Page for discussing incidents that may require action by administrators and experienced editors

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos [ edit ]

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant. a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.

b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.

c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication" 2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.) 3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE. 4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge. 5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag 6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[1]]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a request for administrative attention at

There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede

I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with walls of text. It will be noted that the "walls of text" were created on both sides and all my arguments were relevant to the discussion. This issue shows the difficulty of combatting a smear campaign where exhaustive research/analysis is needed to sift through bad press. This also needs an admin who is fair, analytical, logical and deeply concerned about Wikipedia being made a tool of a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that this is a minor difference about how a TV series should be described. I don't know who. if anyone, is right here, but can you both please get some sort of sense of perspective? It's not as if the article was about some geopolitical or religious dispute where strong feelings could be expected. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."

Phil Bridger, the reason I am requesting a change in the lede section is to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for a smear campaign. CherryPie94 keeps insisting the reason I am doing this is because I am a fan, immediately tarnishing my credibility and clouding other editors' perception. She refuses to look at facts which are as follows: The series was aired in three ways: (1) through the domestic TV network SBS (2) Netflix (3) Wavve, a streaming service in South Korea. On SBS, the series started with high ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve, as well as controversies and criticisms, caused the ratings to decline, though it still ended on solid ground. On Netflix, the series was successful, not only in South Korea but also internationally. On Wavve, it consistently topped the charts throughout the eight weeks of airing. So, it is not true that the series was received badly in South Korea. It topped the charts in Netflix South Korea and Wavve. It was only on SBS, and only after the premiere week-end, did the ratings decline, though not as low as it has been painted out to be. CherryPie94's lede section puts the SBS post-premiere low ratings on equal footing as the series' success on Netflix South Korea + Wavve + international market put together, effectively downplaying the latter. The nonequivalence is appalling. I am really tired of this dispute, but one of my goals as an editor is to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity and cannot allow a smear campaign like this to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Phil Bridger, Lizzydarcy2008 is very biased fans.. what the prove for her arguments Wikipedia is used as a tool for a smear campaign? that's a very serious accusation. I've seen Lizzydarcy2008 very biased and the changes she made were very nice for the drama, not neutral at all. i will only remind this once. Be careful Phil Bridger because Lizzydarcy2008 seems to be distorting the facts. Just because other people's opinions (votes) did not match her wishes, she called it a smear campaign. TheUntamedTVSeries 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I just realized why CherryPie94 and now TheUntamedTVSeries are accusing me of being a biased fan. Because the facts I presented could not be refuted, I was instead attacked personally. TheUntamedTVSeries can you tell me which of the items I mentioned distorted facts? I am a fan of many dramas and movies. But have I gotten into a discussion like this over the others? No, because I didn't see anything wrong in their writeups. The fact is that the lede section of this drama is more negative than what the facts present, so attempts to remove the negativity is seen as "nice" and "biased" by those who are not familiar with the facts. Compare the lede section of this drama with those of other kdramas and you will be appalled at how negative it is. I compare this page with those of other kdramas and not just with other types of shows because whether we like it or not, readers will compare this drama with other kdramas, as I did, which was how I noticed the negativity. A smear campaign is indeed serious, which is why I am taking this case seriously. I have explained the smear campaign and sabotage in earlier discussions and would most likely be accused of writing "walls of text" if I repeat them here, so please check the Talk section of this drama. Please also see this complaint of Rating sabotage in https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/rating-sabotage/5f5fccf26880ca11de80de18. If you also care to read comments in MyDramalist, there are similar observations about fans of actors smearing or sabotaging dramas of rival actors (the site is triggering a protection filter so I cannot add the link here, but if you are curious, please see discussions 2 months ago in Backstreet Rookie). The comment section of The King on MyDramalist was infiltrated by saboteurs who loved calling it a flop. The internet is crawling with bad press about this drama, e.g. there are several articles saying the drama tanked on Netflix which is obviously false since it was successful on Netflix and the articles don't even attempt to give proof of the alleged poor performance on Netflix. If you search for this drama on google, the questions that appear on "People also ask" section are about this drama being a flop, indicating how bad the smear campaign had been. A newspaper called this drama a flop several episodes away from the finale, showing how eager some quarters were to label this drama and ignore its streaming success. It will be noted that both Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not be Okay were faring even worse than this drama but rallied in the finale, indicating that until a drama has aired its finale, labelling it a flop is premature and malicious, effectively sabotaging that drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, you make sure to introduce me to editors new to this dispute as a biased fan, effectively smearing my credibility and coloring other editors' perception of me. I am a fan of many kdramas and movies, but this is the only one I got into a discussion for like this. Being a fan of kdramas does not make one lose a sense of justice and proportion. In fact, it gave me perspective that other disinterested editors may not have, such as knowing this page is the most negative kdrama page on Wikipedia. Being a kdrama fan also made me know this drama is not as bad and a failure as its page is making it out to be. Is Wikipedia supposed to be merely a parrot where it just reports whatever is online? In that case, since, by definition, smear campaigns involve the generation of large quantities of negative materials, then, being a parrot, Wikipedia would tend to be a tool of smear campaigns. Furthermore, in this parrot mode, Wikipedia would not even need editors. It just needs an aggregator algorithm to collect whatever information is available online and present them according to some format. But as editors, we are supposed to be "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources" per WP:WIKIVOICE. What you dismiss as "my opinions" are results of hours of research and analyses.

Regarding your litany of my past edits, aside from just parroting negative statements online, the page of this drama also mentions negative aspects multiple times. The low domestic ratings are mentioned at least three times on the page in addition to the dedicated Ratings section where you added more tables about viewership in the middle of this dispute. The high production budget is also mentioned three times. I had been trying to delete the repetitions to reduce the negativity of the page, but my attempts had been undone. Also, please check those deletions more closely. Some are movements of sentences/paragraphs to more logical places on the page. Regarding "puffery", remarks about the extreme success of this drama had been deleted, so saying "extremely popular" was an attempt to give due weight to this under-reported achievement. The phrase about the "stunning performance" was about the "record-breaking second quarter earnings". So I guess "record-breaking" is acceptable, but not "stunning"? These are moot points anyway since, like other positive remarks about this drama, they had been removed. Regarding the phrases "beset with" and "hounded by", considering that the controversies and criticisms kept getting publicized even after the production team had apologized for them and given explanations, these phrases captured the situation appropriately. Regarding the use of words like "surmise" and "claim", please note that WP:Claim merely says these are "words to watch", not banned. The statements in question are opinions, some of which had been proven wrong. For example, the statement "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings" is wrong in that it does not include a major reason for the low ratings - the rise in streaming services. In this case, "surmise" is a more appropriate word than "explain" since it is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and the statement is not only unverifiable, it had actually been proven wrong. Come to think of it, since this and similar statements had been proven wrong, why do they still need to be on the page? Oh, I forgot - Wikipedia is a parrot.

Now that all points against me have been explained for the nth time, creating another distraction and generating more "walls of text", let's focus on the real issue. I have listed the flaws of version A of the lede section. What others may call "walls of text" are earnest attempts to explain those flaws and respond to the comments. Yet I still have not received point-by-point comments about version B as I had given on version A. I am still awaiting a thorough explanation of why a flawed version (version A) would be chosen over the result of research and critical analysis (version B). Instead of accusations of me being a fan as well as a litany of my past edits, which I had given explanations for previously and above, the focus needs to be on the merits and flaws of the two versions presented. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, I think this is my last message here, since you started diverting to other issues and the discussion is going in circles. What you are doing is synthesis of published material; reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, “Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.” Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies, and you are going against them with your edits. Wikipedia doesn’t lead, it follows (parroting as you call it). CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, we're going around in circles because you keep repeating your accusations of me being a fan and a litany of my past edits even after I had already answered them. Up to now, nobody still has answered my question of why Wikipedia would choose a flawed version A over version B that has such flaws removed. Can you point out anything in version B that was not well-sourced or based on Wikipedia rules? Please re-read WP:WIKIVOICE that states, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources..." Careful and critical analysis is what makes human editors different from automated aggregator algorithms or parrots. Analysis does not mean coming up with your own opinion but making sure the finished product conforms to Wikipedia rules such as fairness, giving due weights to views, avoiding stating opinions as facts, using nonjudgmental language, etc. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, listen, Nangears already answered you in the RFC of Second Paragraph of Lede, go read it there. As for the RFC on Reception section, users already wrote their opinion that they found version A more neutral next to their vote, they don't have to go point-by-point and explain it to you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Incivility by Deacon Vorbis [ edit ]

I very recently had an interaction with Deacon Vorbis which started out mildly brusque, and ended with strong vulgarity directed at me personally, which by my standards I never consider civil.

My recent interaction started at Template talk:Radic#Improving_appearance. In the course of conversation, Deacon Vorbis helped me understand the context in which this template was being used, and to refine my proposal. I thought they were being a little pushy when they started demanding I delete the file I had just created to explain what I was proposing, but I tried to focus on discussing the proposed changes. They didn't support my proposal, which is fine, and said any changes "would at the very least need a pretty strong consensus – from more than the few people that are watching this template." (14:35, 21 September 2020) I agreed to solicit more opinions, but after a couple more back-and-forth refinements, I read this:

It's not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. Please just let it go already. (02:15, 22 September 2020) Paul Augustx.php?title=Template_talk:Radic&diff=979667355&oldid=979663755&diffmode=source diff

It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but I started to feel like I was being bullied into not seeking the opinions of other editors. That seems inappropriate in a consensus-driven community. I often seek the opinion of at least a third editor if a one-on-one conversation gets stuck with both editors being fully informed but just coming to different conclusions (usually because they weight different factors differently). In this case, I continued the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Improving rendering of radical symbol and found several editors seemed to agree with the refined proposal and who had some constructive things to add.

When Deacon Vorbis joined this thread, the first thing they said was:

Eh, I said a hell of a lot more than that it would be a waste of time, and oversimplifying my rationale like that is kind of dishonest. (17:42, 22 September 2020) diff

I think the way I referred to the previous conversation was fair, especially given I wasn't trying to vote on someone else's behalf and that I cross-linked the conversations to disintermediate myself, but I apologized anyway because the sensation of someone else putting words in your mouth, even unintentionally, is never pleasant. I leave it to the reader to judge that in context whether this was a fair complaint or if it was Deacon Vorbis assuming bad faith. Anyway, I didn't think too many people would care about this math typography issue, so I tried documenting what seemed like a quick snowballing consensus in the Manual of Style. That resulted in this exchange:

@Deacon Vorbis: I see you reverted the addition using a minced vulgarity as an edit summary. I don't think this was appropriate, both in terms of civility and because so far editors seem to prefer that solution 3 to 1. This WikiProject and the Mathematics MOS page are the places I can think of that are most likely to find editors interested in these issues. Is there some other forum you think should be alerted to this proposal to test for consensus? -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff, revert being referred to Really? You're going to complain over "BS"? Really? The fact is, you should just drop this. Trying to steamroll longstanding practice by 3 people is not appropriate. This isn't a problem that needs fixing. And I don't have the energy to devote to arguing over this constantly. I'm doing other things here. You haven't even remotely fucking listened to a word I've said in earlier discussions, just plowing ahead with your fingers in your ears, and it's tiring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff

Another editor much more politely suggested we give the proposal more time before considering the consensus to be firm, and that's an entirely fair request which I honored. And I filed an RFC as suggested by yet another editor, just to cast an extra-wide net to affirm consensus.

From my perspective it seems like every time I don't do something Deacon Vorbis wants, they just get angrier and more strongly demand that I follow their commands. But I feel like compliance for the sake of calming them down would mean not solving a problem which so far a supermajority of editors agree is a problem that should be solved, albeit minor. So this anger loop ends up harming the project, which is why I opened this report. My concerns about a toxic atmosphere were deepened and I was also more motivated to report this when I saw another editor (I don't remember on which talk page) complaining that they often ran into difficult people when editing mathematics articles and sometimes avoided participating because of that. I'd say the same thing about style pages, and I assume that's why the relevant page (MOS:MATH) is under discretionary sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis, none of this is acceptable behavior from you, including your comment above, and if you cannot treat Beland with respect, then I would advise avoiding him and his edits, or the subject(s) that are in contention. There are other editors who can respond to him civilly and without vulgarity, and can focus on content and policy rather than personal attacks and insults. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment I have had many problems with Deacon vorbis and his disruptive behavior. He has edit warred with me consistently for the past month. His behavior at AfD is extremely disruptive, he has erased my comments, hatted my comments, moved comments, and he has messed with other editor's !votes. On one AfD he enlarged his !vote to 300% size with a sophomoric edit summary mine's bigger so it counts more here. I have tried to discuss with the edotor and have even sent him an olive branch, however the editor continued to be hostile. I will just provide the two edit warring reports for anyone who is interested. Here. and here DV will edit war until he is reported then revert himself with uncivil edit summaries. You can follow the many links in the edit warring reports to see the incivility and my efforts to discuss. Even here his language is uncivil. I would support sanctions against this editor, and perhaps a 1RR. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, your incivility is plain to see: Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI - NPA, ABF (1).

- NPA, ABF (1). DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late - PERSONAL, INCIV, ASP (2)

- PERSONAL, INCIV, ASP (2) Stealth deletion is for real. Nobody of the keepers from the prior vote was aware or showed up. The usual suspects voted delete. An agenda fulfilled . - BATTLE (Us vs Them in particular), ASP (3) What I am struggling to find in the many links is the efforts to discuss . Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Hi Mr rnddude. That last green quote is not from me ^. FYI: if you think the behavior of DV is fine carry on. I have found him to be disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC) My apologies, you are correct, that comment came from another user. Struck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Mr Rnddue I would still be concerned with link 2 and DV's edit summary again very uncivil and not language you would expect to find. Games of the world (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC) From looking into the evidence that Lightburst has given, the first one I think DV was just trying to be funny, although probably not the correct forum for it. DV should stop trying to alter other people's comments by removing them or moving them, even if he feels that it is a PA or affects the flow. Lightburst you cannot revert an edit in which DV removes his own posts that is as above altering other people's comments. In addition you should refrain from comments about others behaviour, I wouldn't say it was an attack worthy of action in either case but come on you can't make an accusation and then complain about his reaction. Overall DV needs to stop swearing in edit summaries and take a moment before he posts and read some of the policies around discussions to stop tedious edit wars, take note of Beland's comment to you. Lightburst needs to stop trying to provoke him with comments about him at deletion discussions. Games of the world (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC) right there is supposed to be a bright line of 3rr, apparently not any more because no action was taken when he crossed that line four times in the past month. DV regularly crosses 3rr. I think you are correct in saying that I reached a level of frustration with his behavior and esp his warring. He regular wars to his preferred version. It was mentioned by another editor above, and by Green Means Go, and by his previous block earlier this year for 3rr. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

My 2c: "BS" is not a "minced vulgarity" or a "vulgarity" at all. It's not even the kind of profanity that is censored on television. I disagree with folks who want everyone else to not use profanity because they are sensitive to profanity. Certainly there are some words that should never be used, like racial epithets, but complaining about "BS"? That's just total BS. Lev!vich 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It sure looks like a minced oath to me. These are exactly the terms that are allowed on American broadcast television in place of those that would otherwise be censored. This is not the standard Wikipedia uses; much of what is allowed on American broadcast television is not at all civil. I'd argue even a less vulgar edit summary like "this is hogwash" or "ridiculous" is not particularly civil, as it's being insulting instead of or in addition to being explanatory or productive. A more civil summary would be something like "no consensus for this change" or "needs to be discussed more" or "I strongly disagree; see talk page". -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Right. What about Pigeon chess? Just one of his uncivil edit summaries. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC) First time I've heard that term but yes, this is starting to feel like pigeon chess. Lev!vich 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC) It took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to: this edit summary. I mean, heck, let's talk about all of them. The 300% size increase "DELETE AS IS" is a comment on Dream Focus's long habit of always !voting an all-caps "KEEP", in the case of the AFD at issue, "KEEP ALL", which I do kind of find mildly annoying, I wonder if DF thinks that the !vote will count more if it's in all caps. But DV's 300% size increase !vote in response to that isn't uncivil; it's a way of making a point with humor, and acceptable in my view if it's a one-off (as opposed to increasing the size for every AFD !vote, which of course isn't the case). As to the two ANEWs you linked to (the second one involving the "pigeon chess" edit summary), I can see why they weren't actioned by an admin. It's true that edit warring over the removal or removal of uncivil or off-topic comments isn't great, the substantive comments of yours that DV was removing/hatting did contain personal attacks, by you, against DV. In the first, you accused DV of following you (no diffs), and in the second you accused DV of "disruptive", "hostile", and "tendentious" editing (again no diffs). These are inappropriate comments to be making in AFDs. I'm actually, again, disappointed to be reading these, Lightburst. After two recent ANI threads about your fellow ARS members' making inappropriate comments at AFDs, here we see recent diffs in September of you casting aspersions against editors you disagree with at AFDs. You all need to stop attacking people at AFDs, or you're all going to get TBANed from AFDs. Lev!vich 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also want to report personal harassment behavior by Deacon Vorbis.

[a] On Sep 19, I added a simple comment to section "3 Squarefree" on Deacon Vorbis's talk page. I wanted to relieve the "decision pressure" in naming something clearly (i.e., the wording "non-squarefree") with 2 contradictory definitions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=prev&oldid=979187995) This post stayed undisturbed until Sep 23. No objections.

[b] On Sep 23, I discovered that the editing interface had changed the string "defs" (definitions) into "refs" via autocorrect likely while saving. That's not what I intended to write. So, I changed "refs" back to "defs". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_Vorbis&type=revision&diff=979808535&oldid=979807310)

[c] This was almost immediately reverted to the previous version by Deacon Vorbis with the reasoning "Don't edit others' commennts". (XX) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979808535). I assume that this action was in error. Note however, the above reasoning (XX) is difficult to explain (it's off-reality), since my contribution was properly signed, and there was no other contribution than the original question and mine in that section.

[d] I reversed again in good faith replacing "refs" by the intended more clearly written "definitions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979810197) Also, I gave a detailed explanation for Deacon Vorbis to understand:

<< I wanted to write "defs", a shortcut for "definitions", as "refs" is a shortcut for "references". Autocorrect seemingly changed that to "refs" while saving. I then changed the letter r back to d as I had typed. This reflects my typing at the time, and what I intend/ intended to express. I find your revert not acceptable. >>

[e] Here comes the personal harassment. Deacon Vorbis immediately deleted my whole contribution which, obviously, seemed acceptable to him when he assumed that someone else had contributed it (XX). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979812115) The change of mind happened within ~15 minutes. At the time when the version (XX) above was generated, Deacon Vorbis let the contribution stand. Only after recognizing that it was my contribution (thus, it's personal), the contribution was removed. This claim of personal attack is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by Deacon Vorbis' reasoning for the removal:

<< oh, it was yours...responding to something stale and pointless; rm >>

"oh, it was yours" proves an anti-person motivation, since the same contribution was acceptable 15 mins before. The remainder of the wording is demeaning.

LMSchmitt 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Beland, Have you ever thought of maybe starting an RFC on it ? That would solve all of your problems, Bullshit thread should be closed. Keep up the fucking great work Deacon Vorbis. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 three editors have come here saying that DV is uncivil but you call for a close? Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC) As I mentioned in my initial post, I did start an RFC, though so far no one who did not participate in the Mathematics Wikiproject conversation has commented on it. The problem was not finding enough opinions; the problem was that Deacon Vorbis objected to me seeking more opinions and then started responding in a verbally abusive manner when I did so over his objection. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC) My apologies Beland you did indeed start an RFC. I'm still not seeing anything worth sanctioning over, Alls I'm seeing is mild frustration from DV but again nothing really sanctionable, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC) I'd prefer a frank conversation and rehabilitation to sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm sure if Deacon were a newly registered editor, an indeff. would come swiftly and case closed, especially if the editor was showing a continuous amount of disruptive behavior like frequent cursing. That alone would've been enough for an indeff on a new editor despite being asked to stop by multiple editors. Let's be real here, we as veteran editors don't engage in discussions that involves cursing because it's uncivil, a contradiction to behavioral policy, immature, and overall, beneath us as Wikipedians. Deacon Vorbis: Jerm (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You could have picked most of the discussions off this page tbh and made the above stick. Agree that everyone should be held to the same standard. He has never been warned for this from what I can see. Best solution here would be warnings all-round and then hit them if they do it again. Games of the world (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment . Speaking of the alleged harassment, that depends on perception by the "targets". Typically, the harassment is defined as "unwanted behavior that you find offensive". So, if people are telling in a good faith they have been harassed, this is true. What might be a reason for saying the F... word so many times right on this noticeboard? I think it is obvious: the accused contributor wants to trivialize such expression, thus making it more acceptable. Yes, that may be acceptable for some people, but not others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

. Speaking of the alleged harassment, that depends on perception by the "targets". Typically, the harassment is defined as "unwanted behavior that find offensive". So, if people are telling they have been harassed, this is true. What might be a reason for saying the F... word so many times right on this noticeboard? I think it is obvious: the accused contributor wants to trivialize such expression, thus making it more acceptable. Yes, that may be acceptable for some people, but not others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Looking at Deacon Vorbis' long contribution history, it appears there are many positive contributions, and dealing with other editors acting inappropriately. But there are also other instances of antagonistic behavior, typically aggressive removal or dismissal of messages from other users, inappropriate language, and edit warring. I would hope these behavioral problems could be resolved simply by having a constructive conversation about the harm they doing to the project and how to avoid that while still contributing constructively. And I think being less offensive and aggressive and more conversational would reduce the number of negative reactions from other editors, and increase the number of cooperative edits made after a smooth dispute resolution. Examples: The block log shows they were blocked in January 2020 for a 3RR violation, and in July 2018 for a vulgar personal attack they refused to apologize for (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988), saying the victim deserved it. Example of removal of a talk page message: this case where I think it's worth considering whether the answer to the user's question would be a good addition to the article, and the question highlights a problem with the article lacking references to sources where their question could be answered. (The user wrote as much in response to the deletion but was ignored.) At the very least they could be referred to the reference desk rather than being completely censored, and that could turn up some citations for the article. Here is an example of an unnecessary personal insult. The content that Inedible Hulk posted was indeed weird, though I probably would have replied to it or ignored it rather than deleting it claiming it was "disruptive". I don't find the deletion unacceptable, but I do find the caustic language used on the talk page to be. More gratuitous and uncivil language in edit summaries - "agreed my ass" "agreed, my bloated buttocks Another incident where agressive removal led to an edit war and ANI complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive375#Deacon_Vorbis_reported_by_User:Count_Iblis Edit warring over a speedy deletion and archival cleanup: [27] and complaint Another incident of removing another user's talk post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Deacon_Vorbis_censoring_the_math_ref_desk An incident that combined overly aggressively removing another user's post and then using uncivil language in edit summaries during the fallout: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Possible_compromised_administrator_account



-- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Well, I never interacted with this user until a few days ago. However, since my previous comment here, he reverted/modified my legitimate edit on AfD 3 times: [28], [29],[30]. On a scale of confrontational behavior from 1 to 10, I would give him 6, at least in this episode. Note that he does it during a standing ANI thread about him. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Another incident of don't edit others contributions on talk pages/discussions! DV needs to participate here and not continue to edit other people's comments at discussion/talk pages. He should be give a short block just for that, irrespective of any civility issues, since he will not engage with this thread about his behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Oh yes, he just changed my AfD talk page comment again by moving it to another part of discussion [31], even after all my explanations on their talk page [32]. He is hopeless. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Deacon Vorbis: you are certainly on notice that Beland does not enjoy vulgarities, so I would urge you in direct communications with them to eschew the saltier language. Beland, I mean this with all due respect, but less-than-solicitous language is perfectly standard on Wikipedia. I would urge you to let a bit more roll off your back. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC) I rarely encounter such language on Wikipedia and it certainly shouldn't be standard or accepted, as it creates problems with editor retention and may even be contributing to the gender imbalance in the editor population. If I were a sensitive person, I wouldn't be here complaining, I'd just stop editing Wikipedia and go do something where no one is swearing at me for trying to help. Excessive conflict, edit warring, and bullying are problematic for editors of any gender, but have been specifically identified as reasons why some women don't edit Wikipdia. Check out points 4 and 5 at Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words). -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you in an idealistic sort of sense, but I am also afraid your normative statements don't hold any more sway than anyone else's. We will have to agree to disagree here, as in my short time on the planet, I have seen more harm from policing speech than allowing it (not that either position is harm-free). I would continue to urge my previous advice to you, but you are absolutely free to ignore it, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC) I generally am a strong supporter of free speech, but incivility is not a type of speech which it's appropriate to tolerate in all circumstances. If I were to call my boss an f-ing liar, I would risk getting fired. If a prosecutor were to call a defense attorney the same thing, there would be trouble from the judge. Workplaces like an office or courtroom or Wikipedia are not forums for free speech like the town common or Twitter. They are places to get things done, which require calmness and cooperation to a level not required by political or public discourse. I'm also curious how you would suggest addressing the issues that the women commenting in that article say are push them away from Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC) I certainly don't mean that there is any sort of legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, simply that such a regime is closer to what I believe works best for the site. And Wikipedia needs to be collegial, indeed, but is often also an adversarial place. There's a reason zealous advocacy is a part of the common law legal tradition, and it's because adversarial zealous advocacy is considered an efficient way of getting somewhere close to the truth. Again, this is simply something on which we will have to agree to disagree. More to the point, it strikes me that you are trying to enforce a set of mores (or at least boundaries to existing mores) that are not shared by and large here. We don't define incivility down to the most sensitive user, nor should we judge it by the most jaded. In essence, much of this strikes me as "par for the course." It's a thorny question what to do about getting more women on Wikipedia, but I am hopeful that more engagement by women here will have a bit of a snowball effect. I don't know if I would agree to an attempt to fix the noted problems in a top-down sort of way. Even the best-intentioned power structures often lead to exclusion or oppression of less-privileged groups. I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers, or, indeed, very good ones when I do have them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC) "And Wikipedia needs to be collegial" The article Beland linked to already contains complains that we are at war with each other much too often: " “From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.”" I don't think Deacon Vorbis' tendency to voice his frustration by adding "fucking" to random sentences is particularly helpful in building a collegial environment. Wikipedia:Civility advises against such behavior: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Dumuzid: Beland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Beland, by "top-down" I mean asking for an authority to do something about it. Nudging is per se fine by me, and I think I may even have engaged in it to a small degree. As for the "sbnowball" effect, it certainly is wishful thinking to some degree, but I am allowed that after all! I am not sure the answer to women on Wikipedia is any sort of precipitous action, but I could probably be persuaded otherwise. And while you're correct that there's a stricter lexicon of civility in the American tradition, I am not sure that actually translates to a stricter standard. Most of that is more in the realm of norms and traditions, which are as often overlooked as honored. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. I would add: the continued edit warring to refactor someone else's comments is problematic. DV, I think it's OK for editors to add addenda to their own comments in the form of a self-reply, even if the self-reply is above other replies to their original comment. I see editors do this all the time and I don't think anything in the PAGs forbids this. Even if you're right , it's not a WP:3RRNO reason, and you're past 3RR. Lev!vich 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Levivich: WP:REDACT, "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." WP:THREAD also has further guidance on good practice, which I tried to point out, and no acknowledgement was made, despite asking for one. I'm not okay with comments I respond to getting major changes after the fact. My moving the comment was the least invasive way of keeping the chronology of the comments intact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry, but no DV. The edit you are repeatedly reverting is not about modifying a comment. It was a new comment, separately signed with a timestamp, and you're edit warring whether the comment can be below the original comment and above prior replies, or below the prior replies. What you quoted from REDACT has nothing to do with it, nor does THREAD address this. And even if you're right , you're past 3RR and that in and of itself is a problem. You're spamming my watchlist over it, which is how I noticed it, as I'm sure others have. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Lev!vich 23:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC) If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before. THREAD addresses exactly that situation. No, I shouldn't edit war over this, but I also shouldn't have to in the first place. The fact is we have a weird, finnicky talk page system, and we do our best to try to maintain some semblance of organization to discussions, especially complicated ones. 3RR shouldn't be a sword of Damocles against someone who's trying to maintain stuff. Modifying the substance of someone's comments is far more serious than modifying the formatting, and that's exactly what the misthreading was doing (whatever you want to call it, elaboration, modification, new comment, whatever). I have no other recourse to the context of my comments being changed after the fact than to simply fix it in line with current practices. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC) If you find someone has reverted your change to their comments, and you still feel strongly about putting it back the way you want, why don't you just politely discuss with them the best way to use the talk page syntax? One possible compromise is to add pointers where the comment was moved from and to. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC) I tried to (a discussion which was initiated by MVBW, to be fair); see User Talk:Deacon Vorbis#Modifying comments by other contributors on AfD. I probably wouldn't object to something like Please see an additional comment that elaborates on this below the subsequent replies" tacked onto the end of the current comment, as long as the new comment stays after. That possibility hadn't occurred to me, but I have no way of knowing of MVBW would accept it...doing this on my own would have been a more invasive modification to the original, which I was again trying to minimize. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Honestly, this should be an easy one. Don't edit, move, adjust, or tweak others' comments. Full stop. Just don't do it. If you think they've done something in error, by all means, point it out. This behavior, is, to me, FAR more offensive than all the F-bombs in the world. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC) If you want to know what would be an acceptable compromise to the other party, the thing to do is ask . There are plenty of other possible compromises the two of you could come up with if you had stopped to think about it and weren't angrily undoing each other's changes. That's why I would have started the conversation after I was reverted once, whereas you reverted MVBW three more times after it was clear there was a dispute. Though they weren't following the convention strictly, it was pretty clear to me what was responding to what when, especially given that all the messages have timestamps, so I don't see a strong argument for objecting to what MVBW was doing. That sort of pushiness is equivalent to the in-person action of grabbing someone by the elbow while they're on a soapbox and moving them to somewhere they don't want to be. Even if they're not in the conventional location, it's perceived as strongly anti-social behavior. And it's really not worth the fistfight that ensues when everyone should be paying attention to the words that are said and not picky details about how the speech is being delivered. If you actually think it is important enough to argue about, wait until a third editor has weighed in to the conversation to validate one side or another. Either there will be much less resistance to the change you are proposing when it becomes clear it's not just you who holds that opinion, or the third editor will disagree with you and you can politely concede and avoid being accused of unreasonableness or vindictiveness or whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC) " If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before. " That's not exactly true. People do it all the time when they want to make an important comment to a post that has already been responded to. In this case, the editor was making a de facto " Edited to add " point, which is perfectly valid, as it had a new signature and timestamp and was indented enough to indicate newness in relation to the replies underneath. The point is, You are not the arbiter of posts in AfDs, and need to stop moving, deleting, reverting, replacing, complaining about, mocking, or edit-warring over them. Full stop. If the behavior continues, you are likely to end up at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC) that was my comment on AFD. Note that per Editing_own_comments - I did NOT change or modified my original comment, to which other contributors have already responded. I just added a note to my own comment with a reference to the relevant WP guideline (that unfortunately was missing in my original comment). And what Deacon Vorbis does? Moves my note repeatedly to a place where I did not mean it to be, over my objections on his talk page. This is an example of highly confrontational behavior, and without any actual reason, except me making a comment about civility in general in this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)



A while ago Deacon Vorbis was removing my comments on the Math Ref Desk, edit warring to keep my posting there removed, despite the fact that the Ref Desk has the status of a talk page and removal of edits there is only done in case of vandalism. This happened several time, the last such incident led to us both being blocked, even though I did not make any mistakes restoring my comments. The problem with his behavior is not the incivility per se, but his attitude when he sees something he disagree with. The incivility is merely a symptom of that, which may irritate other editors, but I have a thick skin ,so I'm not going to be bothered by that.

His aggressive attitude when his edits are opposed, causes him to not listen to the arguments of his opponents. When I told him that Ref Desk comments cannot be removed, at most they can be hatted, he did not listen. He could have looked up what the policy is if he didn't trust me. It took a few more similar disputes with him removing my comments before he finally understood that Ref Desk comments are not to be removed (unless it is outright vandalism, of course).

If you are angry, then you don't tend to listen. It's not that the person opposing him are right on the judgement about the edits, but if he doesn't listen to what the argument against his edit is, then he obviously won't be able to engage with the issue in a constructive way. Deacon Vorbis should understand that his attitude when he encounters a problem with editing is not going to help make his point in the best way. He should learn to engage with other editors in a more constructive way, and that will also be a benefit for him outside of Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC) There is mounting evidence here that Deacon Vorbis has repeatedly and inappropriately edited other editors' comments, including moving and removing them altogether. The issue is then compounded with edit-warring. I'd support a warning that any further modifying, moving, or removing of other editors' comments will be met with escalating blocks. This would be a TBAN, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC) I support Mr rnddude's proposal of a site-wide prohibition against in any way altering other people's posts, on penalty of escalating blocks. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC) That would certainly be a start. A personal 1RR might help mitigate the frustration caused by pushing the 3RR to its limit every time any other editor is willing to do so in return. -- Beland (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Given no positive response from Deacon Vorbis here, he will continue doing the same. Hence this is probably a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that Count Iblis, above, has a track record regarding the posting to the ref desk Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Proposal_to_Topic-Ban_User:Count_Iblis_from_Reference_Desk --Calton | Talk 14:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN [ edit ]

Per the above discussion, I propose that Deacon Vorbis be formally TBANed from modifying, moving, or removing other editors' comments. In addition Deacon Vorbis should be limited to 1RR.

Support as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Oppose 1RR restriction, and also suggest the proposer of this sanction is a much bigger source of incivility problems in their interactions than DV is. --JBL (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, you should probably leave it to someone else to make these proposals. That you're just sliding a 1RR in there is telling that this isn't actually addressing the above discussion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It was the last thing Beland proposed above. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Support TBAN . Also support 1RR since the editor seems to maintain their aggressiveness and shows no sign of having learned or accepted anything problematical about their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

. Also support 1RR since the editor seems to maintain their aggressiveness and shows no sign of having learned or accepted anything problematical about their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Oppose all DV in the last few days has disengaged himself from that behaviour of editing other people's comments on talk pages excluding his own. I only see him removing clear vandalism from talk pages. Note there is one issue that he is having, but that is an IP editing DV's comments, but DV has not resorted to the type of language noted above. 1RR is a non starter for me as if he stops editing other people's comments then 1RR is not needed unless someone can find evidence of a current problem of edit warring in articles. In addition restrictions are meant to prevent a current problem and not be punitive; from what I can see the problem has been resolved and as per Mr rnddude's proposal a warning outlining the community's dissatisfaction of editing people's comments to DV would be a much more objective solution for the time being. Games of the world (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossing 3rr repeatedly is as disruptive as editing and removing other editor comments. The above discussion has outlined a continuing pattern of this type of disruptive behavior and uncivil comments. The editor is unapologetic. I agree with one of the other editors above who said a new editor would be indeffed for this pattern of behavior. But we tolerate this behavior from an editor who knows better as long as they occasionally stop the behavior or self revert after multiple disruptive 4rr. We certainly do not apply the rules equally here and I have gotten used to that. Lightburst (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose- Purely punitive. Whatever the alleged problem is it's cleared up on its own, and the 1RR thing seems irrelevant. Reyk YO! 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe it's necessary here, but I would respectfully suggest to Deacon Vorbis that he just refrain entirely from altering others' comments, and modulate his approach a bit for various editors. While I don't find his approach offensive or problematic, if some other editor does, it can't hurt to try a different tack. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the disruption to the encyclopedia ...as always. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC) You conveniently ignored that I had in fact simultaneously posted at the article talk page with an edit warning, and that it was immediately removed here. I just wanted him to stop. I did not go to the edit warring notice board to complain about the 4 reverts and the blatant disregard of WP:3RR. But User:Levivich will not pass up an opportunity and I was summoned here. I was going to ignore this, but I will not have someone malign me and then have someone say I adopted it because I acquiesced and didn't object. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

Oppose . I don't see the point of T-banning somebody from something that's not allowed on Wikipedia anyway (i.e. editing other people's comments), and as for a 1RR restriction, it seems less than relevant. Also, in these bleak times, I recommend we all try to have a little more patience with one another, as long as the other is acting in good faith to help Wikipedia, which I'm convinced Deacon Vorbis always does. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

. I don't see the point of T-banning somebody from something that's not allowed on Wikipedia anyway (i.e. editing other people's comments), and as for a 1RR restriction, it seems less than relevant. Also, in these bleak times, I recommend we all try to have a little more patience with one another, as long as the other is acting in good faith to help Wikipedia, which I'm convinced Deacon Vorbis always does. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC). Support 1RR restriction because this user continue edit war [33], [34],[35] right during an active ANI discussion about him . What he is going to do when this discussion will be closed? My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

1RR restriction because this user continue edit war [33], [34],[35] right . What he is going to do when this discussion will be closed? My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC) support Since the problem is still on-going even during this ANI thread, with continued edit warring and personal attacks, I think that passing a formal proposal would be a good idea. Patiodweller (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment- it seems that if someone accidentally edits the wrong page, it reflects badly on Deacon Vorbis. Earlier in this discussion we found out that if someone posts to his user page rather than his talk page, and he reverts it, that is bad and wrong. Of course, we now learn that if DV accidentally edits the wrong page, then reverts himself and says "whoops, wrong page" that's also highly felonious. But we weren't supposed to notice the self-revert and apology, were we? I suggest we close this proposal on the grounds that the primary complainants are being very economical with the truth. Reyk YO! 09:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Telsho & LTA socking [ edit ]

The LTA page can be found here. The relevant SPI can be found here.

See the history above. Telsho popped onto multiple editors' radars after filing an ANI report where he claimed to have "stumbled" upon the Adrian Zenz article and was observed by numerous editors to exhibit most of the characteristics of the LTA in question; the CU check found Telsho to be a Possible sock. However, the August 22 case was later closed (along with subsequent investigations) on September 2 and then archived without any conclusion regarding Telsho. Follow-up inquiries by me and Canucklehead about a behavioral analysis did not receive an answer. I'm bringing this to the community, considering Telsho has continued to be disruptive and has provided additional evidence of quacking since the SPI closure. If this should be redirected to SPI for a second Telsho case, I'll move it there, but I'm not clear on the policy about opening up the same SPI again.

Significant behavioral evidence was provided in the SPI, which I have linked to, but here is additional LTA evidence, regarding subjects the sockfarm tends to focus on

Quacking

Frankly, you can look at most of the socks in the EIA and find significant overlap with Telsho, which becomes overwhelming once you consider how far-reaching that overlap actually is. I haven't even brought up behavioral problems outside of the sock connections, but there is incessant edit warring, refusal to use talkpages or abide by consensus, resistance to the use of sources (which he has in common with the Feinoa sock), a number of personal attacks, and a persistent use of deceptive edit summaries (some of which can be seen in the provided diffs). I'm happy to provide diffs of any of these behaviors if requested, but I'm trying to keep this report manageable for now and focused on the LTA connection. I propose Telsho's block be extended to indefinite and that he be added to the list of suspected sockpuppets of . Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To summarize my thoughts: At worst, Telsho is almost certainly a sock of the linked LTA.

At best, Telsho is a habitual POV-pusher and disruptive editor who, in his short time here, has demonstrated a lack of willingness to cooperate with people opposed to whatever his agenda is supposed to be.

It would be nice if an admin could chime in with some insight on why an active SPI discussion could be suddenly archived without explanation, why questions about said archival would be blatantly ignored, and why a "possible" LTA sock with a bunch of problematic edits was allowed to continue editing until it got to this point. — {Canuck lehead} FKA Cryptic Canadian 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Baprow (talk · contribs), an user that has seemingly garnered a troublesome collection of edit warring and disruptive behaviour-related issues throughout the last months (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4), has engaged on it again on a number of articles. Most of the ordeal has been in place at Talk:President of the Valencian Government and President of the Valencian Government, but the issue has extended to Leader of the Opposition (Spain), President of the Principality of Asturias and President of the Community of Madrid as the user has attempted to engage in WP:GAME conduct in those to prove their point.

The content issue at dispute is actually minor (i.e. design aspects of timeline charts), but their edits are rather random and ultimately based on their own whim, and this has led to a number of severe behavioural issues (mirrored in other articles in recent times, like Alejandro Rodríguez de Valcárcel or Hugo Chávez, with the involvement of users Asqueladd, ZiaLater or NoonIcarus in those cases):

Note that this extends to the discussion itself, which I had started almost immediately on 14 September in an attempt to give them the chance to explain their motives and seek out a compromise, if possible. This ended badly:

I asked several times for them to revert their own edits until the discussion was over, for the sake of WP:BRD and politeness (diff1 diff2 diff3). These requests were not only unattended, but also left entirely unaddressed, something which I pointed out to them when they unilaterally edited the article ( while the discussion was still ongoing ) in a twisted interpretation of a compromise alternative which I myself had proposed for discussion, but with which I had not agreed yet (diff). They seemingly think that "consensus" and "compromise" mean some form of "I will accept your edits if you accept mine"-bargaining chip that can be imposed without further discussion (diff).

) in a twisted interpretation of a compromise alternative which I myself had proposed for discussion, but with which I had not agreed yet (diff). They seemingly think that "consensus" and "compromise" mean some form of "I will accept your edits if you accept mine"-bargaining chip that can be imposed without further discussion (diff). They only keep replying in the discussion as long as any edit is done on the article: once I stop doing so, they go silent. They have done so several times: on 15 September, when they simply stopped replying to my own concerns, and a second time on 22 September; in this case, it was much more eggregious since I specifically pinged them not once but twice (diff1 diff2), with an additional comment in-between that was also unattended (diff3). They only re-started replying briefly on 21 September (after I re-edited the article as a result of they having abandoned the discussion) and today (for the same reason).

Looks like, since July, they've been systematically removing any warning notices from their talk page (diff1 diff2 diff3). That's their choice to make, as it's their talk page, but this only self-evidences an outright unwillingness to seriously engage in constructive, consensus-building behaviour or to acknowledge their own misdeeds.

Either this user lacks the competence to work collaboratively, or they are simply not here to build an encyclopedia, but to pursue their own personal satisfaction (by essentially enforcing edits that are pleasant to him and him alone, even if they are contested by everyone else). In either case, this behaviour just needs to stop by whatever means required. Impru20talk 20:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your base argument is "Your edits are wrong because in Wikipedia things are done the way I'm saying they are done. Look at all these examples!" But when I show you other examples that not all things on Wikipedia are done that way, your counterargument is "Aha, you're using the same argument as me, then I'm right and you're not." And now you are saying that in a timeline there can be names in blue and in black at the same time, something that I have not seen in any other timeline (where the names are in blue or in black, never mixed). In other words, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says or what the majority say, but what you want to impose.--Baprow (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC) This is the kind of behaviour I'm speaking about. It's just impossible to have any kind of agreement or compromise be reached when you systematically consider, regard and/or label the other party as an enemy as you do with others. Your editing history is out there, and it shows it's you the one attempting to impose your edits everywhere all the time and than that's the only thing you do in Wikipedia. No one but you has attempted to "impose" anything; in every situation I've linked it's your edits the ones being contested, and instead of backing down and discuss them when you get (legitimately) reverted you keep re-imposing them over, and over, and over, and over again until the other party backs down out of pure tiredom, or until you threaten with extending the disruption to so many other articles that other editors just cave in to prevent it. Please note that this is not a venue to discuss about content, but about behaviour, and yours has crossed the line by a large deal already. Cheers. Impru 20 talk 11:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC) If we are going to complain, I would say that it is difficult to reach an agreement with a person whose starting point is "your editions are totally, completely and absolutely wrong and mine are the only correct ones", when it is obvious that my editions are as valid as his editions because there is no such closed and unappealable uniformity that he claims (except when it suits him, as can be seen in the case of the time line that he defends, whose aesthetic differs from any other).

It doesn't help that this person doesn't try to make any kind of compromise and doesn't bother to understand what I'm talking about either (another possible explanation is that he doesnt care about). He even allows himself the luxury of telling me what my own words mean and, when I explain it to him, it would not matter if I did it with words or with Morse code, because he has already reached a conclusion and you can't get him out of there and, of course, his conclusions and valorations are the only valid ones.--Baprow (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Please, care to source your accusations if you will. I've never ever said "your editions are totally, completely and absolutely wrong and mine are the only correct ones" nor anything even minimally resembling that kind of behaviour, unlike what you actually did. Baseless claims and personal grudges are of little consequence here. Impru 20 talk 20:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The above editor has been bullying and intimidating me in edit summaries of Cherryl Fountain, on Talk:Cherryl Fountain and on the talk page of User:Valereee. Please help. I could cope if it stopped. But it doesn't. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any bullying. Please link to a diff. From perusing the different areas provided - their behavior and summaries looks constructive. Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Storye book: ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The comments aren't bullying , don't constitute harassment, they seem entirely descriptive of editing issues, perceived or otherwise. Sometimes people can come across as terse but it doesn't necessarily imply malice. I'd honestly suggest just taking the criticism on board and continuing, nobody's infallible. SITH (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

, don't constitute harassment, they seem entirely descriptive of editing issues, perceived or otherwise. Sometimes people can come across as terse but it doesn't necessarily imply malice. I'd honestly suggest just taking the criticism on board and continuing, nobody's infallible. 20:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC) There's no bullying or intimidation at all here, but just discussion of Wikipedia edits. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

For example, I published the article Cherryl Fountain and 35 minutes later the editor in question fixed its talk page with wikiproject banners, and used that as occasion to reprimand me for not doing it first. As it happened I was fixing the What Links Here aspect of the new article first. Is there a rule saying that I must fix the talk page with wikiproject banners within 35 minutes otherwise it's an offence? (there is no diff for that because it's two different pages).

The editor in question said that I made up some theory about specific Wikimedia Commons images influencing the artist Cherryl Fountain to create particular paintings in response, which is nonsense. I put the pictures there to show the background context for the art and the artist, because most readers haven't been to Sheldwich and Badlesmere in Kent, England to see it for themselves. But due to that misunderstanding by the editor concerned, I was accused of making things up and OR. That is offensive. If the misunderstanding had been explained to me, I could have re-written and clarified the section with the pictures, or I could have removed it myself, and all would have been peaceful. It was the approach and accusations which were bullying and unnecessary.

Re "constructive comments": it is not constructive to fill in the talk page within 35 mins of publication, before the article creator has had time to do so, and then accuse the article creator of causing problems and suggesting AFC on those grounds. That is inappropriate, it is not constructive. It is intimidating, unnecessary, and therefore bullying.

Re being "personal": It is personal, because the editor concerned kept using the word "you." I kept asking them not to talk to me, hoping to end the conversation, but they kept replying with more issues, such as pretending that I was trying to ban them from the article talk page. Of course I was not trying to ban them from the talk page - I was asking them not to talk specifically to me. The only way to end issues with bullies is to end the conversation. I have tried to end the conversation but it won't go away.

I am not arguing about edits that the editor concerned made to the article. You can see that by the way that I dealt with it by saving any removed elements of the article on the talk page, while carefully explaining the value of those reclaimed sections. My distress is caused by the accusations and insults, and the belittling of the (female) biographical subject. Example of belittling - the editor in question complained that it was not an achievement for the artist to have had work accepted for the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition over 28 different exhibition years, yet if you look at the listing you'll see that that only the minority of artists have achieved that. Storye book (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Storye book, cut your losses. Wm335td (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a problem with both the tone and the content of some of ThatMontrealIP's comments, such as "First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort." Since when are any of these things mandatory for articles? Where is the basis for this statement in policies and guidelines, ThatMontrealIP? Where does the documentation for the autopatrolled right say any of that? So, I will disagree with several of the comments above by other editors. I consider ThatMontrealIP's comments to be inimidating, needlessly aggressive and not based in policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with Cullen on this and go further. While I have tagged many articles for Wikiprojects, there is a reasonable view that it is up to the WikiProjects that are active to tag articles for their Wikiproject. In this case it seems that Storye book agrees with tagging for WikiProjects, they just didn't do so in the first 35 minutes - not something they should be criticised for. As for not rating the article they contributed, is it ever OK for an editor to put a rating on an article that they have significantly edited? Surely we expect editors to let an uninvolved editor rate an article that they have written? I'm sure I have never rated any article that I have started. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 21:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC) WereSpielChequers, I agree with you both. TMIP, autopatrolled doesn't mean "Creates perfect articles from scratch." Why in the world would you start heavily editing an article while the creator is still editing it? Your assertion at the article talk that Yes, I removed a large amount of superfluous material from the article. First of all I am surprised that you have the autopatrolled bit, since the article had around a dozen defects when I came to it: no talk page, no wikiprojects, no ratings, no authority control, no defaultsort is both rude and incorrect. I move drafts to article space as soon as I'm convinced the subject is indeed notable and then continue to work on them in article space. It often takes me hours and sometimes days to realize I've neglected to insert default sort and auth control or that, oops, didn't add X wikiproject. And as for large removals, give the creator a chance to get the article where they want it, maybe? —valereee (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Valereee: See here for the cut and paste move.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Cullen: section called "Some rural influences" which was something Storye Brook created from images of Kent found on Commons. That was WP:OR. I also had the sense that the importance of the article subject was being puffed up. Since then, another editor just tagged some claims for primary sourcing and failed verification on two claims, and yet another editor removed a section that was apparently synthesis. There are other items that I mentioned to them on the talk page that, together with the above, make me wonder about the editing being done there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP, the problem is that the things that you call "errors" are not errors and not required, so when you berate an editor for non-existent errors, you have stepped over a line. You should withdraw the incorrect accusations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Cullen, I am so glad you are an admin. ThatMontrealIP, I think it is a good idea to listen to Cullen. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Cullen328. Thank you for this. It is all to often that when attempting to rebuff bullying behaviour, one is told to "cut your losses." But I think the main problem is that when people intimidate online, they fail to realise that intimidation online can frequently cause the recipient to either just give up or to turn the problem inwards and consider suicide. Online intimidation cannot be resolved by either denial of intimidation by bullies, or by supporters of bullies saying "cut your losses." I have been editing for Wikipedia for 15 years. I have uploaded over 14,000 images to Commons. Like a lot of other dedicated WP editors I pay my own expenses for research, for travel to research or photoshoot sites and so on. I don't expect anything in return, apart from politeness. Is that really too much to ask? Storye book (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Cullen: ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP, since "wondering" is a mental process invisible to others, you can wonder whatever you want. But when you assemble a bunch of false assertions and use those to impugn the work of another editor, calling into question their suitability for the autopatrolled right, then you have gone beyond simple wondering to the edge of harassment. I encourage to to rethink your approach to interaction with your fellow editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Cullen: WP:SYNTHESIS in the article a little later. This is not expected to be something one would find in new articles by users with the autopatrolled right, per the autopatrolled policy. That is a valid concern.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC) I have seen this happen before when intimidating tactics haven't worked, and the editors concerned attempt to shorten or weaken the article with the intention of deleting it instead. They are doing this now on the article talk page under the subheading Sourcing. I would like to see the article protected now. What happens is that if you remove enough of the article it no longer makes sense or hangs together. If you remove the sentence about the artist's father and the shooting, the patronage no longer makes sense, and neither does the artist's work, which is full of pheasants and so on. A lot of that material is context. They have removed the links to the pictures from the External links section, so you can no longer see the artist's work with the farm produce, pheasants and so on. I think the page should be reverted to its original condition, then re-edited by a neutral editor (preferably an administrator), because the current editing is no longer about improving the article, if it ever was. This same thing happened with a previous female biography that I created, and it was very fortunate that an administrator came in and called a halt to the editing. The admin then edited the article and it has remained stable since then. Storye book (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Storye book: section you mentioned was about notability. Someone suggested the topic was not notable. I replied that the topic is likely notable, because they are in two museum collections. I went and found the sourcing for the second collection, pretty much guaranteeing that the article will be kept.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC) "not having wikiprojects... on a new page is an "error"." Articles with no WikiProjects do not get rated, they are difficult to locate, and may lack input from editors with interest in their subject matter. Adding WikiProjects yourself was a good idea, ThatMontrealIP. But accusing the article's creator for neglecting to add them is not a sign of civility, and doing so less than an hour following its creation is unreasonable. The article was still under construction. If you want to help out with a new article, do so without starting a needless fight. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Re my previous comments about non-constructive editing, I am concerned about the removal of mentions of the artist's work on the grounds that the works are described as works and not as exhibitions. Regarding notability, WP:BIO says, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." This requirement for notability has been met. But there is more to a biography than just notability. (For example, in the Winston Churchill biography, the article has not been pruned of everything that is not strictly necessary for notability. A sentence about his "black dog" depression is still there, for instance. But it is there for context.) All biographies need some sort of context that relates to the subject. To get a rounded picture of an artist's work, you need to read all about as many of their works as possible. However the editor in question has attempted to remove mention of a lot of works by Fountain which are not in exhibitions, and (oddly) a lot of works which were in an important exhibition. None of this is constructive. I ask again that the page be protected, reverted back to its original condition, and re-edited by a neutral editor, preferably an administrator. Thank you. Don't forget that the living subjects of these biographies are reading this stuff, and probably wondering what is happening when so many of their works are deleted when they have been properly referenced and are genuine. Storye book (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Storye book: ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Storye book, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes, and you need to make your case on the article talk page, and build consensus there. Disagreement about content does not justify full protection of an article. Administrators are not "super editors" and have no more power or authority regarding content than anyone else. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC) I'll just mention that I have restored the longish section at Talk:Cherryl Fountain, containing posts from 26 and 27 September, that Storye book archived on 28 September. I don't know why they did that, and there is no explanation in the edit summary.[111] Storye book, you can archive your own talkpage whenever you like, but archiving article talkpage discussions that are just a couple of days old is not a good idea. Archiving is for moving old, no longer current, stuff from the talkpage; it's not for putting up-to-date discussions out of sight. Bishonen | tålk 19:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC). Bishonen, their explanation, made on Valereee's talk page, is that they contained BLP violations. However all I can see is discussion of the painter's notability in Wikipedia terms. I don't see how that can possibly be off-limits for discussion on a talk page.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Bishonen: Storye book (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC) I should add that the above resumption of this conversation is about editing (specifically archiving), which I believe should be continued elsewhere. May I suggest that if anyone has more to say, it is continued on the article talk page? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) I wrote up an answer for this page, so I'll post it here. An explanation anywhere other than in the edit summary is kind of useless IMO, Storye book. People who see your removal, with the single word "Archived" as explanation, ought not to be expected to read through the talkpage looking for the reason. But I'm glad to now understand why you did it. I don't think those are BLP vios, but of course, as you say, they wouldn't be any fun for the subject to read. It's hardly fair to others, though, especially ThatMontrealIP, to unilaterally archive their recent text. If I were you, I would ask on the talkpage if it was all right — you know, "Does anybody mind if if I archive section such-and-such?" Preferably in a separate, clearly headed section, rather than as part of a long post in a mysteriously headed section ("Why the rush?"). Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC). I've just answered SB also on my talk, where I've encouraged them to communicate. I agree that the comments don't rise to the level of libel, but they certainly could be hurtful to a human being, and it might be kinder to archive them if that discussion is complete, but it's also better to communicate your reasoning clearly. —valereee (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible widespread birthplace vandalism [ edit ]

I happened to see a recent unsourced addition of a birthplace to an infobox from this IP (not supported in the article), and then checked the contribs from the associated /24, and I see lots and lots and lots of unsourced additions of birthplaces. I have no idea if any of the changes are accurate or not, but they're certainly unsourced. I also haven't checked any wider of a range than /24. Extra help/eyes in examining this would be immensely appreciated, as would any suggestions in case this is determined to be a problem. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have checked out some of the IP's edits and they are outrageous. For example: Carmelo Garcia is a New Jersey legislator and the only mention of a birthplace within the article is "Garcia was born in 1975 and lived in Hoboken his entire life." but the IP placed the birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. I have currently checked twenty edits and all of them are without sourcing. - Jon698 talk 2:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also edits by and similar ranges. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've rolled back a bunch of changes going back to early August. I didn't check edits that weren't shown as "current". Robby.is.on (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Starzoner mass page creation: 32,000+ pages created [ edit ]

The user above appears to have semi-automatically created thousands upon thousands of pages using WP:AWB in their userspace—e.g. User:Starzoner/3117, User:Starzoner/3116, User:Starzoner/3115, ... see their recent userspace contributions. According to XTools, they have created more than 32,000 pages in their userspace. I was alerted to this situation last night by DannyS712, and I provisionally revoked their AWB access pending an answer to a query about this editing, see User talk:Starzoner#Mass page creation (permalink). Their rationale was I just created some pages so that I can built off of them later. In the future, when I get to them, I can just continue where I started, instead of copy pasting content later on. As I stated on their talk page, I don't fully understand this rationale unless they intended to create a bot that could create articles, which would have certainly needed a WP:BRFA and quite possibly also an RfC before starting. I'm bringing this here because I'm not sure what should be done with the 32,000+ pages, and so I could use more eyes. Should they be deleted? If so, I could use some help deleting them. Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears the user has also created at least 850 articles in mainspace, most of which are one-line stubs that they indeed used WP:AWB to create, e.g. Schefflera simplex. So it seems this issue is not restricted to userspace. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC) They were also massively moving categories out of process recently (manually, not via Cfd) but they stopped after they got a warning (which is still at their talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I see no administrative issue to address here. Having helped out with some of these userspace drafts, I think those objecting are failing to see the forest for the trees. We have an established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles. Frankly, given the number of identified species, we are absolutely going to need some kind of mass-editing system if we ever hope to actually have these. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an editor creating this number of userspace drafts with the intent of eventually getting them in shape to become articles. I have myself done something very similar in the past, having used AWB to create around 2,000 draftspace stubs on state supreme court justices (of which more than 800 have since successfully been turned into articles, several ending up on DYK). BD2412 T 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC) I don't think I am directly opposed to the idea of mass-producing stubs for a category of topics that are clearly notable, but if we are going to undertake any kind of automated editing at this scale, I would expect editors to seek a consensus for the idea prior to carrying it out and to have the process for that automation approved at WP:BRFA. This is especially because a single mistake in this kind of process would have the potential to reciprocate across hundreds or even thousands of articles. Have there been any discussions on the idea of using an automated process to create these articles? Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC) I would find it a bit WP:CREEPy to require a BRFA for an editor to use AWB (as opposed to an actual bot) to work up stubs in their own userspace. I would have found such a requirement absurd and counterproductive with my own efforts along those lines. The only question I would have is whether the article is in the correct shape at the time it is moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin comment)(and new to ANI) They're not in correct shape, despite multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision. What's the next step after a user is unresponsive to these requests? —Hyperik talk⌟ The initial complaint raised here was with respect to the thousands of pages the user has created in their userspace. So long as those remain in userspace, it doesn't matter what shape they are in. BD2412 T 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Does a new issue need to be opened to address our related concerns or can that be rolled in here? —Hyperik talk⌟ We can address it here, but the mainspace content issue is a much smaller set of pages. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC) "multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision." What is preventing these users from performing some of these revisions themselves? Starzoner does not own the new articles. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) We are...but since their edits are semi-automated, it takes a lot of one-by-one effort after the fact to fix them each. Better to do it right from the outset, which is why there is are bot review processes, right? —Hyperik talk⌟ Where is the established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles ? Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC) See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. You'll find strong consensus at WP:TOL that all species merit standalone articles. —Hyperik talk⌟ Thank you, Hyperik! I think that line in SPECIESOUTCOMES contradicts the global consensus at WP:N that nothing is inherently notable. I see that there is consensus at TOL (apparently since 2012, when SPECIESOUTCOMES was added), but the consensus of a wikiproject is local consensus and cannot override WP:N. Just a heads up, I'm going to boldly edit SPECIESOUTCOMES to match WP:N; I expect I might be reverted, at which point I'll probably start an RFC. Lev!vich 15:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

some kind of mass-editing system if we ever hope to actually have these. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an editor creating this number of userspace drafts with the intent of eventually getting them in shape to become articles. I have myself done something very similar in the past, having used AWB to create around 2,000 draftspace stubs on state supreme court justices (of which more than 800 have since successfully been turned into articles, several ending up on DYK). 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Isn't this why we have Wikispecies? Atsme Talk 📧 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC) It is, but that is a far less trafficked project than this one. We have previously established that all confirmed species are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which may be a separate discussion to undertake. BD2412 T 22:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC) Well, maybe now is a good time to eliminate that issue by not accepting stubs that are nothing more than a horizontal taxobox. Send them to Wikispecies, which is the proper venue. WSp cannot hope to expand without material. Build it and they will come? Atsme Talk 📧 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC) That is a whole other ball of wax. I think it's hard - you can only create Wikipedia once. I would just as soon fold Wikispecies in here. BD2412 T 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC) No Wikispecies is a database for taxonomy and nomenclature, nothing more. It doesn't have information on the distribution of the species or about its biology. Even the stub example chosen above as a "bad" example goes beyond the scope of a Wikispecies article on the taxon name, if there was one. — Jts1882 | talk

📧 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

oh what should I do then? but first, what are the back door discussions where someone is telling another user to keep an eye out? Maybe I should just forget contributing to Wikipedia here and move to Wikispecies since clearly some people have issues with my contributions here. :( Starzoner (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable or not, we don't need a stand-alone page about every species. In fact, that's a pretty poor way to organize the information. Multiple species can be covered on a single page about the genus or subgenus, for example. If all we have to say on a topic is one sentence (or as Atsme says, a horizontal tax box), then there's really no reason to put it on its own page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , which should have articles ; it's not a database of species containing data on species (that's WikiSpecies). BTW, mass-creating pages with a script is always a bad idea, whether it's articles or portals or redirects, it just adds to the maintenance work without really adding to the encyclopedia. Even if someone reads the stub, they get almost no value from it, because it contains almost no information. It's better to create lists (e.g. lists of species in a genus) than to mass-create one-line stubs (and I wish we could come to consensus on that because there are a number of editors who mass-create stubs by the thousands). Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC) This right here. We have decided in the past that WP has functions of a gazetteer so that's why we have articles, if just stubs, of every gov't recognized town and village, but I have yet to see anything that says we are doing the function of WikiSpecies here. No notability guideline gives this advice, it's not WP:OUTCOMES, etc. I agree that that higher levels of the taxological classification system will have each item notable but not at the species level, not when that numbers in the millions. --M asem (t) 15:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Species form individual entries in works such as floras and zoological monographs, which are generally structured to provide a description of the characteristics of each species and usually some information on how to distinguish it from other species within scope. I would consider such works, like many other things, a type of specialist encyclopedia; the fact that the first pillar enumerates gazetteers does not alter our charge to subsume many specialist encyclopedias, of necessity unenumerated. Choess (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Right, this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE is supposed to cover. I don't think WP:OUTCOMES needs tweaking: essentially all of the stubs created in this way, by various people, would meet the GNG with a little bit of digging, and trying to refine the current wording would, I think, create as much trouble as it would solve. But these stubs as written add nothing to the encyclopedia. The rationale for doing so seems to be that replacing redlinks with stub will catalyze the creation of useful articles, but people have experimented with this for years (not just in en.WP; 