else who cares to comment. I'm not trying to delay the close, but there is a considerable difference between a mentor arrangement agreed solely between me and OJ and one backed by ANI with agreed parameters.
  • I would especially welcome input from Bishonen, both because I respect her and because she has considerable experience.
  • OJ, a minor quibble: you wrote that you, me and jps agree that mentorship would solve the problem. I am saying I'm willing to try mentorship, but am not certain whether it will work. I hope it can solve the problem, and I believe that it may solve the problem, but there is no certainty. I do not presume to speak for jps, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't have a similar view. For it to work, you need to be willing to adapt, I need to successfully answer your questions / explain what you don't understand, etc. Since the idea was first raised, I've seen some positive / encouraging signs, and also some problems. I've considered posting a formal oppose to the proposal, noting progress and invoking WP:ROPE to say it is worth allowing you the space to demonstrate your developing approach... but have ultimately not done that as real life has limited my on-wiki time meaning there is a lot to catch up on. OJ, I believe you have skills to be a good Wikipedian – I would not be willing to offer my time if I thought otherwise. To be a valued contributor, however, requires the ability to work with others when controversy arises, it requires a commitment to content that aligns with policy (which can be a problem when self-confidence and belief leads to advocacy) and the skills for encyclopaedic writing that is a distinct style of its own, and it is helped by the judgement to know when to step away or concede.
  • I think OJ has demonstrated the willingness to change and reassess his approach in the discussions that have started at his talk page. I think he has tried to respond to Guy Macon's comments earlier in the sub-section preceding this one. I am disappointed that Guy has not given more acknowledgement of that, though I recognise his right to his views... and I do thank him for the summary immediately above noting the edit war involving multiple editors, it shows the sort of objective description that is helpful.
  • Taking all the evidence, I cannot support a topic ban being imposed. If a mentoring arrangement is to be agreed, I would rather it has input from others on parameters, discussion with OJ and me, and be formally recorded in a close. Consequently, a close for a mentorship to be sorted out in a new sub-section is a reasonable way forward. EdChem (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
jps commented that he Example text? (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
In principle, nothing wrong with DRN, but given the dramah that has been going on, it would have been nice if he had asked on the talkpage whether we would all like to do this first. It feels pretty WP:GAME-y, is all, especially when the discussion is ongoing. Plus, I hate WP:DRN. It doesn't work when people who are involved in the dispute are not a fan of the venue you're dragging them. jps (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Asking on the talk page would have be a suitable courtesy, no doubt. Starting it before asking for a self-requested block was an, umm, interesting choice too. EdChem (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is just added concern for me. Don't get me wrong, I love me some requested blocks, but it seems to me it is a good idea to think about other people you have involved in various discussions before slamming the door behind you. At least have the courtesy of closing your request if you're going to abandon the entire venue? Sigh. jps (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I acknowledge Oldstone James' willingness to change. I think he is sincere. What I don't believe is that OJ is able to change at this time. I think that a topic ban will tell us two things: [1] Is Oldstone James able to edit productively in other areas? [2] Will the bad behavior by other editors on the creationism pages continue without Oldstone James? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Having been on the receiving end of such an interrogation, I personally refuse to sit in judgment who is able to change and who is not. Also, I think there is perhaps a two steps forward, one step back approach towards improvement that tends to occur in such matters. I'm not as convinced as you are that there is an epidemic of "bad behavior" on the creationism pages. jps (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the kind words, EdChem. I don't see how this thread can be closed with anything other than an indefinite topic ban from creationism and all related pages, in view of the robust consensus for such a ban. Closing without instituting a topic ban would be an egregious supervote IMO. Neither a mentor nor a self-requested block can change this. I appreciate your kindness in offering to mentor the user, EdChem, and I should think he well would need a mentor even with a topic ban. What he needs to do during the topic ban, which preferably shouldn't be appealed before six months have passed, is edit in other areas, and do it without getting into trouble. The more and better he edits other areas, and also edits in Wikipedia's sister projects (which he is free to do in all areas, as a topic ban here would not apply to them), the better his chances of having the topic ban lifted if and when he appeals it. A mentor can help him do this, assuming that he's willing to learn. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC).
    • Thank you for responding, Bishonen. I was wondering more about your view of mentorship and the specific boundaries that I'd suggested, to be honest, and whether it is wise. I asked before he asked for the block, though, and that decision from OJ changes the landscape, as far as I can see. :( EdChem (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, if you're still considering it, EdChem, there should preferably be an explicit agreement that either of you can end the mentorship at any time if it becomes burdensome, and that there will be no interrogation about why either party is ending it. Obviously it's already a fact that mentor and mentee can end at any time, but having a reminder of it spelled out may be useful. And you may need to set yourself some limits on how much you'll do, Ed, whether explicitly or just in your head. OJ says above that "Furthermore, I won't have to spend nearly as much time justifying my points when there is only one user I can communicate my points to,", and that sounds like a misconception on his part that he'd be either obliged or encouraged to talk only to you. If he does that, it might devour your Wikipedia time fast. Perhaps I misunderstood him.
A helpful part of mentorship can be that anybody who wants to warn or advise OJ alerts you to the issue, Ed, by copying to you, or indeed approaching you first. A prominent note to this effect on OJ's page could be useful.
The essay Wikipedia:Mentorship seems pretty good to me. The "Involuntary mentorship" section in it, about mentoring as an alternative to sanctions, shouldn't come into play here IMO (note the final sentence in the section). In other words, I believe mentoring OJ should be a purely informal arrangement between the two of you, based on trust, and not a replacement for a TBAN or other sanction. Consequently it needn't be mentioned as a sanction or condition in the close of this thread, or logged anywhere. As for whether it would be wise for you to take on mentorship of OJ.. you can probably tell I have some doubts. And yes indeed, somebody please close, per below! Bishonen | talk 12:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC).

Again, I call for someone to make a decision and close this. Further discussion will not change the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, very disappointing. Aren't there any uninvolved admins reading this? - Nick Thorne talk 12:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James now has a self-requested 1 month block[edit]

He requested this 11 hours ago and User:Black Kite agreed to it. I was one of the Admins he asked to do it but Black Kite beat me to it. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

...And now, 14 hours after being blocked, he has submitted an unblock appeal on UTRS. [129] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: No, it was a fake unblock request, evidently we've been getting these. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Just when it looked like a topic ban was about to be imposed OJ gets a dose of the vapours and asks to be blocked for a month. Well fine, they're not causing any disruption for that time, however I strongly recomend that we continue to impose an indef topic ban on creationism articles, broadly construed, so that when they return to editing we don't get another episode of their behaviour and find ourelves involved in another massive time sink here. I should not have to point out that there is a pretty clear consensus for this sort of a TB, the voluntary one month block does not alter that fact. - Nick Thorne talk 02:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I had hoped that consensus might evolve to support a mentorship arrangement, but having now requested a block for a month, OJ can't participate in advancing that approach or assuaging concerns. In these circumstances, with a consensus clear, I can see no alternative tan to close this discussion in line with that consensus. I agree with Bishonen that any other close would be a supervote, which is not appropriate, and with Guy Macon and Nick Thorne that OJ's self-requested block should not lead to holding open this thread nor does it alter the existing consensus. I support Guy Macon's call for an uninvolved administrator to assess consensus and close this discussion accordingly. EdChem (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am deeply cynical of requests for self-requested blocks, which are, first, an admission by the requester that they have no self-control, and, second, a device to game the resolution of a conduct dispute. At this point the only question in my mind is whether to impose the topic-ban or to impose a site-ban. In case of doubt, do the less drastic and impose the topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Refusing to acknowledge a consensus[edit]

For some time now, a lengthy debate has been going on at WikiProject World Rally. It has been through article talk pages and a DRN and ultimately an RfC. The RfC expired this past week and I implemented changes to one of the affected articles based on the results. However, Pelmeen10 subsequently reverted those changes, claiming that "no such consensus had been reached". However, I believe that it is evident from the RfC discussion that the consensus does exist—though perhaps not unanimously—and that Pelmeen10 is deliberately misrepresenting things to prevent it from being implemented. Here are some of the things he has said in the RfC thread since it closed:

"Most of the people involved in this discussion were against, including me."

This is incorrect. There were only six people involved in the discussion, and three of them voiced support for the proposed change. Pelmeen10 supported a different change, while another editor outright opposed it and the final editor only pointed out that Pelmeen10's proposal did not satisfy WP:MOSACCESS.

"This whole Rfc was so wrongly started."

I do not know what he means by this. The RfC was started as a suggestion of the DRN and as the person who started it, I did not receive any notification that I had not followed the procedure correctly.

"Like there is only 3 possible ways to go."

Again, I'm not sure what he means by this. The RfC was open for a month and there was ample opportunity to put forward proposals. I limited it to three because I could not think of any more.

"Most people actually preferred not to make any changes."

Again, this is incorrect. Pelmeen10 himself suggested minor changes and three editors supported completely reworking the table.

"Anyway, this discussion has not been closed yet."

A bot removed the RfC template after 30 days, taking the RfC off the list of active discussions. The discussion itself had run its course two weeks previously.

All in all, I believe that a consensus has been formed as the result of the RfC. Pelmeen10 is refusing to acknowledge it and has taken to misrepresenting things to justify reverting edits he disagreed with. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

So, I'm pretty new here edited, but I think in this situation, where the issue is contentious or consensus may not be clear, you might want to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor or admin at WP:ANRFC. Just letting the rfc template expire doesn't appear to have created a solution. There's also no actual time limit on RfCs, so you could just add the tag back for a while. Safrolic (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Safrolic — I'm actually not that new. I used to post under another name and had 35,000+ edits before I forgot my password and had to create a new account. This issue has been to multiple talk pages, DRN and now an RfC. The time has come to move things along. By his own admission, Pelmeen10 forgot about the RfC discussion for two weeks, by which time the initial 30 days had elapsed so I don't think he can reasonably claim that the discussion is not only unresolved, but that there is no consensus. I will take things to ANRFC, but given how he has misrepresented the situation by claiming no-one supported the proposal, I think ANI is an appropriate place to raise the issue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, awkward, sorry about that. Safrolic (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That Rfc was the continuation of discussions that happened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally#Entry_list, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally#Entries_table, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally#Discussion_of_Table_Format, Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship#Entry_table. You received more opposition than support in those discussions, so claiming that your suggestion was the consensus is false. Adding the tag back or trying the Request for closure are both good solutions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Prior discussions are not a part of the RfC. You cannot use them to circumvent an RfC discussion. If you could, it would be too easy for editors to oppose changes by citing previous discussions regardless of how old they are or how any participants in those discussions currently regard the issue. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have, only eight days late, reviewed the results of the RFC. I am neutral, and originally tried to moderate the content issue at DRN but then closed that dispute as needing the RFC. I copied the table formats from the sandbox to the talk page so that the sandbox can be reused (after all, it's a sandbox). Unfortunately, the format of the RFC is confusing, and I can't come up with a consensus. I can close it with a finding to that effect, or I can leave it for someone else to close, or it can just go without a formal close, but I can't make any progress. You can ask for a formal closure at WP:ANRFC, and you might get one, or the closer might be at as much of a loss as I was as the would-be closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My main concern at this point is what happens when a consensus is formed. How can we trust Pelmeen10 to honour it? He has clearly misrepresented the discussion to justify opposing a consensus; when that was pointed out, he started trying to drag the opinions of editors from previous discussions into the RfC—even though one editor (who is involved in the RfC) has changed his opinion in the past few months. He has even admitted to forgetting about the discussion, only to then claim that the discussion is ongoing. There is obvious support for one table format in the RfC, but Pelmeen10's actions appear to be a deliberate attempt to drag the discussion out and prevent a consensus from being formed. When a consensus is finally formed, I have no confidence that he will respect it based on this behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Resumption of Campaign - Please Resolve[edit]

User:Mclarenfan17 has now moved the campaign back to the article talk page, and is arguing there that there is a consensus. Since they opened this thread, this has aspects of forum shopping. I may be the "wrong" editor for this dispute, because I initially sent the disputant parties off to an RFC, but the resultant RFC is a mess, and I can't tease a consensus out of it. Maybe a wiser closer than I can resolve it, but if User:Mclarenfan17 keeps insisting that there is a consensus, in spite of vocal disagreement, then my own opinion is that Mclarenfan17 is trying to game the system and force a consensus. Can an uninvolved administrator please either find some consensus, or close the RFC with a finding that a new RFC is needed, or something? My own opinion, which is only my opinion, is that User:Mclarenfan17 bungled the RFC and it needs to be restarted. In any case, by insisting that there is a consensus when there clearly is not a consensus, they are being stubborn, and something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Since they opened this thread, this has aspects of forum shopping"
I would like to dispute this. I opened this thread because I believe that an editor is deliberately trying to prevent a consensus from being formed by insisting that the discussion is still open. A week later and I am none the wiser as to what he wants to keep discussing. If a consensus is to be formed, how can we be confident that he will honour it if all he has to do is post words to the effect of "we haven't finished talking about it yet" in the RfC thread?
I was also unaware of the existence of WP:ANRFC until it was pointed out here. Had I known about it at the time, I would have gone there first.
"User:Mclarenfan17 keeps insisting that there is a consensus, in spite of vocal disagreement"
The current disagreement is coming from a single editor.
In the original RfC discussion, three people supported one of the proposals (albeit with minor changes). Two editors supported an additional proposal, but were told that it was not feasible under MOS:ACCESS. They then went silent. The sixth and final editor involved did not voice any support for any proposal and instead only pointed out the MOS:ACCESS issue.
"by insisting that there is a consensus when there clearly is not a consensus"
As I outlined above, I believe that there is clearly a majority support for one of the proposals. It may be slim, but with those opposed to it having gone quiet after being told that the version they favoured did not meet an important guideline, what am I supposed to think?
"My own opinion, which is only my opinion, is that User:Mclarenfan17 bungled the RFC and it needs to be restarted"
Why is this the first that I am hearing of this? I have started a handful of RfCs (under my old account) and never had a problem with it. I structured this one the same as every other one: a brief, neutral outline of the problem, then make my case in detail, then give opposed editors the chance to do the same, and then discussion. If the structure of the RfC was so flawed, it should have been raised before now. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of undisclosed WP:PAID editing / large scale reversion of edits[edit]

This morning, I noticed that a new account, User:Renmap0o, was reverting lots of edits by Britishfinance with identical edit summaries - see for example this diff, but there are numerous others with identical edit summaries. I reverted, and left a note on their talk page saying that the username alone wasn't a valid reason to revert their edits - see the discussion at User talk:Renmap0o.

Renmap0o responded by noting that there was an article in the Irish Times accusing Britishfinance of making numerous paid edits - there is a link in the user page discussion linked to above, and on investigation I found several other such article - see this, this and this.

I want to be clear that I have no view about whether Britishfinance has indeed been engaging in paid editing - British and Irish financial matters are not areas I have much expertise in, and I don't feel qualified to judge whether their edits are indeed biased or suggest paid editing. I do note that Britishfinance has been around a while, has a clean block log, and seems to have been involved in editing in lots of areas aside from finance. Nevertheless, given the accusations that Renmap0o has been making, the mass reverting (which I have got myself involved in by unreverting), and the Irish Times articles, I thought I should bring the matter here for consideration. I will notify both users now. GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, WP:COIN is probably the most appropriate board. WBGconverse 16:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, WP:COIN is probably the most appropriate board. WBGconverse 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sensing a recommendation that WP:COIN might be the most appropriate board. EEng 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I will make my main comment below, per normal conversation flow practice, but want to intervene here to correct an inaccuracy - neither the Irish Times ("IDA Ireland has paid for changes to Wikipedia pages about itself and its chief executive") nor the Times are, as stated to have been stated, "accusing Britishfinance of making numerous paid edits" - this simply is not in the articles, with the Times simply noting the editor's level of activity and topics (but the subtitle of the article, without much grounding, does suggest the editor was "attacking Ireland's probity"). So the whole question of paid editing / COIN is poorly based - what the Times touches on is potential negative bias.SeoR (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, I feel this is unfair to me. A new user has entered WP today and been blanking large sections of tax-related articles and PROD'ing other articles. The newspaper article he is quoting I have discussed on my talk page with Smallbones. The article is not about my bias per se, but about the Irish IDA Ireland paying other editors to make their CEO, Martin Shanahan look good. I had the unfortunate experience to come across these paid editors a few months ago (see the Martin Shanahan talk page), and they accused me of bias and bath faith. I left that page and never returned to it.
I am not a paid editor and nor am I on WP for conflict/warring. I am fully happy to have any WP:COIN review on my work. While many of my WP articles I wrote in my first 6 months were not WP proper standard, I believe that I am writing good WP articles now, and I re-written almost every earlier article I wrote (still a few to finish; just did Tax inversion last night). My tax-related editing uses the highest quality tax academic sources (you can see on Double Irish arrangement, which the Council on Foreign Relations noted as being the "best source" on these tax schemes, noted on its talk page). Just a few days ago, Nobel prize-winning Paul Krugman cited my re-write of Leprechaun economics on this twitter feed (see its talk page).
I am not an FA/GA ranked WP editor (yet), but I think I am doing very good work on bringing WP's tax-related articles to good academic quality. The editor above is a vandal with an agenda that has nothing to do with building good tax articles on WP. Also note, I am not a tax-SPA, per my user page, I have lots of other non-tax articles. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Britishfinance I'm sorry that you feel this report was unfair. To be clear, I am not saying that I agree with the accusation - I did note, in my initial post above, your clean block log and your extensive work in areas outside finance. I'm happy to reiterate that, aside from the newspaper articles (which themselves offer no evidence about you), I have no reason to doubt your good faith or to suspect you of being a paid editor. I just thought that, given the aspersions that had been cast, the new user's reverts and my own unreverts, a review of the situation by third parties may be in order.
Thanks for the suggestion WBG - if I was confident that there was actually a COI problem here, I would have raised a report at COIN. As it is, I am not certain whether the problem is with Britishfinance's work, or whether there is a behavioural problem with User:Renmap0o's casting aspersions and hounding Britishfinance. GirthSummit (blether) 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and QuiteUnusual, since they have also been involved in undoing some of Renmap0s's reverts and PRODs and may wish to comment. GirthSummit (blether) 17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the articles created and vast edits by BritishFinance. I don't contest that the user has other articles, nor that they don't have citations for the information. It's designed in a way to look like it's within the rules, but its effectively a vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally. For example, the user might edit the Wikipedia entry/article on tax havens, filling it with information referring to Ireland, pictures of Ireland and slip in examples which also refer to Ireland. Many articles seem to have been corrupted by the user in this way. This user has made 40k+ edits with a big focus being discrediting Ireland in Wikipedia entries. The user has created many pages/articles labeling Ireland as a tax haven and describing the so-called schemes. Then, linking their articles to the other main pages referring to Ireland. It's a vast system and complex web of misinformation. Ireland is primarily referred to as tax haven by eccentric journalists. It's not on the standard lists. It doesn't even have the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. Nine countries have lower, two have the same and seven are within 5% of the Irish rate. There is obviously some controversy over tax schemes, in not just Ireland, but in many countries worldwide. The user's posts and edits are designed to portray Ireland as not just a tax haven, but the worlds worst offender in the eyes of the international community. Hopefully, the journalists (or authorities) blow open the story of who is really behind this account. It's clearly politically motivated, with a high conflict of interest. If you have any doubt about this, just look at the pages created by the user, links they added and the edits they did. Renmap0o 17:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The above sounds like the same bad faith and conspiracy-theory type arguments that the IDA Ireland COI marketing team made to me on the Martin Shanahan talk page. No other tax haven-type jurisdiction has ever made a bad edit to the main WP tax haven-type articles in my time, not one; however, we have had several aggressive edits on the Irish-related content. The irony is that the newspaper articles quoted above, if you read them properly, really concern the fact that IDA Ireland pays editors to make Ireland look good tax-wise on WP. And judging by the PROMO/POV state of the articles when I got to them, they got value for money. The issue exploded when Paddy Cosgrave tweeted on this COI-UDP on his twitter feed: here here.
Google "Ireland tax haven" and you get thousands of Tier 1 RS newspapers on the subject (i.e. it is WP:GNG notable). However, my edits try and avoid even that kind of RS where possible as it leads to WP:SYN; I instead focus on the most cited academic papers on tax-issues from the most cited authors. I can see from WP tax articles that I have edited on that such academic references used to exist, but the articles became so broken from POV editors fighting both sides of the debate. My goal is to restore the encyclopedic integrity of these articles and present the facts as they are. Unfortunately, these facts, as they pertain to Ireland, attract some very inappropriate editing and allegations. Britishfinance (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────── Since I was mentioned awhile back, I'll add some background. I just saw the article in The Times and in it the IDA effectively accused Britishfinance of being a paid editor. NOt the usual stuff you see in the papers about Wikipedia. Following my usual practice when paid editing is suspected I just asked Britishfinance whether he was paid or not (Note, I don't accuse anybody when I ask these questions. It does amaze me how often - one way or another - that paid editors will expose themselves when asked. Britishfinance's answer pretty much satisfied me that he wasn't. There was none of the usual paid editor song and dance that usually accompanies a denial. I'd said that I'd likely put a notice at WP:COIN if I found anything further, so I looked for the usual indications of paid editing (they are usually pretty obvious, but not 100% proof of course) I didn't find anything, so I didn't post anything to WP:COIN. Of course I did notice that User:Corecontent and User:IDAComms had each declared, after some prodding and poking, that they were being paid by IDA Ireland, and I'm still amazed they weren't dealt with more harshly. It looks like sockpuppetting to me. I suppose IDAComms was only blocked for a Username violation because of his total ignorance of our rules.

I did send a note to one of the journalists involved saying that I though the accusations against Britishfinance looked to be completely out of line. He responded with a question, so I went back and checked more carefully on the public pages where this type of thing can be investigated. There's nothing that I can see that suggests User:Britishfinance is a paid editor. If @Britishfinance: would like, I'll give any reporter from any respectable paper the basic public data and my reading of it and I do think that would clear his username. Please note that my investigations into this type of thing have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal and the Times of Israel. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I would be comfortable with you sending on public information and your comments to the reporter. appreciate that. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence at all that Britishfinance is a paid editor, but plenty of evidence that there has been paid editing on behalf of some Irish government organisations. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so, as far as anyone else is concerned, there is just as much chance that Britishfinance is paid as that I am, but what is needed is evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in Britishfinance's edits that make me think paid editor. When I hear another editor claiming that Britishfinance's edits are part of a "vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally," that makes me wonder about that editor's agenda, though. I'm thinking WP:Boomerang here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the user, Britishfinance is paid or not, it appears to be highly politically motivated with questionable links. It is not about presenting information in an unbiased way, but a concerted effort to push a political view and present things in a deeply negative light, based on their agenda. The Times in the UK and other reputable publications have linked the account to Paddy Cosgrave, asserting he is manipulating Wikipedia entries for a political campaign against tax systems. I don't know if that is true, but I can see clearly the true purpose of the account, the pages/links created and edits are primarily political purposes and misinformation. His ad campaign and page has just been banned on facebook for these reasons. Even if it is not this person, its clearly a user that is not acting in an honest way, but trying to manipulate perceptions and the reputation of a country based on their own agenda. Renmap0o 19:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Do not attempt to OUT other editors by associating an account with a real life name. Attepmts to out others warrant something rather more severe than Boomerangs.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's all in the public domain anyway. The name associated and that users attempts at manipulating Wikipedia articles for their political purposes is all over the media User:Renmap0o, 20:42, 16th April (UTC)
I don't think Renmap0o is claiming that Britishfinance is Paddy Cosgrave, but that these two individuals may be connected in some way. The media has already been speculating about this in the public domain. These allegations have been made without any hard evidence and therefore cannot be taken seriously by the community. Unless Renmap0o can produce clear evidence that establishes a pattern of POVpushing and biased editing, there is nothing more we can do here. Continuous badgering over the same issue without production of evidence will not be taken seriously or looked at kindly either. It's entirely possible that there may be some NPOV issues with articles whose latest versions Britishfinance has primarily authored (mainly because there were no other editors to challenge their edits), but based on my limited review of Base erosion and profit shifting and Double Irish arrangement, I have not seen any egregious instances of POVpushing. On the contrary, I have benefited from perusing at least these two articles in my professional capacity. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I find some of the above, and the attempted interference with several articles, disturbing. First, on the paid editing, I cannot find any actual direct accusation against Britishfinance, rather there is renewed coverage of editing by IDA staff and an agency employed by IDA Ireland. But even if there were such an accusation, I would find it wildly improbable. I noticed Britishfinance's editing in their first few weeks on the encyclopedia, and even then their professional knowledge of finance, and their approach to editing, with a large number of small incremental edits (hence the large totals - this is one editing pattern in Wikipedia, with others dropping one massive edit changing many kb), were clear. The editor in question, as it happens, semi-retired in late March, a pity, but during their 13 months of Wikipedia activity, they made a decent contribution to a whole range of areas. We need editors like this, and I hope the community takes a seriously dim view of unfounded allegations thrown about by new single-purpose accounts against people with solid track records. I see no evidence for statements like "The Times in the UK and other reputable publications have linked the account to Paddy Cosgrave" - as far as I can see, Cosgrave just referenced some articles in recent days, but they were edited months ago, or more. To me the edits themselves had and have the look of "insider" - not politically motivated, but the knowledge of someone in the legal, tax management or accounting professions. We don't need to know, but we can note that the user, I think in an early discussion about their chosen username, disclosed "finance professional" and lately mentioned that they had been able to be so active as they had had some time off mainstream work (great that Wikipedia got a good chunk of said time - many of us could use more time to work on the project not taken from after-bedtime evenings, lunch, etc.). I also see no evidence of special anti-Irish bias - the use of Ireland's tax regime by various corporate entities is well-known for decades, is the topic of much writing and debate, and these tactics are important to many large entities (the 13+ billion Apple episode is not a random thing). And Britishfinance has also edited general "tax management" articles, which, if read, make clear that many other countries accommodate some "tax tactics" - see deals done by Luxembourg, the Netherlands, etc. As the new user today notes, Ireland is far from the bottom of the corporate tax league on the base rate - but I see no evidence that Britishfinance ever said any such thing anyway. What they and other editors did explain was how one might, and many do, achieve effective near-zero tax liabilities. All in all, this seems a clear case of unjustified attack, and, ironically, attempted biased editing.SeoR (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The attacks against Britishfinance by a newly created, potentially paid SPA and the rumors spun by some Irish media outlets don't exactly strike me as significant. In fact, the articles doesn't accuse him of paid or COI editing at all, its just an Irish government spokesman fuming about his writings on Ireland's unorthodox tax structures and the use of these structures by large multinationals to avoid paying loads of European taxes. Parroting these accusations is embarrassing, and this should not have been brought up without better evidence. Additionally, even attempting to connect a user to an identity is a violation of WP:OUT and redacting the name from this noticeboard is something admins with more experience on the outing policy should consider. Finally, given the fact that the Irish government (IDA) has paid for editing to wikipedia, and its statement about that editing mentions BF's editing specifically, I think its entirely possible Renmap0o is carrying out dirty work for his employer by casting aspersions and mass reverting and this report plays right into his hands. SWL36 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Renmap0o: there are 2 or 3 not-so-subtle hints above that you have a WP:COI or are a WP:Paid editor. I really do think that it is better to ask clearly - without accusing anybody - if somebody is a paid editor. So, Renmap0o, are you a paid editor and/or do you have any connection to IDA Ireland?
Similarly, are you accusing Britishfinance of being a paid editor? Do you have any evidence of this? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I use two of these articles, and I’d say they’re a good summary. And pretty fair. But anyway, the original point of this notice seems invalid, no Paid Editing or CoI. What’s left might be some work in balancing of tone. For example, Nearly Headless Nick cites two blocks of content. In the first, BritushFinance seems to have been scrupulous in a debate. In the second, Nick may have found room fit textual and POV improvement. But this is not Article Improvement space, is it? 91.193.178.5 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thus, from Renmap0o, is just embarrassing Conspiracy Theorist rubbish: “It's designed in a way to look like it's within the rules, but its effectively a vast web of propaganda type posts and one-sided information presented to destroy Ireland's reputation internationally.“ Seriously? Propaganda, destroying Ireland’s reputation? All Europe knows about the tax games.91.193.178.5 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
"[...] Nick may have found room fit textual and POV improvement." — No, that's a mischaracterization. The entire section on "Captured state" in Ireland as a tax haven is full of misrepresentations, original research and original synthesis; and I haven't even started looking at the remainder of the article. In any case, I believe there may be a need for a thorough review of these articles, just to be sure. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I think if you read the discussion referred to at Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, the author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias., you will see that (1) almost all the refs the editor quoted were actually already in the article, and (2) in almost all cases, the refs they quoted proved the editor was wrong in their interpretation. I think reading Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, the author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias., which I protected and archived as help for future discussions, will hopefully show the good-faith lengths I have gone to in responding to this specific article. I am not a perfect WP editor, but I am not a "conspiracy theory" or PAID editor, and I do think my tax-related articles materially improve WP in an area that it is really weak on (the WP Tax Project is largely dead). Per my earlier statements above, Paul Krugman and the Council on Foreign Relations have publically referenced two of them? I will do the same reply to Sir Nicholas comments on the "Captured State" sub-section, which I believe I can resolve (but I appreciate that tighter wording can be used in place), however, I am in a new job and just can't get the time to do just now. Again, I think I deserve some fairness and balance here. Britishfinance (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I am an agreement that this is Renmap0o with the problem. I see no specific issues with Britishfinance's work (far from it, it appears to be high quality and well cited). Suggesting a single editor or small group of editors is some how under orders to demolish Ireland's reputation is a huge leap and in any case vastly overrates the power of Wikipedia. No case to answer. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that Renmap0o has exactly zero contribution to the article space (all of their contributions were reverted), and that all their contribution to other namespaces consists in casting aspersions, it looks to me that this is an appropriate case for a NOTHERE indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual and Ymblanter: No doubt Renmap0o's approach to the whole situation was ill-advised, and it's probably because they are not well-acquainted with our project. However, I think there are enough reasons to go ahead with a thorough review of the articles (see Talk:Ireland as a tax haven#"Captured state"). In the meantime, we should AGF with Britishfinance. There is no evidence of WP:COI/WP:PAID, although the possibility of NPOV issues with their edits cannot be completely discounted (see link above). This is a wiki after all and the community has the power to evaluate the edits of its users, including yours and mine. As the Russians would say: doveryai, no proveryai. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I am never imposed opposed to an investigation but the arguments presented are incredibly weak. E.g, Britishfinance has edited a lot: Lots of people have lots of edits because they have lots of time - it is not an indication that they are paid to edit. Britishfinance only edits on one subject: I see plenty of work that is not even tangentially related to Irish tax system. E.g., this article expansion. Journalists claiming something is biased is hardly a clinching argument given how biased the media is. Etc. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: I agree Renmap0o's arguments are weak specially when their allegations of bias are not backed by diffs and links. They should stop with the allegations of paid editing immediately and instead focus on backing their assertions with evidence. Or else, it won't be long before an administrator blocks them. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nearly Headless Nick: I didn't open this discussion of paid editing and am not pursuing it per ce, as its almost impossible to prove anyway. I was discussing the bias in the user's articles/editing which is now well known and commented on in the newspapers, media, radio, several Reddit threads and I believe, even the Irish finance minister commented in recent days. You are correct that the approach was ill-advised and I wasn't familiar enough to go through the correct process. Would you suggest the best approach is gathering clear evidence and starting a discussion in the COI section? Easy to prove given the scale of it, but just time-consuming. @QuiteUnusual: I can see some other work too, but the main focus is “link Ireland and its stakeholders to negative stories, particularly on economics, taxation and Brexit”. Everything I went through personally just confirmed that, but your correct. Needs to be cataloged and evidenced clearly. Renmap0o 18:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I’m not paid and don’t have any connection to IDA. I just had a look and was shocked by what I saw. I don’t know if they are a paid, but I’d be confident they are receiving funding from somewhere given the large amount of time spent maintaining and pushing this political view on Wikipedia over the past year. I don't know how you can produce evidence of this, but hopefully, the journalists uncover something. The user is responsible for 40k+ edits on Wikipedia since last March, with the prime purpose of labelling Ireland as a tax haven. Sure there are controversy and issues there. I don't think anyone is denying that, but one-sided tone/information presentation is an understatement. It's incredibly biased and reads more like the input of a political group/campaigning. The user created many pages, edited many and linked most information on Wikipedia regarding Ireland to this label, by either selectively inserting examples and/or linking back to the pages they created themselves for this purpose. The more I read, the more I realised how brilliant it was (in terms of manipulation). I'll give them that and it would make a great case study for a student. Even things like slipping in pics/examples of Ireland on Wikipedia articles broadly discussing offshore, offshoring, tax or tax havens. This user and their vendetta/crusade against the Irish tax system has been a discussion on Reddit threads as far back as 6 months ago Here and it looks like a previous history of controversy on Wikipedia too. They are obviously savvy about the system, rules and how to manipulate it. Probably someone from a tech background, which fits the profile of who the media is associating this account with and its not just the Irish media, but also international. It's likely not the end, but just the beginning of the scandal, as new articles are popping up. In recent days, it's heated up when the user has been linked to a political campaign against the Irish tax system, which makes sense based on the key theme of most of their editing. That group/person was banned from Facebook for running a fraudulent and deceitful ad campaign. Highly biased and manipulative Wikipedia articles are created by User Britishfinace here, and then this campaign/group links to those articles for credibility. Is it acceptable for a user, that at the very minimum, is clearly representing a political vendetta, to manipulate Wikipedia articles on such a massive scale, as to serve their own personal political purposes and agenda? Does the platform accept editors who are this biased, running misinformation and political campaigns? Renmap0o 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Renmap0o: When you make claims of "political campaigning", "selectively inserting examples", "linking back to pages" etc, it would be really helpful if you could link us to such instances, or produce diffs to back up those claims. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nearly Headless Nick:If you look up anything related to Ireland and it's tax system and check the history of it you can see britishfinance has got his mitts on most of it. It's like a full-time job. Here is an example of a page the user created and edited personally this year. Its one of many. They usually link this page they created to most other Wikipedia pages regarding Ireland, tax havens or its tax system in the "See Also" section, along with editing those pages/articles with sections, pictures and examples pushing the "Ireland is a tax haven" line. The "See Also" section is a great way to scan through pages created and edited by the user. I found heaps but was only scratching the surface. I was very impressed by the scale of this. It's a lot of work. As has been mentioned, 40k+ edits since March last year mainly focusing on this political crusade against the Irish tax system. Renmap0o 11:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I call rubbish (to be polite). After discussions 2016-2018, even the European Parliament voted that the Netherlands, Ireland, Luxembourg, among others, are tax havens. Look at the billions being processed. Who is it you work for? See: “The Netherlands is a tax haven alongside Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, say MEPs” at dutchnews.nl and many similar records of recent days. 195.239.200.134 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You're referring to political controversies, of which plenty of hay can (and has) been made, likewise newspaper journalists are frequently prone to simplistic analyses and comparisons. The WP articles in question read like the diatribes of a particularly determined crank (however polite and courteous he may act to avoid drawing the ire of the moderators), it's frankly incredible they've survived in their present form for so long, and this user has been able to blatantly POV patrol his pages with impunity.

Let's have a little actual data, because context is sorely needed in this discussion, and frankly, the tone and volume of this user's commentary (and it is commentary we're talking about) are quite blatantly unbalanced. Firstly, let's remember the definition of a tax haven, this from investopedia (many similar definitions exist).

"A tax haven is a country that offers foreign individuals and businesses little or no tax liability in a politically and economically static environment. **Tax havens also share limited or no financial information with foreign tax authorities.** Tax havens do not require residency or business presence for individuals and businesses to benefit from their tax policies. Due to the globalization of business operations, an increasing number of U.S. corporations, including Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet, are keeping cash in offshore tax havens to minimize corporate taxes." [2]

The OECD's global forum on tax transparency published it's report on tax transparency in November 2018 [3]. Ireland is one of only a handful of countries listed as compliant, so already it fails the most basic definition - far from being shrouded and opaque, Ireland is extremely transparent in it's corporate tax disclosures (higher than Germany, Belgium, the UK or the US). Is there any authority on tax transparency superior to the OECD? Has there been any similar effort to quantify this metric which produced a contrary result?

Secondly, since 2014, Ireland has participated in the OECD's BEPS resolution programme, and there is no reason to assume they wouldn't continue to follow the second round of recommendations [4] (which involve changes to treaties to resolve the Malta situation, which our erstwhile author has eagerly leapt upon with gusto. The schemes these articles are concerned with (which resulted from the complex interaction of the residency rules in *multiple jurisdictions* - not simply the 'cheating Irish' as implied in these articles) have largely been closed. This is not the end of the story, as it's a global whack-a-mole game, but the implication that Ireland has been a bad actor in this regard frankly cannot be substantiated. As recently as February, the Irish finance minister, in conjunction with his French counterpart signalled support for a Global model for tech taxation, and endorsed the efforts of the OECD to define best practices in that regard. [5]

Is there any other jurisdiction which has made such wide reaching changes specifically to combat corporate tax evasion? It is also worth stating that the Irish rules merely allowed the transfer of funds to a company's headquartered parent jurisdiction if the funds were originated outside of Ireland (predominately British overseas territories and crown dependencies). These rules were intended to allow US firms to tax their revenues in the US, and these schemes could only exist because the US permitted large scale offshoring on an indefinite timespan for many decades (ultimately, most of those taxes are still owed to the US, as seen by their attempt to join the appeal against the Apple tax case ruling). Obviously, this is beyond the ability of the Irish government to regulate or anticipate.

It is necessary to mention this, because the entire context here is either deeply hidden or totally absent from the articles in question, and the user Britishfinance has fought fiercely to ensure that remains the case, conceding only where absolutely forced to. I cannot fathom how the egregious and blatant POV pushing on these pages, and the clear examples of bias within them haven't been addressed (despite having been flagged several times and warned once by a former mod). I'm sure there'll be plenty of "polite" rebuttals from the man himself citing the "thousands" of newspaper articles on the subject, which of course will be twisted to fit the exact fringe narrative being pushed here. Of course he knows quite well that it would take months to go through the many thousands of barely substantiated references in his commentary (pretty clear gish galloping), and so it has reached the point where the Irish government and media have had to get involved. I hope this results in a more balanced representation, because what has existed up until now is, to say the least, problematic and out of touch with the facts. I am not a government or paid representative - just another passer-by versed enough to recognize propaganda and an agenda being pushed when I see it - I'm sure there'll be many more like me in the next few weeks. 37.228.243.242 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"I am not a government or paid representative - just another passer-by versed enough to recognize propaganda and an agenda being pushed when I see it" So, to be clear, you have no involvement with the Irish government, the Irish tax system, or the Irish economy? In other words, your only interest in making this post is a desire that Wikipedia be the best encyclopedia it can be? Frankly, given this post, I find that hard to believe. "I'm sure there'll be many more like me in the next few weeks." What makes you sure of this? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You're editorialising. This is not the place. Just edit the articles, if you have well-founded and referenced points to add. On the face of it for now, the articles (I've reviewed 5 related items, and I'm a chartered accountant and familiar with the terminology at least) are well-researched and in line with widely-held views. And for crying out loud, Ireland has facilitated tax "management" so big it had to revise its national economic measurements! Even the US authorities believe that Ireland is at least a major "conduit" if not an outright "haven," and both national and EU parliaments have issues with the obscure and over-flexible Irish tax regime. But this is not a forum for article content so again, please take this to the pages in question. Stop attacking an individual editor's work and bona fides. And by the way, are you accusing the user of misusing "patrol" rights, which they only gained early this year? That would be a serious, and as far as can be seen, utterly unfounded, accusation. Now, go contribute!185.68.145.229 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I spent some time checking your points over breakfast. They are mostly addressed in the articles, some, like the definition of "tax haven," in painful detail. So I think Britishfinance and others have been very fair on this. I don't see where the anti-Ireland point comes from, there are a lot of references, and the companies who use these mechanisms have bet a major part of their global revenue strategy on them. And multiple other countries are mentined, notably the UK and its vestigial empire, and good old Holland. And of course it's all legal, but not at all transparent, a point again discussed in much detail. Could it be an agenda? Yes, if you think the user is a French deputy or a Nordic social warrior. But why someone does editing is not the question, only whether their edits are well-made, and that the balance of article content is, well, balanced. But please don't ask Wikipedia to say black = white. I think we all get that big money is involved, literally trillions of dollars, and so I am sure there will be attacks, but Wikipedia is able to handle this kind of thing.185.68.145.229 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References

People have tried to add balance to these articles. They have been edit warred relentlessly by this user until they gave up. It seems ridiculous to even need to have this discussion. This editor's activities have been so egregious it's now become a subject of a national media controversy. My point above is that there is at least room for balance in these articles, but the way they're written (quite deliberately), the tone and content is nigh unassailable, and presents an extreme view, as if Ireland is some global lynchpin of tax evasion - it isn't, it is at most a link in a chain. Even a cursory look at the actual numbers involved will show it's clearly dwarfed by the likes of London. As for the "leprechaun economics", it's a perfect example. The anomalous GDP growth statistic mainly stemmed from the relocation of an aircraft leasing company to Ireland (17 percentage points out of 26% growth were this one company). It's a high revenue, low profit margin business, so there's very little taxable income, but it inflates the GDP. Does the leprechaun economics article give appropriate focus to this? Of course not, it's just another loop back into the rest of this individual's meandering diatribes. These headline high percentage growth rate controversies also ignore the simple fact that large capital movements will show a disproportionate impact on a smaller starting figure. Similar movements wouldn't have raised any eyebrows in the UK, Germany, or the US (and indeed - they happen all the time), because the starting base figures are higher in the first place. This user has played a cynical game quite professionally, and gamed wikipedia to hell and back, putting essays of his own opinions up, and guarding them with prejudice. Wikipedia is not the platform for this - he should write a book if he wants to put his opinions out there to this degree. It is a disgrace that it's possible for one person to completely control the narrative on an entire country's economic affairs - a country which, it has to be said, the author's home country has been hostile to in both the past and recent years, and was a former colonizer of - and yes, that is a relevant bit of context. If he were blanketing the narrative about Indian topics with anti-Indian commentary, we would not be having this discussion. 37.228.244.72 (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To answer the above, which answered me earlier, this presents a vision of some master manipulator, which is just not very likely. And what's all this colonial stuff?185.68.145.229 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, this is very unfair to me. I have not been "edit warring" on any WP articles (tax or otherwise; and I have done BLPs on controversial characters such as Catherine Blaiklock, Daniel Ivandjiiski and Seán Gallagher). I have never hit the WP:3RR rule in WP, and have only rarely even gotten to 2RR. This a hobby, not something that I want conflict on. The main edits I encounter on articles that are Irish tax-related are blanking of sections or PROD for deletion. They come in waves. I have shown above the time I have taken to respond fully, even where an IP-editor started their discussion with "anti-Irish bias" (per Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias.). That is very unfair to me.
In addition, if you actually read the newspaper articles above, and has been pointed out by other editors, the national media controversy is twofold:
Firstly, it involves the act that I accidentally discovered the IDA Ireland were paying editors to make the WP BLP of their CEO look good (per Martin Shanahan). It was so WP:PROMO, that one of the most experienced editors on WP, Kudpung, tagged it as being COI [130]. When I tried to fix it, I met an aggressive and nasty group of editors who were later revealed to be the marketing department of IDA Ireland. They made unfair comments about my edits on Irish tax-related articles. I cannot prove this, but given how bad these articles had become before I got to them, I feel that this group were also active in manipulating them to meet an IDA agenda.
Secondly, a public figure called Paddy Cosgrave not only tweeted the above IDA Ireland counter, but he also ran a Facebook campaign that linked to two articles that I have worked on: QIAIFs and Double Irish arrangement. I did not create Double Irish, it was a large article before I got to it, but was not of good quality. I have re-written it with mostly academic references or Tier 1 RS. As I said above, the economist from the US Council of Foreign Relations noted the article as the "best source" on the topic. I did create the QIAIF article. You will notice that the Irish Times asked a tax partner in Dublin to comment on it and he seemed to have no issue with it. Ironically, he then listed two other major tax havens (Luxembourg and the UK) as having similar structures (which they do). Again, this is about trying to write good quality fact-based articles that would be of interest to readers.
Again, I did not create the Leprechaun economics article, however, when I got to it, it was junk. The IP-editor above claims that it misrepresents the event and that it was the effect of aircraft leasing (which was the IDA Ireland's official response). However, if you read the article, you will see that a detailed Massachusetts Institute of Technology report even shortly after the affair cast doubt on this. You will also see that in 2018, Seamus Coffey, the person that the Irish State employed to review its entire corporate tax code in 2016, stated, unequivocally, that the source was Apple. Other economists later did the same analysis. This is the point of the re-writes, to chronicle the actual facts, and the highest quality facts versus opinions (although I am sure my editing is not perfect). Again, per above, Nobel-prize winner Paul Krugman just recently referenced the Leprechaun economics article. It can't be that bad.
There is also an allegation above that "linking articles" or adding "See also" is in some way a devious act. The tax topics of Double Irish, BEPS, Tax haven, Tax inversion, EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland (and others) ARE RELATED. For example: The Double Irish is a BEPS tool that Apple used in Tax haven type activities in Ireland from 2004–2014 that ended up in a 13bn EU fine (who disclosed in large public documents the scale of 100bn, the Irish tax rate of 0.005%, and the mechanism of the BEPS tool); that caused Ireland to be blacklisted as a Tax haven by Brazil, and caused Apple to scrap its Double Irish and adopt another BEPS tool which it used in 2015 to execute a Tax inversion to Ireland which caused Leprechaun economics. I can't put it any simpler, and I have taken honest efforts to ensure these related articles are coherent and consistent (my OCD side), which is important given their complexity, to help readers.
If anything does come out of this ANI, it will hopefully show the community issues regarding Irish tax-related material. Unlike other tax jurisdictions who don't seem to edit their WP articles and/or try to remove material they don't like; it does happen with Irish ones. It feels as if I am writing on WP:ACDS type-articles (which I avoid). I have just completed Tax inversion, but I fully expect it to be blanked/PROD'ed in the next few months (even though it is really a "historical" tax article, as the US and UK have effectively stopped inversions for good). However, that is the reality. I face aggressive fact-free allegations like the ones above. In every major academic study since 1994 (per Ireland as a tax haven), Ireland has featured as one of the biggest tax havens. However, the IDA Ireland line is that the OECD doesn't consider Ireland to be a tax haven (which is true, and I note this), yet they forget to mention that the OECD only consider Trinidad and Tobago to be a tax haven (they must be truly awful). The Tax haven article, before I came to it, had a whole section on the OECD definition of a tax haven (which I am guessing, but cannot prove) that the IDA Ireland paid for. We even had an editor on the Tax haven article try to blank all reference to James R. Hines Jr., the "father" of tax haven research, and yet another 2013 IDA Ireland paper, written by two Irish State employees, and published in the Irish-state funded economic journal, tried to dismiss Hines as an insignificant figure in tax (no real economic journal would have published this article) (covered here) The Irish State and IDA heavily quote the OECD and the 2013 piece as "independent academic research" even though they wrote it in their own sponsored journal. see here here
I am not a perfect editor and I am sure I have written my share of poor content; however, I think my work improves WP, and should be interesting to readers (including Irish readers). I appreciate and am thankful for the kind sentiments expressed by many editors above, and hope the community will help me with these articles when the pitchforks and torches arrive again.
Britishfinance (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have made my comments already, and would like to leave ANI to the administrators, as I've managed to do for more than a decade, but one comment above needs to be addressed, as it is an unjustifiable piece of exaggeration. There is a claim "This editor's activities have been so egregious it's now become a subject of a national media controversy." This is total nonsense. There was a report in a good but minority paper, the Sunday Business Post, followed up by a few lines in the paper of record, the Irish Times, and a modest report in the Times of London, and all of these were at least as much about the IDA-related paid editing as Britishfinance. I can assure you that this matter is not the subject of national debate, not a word of it around the dinner tables of Dublin. By all means let's work to make the articles on important economic topics even better, and ensure balance, but let's stop what looks suspiciously like targeted harassment by outsiders. The volunteer community, as someone said above, is well able to review the work of any editor. And bodies like IDA Ireland have real and important work to do.SeoR (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I started this thread because I thought that the community should look into these allegations in more detail. Over the last couple of days, it seems to me that that has happened - Britishfinance's contributions have been reviewed by various experienced editors, and nobody aside from Renmap0o and the 37.228 IPs seem to think that there is are any PAID or COI issues surrounding Britishfinance's work - that seems to have been dealt with. Nearly Headless Nick thinks that the articles could be reviewed for NPOV issues - that's fine, it can happen in the background, we don't need an ANI thread for it. The only outstanding problem, then, is the continued allegations of bias, edit warring and gaming the system being levelled against Britishfinance. I propose that this thread be closed, with a warning to these editors that unless they have any new evidence to bring to light, they should stop this immediately. GirthSummit (blether) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: I’m happy for it to be closed too. I no longer think its paid and didn't open the discussion here. There may or may not be COI, but I don’t know how that can be proved. I am certain of bias and gaming the system, but I realise this is the wrong approach. @SeoR: and @Nearly Headless Nick:, I agree that the allegations need to be backed by evidence and have nothing further to say on the matter for now. I have been going through it systematically to establish a clear pattern along with evidence and examples of the process that's was used. Its a lot of work (hence why I didn't do this in the beginning) and will take a few days at least. If it's being reviewed, in the interests of fairness, could someone look at the evidence/examples I’ve gathered showing how it's been done/gamed, even if its in a private setting? Renmap0o 14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
In response to ping - thanks for the calm approach. Certainly we can all study, and more heads at least sometimes provides more wisdom, and always more context, so by all means, let us look. To be transparent, I do not believe that there has been any CoI, or any great conspiracy going on, and as an ordinary Irish citizen who tries to follow business and current affairs, I am well aware of these matters at a superficial level over more than 20 years, and have seen the good and bad of national promotion, and hope I can use these all to provide perspective. I look forward to "seeing" all involved on the relevant pages, beavering away.SeoR (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this had been a very unfair process. An editor with just a handful of edits (despite their skills) walks into WP, blanks sections of articles with nothing other than an allegation that User:"Britishfinance", most likely a political organisation attempting to manipulate the information by targeting a certain country and presenting one-sided information, and then tries to delete other articles. They make wild allegations and completely false statements (both about me, and about subject matter, per above), and other "IP-editors" appear with the same allegations. One administrator raised past POV issues, however, they never explained that I had gone to great lengths to answer these past POV allegations (per Talk:Ireland as a tax haven/Archive 1#Highly editorialized content, author appears to have strong anti-Irish bias.) showing that there was no POV (as I said above, not only where their refs in the article, but their refs actually disproved the IP-editor making the POV allegation). In addition, they then raised "serious issues" at Talk:Ireland as a tax haven#"Captured state". I have responded to all 15 of these "serious issues" raised. I would love other experienced editors to look at the 15 issues and my response and tell me if they are "serious" and that I have major POV issues. What is the incentive for a volunteer to keep doing this? Britishfinance (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Britishfinance I sympathise with your feelings of unfairness - I think it's very disappointing that Renmap0o is still making allegations in their last post despite everything that has been said. Renmap0o, I don't know whether anyone has pointed you towards WP:AGF yet, but if you haven't read it, now would be a good time. I'm going to formally propose that this be closed with a warning to Renmap0o and the IPs about these ongoing aspersions. GirthSummit (blether) 17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

This thread be closed with no findings of any PAID, COI or bad faith editing by Britishfinance based on any evidence presented. Renmap0o and anonymous editors from 37.228 IP addresses are warned to stop casting aspersions about Britishfinance's editing. They may work on the articles in question and discuss them on the articles' talk pages, but any discussion must focus on improvements to the content, not on Britishfinance or their motives.

  • Support as nom GirthSummit (blether) 17:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: with thanks to Britishfinance for patience with all this, and all that good editing and time given to the project.SeoR (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm left with the opinion some people are conspiring to play games here on this ANI. Peoples will undoubtably have been checking the geolocates of the anon. IP's and one resolving to a VPN IP in Russia might just be a co-incidental or might be deliberate but at a simplistic level its just adding to the fog or complex conspiracy theories. With Britishfinance we seem to have sustained openly auditable contributions over a longish period giving good provenance. I'll confess I feel a bit for Britishfinance as they got a bit a bit of a rough ride at a recent AfD trying to to a WP:HEY and I'm inclined to think a few too many lesser quality references were used and content a little over-egged but that was a bio rather than the articles we have here. Not a great argument and I like SeoR's reasoning better.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and I hope there is no more sustained work by any outside "force." I don't put too much weight on IP checks, with so many people using VPNs for various reasons, often no more than accessing more or cheaper content than available locally - my daughter's tablet, for example, which I used recently, routes via various strange places, depending on what she wants to watch - but there is a little too much editing of the Irish tax-related articles from a series of Irish IP addresses, and I would be disappointed if these turned out to be those of an Irish State agency or its' communications contractors.SeoR (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as a common sense end to what looked like an externally-triggered witch-hunt. I think I must address a point here also. Both Djm-leighpark and SeoR have raised points about "IP editors". There is also a little bias about edits from Ireland and Russia. I'm sure there are issues, including some dirty tricks by tax-deal promoters. But guys, unless I misremember, the majority of Wikipedia edits are made by anonymous editors weighing in on their areas of interest. One of you is around since 2009, the other 2017, I seem to see. But I, for example, have been editing since maybe 2005. On and off, from dozens of countries. Mostly, I like to think, helping. So don't knock those of us who don't choose to have an account which someone, somewhere might track. Our hotel, café or mall IPs could be anyone, and that has value too.185.68.145.229 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@185.68.145.229 I yield to your comments noting how you have made assumptions (actually but not necessarily correct) about the length of my contribution history based on publicly visible held information on my account which you have used. I however at am the disadvantage as I have to good faith rely on your comments of the length of contribution history (which seems credible) and the quality of an individual set of edits. If in attempting to indicate the increased difficulties because of lack of provenance with anon IP's I appeared to scummer anon IPs them then I apologise. Both anon IP's and short life accounts appear to be often used by the little people. But at one point I too had an account with short life and would use an anon IP if on for example a public library computer ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@185.68.145.229 And while this may be off-topic, I answer too, as the last thing I want to do, especially in the context of this business, is to put off any contributor. I believe in an inclusive and expansive Wikipedia, and I know there are many reasons people edit without an account. As it happens, as with djm-leighpark above, I registered pretty much from the start, but to each their own. In this case, I hope it was clear that I was only disturbed by certain specific bad editing actors (even then, I accept that they may have thought they were acting in some "national interest" - I would disagree - but we disallow such behaviour because of the need for consistent and fair policy, not ideology). Wikipedia is not going to be the source of solutions for corporate tax games, or personal ones, executive pay disparity, wealth distribution, or any such topics, to be valuable it must remain a neutral source for all. So please, whoever and wherever you are, do keep contributing!SeoR (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Just a note on what may be a first for this page. The Times has quoted this section:

By the end of the week, Wikipedia administrators proposed that a discussion thread about Britishfinance be closed with “no findings” of any paid, conflict-of-interest or bad-faith editing by Britishfinance.

— The Times
Perhaps this page could get its own logo As seen in The Times.
(Sorry for the joke) This is actually a serious matter - suggestions that a Wikipedia editor is paid and acting improperly - made by a government agency which itself has done clearly improper paid editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps we can modify the conclusion here to report that the accuser, IDA, has engaged in "paid, conflict-of-interest and/or bad-faith editing". See User talk:IDAComms and User:Corecontent. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
That is a little bit serious, yes. And, while respecting all IP edit contributions, it would be good to clarify if the two 37.228 addresses above (243.242, etc.) are "one voice" as they seem to be. Meantime, another address, perhaps someone quite different (there must be many addresses in the set), 37.228.255.113, made some surprising edits to the article on Ireland's Taoiseach (Prime Minister), dragging in the "Tax Haven issue" at a time when other topics would be far more acute and obvious. I really hope we can resume normal editing on this important area of topics, and on all the other topics Ireland offers for editing.178.176.23.66 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I see someone beat me to the point, as I was going to mention here that in the course of normal article watching, I bumped into the "tax haven question" on the Leo Varadkar page, and it turned out it had some history. Which could be someone "setting up a controversy" - or an entirely innocent coincidence. A 37.228 address, as referenced by Girth Summit, but I have no way of telling if it was connected to any other such address. But no need for repetition then. Good observation, I had not noticed that the 37.228's in this discussion were not consistent, and had just assumed they were a single person. I must be more attentive. But for now I am going to continue my regular project work. albeit I'll keep my eyes peeled for 37.228 for a while.SeoR (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If I understand the quote above from The Times referring to wikipedia administrators to be accurate (I haven't registered to read it) I would note that that none of the current participants in the proposal (to close) subsection actually appear to be wikipedia administrators ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed - for the benefit of any journalists who might be reading this, I am not an administrator - I'm an ordinary user, who started this thread because of I was concerned about the allegations, but felt ill-equipped to look into them myself. They have now been investigated by users experienced in these matters, and no issues have been brought to light - hence my proposal to close. I'm available for interviews, but lunch is on you. GirthSummit (blether) 19:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – what a waste of Times. With thanks to GS for bringing this to the community's attention and to BF for their contributions to the encyclopedia. Levivich 19:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Graywalls[edit]

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

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

List of articles related to Oregon, Portland, and homelessness

Portland Loo, Right 2 Dream Too, Neighborhoods of Portland, Oregon, Squatting, Squatting in the United States, Homelessness in Oregon, Homelessness in the United States by state, Outside In, Overlook, Portland, Oregon, Portland Mercury, Dignity Village, Sunderland, Portland, Oregon, Oregon NORML, Baker City, Oregon, Voodoo Doughnut, Old Town Chinatown, No Vacancy Lounge, First Unitarian Church of Portland, Nostrana (restaurant), O'Bryant Square, Downtown Portland, Oregon, Holocene (Portland, Oregon), Hawthorne, Portland, Oregon, Willamette Week, Metro, Street Roots, Bud Clark

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

List of articles related to LGBT culture and history in Portland

Pride Northwest, Prism Health, Cascade AIDS Project, Oregon Bears, Second Foundation (Oregon), Terry Bean, Club Portland, CC Slaughters, LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, Escape Nightclub, Embers Avenue, La Femme Magnifique International Pageant, Darcelle XV

Hounding

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

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

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

List of articles demonstrating efforts to remove content

Speedy deletion: They inappropriately nominated a couple articles for speedy deletion, which I then had to work to rescue: Bit House Saloon and Draft:Elephants Delicatessen, which remains in the draft space. White Owl Social Club was also nominated for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed.

AfD: They have also nominated other articles for deletion, which were kept: Dante's, Glossary of graffiti, Hawks PDX, and No Vacancy Lounge. They were successful in deleting my World Famous Kenton Club article (AfD), but I was not willing to expand the article just to convince folks the article was appropriate. I've since recreated Draft:World Famous Kenton Club, which remains a work in progress. They were also successful with deleting a few of my other articles, which I've said I would have redirected to spare the wasted volunteer time: Sullivan's Gulch Bar & Grill (AfD), Oregon Bears (AfD). The Second Foundation (Oregon) and Holocene (Portland, Oregon) AfDs remain ongoing here and here, respectively. They editor seems to prefer deleting over redirecting.

Oddly enough, but unrelated to my work, they want to Northwest District Explosion (likely not notable). They also seem to focus on drug use: diff at Pioneer Courthouse Square, Cascade AIDS Project, Club Portland, First Unitarian Church of Portland, Outside In, etc.

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

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

Behavior

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

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

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

Discussion

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

List of articles possibly needing scrutiny

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

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

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

Graywalls responding to Another Believer's allegations[edit]

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

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

When disputes arise, he has a tendency to "ping" specific editors he's already familiar and after seeing those users interaction on matters that relate to us, I've come to an opinion that these people are likely to side with him. He's not heeded advise from 3rd opinion here that Wikiprojects are not the best forum for editorial disputes. The interaction here referencing another editor's voice expressing concerns about his article points that there has been issues concerning his edits long before I was even on the map. arguing with every opponent on clearly questionable notability entries. [131] this one AB cited in his complaining statement involves a self-promo/puppets. My use of 3rdOnion has been a way of trying to obtain fair consensus. perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements.

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

It's pretty simple - if you find yourself constantly editing the same articles as someone else, find a way to work with them in a collegial manner. AB was there first, and he's a generally polite person. Your comments towards him have a tendency to be snarky and rude. Can you commit to being polite?
The point is that whatever your intent, you're making the editing process for AB stressful. It looks like HOUNDING. What are you willing to do to change that? Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
As are his towards mine. I have been being mindful to avoid making snarks. I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. I didn't think order of arrival made a difference. After all, if that played a role, then he'd been grandfathered over others in a ton of articles. Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You keep implying I'm being paid for my contributions to Wikipedia, which I don't appreciate. You've also nominated several articles for so-called "run of the mill" venues, which were kept by the Wikipedia community, so perhaps you need to change your definition of "run of the mill". Also, there's nothing wrong with expanding an article after a deletion nomination, in an attempt to demonstrate notability. You seemed upset when I expanded a couple articles you nominated for deletion, which is odd -- most editors would say, "thanks!" and move on to other things. I don't claim ownership of any article(s), but I sure don't like them being tampered with or flagged for deletion unnecessarily. Regarding "admin shopping" -- we've already been over this. I was not threatening Deb, I was merely starting with them for help as the deleting admin, but I'd go to someone else for help if they were not willing to assist. What's wrong about this? I was just asking for help restoring a page into the draft space, which I felt was improperly deleted. This is not controversial or against policy. Yes, I've pinged specific editors on specific talk pages based on their editing histories and work on related articles. I don't expect editors to agree with me just because I've invited them to a discussion. Also, I won't apologize for asking AfD participants if they'd be willing to change their vote from delete to redirect, when redirecting is a solid option. I'm very tired of explaining myself and many of my edits to you. After the comments above, your suggestion is to take away my autopatrolled status? Give me a break. I've written almost 100 Good articles, several of which are specifically about Portland restaurants, local history and culture, public artwork, and other venues. I think I have a decent understanding of appropriate sourcing and notability criteria. I could easily go through your edits and cherry-pick tons of problematic diffs, but I'd rather we focus on the big picture here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I did in the past said I believed you might be a paid editor, but didn't believe it was frowned upon. It has not happened after but you continue to charge that I'm "keep implying". I don't know where your referencing to "threatening Deb" is coming from. I was referencing your comment that looks like you are admin shopping which to me looks like you'll just keep looking until you find one that will give you what you want. Changes you do not like referenced as "tampering" sure sounds like snarky way to exhibit territory of a sort; and referring to your own edits as "contribution" and referring to mine or others you don't agree as "tampering" is the big picture of the comment I left on your page regarding dismissive comments.
@Deb:. I am wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on "concerns from others" you referenced here?
Graywalls (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't remember exactly now. I might have been thinking of this or this. Deb (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Huh? User:Muboshgu retracted the warning and has since encouraged me to apply for administrator status. The interaction with Ss112 was just about creating new pages in the draft space vs. expanding existing redirects. Not really related to this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I said "might have been". What you're doing now is exactly what you were doing in our previous interaction and I'm not going to be led down the garden path again. Deb (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I acknowledge you said "might have been", and I was just explaining those interactions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Admin shopping, threatening, whatever. You're saying I was wrong to ask an editor who deleted a page if they'd be willing to restore. If Deb was unwilling to restore, then I would have gone to someone else. Getting a page restored is not a problem, and the page was properly restored. You're focusing on a very specific case when there's clearly a much larger issue here. Knowing your M.O., I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here. I will just let others take over from here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd love to not have to interact with AB and I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff. Given the sheer quantity of his stuff, it would basically cripple me from being able to participate on Portland stuff. Since his articles are everywhere, perhaps and about a lot of other things, perhaps I could avoid him outside of Portland area/art stuff, and he could just avoid this area/subject.Graywalls (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"Knowing your M.O", does it surprise you that a pattern of comments like this reinforces me to develop a doubt about good faith? You, the complainant started this grievance and "I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you here." seems like a line to avoid having to provide a detailed explanation. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I think this is a kind of stalking, but Graywalls probably believes it falls into the category of "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", which is allowed; this isn't black and white. It's hard to understand how someone who's been here as long as User:Another Believer has can be so insensitive to the annoyance caused by repeatedly asking questions to buy time in order to avoid having to answer straight questions like this quite reasonable one from another user. I certainly felt harassed by Another Believer on 12 March, when he bombarded me with follow-ups in order to get this draft, which he hasn't touched since 14 March. I would suggest that User:Graywalls stays away from future interaction, for the sake of his own sanity. Deb (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Deb, You'd need to lay out a case for 'harassment' w/r/t getting the draft page restored. But, for the record, I do apologize if I came across too aggressive, truly. I haven't touched the March 14 draft because I've been a little occupied, and there's no requirement I work on the draft immediately. I've also been working on other pages (drafts and live articles) nominated for deletion by Graywalls, so that's been a major distraction. I merely wanted the original markup restored, which is not a problem. And, I totally agree, I would also suggest Graywalls stay away. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If it gets deleted, so what? I don't nominate things for deletion because of who created them. Things I have nominated for deletion are based on contents concern, promotional (for example, authored by the article subject, or its owner, executive director, etc. Even if something has been G11'd as promotional, it doesn't preclude others from re-creating the same article if it isn't substantially similar. Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I believed a page was wrongfully speedy deleted, and I asked for its restoration. I believe the topic is notable, and I'll expand the draft at some point in the future. I'm glad the original markup has been restored, so I don't have to start from scratch. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I would indeed suggest we should avoid interacting, but not at the expense that I have to avoid pages in Portland area solely because they have been touched/created by you. I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area; and I don't interact with articles outside these criteria that you have worked on. Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, I'm glad you're open to avoiding me, but why are you bringing up art articles? We've been discussing Oregon, Portland, homelessness, and LGBT-related content. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It overlaps with the area of topic you brought up in the opening sentence of your complaint. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I was just noting your initial edits to the project. I do not watchlist these pages, nor am I particularly interested in graffiti. I write a lot about public art and sculpture, so thanks for clarifying. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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


Mainspace interactions by date of first interaction
  • AFAICT, in each case above, Another Believer is the first editor and Graywalls is the second. I found no cases in which G was the first editor and AB was the second. In almost all cases, G is also the last editor. Meaning, the pattern is usually AB->G, or AB->G->AB->G, rarely AB->G->AB, and never G->AB or G->AB->G->AB. 8 out of 11 of G's AfD noms are of articles created by AB. Levivich 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd look carefully at the dates, though; in many cases there's a year or more between AB's first group of edits and G's first. Deb (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Deb, indeed, my impression is that this is true in most cases. I image this can easily happen when a new editor enters a niche area where there's already been a prolific editor editing before. "Second editor" in and of itself doesn't mean much. What made me raise an eyebrow is the prevalent pattern of AB->G or AB->G->AB->G, but not AB->G->AB, which suggests G continues to edit so long as AB edits, but once AB stops, G stops. The other thing that sticks out is that it's been like this for almost two months straight. I cannot imagine that G was not aware that they've been editing and nominating for deletion so many articles that were created by or primarily edited by AB. I can understand significant incidental overlap; I can't understanding not noticing this much overlap after this much time. Although nobody "owns" articles, at some point, one must realize they are effectively "hounding", even if it's unintentional, and if it is unintentional, one usually stops, even if they don't have to. Graywalls' comment above ( I'd be willing to agree to not interacting with you outside of art category and Portland metro area stuff) is kind of funny because the only place they've interacted is in Portland metro area stuff. Levivich 18:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't argue with that, but the area where they have interacted is - as you pointed out - the area where AB is complaining about G's edits. If that's the case, then perhaps the problem is not as widespread as is being suggested. G is presumably watching this particular set of articles and it's ringing alarm bells with him when he sees AB editing them. Deb (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Levivich (talk · contribs), gosh, given how prolific he is, then things in Portland having been touched by him at some point in the past is really likely high. I don't choose what to edit based on whose touched the article. After you posted your analysis, I decided to conduct a quick investigation on my own. Pride Northwest This is something I came upon from branching off from articles and categories. It appeared promotional ish to me and I start working on it. AB came rushing to it an hour and half later. How long ago did he work on it before me? Some 14 months ago. This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue. Outside In I start working on it... Another Believer comes rushing a short while later... This too was found to be suspected undisclosed paid editing / connected contributor Street Roots I work on it.. AB comes rushing after the same day. This too is possible UDPE. Bud Clark I edit... AB comes rushing after the same day. So, seriously, who's following who now with the timing of matter taken into context? It's pretty ridiculous to keep AB in the loop simply from having touched it at sometime in the distant past. Graywalls (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Addition: Bud Clark. Sequence: GW-> AB (1hr 58 minutes later) ->GW. (if one is going to be include "touched at some point", then AW precedes me by an edit that occurred four years ago). I'm the one who feels getting followed around. Graywalls (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, have you ever interacted with Another Believer under a prior account, as an IP, or otherwise, before your interactions with this account? Levivich 04:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I have not. Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This doesn't surprise me. Given that he's been on here for years (and I've been here a few months) his extremely high level of activity and the strong overlap in the area of interest, it's unsurprising he's already tread on them first. Had his activity not been so prolific and there's a pattern that my edits follow him, rather than topics, I think that makes for hounding. I'd also guess that his participation here is probably at the upper few percentile range. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neighborhoods_in_Portland,_Oregon. Go into a neighborhood, then pick an article within a neighborhood. The probability of running into an AB touched article is extremely high. Pretty much the same with a lot of Oregon related topics. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Levivich, This is super helpful, thanks for sharing. You have a point, Graywalls, but I'm not worried about the articles I've edited minimally. You're not owning up to your actions fully, but you've clearly targeted articles I've worked on more substantially, and your pokes feel retaliatory even if that's not your intention. Also, you've wasted significant community time by going against consensus, dragging out discussions way longer than necessary, and going straight to AfD when redirecting was entirely appropriate. Only World Famous Kenton Club has been deleted, and even that article should probably exist, hence why I'm working in the draft space on a new entry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • what you call "consensus" is moot as you often appoint yourself to arbitrate the consensus and declare "consensus has been reached" on something you're a party to the dispute; and you have used something like "3 agree with AB, 2 agree with GW, therefore consensus is with AB" but I feel that you're knowingly ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEFINECONSENSUS by counting numbers and emphasizing votes and disregarding argument presented and their validity in scope of guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Graywalls, Please. When 3 people say they don't like your image, and you keep adding it back to an article, that's going against consensus. I can point to other examples. You throw around abbreviations, acronyms, and policy pages often, but still seem to ignore editors' preferences. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • this is the example I had in mind. I call there was no "clear" consensus but you or I, as someone involved would be inherently biased in the determination; and this is not the only example of where you help yourself to the podium and arbitrate a concern you're involved in. I suggested 3-O or RfC(well after additional editors have become involved), but you were apprehensive to that. I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side. "WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race." and after having personally seein Jonesey95 show sympathetic to your POV but I've not seen you invite Deb along even though she's been involved in a dialogue that involved both you and Joesey95 at the same time. Do you see me as combative with 3PO comments? One suggested advert tag wasn't warranted and something more appropriate should be used. They said they probably wouldn't use it, but it was more appropriate than the advert. (re: bithouse). Graywalls (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Graywalls, You're grasping, and you can interpret this as me being unwilling to go into detail about specific editorial disputes if you want, but I don't feel a need to reply here. I will respond to other editors, but I'm tired of rehashing everything to you all the time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • How about you both agree not to edit any articles on Oregon for the next, say, six months? You never know, you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic. :-) Deb (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Deb, That's absolutely not something I'd agree to voluntarily. First of all, I edit articles about plenty of other topics, but why should I stop editing articles about Oregon? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Because those are the ones you are having the issues with. Deb (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Deb, Obviously, but why should I be punished or restricted from editing certain topics? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
          • I was suggesting a voluntary topic ban for a temporary period to allow you both time to cool down and forget your differences. If either of you objects, it may appear that you have ownership issues with these articles. Deb (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
            • No ownership issues, but I came here to identify a problematic editor, not to voluntarily stop editing articles about specific topics. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Deb, I don't think that suggestion is realistic. The issue here is GW is hounding and harassing AB. Why should AB be punished for GW's behavior? Also, not readily jumping to agree to your suggestion = ownership issues? That's a false dichotomy. --Kbabej (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
                • Even if it were reasonable at a base level, 6 months is what we'd do for a sanctionable TBAN - it's insanely OTT. I personally am against it basically at all. Other than both parties not participating in it during the course of the ANI discussion, I feel it is unfair punishment of the innocent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talkcontribs)

Arbitrary Break[edit]

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

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

Both Oregon Bears and Sullivan's Gulch Bar and Grill just needed to be redirected to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, plain and simple. Or you could have raised your concerns on the articles' talk pages. I wouldn't have put up a fight for either. You're still focusing on specific editorial disputes and what you deem to be "absurd" topics like restaurants, gay bars, etc, which you think "likely won't meet notability". What you're failing to recognize is that most of the articles you've nominated for deletion have been kept by the community, after editors looked into sourcing, or redirected because the topics deserved coverage in some form and the pages served a purpose. I've created many quality articles about local gay bars and restaurants: Good article Lutz Tavern, Good article Nostrana (restaurant), Good article Red Cap Garage, Good article Rimsky-Korsakoffee House, Good article Starky's, Good article Three Sisters Tavern, etc. For you to suggest I have no idea what I'm doing w/r/t notability of local establishments is unfair. Sure, maybe I've created some stubs that should be redirected or deleted, but I don't think you're helping the project by questioning notability of every local thing you deem "absurd" or "run-of-the-mill". You're taking an unnecessary toll on the community. And, sorry to say, you're still focusing on notability here and not your behavior, specifically feet dragging, consensus ignoring, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
See the CC Slaughters talk. I'm questioning the rationality, in general, of what you declare "consensus". Graywalls (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss specific editorial disputes here. That's a distraction from the larger issue. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to end this[edit]

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

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

I'm not wanting to get into an adversarial terms with you; but six months of avoiding the only area of articles I work on is excessive. Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist. From what it sounds like. I don't see this grievance was made in a good faith given inflammatory language like "vandal", "troll", "tampering" that in general expressing diminutive and marginalizing contributions he disagrees with. Despite acknowledging he's been too aggressive at times, such actions don't show any willingness to make changes; while I have agreed to; and have been trying to maintain politeness which can be seen in the more recent edits. Listing out essentially every single page I have worked on and framing it as "articles possibly needing scrutiny" doesn't suggest he's trying to resolve problems rather than to project blames. Graywalls (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Six months was a suggestion, not a command. Three months would be fine. Deb (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any comment on the alternative I just proposed before you replied? Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's a practical alternative. There are other areas you can work on as well. Deb (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't come here to "punish" Graywalls. I came to identify a problem. And now Deb is suggesting we both stop working in a topic area, and Graywalls has suggested I stop working on Oregon articles while they be allowed to continue working on Oregon articles? What planet am I living on? I came here to report harassment, and if the community is not going to take this seriously, then I am quite bothered and disappointed. I've made my concerns known. Graywalls, you've not really owned up to your actions or volunteered to back off, but you seem to acknowledge some behavioral changes are needed. If we need to end this discussion, fine. But you need to know, editors are watching you carefully, and if you continue to drag your feet, ignore consensus, and act in a retaliatory fashion, I will report you immediately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the things this omits, and is especially evident both here and on AfDs, is what Levivich reported on for interaction patterns. It's hard to articulate how problematic it is when *every* response by *every* editor is responded to and challenged by the same person. This is asymmetric behavior, not "both of you are equally at fault". tedder (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion. I also believe that AB has aggravated the problem by his own insistence on having the last word. I've now made a constructive suggestion to end the problematic behaviour and you haven't come up with an alternative as yet. If you have a proposal, please make it so that others can approve or reject it. Deb (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused how AB is having the last word when Levivich's data shows that's entirely inverted. I'm not saying I have the right answer, but it's a bit of a fallacy to exclude opinions that don't have a better plan. tedder (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Tedder, I was a bit confused by this as well. I actually feel like I walked away plenty of times because Graywalls had to have the last word. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
My personal experience of you, User:Another Believer, is that you like to have the last word - and you've just proved it - and will hang on indefinitely in order to get your own way. User:Graywalls is a lot newer than you are so, although I'm not condoning his behaviour, it may be that he hasn't yet learned the lessons that you've had time to learn. Deb (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate Deb's efforts to make a proposal to bring some kind of resolution here, particularly where the proposal is for a voluntary break and not an imposed sanction. One thing we haven't yet discussed is the possibility of closing this with a warning? Levivich 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Plans for future problem avoidance[edit]

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

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

Again, like Deb's suggestion, that's punishing AB for Graywall's behavior. Most all users besides Graywalls have stated their behavior is either stalking or hounding, neither of which should be acceptable. Why punish AB for Graywalls obviously targeting them? That makes no sense, and would deter AB (and possibly other users) from reporting harassment in the future. --Kbabej (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, thank you for acknowledging your inappropriate behavior at Talk:Hawks PDX. I don't feel a need to comment here further about a specific dispute. Nor will I apologize for expanding articles you've unnecessarily nominated for deletion. Again, you're distracting from a much larger problem. Even Deb has said this conversation has devolved into specific disputes we've already been over and over. This seems to be your M.O. -- distracting and rehashing the same things over and over. What a massive waste of time. I will say it again, I don't appreciate your hounding or going against consensus, or your unnecessary deletion nominations, which take a toll on the community. If you continue to act out of line, I will report you. I am disappointed this discussion has not been more fruitful, but oh well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
What were you trying to accomplish by this complaint? I don't agree that my deletion nominations are unnecessary. I can commit to politeness and modify how I say things but I'm not willing to avoid area of my interest (Portland area/some art topics) simply because you have been to it before. I'm talking about the way you attempt to reach consensus and how you determine consensus has been reached whose MO hasn't been restricted to the specific examples. I believe 1RR is something we can give it a try for a while, say a month or two. If I see some hole in the wall place while looking in Portland categories, that's a legitimate reason to nominate for AfD without any consideration to who created it. I'm not going after something because you made them. Graywalls (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, You seem quite frustrated when I expand an article after your nomination deletion, which is a perfectly appropriate reaction to seeing an article about a notable topic flagged for deletion. You've also done a great job not owning up to your retaliatory behavior. Fellow editors, I am more than happy to address any of your questions or concerns, but I am no longer interested in communicating with Graywalls directly. This disruption has very much negatively impacted my editing experience the last couple months. I've made my concerns known, and I've made it very clear I'm willing report any and all shenanigans moving forward. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I was only frustrated with the addition of long list of routine happenings with event listings and calendars as citations that only occurred after the AfD. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal[edit]

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

I certainly didn't say that. Action may be needed but I don't think it's practical to make that kind of blanket ban. He could easily breach it without being aware of it. Deb (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Deb, Above you said, "I think this is a kind of stalking" as well as "I agree that Graywalls has been stalking, and has been overly aggressive in the course of this discussion." Sorry, but what "certainly didn't you say"? I am confused. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Deb, I'm confused then as well. You've stated twice Graywalls has been stalking, as AB has shown. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Pretty sure Deb didn't mean the stalking/hounding part. Deb did NOT say "[Graywalls] may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic." What Deb DID say was you may get interested in something else and forget all about this particular topic. which was directed at both Gray & AB in the context of a voluntary stepping away. Very, very different than how Kbabej was quoting it. TelosCricket (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, understood now. Very helpful, thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I meant to apply her quote to GW, not necessarily that she said that exactly. Didn't do that well, admittedly. My apologies. --Kbabej (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Updated above quote to not distract from the proposal. --Kbabej (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Deb (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I didn't expect you to agree to this, Graywalls. I'm asking other editors if they agree this is how we should proceed. You've shown an inability to recognize the harassment and stalking you've done, so I didn't expect you to agree to something that would force you to change your harassing behavior. --Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This is getting to the heart of what I've noticed. It's also problematic to allow an editor to hound another when it involves taking many articles to AfD. tedder (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just came across this discussion. AB is a passionate editor about the Pacific Northwest. See meta:Cascadia for evidence. Any remedies that would tend to extinguish that passion, or throttle AB's contributions unnecessarily, would lessen Wikipedia IMO. The one-way IBAN (on Graywalls) sounds reasonable to me. He/she can find other things to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pinging editors who have contributed to this discussion. What are your thoughts on this proposal, @Rhododendrites, Guettarda, Tedder, Levivich, and Nosebagbear:? And @TelosCricket: (Please note I have not left anyone out intentionally. If I have missed an editor, please ping them, or let me know, and I will.) --Kbabej (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Kbabej, sorry, I'm confused because IBAN says the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages, and the proposal as written is for an IBAN on articles that Another Believer has created or edited, which sounds more like a TBAN? Levivich 05:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Levivich My understanding of IBAN was that a user could not "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means." But yes, thank you for pointing out that I am effectively proposing a TBAN and IBAN. --Kbabej (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Leviich - it's both a TBAN and a 1-way IBAN, I'd say. I do actually feel Gray has something that this would be a staggeringly large TBAN. I feel it would need some limitations. Perhaps articles posted on by AB in the last month? This would be a nuisance, but far less so than cutting off such a large realm. The normal 1-way IBAN limitations would also apply (user talk page etc etc). Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
For such a new editor, I don't think this would be "staggeringly large". There are millions of articles on WP, and most people have varied interests. Why should harassment and hounding be allowed to continue just because AB has focused on PDX articles? Graywalls has exhibited a pattern of behavior that is intentional, hostile, and targeted toward AB. Again, I view this as an opportunity for GW to actually focus on other areas and contribute in a positive way to the project instead of becoming focused on following one user around. --Kbabej (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the main issue is the way Graywalls has been treating Another Believer over the past two months:
Behavioral quotes and diffs
  • Graywalls' first edits [180] are a few days in September, a day in November, and a few days in January and February, almost exclusively to Mook (graffiti artist). Then in March they bump into AB at homelessness-in-Portland-related articles. They start removing content, merging articles, applying CSD tags, and nominating articles for deletion.
  • On March 11, they're not yet extended confirmed, but make this comment on AB's talk page: When many of your articles have the same fundamental issue (lack of basic notability and obvious promotional intent hinted by tone, and participation by the businesses by the means of direct editing), I'd be wasting other editors' time to list them for deletion consensus building. So if you aren't ignorant of notability guidelines, you're gaming the system by trying to increase the work load as a deterrent to deletion. Again on March 13, they refer to AB as an experienced editor who has a track record of prolifically creating articles on run of the mill local businesses that absolutely fails to establish the core requirements of notability with information provided reasonably concludes it is advertisement listing. How does a non-EC editor know about AB's "track record" after essentially editing in this area for a couple of weeks, when AB has 300,000 edits and almost 5,000 articles created? The other comments there, An experienced editor like him should know better than slapping a bunch of sticky note drafts and expecting other editors to establish organization notability, and if disputed, put other editors go through all the AfD hoop. I personally liken this to patent troll lawsuits which are known to create the burden. and With the level of experience held by Another Believer, he knows better that its disruptive to introduce a sub stub quality junk articles., suggest a battleground mentality against an editor they just met.
  • On March 30, GW suggests AB uses A tactic very frequently employed by marketing and public relations people. (The whole talk page is worth reading.)
  • And in this AfD: Although it might appear to those seeing AfDs as I'm choosing after the creator's articles, it just happens that a large number of questionable articles I come across are the ones created by him. I see it as absolutely absurd he's essentially trying to make an article on practically EVERY LGBT related organizations and businesses like gay bars and unfortunately, I'm frequently seeing more or less the same concern.
  • On April 1: At the request of the creator, who has been serially spawning articles of this nature... and again: You've been editing long enough and know better than that.
  • April 2: You're plastering on things that are of anything remotely LGBT, including clearly non-notable organization. and again: Then stop creating poor quality articles in the first place and work on fewer and higher quality ones.
  • Accusation of canvassing on April 4.
  • On April 4, Tedder posted a note on GW's talk page cataloguing behavioral issues, which are different from (and worse than) those I just posted above. It's worth reading.
  • GW wrote in this ANI I agree with other concerns on politeness and respectful interaction brought up by tedder and I have been conscious and aware to maintain politeness. and I have been trying to keep it polite after tedder's comment on my page and I'm committed to remaining polite. However, after Tedder's April 4 post...
  • On April 9, another COI suggestion: @Another Believer:, you presented yourself as something along the line of editing expert. I'm looking through the edit history in this article and I see highly obvious self-editing flew right past you. With your level of experience, I would like to ask why you let it fly without saying a thing.
  • On April 11: What a coincidence that those "better ones" you're referencing are taken by you, thus repeating my concern about your grandiose attitude towards others.The article doesn't exist to appease to aesthetics senses of Another Believer. First and foremost is the encyclopedic value. Secondary is the subjective quality. Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of your composition.
  • Graywalls nominated No Vacancy Lounge for deletion. It was unanimously kept. During the AfD, AB expanded the article and added sources–basically a standard rescue. GW took exception to this. The AfD closed on April 13. The same day, Graywalls posts a 3PO request, in which he complained that additional sources were added and suggested rolling it back to the point prior to AfD nomination and working from there. That is, after nominating an article for deletion, and having it rescued, he suggested rolling it back to pre-rescue form–the state it was in when they nominated it for deletion. (To their credit, this part of the request was removed by GW in a subsequent edit.)
  • On April 14, in response to AB saying they've expanded the article to add more sources, Those are things that should have been done prior to the article even being created, are they not? which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the article creation process (and suggests no WP:BEFORE searches are being done, and nominations are being made based on the state of the article rather than the state of available sourcing)
  • On April 17, refers to AB's comments ...as manipulative, coercive and threatening that is trying to intimidate me into succumb to his way....
  • In addition to the above, see these entire threads: Talk:Hawks PDX#Business registration/business establishment month and year, WT:WikiProject Oregon#Calling other Portland city center experts, and Talk:Street Roots#Tag. The last one is from a few days ago.
  • Finally, in this ANI, GW has continued to accuse AB of wrongdoing and called for AB to be punished in a number of ways:
    • perhaps by having AB no longer have autopatrolled status, it could avoid the proliferation of run of the mill local venues that became the point of disagreements.
    • Having his autopatrol removed would help those articles go through review scrutiny and avoid having them become a point of concern in the first place.
    • I'm open to the idea that you refrain from art topic; and Portland area;...
    • Since AB works in a lot of different areas and we have problems only in specific area, if he'd avoid the same topic areas that I work on (Oregon area, some art topics); I think he can go peacefully work on plenty other things he work on; and I can work on things in Oregon area; thus allowing both of us to continue doing our things on Wikipedia while avoiding a section where we would have to co-exist.
    • This was identified as an article with potential UDPE(not saying or implying he had anything to do with) issue...This too is possible UDPE.
    • I believe I have reasonable cause to believe you're soliciting those likely to side with you by choosing those likely to have similar ideology or have previously been sympathetic to your side.
  • Per the above, I support a one-way IBAN preventing Graywalls from interacting with Another Believer. My concern about a TBAN from Portland is that it misses the target, because I think Portland is just a proxy for AB. I'm not sure that it's necessary over and above an IBAN. Levivich 19:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If you are implying that you don't believe Graywalls is a new user, I feel you should come right out and say it. Deb (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No I’m not implying that at all, and it wouldn’t matter if they were or weren’t anyway. I’m saying GW has been harassing the first editor they had a content dispute with. It would make more sense if these statements I quoted came after years of disagreement, but GW went from zero to nuclear in no time, and kept it up even after a talk page warning, even during this ANI. Hence why I think an IBAN is appropriate. Levivich 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I actually G11'd Elephant's Delicatessen; because it looked very promotional; and there was a tell tale sign of significant editing by the business. I was shocked at the chain reaction that took on. Some have been saying how I continue to bring this incident back. When someone directly says " If you're not willing to help, I will find another admin who is willing to restore the page." While AB says I continue to "bring back" the past, the big picture is that a comment like this comes across as he'll just shop around until he gets his way. Is this interpretation unreasonable?
"Please stop. I'll agree to not seeking outside input here if you'll agree to my proposed path forward above." This is the instance which I was referencing when I said coercive and manipulative; because his statement comes across as ""accept my proposal.. else if...".
I do find his remarks, edit comments etc dismissive. I've shared that concern with him. And I am digging around for this discussion and it seems like I'm not the only one made to feel that way with his demeanor. this. This to me looks like the same back-n-forth that has been wearing me out, and possibly what Deb at one point describes as "haranguing".
this chattering says others are also finding his stubby articles a point of concern. And nominating those things for deletion because I actually believe something don't have notability isn't going after the PERSON who is making them.
and another back and forth
Obviously, interactions can not happen between us if one of us wasn't around. These interactions suggest AB has a confrontational tendencies with others who do not agree with his way. It's a mischaracterization to say I'm "treating him poorly" just because.
Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I support a 1way IBAN, 3 months seems appropriate. Again, IBAN covers the problematic behavior well, as it includes (preventing) deleting content and AfDs. Lev, I appreciate the work you've done reviewing behavior (again), as it shows a clear pattern. tedder (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutral - I won't argue against it, but I do believe there is fault on both sides and both editors have shown intransigency in getting us to this situation. Deb (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Belated response to request for opinion. I have to concur that I've found User:Graywalls problematic. It appeared to me that many of their edits ought have gone through TALK first, and that being dictatorial and argumentative, rather than collaborative, seemed the heart of the tension, both in my experience, and around other edits of theirs that I looked through in order to assess. AHampton (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
AHampton, I certainly felt harassed when you reverted your comments back onto my page in violation of policy on restoration after I acknowledged your message and left you message on your page to express my willingness to continue on the article concerns on the article's talk page. I felt further harassed when you demanded that I restore your content and threatened else if you're going to file a frivolous complaint here and you did not followup to say this was a misunderstanding, therefore it's assumed that you're maintaining your position. Graywalls (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This is why it took me so long to weigh in. To quote another editor (above): you were as "snarky and rude" then as now. What do you think your TALK pg is for? I had intended, in fact, to be polite by addressing you individually, not on an article's TALK page, and because you were the main issue, so that was the place for the notes. Maybe you can't recognize polite, though. As has been stated (above): "Can you commit to being polite?" Can you? I'd say all of your issues here are a direct result of not behaving collaboratively, or even with respect to other editors.
FYI: As for restoring what you so hastily deleted from your TALK page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&diff=890679380&oldid=887367796I) — Unfortunately, I had been led astray about that policy by another editor, long ago, or I would not have... Quote: "never, ever modify existing content in talk pages, especially in talk pages of other editors, and even if it's your own text. It's a huge no-no." -Mardus 03:40, 26 September 2017, when all I did then was add another sentence to my own post, because I had forgotten to answer part of their question. (Maybe they'll turn up here and handily spout some other policy about that.) I didn't bother mentioning it then, because attempting to reason with you was a clear waste of time. Immediately deleting a polite note on your TALK page belies your aim at the time. AHampton (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
In principle, what I wrote, still applies.
The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk.
  • If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again.
  • If it's something that another editor wrote that you disagree with, then you do not modify their text, and you will add your own disagreement.
  • If it's your own text, and you want to fix punctuation, spelling, or grammar mistakes without changing the spirit of what you wrote, then you can do that. But in this case, us the <strike></strike> tags — like this — to show which parts of text you are no longer in agreement with — without removing what was entered before.
  • But you should not delete what you wrote.
  • Archival is quite another matter.
  • If it's someone else's text that unsigned, then I think there is a bot or a template to append to that other person's text, that "this unsigned comment was added by (typically an IP address) at this time on this date."
  • There may be some instances, where inexperienced editors might break formatting by mistake, in which case it's permissible to fix formatting or code. Most of the time, it involves indentation.
-Mardus /talk 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
"Idea", indeed. Despite what appears to be your decree of opinion, which is not here supported by any accompanying policy; Mr. Graywalls here had been quick to counter with actual WP policy, when I claimed that TALK should not be modified, per you. Incidentally, "The idea was, that an editor does not change another editor's text in Talk" never occurred and the only line from your text above that applies is "If it's your own text, and you want to add something, start a new line, and sign it again." The rest is a grandstand. Is that your opinion, or policy? Your "idea" also runs contrary to the policy that I was told by an Admin who had deleted their own ill-advised comment in another discussion, at the suggestion of another editor. (Twice burnt, as it happened.) Since you answered so fully, yet without any policy to back up your opinion, and I have taken us off-topic due to a need to answer to Graywalls' "harrassed" statement, subsequent to my ascribing to your apparently unfounded admonishment of 2017; I will take this discussion to my own TALK page, reprint it there, and we can carry on, Mardus, aside from this discussion.)

RHaworth, again[edit]

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

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

"I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated).Smeat75 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Just on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyTicket.co.uk AfD - another user tagged it for CSD while I was filling in the AfD proposal. The CSD tag was placed by the time I submitted the nomination, so the conflict was my bad, not theirs. I was pondering what to do for the best when RHaworth deleted the page; I didn't request the redirect, but in fairness it was probably appropriate (the website belonged to the company that it was redirected to). GirthSummit (blether) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It sounds a reasonable compromise, sure; the issue is more the reply from RHaworth, which is the somewhat unhelpful "The discussion says "the result was delete" so why do you ask the question?". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
We all know that IPs are subhuman. Frequently, ANI is protected and we can not even post here. We all have IPs, you know. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I will add another issue to this thread: While Ephixa was still in draftspace, and a deletion review closed as "Accept draft", RHaworth declined a G6 request and salted the redirect as "trying to circumvent DRV". Seems like an obvious rush in not reading the full story before declining. Luckily, after discussion, we were able to accept the draft, but I still had the feeling the decline was rushed. I'm not saying he was wrong in declining the G6, though, I'm just disappointed in how it was handled. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm sure if he's told to restrain himself from vocalising his views on IPs—shared, of course, by so many of his colleagues—then both he and us can get back to what we're here for...to paraphrase the OP :D ——SerialNumber54129 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup, I've questioned RHaworth's deletions several times over the past couple years, usually to no avail. I'd love to see an WP:ADMINACCT Arb Com case opened for RHaworth's conduct. I certainly don't have the time to present evidence here, but I would in a case request. This is an ongoing problem that doesn't look like it's ever going to be resolved otherwise, as the conduct since the "acknowledgment" in the previous thread has demonstrated. -- Tavix (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've certainly on many occasions gone to remove the deletion tags from pages which appear to have been tagged in error, to find that RHaworth has deleted the page in question in the meantime. AGF and all that, but he's clearly just opening CAT:EX and CAT:CSD and hitting the "batch delete" button since there's no possible way he could actually be checking the articles and their histories in the time taken. (If you've ever wanted to see what 100 deletions in one minute looks like, here you go.) There are also some distinctly goofy log entries. I'm not sure if Arbcom is necessary—hopefully an "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" is all that's necessary—but just a skim over his talk page isn't promising. ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    The last ANI thread was archived as RHaworth has acknowleged the communication issues and no futher action is required. Unfortunately, acknowledging is not the same as actually improving. I explicitly did not comment last year because he and I have distinctively different views on speedy deletion and I didn't want that to be the focus after Ritchie had mentioned it but I think Ritchie has demonstrated now that RHaworth is not willing to follow ADMINACCT regardless of his mistaken applications of the speedy deletion policy and thus I would welcome an ArbCom case to analyze his behavior if this (again) fails to sanction him. Regards SoWhy 19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    And even if this did go to Arbcom, it would waste everyone's time, with the Arbs (eventually) coming back with the standard "RHaworth is admonished" line. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Ritchie333, I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities. Please provide your own replies to messages on my user talk page which you consider are unsuitable and reply on my behalf to all the new messages there. I will study your responses and try and learn from your example.
    Everybody else, is it sufficient for me to say that I accept my admonishment? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    And why do you think that that's in any way sufficient? You have been disrupting Wikipedia for well over a decade by speedily deleting articles that don't remotely qualify for speedy deletion and by salting the titles when editors have tried to question your actions. I, for one, won't let this thread go until your obvious incompetency leads to your admin rights being removed. I'm about to go to bed now, so won't look up the diffs until tomorrow, but I would have thought that it's pretty obvious to anyone looking at your record that what I say is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Phil Bridger: - hi, firstly just an indication of interest specifically in diffs of retributive saltings tomorrow. Secondly, I feel that if it's just bad speedies, then I'd advocate a TBAN without a loss of general sysops rights. If there are true retributive saltings, then that's definitely cause for de-sysopping. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • RHaworth is an absolute gentleman compared to several other Admins I deal with regularly. I watch his talkpage and respond to requests from time to time. He is fast to delete when we are doing bulk CSDs like G13s and willing to restore based on any reasonable and sometimes unreasonable request. Not the Admin that needs ro be dragged here for a beating. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I've got to say that I'm of the opposite opinion. RHaworth has been, IMO, the single most difficult admin I've dealt with (though I'll acknowledge there are one or two others who come from time to time). I'll fully admit that's over many years, not just since the last time this came to ANI. But honestly I can tell when it's one of his deletions at DRV just from the deletion request. My sense is that he gets overturned for really poor deletions pretty often. And I've commonly seen him be really terse when dealing with others, especially new users and IPs. It's not like I follow him, just go look at discussions related to DRVs he's involved in. Is there a good/easy way to see how admins have faired at DRV? I'd be willing to put together a list of the issues I've had if there is. But I've no idea how to search for them. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Let me also acknowledge that he does a lot of good work around here. No doubt. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a minor comment: according to WP:NOQUORUM it is acceptable for the admin to close the discussion according to the nominator's suggestion. That is a hard, rather than soft, delete. That should generally be less common though. Reyk YO! 05:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • RH does excellent work, and is correct in his judgments as often as I am, or as anyone who does as much work as he does. But since there is always the possibility of error (indeed, the certainty of making a few errors), it's unfair to new users to assume their objections do not need to be considered. It's also unfair to the rest of us who feel obliged to rescue rescuable articles and who have to deal with the new editors subsequently. In past years, there were quite a few other admins acting similarly, and it seemed unreasonable to single him out among them, but the others have in general either changed or left. I know it's hard to break a pattern, and I suggest we need patience while waiting for improvement. But I hope we really do actually see improvement. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I broadly concur with DGG's comments. I note RHaworth has accepted his admonishment ... and I [AGF that means an attempt to improve communications towards current sysop/admin norms ... and I guess we will be back here if not. Thread closure may be more productive than a Good Friday crucifixion of RAHaworth. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Me too. Those of us who dare to carry out deletions - almost always at the request of other contributors - expect and get considerable criticism. I don't see any reason for him to do more than apologise if he gets it wrong once in a while. Deb (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        As I said at the top, "I'm not saying the deletions were blatantly wrong or against policy - perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't". That is not the purpose of this thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        Just to clarify, when I said "gets it wrong", I did not mean to refer only to deletions but to general conduct. Deb (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
      (edit conflict) +1 I'm not, obviously, a clearer of backlogs—indeed, I'm more likely to cause them :) but, notwithstanding that no-one's irreplaceable, I do wonder who exactly would do the work that RH does; not, it would seem, the admins currently calling for arbitration (103 G11s/U5s over their last 1500 collated deletions; [181], [182], [183]). Happy days! :)
      Of course, no-one has to do anything they don't want to do, but a few pro rata errors are a small price, I think, to pay for the heavy lifting to be done while allowing the rest of us to wander the halls of enlighten/ment. I grant you that RH can be brusque; but he's never told anyone to fuck off, people—and there are a fair few admins who that can't be said of! They, I suggest, would justify an occasional outburst on the grounds that they are permanently dealing with vandals/socks/LTAs and other such unsavoury characters, and after all, if you sleep with dogs you rise with fleas. I expect RH's occasional terseness stems from much the same thing: permanently hearing the same thing over and over, most of the time from blatant spammers and Garage Bandists.
      Poor for the soul I'd imagine; rather RH than me. And, I suspect, rather RH than most/of/us/here right now... ——SerialNumber54129 09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      The examples I gave above do not fit this pattern - do you really think Phil Bridger, Paul W and GiantSnowman are vandals, socks or LTAs? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      Supercilious disingenuity. I was referring to mindsets, not individuals, as you well understand. And I was replying above to Deb, not you. ——SerialNumber54129 09:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      Then you're arguing a Straw man. This thread is not about people who do a lot of CSD deletions, and it is certainly not meant to be a campaign against their excellent work. It's about a particular pattern of behaviour in which one admin has refused to engage with veteran editors on reasonable queries about deletions, and also exhibited WP:BITE behaviour towards other good faith newbies. You can't wave that one away just by saying there are lots of vandals and trolls out there. It's something that needs to be examined, and RHaworth needs to acknowledge that the examples presented above do not constitute satisfactory conduct and that they will do better in the future.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      That being the case it would have been closed at the point where RH explicitly acknowledged so—over twelve hours ago. It wasn't. However, I note this discussion is relevant; I'd be personally tempted to suggest a moratorium on all but the most egregious (but how to define, naturally) incivility being brought her while a consensus is being established. If it is of course. ——SerialNumber54129 11:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    "I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form" - ooooh, I thought we weren't supposed to say that (just think it, as I do but have never stated)." I don't see why. I go through my watchlist several times every week, and check what such editors are up to. Several of them are reverting vandalism, correcting typos, or using the talk page to mention errors and omissions. On the other hand several editors with signed names are vandalizing pages, trolling, and leaving misleading messages such as "fixed typo". Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Try editing as an IP for a few days. I tried, making the same kinds of edits I normally do, and I was reverted without explanation and threatened with a block. IPs are treated that way, so it's reasonable to conclude that a lot of editors think of them that way. Guettarda (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding IP editors, I would encourage RHaworth, and everyone else to read WP:HUMAN. Paul August 23:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick comment on the Víctor Manzanilla Schaffer debacle seeing as I've being pinged here - this was a clearly notable article which was moved to draftspace for no reason and then he refused to answer questions about it. Very concerning conduct. GiantSnowman 12:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment RHaworth seems to have resumed activities although the last comment here is he was on limited capability device which I totally understand especially can understand especially given the Easter holiday period. Gets a WP:TROUT doing a CSD in a batch with a rate of about 10+/min on a page with a contest in progress from a person giving him support earlier in the thread. To be fair there may be timing issues here and posting this here may influence matters. This may of course be a godd faith attempt to help out while resources are light which I can totally appreciate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    I also need to WP:TROUT myself here for not simply removing the CSD notice first rather than writing on the take page which was the incorrect procedure for contesting the deletion by a not page owner (In haste hit the big button in lieu of carefully reading small print).Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I will observe quickly RHaworth has just restored the page in question and has been thanked by me for doing so.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Did he pull a userfied page from Meta in MA and then tag it for speedy deletion? Muthian (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I am reasonably sure this was the incident mentioned at the top of the thread and which was probably the key triggering incident for the thread and to an extent has been implicitly acknowledged already by RHaworth.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • So, as the thread draws to a close, do we have any conclusion? A couple of people have suggested Arbcom, a couple have said that RHaworth has got the message, others are "meh". RHaworth has reached out to me, but I can't see the response is particularly conciliatory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been avoiding this issue for the last few days, because I believed that RHaworths incompetence was so obvious to anyone looking at his record that this would be settled without my having to offer any more evidence. It's very difficult for a non-admin to come up with diffs because nearly all of them would be to deleted articles, which I can't see.
Firstly I would note that this is not the first time that this admin has been brought to WP:ANI on these grounds, and he has previously promised to do better in the future but those promises have not been kept, so we should not just lie back and accept similar promises this time. I would also say that this thread should not just be concerned with incivility towards anyone who this admin seems to consider to be inferior to him, who are basically any non-admins and especially people who choose not to log in to edit or who are not experts in the technicalities of Wikimedia mark-up, but also about gross incompetence with speedy deletion, which I can't substantiate because of my inability to see deleted articles, but I have experienced many times over the years. He seems to just delete almost anything that's nominated (which, of course, would result in many correct decisions, because most nominations are correct) rather than check whether the articles actually meet speedy deletion criteria.
I have been editing for over a decade, mostly logging in but for a time without. On many occasions I have contested a speedy deletion, explaining in my edit summary why the speedy deletion tagging was incorrect, but found that an hour or two later the article was speedily deleted anyway without explanation. On nearly every such occasion the deleting admin was RHaworth. To address DGG's comment above making the claim that there is any equivalence between their approaches, on the one occasion when DGG was the deleting admin the deletion was immediately reverted with an apology, something that I have never seen from RHaworth.
The most recent occasion when RHaworth has disrupted my editing by inappropriately salting a title was at Manoj Paras. The subject of this article clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, and I provided a source to confirm this, so I tried to revert RHaworth's move to user space per WP:BRD, but after I messed this up by forgetting to change the namespace in my move RHawarth salted the mainspace title. Going back many years, showing that this problem has been here for many years, I had a similar experience with Cheveley Park Stud. These are not just two isolated occurrences, but just the latest and earliest that I can remember where there is still some undeleted evidence available. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: The most recent CSD you contested that involved RHaworth was Great Dane Airlines on 15 April. The article as you saw it was tagged CSD A7 and the prose in its entirety was "Great Dane Airlines is a startup airline that is based in Aalborg, Denmark. It is due to launch its inaugural flight on 21 June 2019 to Dublin, Ireland." You declined the A7 and added a citation to the Irish Times. It was then deleted by RHaworth per CSD G11, with no further edits or tags. Houston, we have a problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear. @RHaworth:'s complete lack of silence here is also very concerning per WP:ADMINACCT... GiantSnowman 10:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Per a comment I've made elsewhere, I initially counselled against taking this to Arbcom. However, despite his claim that he's unable to respond at the ANI thread because "I am away from home at the moment without my usual display facilities" he's continuing to perform mass deletions (while he's not yet back to his 100-deletion-per-minute rate, he made 14 deletions in one minute just a couple of hours ago). He's also still batch-deleting without actually checking the articles he's deleting, unless he's going to try to justify deleting a page that has existed since 2009 and is unquestionably accurate (albeit of questionable appropriateness) as a "blatant hoax". I now consider his non-response to concerns a blatant case of ANI flu in an attempt to evade scrutiny (the alternative—that he doesn't have the technical ability to read the pages at present but is still running deletion scripts anyway—is even worse). ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • RHaworth's attitude towards editors who come to his talk page is not acceptable. I can't think of a more inappropriate analogy to a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit than the petty point scoring and infantile back-and-froth that is the House of Commons, but apparently RHaworth thinks it is ok to state on his user page, I have a well-justified reputation for blunt speaking on talk pages. But such pages are not a vicar's tea party. I take my standards from parliamentary language - if a Speaker would allow it then I use it. Similarly his edit notice (which I see has just been nominated for deletion) says that he reserves the right to ignore messages from those to fail to correctly format a wikilink, even if they provide the link as a URL instead! This is incompatible with WP:ADMINACCT.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • RHaworth replies at last - and still away from base. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process. But collaborators may have differing views. If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it! Chances are that I will never notice or, if I do notice, I will accept it. If you don't have the relevant rights, ask Ritchie333, or any other admin to do it for you or request the change on my talk page.
I will make the following specific changes to my behaviour:
  • Insisting on wikilinks: I feel that in an, admittedly somewhat perverted way, I am helping the person to become a better Wikipedian. But I will change: as long as I can identify what the person is talking about, I will respond. (I had two cases recently of an IP address that had made no other edits making a complaint where it was totally impossible to work out what they were talking about!)
  • I will treat IP addresses as being just as human as logged-in users.
  • Regaring my mantra; "kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks you are notable and writes about you here". I really do not see what Ritchie333 is objectiong to but I will switch to the following. "When you become notable enough that other people write about you in third-party independent reliable sources, then someone with no CoI will be interested enough to come here and write your biography". (Based on a suggestion by DGG.)
Are there any other changes needed? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That's one of "I'll slow down, take more care and stop being an asshole to other people" covered, but what about the other two? We wouldn't be having a discussion about your replies to people questioning your mistakes if you didn't keep abusing the batch-delete function to speedy delete everything that has been nominated for deletion without bothering to check for yourself if it had been tagged correctly. Per my comments elsewhere, my allegation would be trivially easy to refute were I wrong, as even if we very generously assume that only one in 50 taggings are wrong (the real number is much higher than that, and for some of the more widely misunderstood deletion categories like WP:A7 is probably nearer 50%), then for someone deleting at this kind of volume it should be simple to point me towards numerous diffs of "deletion declined, this has a credible claim of significance" or "I'm not sure this is uncontroversial so I'll take it to AfD". Seeing as I've repeatedly made this accusation against you at Wikipedia's highest-profile drama board (and one where false accusations invariably attract boomerangs) and nobody has provided any such evidence—and that even after all these concerns have been raised you're still carrying out obviously incorrect speedy deletions—I'm assuming you've not taken on board any of what anyone above is telling you. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I will try and explain a few things, but first I need to reiterate that you're a nice guy and you deserve to have a hug (but I'm probably not the best person for that) and I'm not doing this because I like having a pop at other admins; on the contrary, I find it tiring and draining, and saps my mental energy which would be better spent on other things. Rather, it's because I get a semi-regular stream of off-wiki complaints about you, and I'm fed up of having to defend you, as that saps my mental energy even more. So this comes from just a total state of exhaustion over the issue. Now onto the individual points:
  • "If you see an action of mine that you disagree with, simply reverse it!" I don't intrinsically have a problem with that, I have that prominently displayed on my user page and generally don't need anyone to ask permission. The key problems are: 1) it's not immediately obvious that you're okay with this 2) the default position, as stated by the policy on tool misuse is "Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.", so it would be reasonable to assume that people don't know this. 3) It's not reasonable to expect new users (such as the editor who created Great Dane Airlines that you unilaterally deleted on a questionable pretext that you haven't justified yet) to know that administrator actions can be reversed if you ask the right ones. Particularly if they get brushed off with excuses like "I don't talk to IP addresses" or "For heaven's sake! Do you not know what a wikilink is?"
  • The problem with "kindly have the decency....." is (as linked to at the top of the thread), you were asked to do this at the previous ANI thread from April 2018, and didn't - or possibly more likely, you adhered to it for a bit, then slipped into your old habits. That's really what I was getting at.
  • You really need to address Iridescent's points above. If you're systematically going through CAT:CSD and deleting everything, expecting other admins to revert anything that people disagree with, then that's not really a working method that's compatible with adminship. Actions such as deletion should be a last resort - as the deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". I appreciate admins go on holiday and can't respond; indeed, if you look at my contributions you'll discover I was away at Easter and only managed to grab brief periods online; but if that's the case, I wouldn't expect any admin actions, or any edits at all bar holding replies.
I fully admit I'm frustrated by this, and I'm sure you are as well, and it's not nice to basically tell an admin ten years my senior effectively how to suck eggs. But I think everyone on the thread is optimistic that there can be improvements in this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I would give you a hug, RH... :-) Deb (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would have thought that anyone whose competence has been called into question, and who is in a place where they don't have the ability to reply properly to concerns that have been raised, would have the self-awareness to refrain from performing speedy deletions until this thread has been resolved. I see that you have restored one article that has been mentioned in this thread, but what about the very many others that you have deleted in error, and the very many editors that you have been responsible for scaring away from Wikipedia? No hugs from me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Good timing, I was about to comment about you, Phil. I feel I am being subjected at the moment to a zero-tolerance policy. Am I not allowed to make any mistakes? My deletion of Great Dane Airlines was a simple edit-conflict-type mistake. I had the 2019-04-15 11:58:35 state of the page open in a browser tab. So when I deleted it at 2019-04-15 12:44:46 I never saw that you had removed the speedy tag. If you had contacted me, I would have restored the page promptly. Why did you not do so? Now see if I have excuses for some of the other pages that I have "deleted in error". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks at talk:Patrick Moore[edit]

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

You are moving further and further away from reality was part of a subsequent post. [184]

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

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

Debi Prasad Misra edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit (again)[edit]

The previous report from a month ago resulted in a short block for User:Debi Prasad Misra. Now, he's edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit again - see [185] or, more specifically, [186], [187] and [188].

More specifically, he keeps reinserting the unneeded dental diacritic, uses an incorrect diacritic to denote voiceless aspiration (⟨ʱ⟩ instead of ⟨ʰ⟩), changes other symbols without consideration for Help talk:IPA/Sanskrit#Redid table and refuses to engage in discussion. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Propose indef block The user has not addressed any of the numerous warnings (see their talk) or the previous block in any way whatsoever and has continued reinstating their reverted edits not just on Help:IPA/Sanskrit but on several other pages. Not once have they written a word in the edit summary or on their own talk, or any talk. Evidently they don't possess the most fundamental ability to WP:ENGAGE required to edit Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Kbb2, you need to inform them of this ANI thread. I'll this for you, along with a message beyond the traditional template. Hopefully they'll pay attention to that and address some of their issues here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Correction: Kbb, my apologies. I just saw your ANI notice to them. It was buried in a previous section though, and while they were likely notified, I still posted an additional one just in case, in its own section. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)
  • Sweet, they just keep inserting questionable content with absolutely no communication despite our warnings and Symmachus Auxiliarus's repeated notification of this thread and plea to communicate. They're practically begging to be blocked. Nardog (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: copyright violations and civility violations[edit]

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

  • On 26 October 2017 they plagiarized the BBC (here). After I removed the long-standing copyvio here on 18 April 2019; they restored a close paraphrase without in-text attribution in the subsequent edit, without any acknowledgment of the WP:COPYVIO.
  • On 26 October 2016 they plagiarized the Daily Beast (here). This was drawn to their attention on the talk page here. Their reaction was typically aggressive.
  • On 30 December 2018, they misattributed copyrighted text written by Harry McGrath to Elizabeth Teague ([189]) and reacted aggressively when I corrected their mistake.

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

  • On 21 April 2018 they attacked other editors (1, 2) who sought to have their biased content removed. The RFC was unanimous § in rejecting their contribution as written.
  • On 21 April 2019 they removed my attempt at getting them to reflect on their repeated violations of copyright law, calling this request that they follow WP policy "unhinged rambling" ([190]). A look at the history of their TP edit summaries show that they routinely engage in name-calling against editors who attempt to rein in their abusive behaviour. Snooganssnoogans will need to provide evidence that they've asked me to stay off their talk page, I have no such recollection of them doing so, but will do so now that they have asked (I believe) for the first time.

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

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

I am not seeing a real copyvio problem here. Those of us that know Snooganssnoogans are aware he adds quotes from daily news stories on American political articles. It does seem very lazy to add quotes instead of paraphrasing however in Snooganssnoogans defence over the years they have run into problems with their interpretation of sources especially because of the nature of the topics and news sources used...thus the eventuality of just quoting has come to the for front. As for civility...its an ongoing problem with many editors and theses examples above are not outrageous in my view...more of a sign of frustration. --Moxy 🍁 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, civility is a big issue for snooganssnoogans, and has been for years, although no one seems willing to do anything about it. Natureium (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
After having the pleasure of discussing quotefarms with Snoog at Talk:2018 United States elections, I gave up and left the topic area. Levivich 18:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As for the purported copyvios: the first example (one sentence sourced to BBC – with the BBC as a cited ref) is just a case of close paraphrasing in one sentence, which can happen when one reads a source and seeks to summarize its contents. The second example (one sentence sourced to the Daily Beast - with the DB as a cited ref) is a clear copyvio, and I do not exactly remember the circumstances behind that 2.5 yr old edit - the text should of course be fixed and has been fixed. The third example is just an accident where one link was copied into the cite-ref generator rather than another (something I’m sure every prolific editor has done). After almost three years of stalking my edits (note that I’ve added a lot of content during that time[191]), this is the sum of what SashiRolls comes up with.