Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946

---

Hard to bring this up in any other way but these edits [1] [2] need to get oversighted and the user needs to be blocked or at least severely warned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Also take a look at the user's talk page and somewhat older edits like these [3].Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Thanks for this catch, but please use Special:EmailUser/Oversight next time to report this instead of using ANI, as reporting it here can widely publicize sensitive information. The oversight team is quick to respond, and if it really needs to be temporarily revdeleted before oversight is possible, use IRC to flag an admin. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually didn't know about that link (more precisely forgot what it was). Feel free to remove this thread.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit clash: I've deleted the two edits linked to in the first paragraph above. (Hmm, for one of the pair, I think that I sleepily cited a reason that only oversighters are supposed to cite. If so, sorry about that.) I've given the editor a little break from editing hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, should one respond sceptically to the editor's claim that this graphic is his "Own work"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I've suppressed everything that can be oversighted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Herblouise945 (talk · contribs) has been uploading lots of low quality images of politicians lately. While a laudable goal, upon further investigation, most if not all of them appear to be screenshots from YouTube videos (see my CSD tagging of 12 of them thus far), despite the claims he makes as to source. Could an admin please look into this and take appropriate action? Thanks! — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I was able to locate sources online for almost all of the images, they were screen shots from YouTube videos. I have warned Herblouise945 not to do this any more. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The IP is keeping on reverting at Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution without participating the TP discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The article's subject has apparently posted a video requesting that fans "modify" Wikipedia. At least five usernames have been registered since that include "Onision" in the name, and several other recent registrations have been used to disrupt both the article and the talk page—the latter ongoing. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Excirial semied for a week and I added a month of PC to minimize any disruption when the semi comes off. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The TP seems to attract a fair number of fans, though. Some got warned, one got blocked for WP:NOTHERE. I suggest new accounts adding nonsensical edit-requests suffer the same fate. Kleuske (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I upped the semi to a month now to match the PC protection - I wasn't aware of the situation before but i suspect we might have a flood of PC edits to review otherwise. I also protected the talk page for a week since the meatpuppets were now flooding over there with "edit requests". Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

---

EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The User:EthiopianHabesha is being disruptive on multiple pages related to Ethiopia. I was advised to take this issue to ANI at the COI board [22] He wants to censor material that portrays Abyssinians in a negative light and just recently blanked reliable sources, added by another user [23] Previous dispute resolution attempts have failed due to users nationalisic outbursts and difficulty with the english language [24]. He also made what appears to be threats of nationalistic violence on a users talk page [25] Can something be done about this user. Duqsene (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that I have found this editor to be problematic. I don't know whether the issue is primarily one of nationalistic combativeness or primarily one of lack of competence in English, although I see aspects of both, and which doesn't really matter. This editor attempted to state a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but was unable to state a case that volunteers could work with. As noted, this is not a conflict of interest issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene, in COI I explained clearly, that what you have accused me of saying "Amhara people do not exist" is not actually what I have said [26][27][28]. In that noticeboard you did not provide one diffs to support your claim of me saying "Amhara People do not exist" yet you dedicated that section, based on a false accusation, to explain how Oromos are oppressed by Amhara nationalist[29]. Not that it matters, I do not even belong to Amhara neither Tigray ethinicgroup. Anyways, I am very sorry Robert McClenon did not comment about this clear false accusation. And also I have been accused of "nationalistic outburst", another accusation that is not explained clearly i.e. not supported by diffs and explained to me clearly for which nationalistic group (that the accuser can define it) am being accused of defending for. @Admins, most of my arguments deal with presenting contents in an impartial tone per WP:IMPARTIAL, and to convince the editors to comply with this rule then I had to make a long arguments with these editors whom had several sockpuppets used to disrupt Ethiopia related articles. Some of the sockpuppets I used to argue with that are now blocked includes Otakrem,Zekenyan and Blizzio and also some other IP sockpuppets. Although some try to convince their POV that does not make sense by bullying and intimidation I prefer to convince them by bringing neutral reliable sources, although neutrality of sources is not necessary, so that we edit collaboratively and by consensus. Finally, please note that I have a hard time to reach consensus with Duqsene on the article Sultanate of Showa [30][31]. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand. However, whether we can understand each other is part of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, with respect what I was saying is: Duqsene in COI opened a section [32] claiming I have said "Amhara people do not exist" when I said it is not possible for Kingdom of Aksum (also known as Abyssinian Kingdom [33]) and Dʿmt to be ruled by Amharic Speakers because no linguist claimed for Amharic to exist before 1,000 AD. With respect please see Ethiopian semitic languages. Since no comment from you on this false accusation by Duqsene then I took it you also assumed I have said that and was wondering if you could please provide diffs. I will be very happy if we could focus on the content presented and there is no way I will accept Duqsene's argument if he could be able to provide one source, even if unreliable, showing me that Axum kingdom (Abyssinian kingdom) was ruled by Amharic speaking people also showing that the Abyssinian inhabitants of Axum kingdom spoke Amharic. That was what I was saying and I hope now it is clear. Thank you. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. It appears that the subject editor is angry that another editor said something that I can't find evidence that they said. Arguing over words that were not said is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, as @Robert McClenon notes, we have a problematic editor. @EthiopianHabesha either does not understand wikipedia policies or interprets it from a particular point of view. Some evidence of disruptive behavior of EthiopianHabesha in Ethiopia-related articles since November 2016:

• Slow editwarring to remove sourced content and WP:RS, to restore unsourced content: 1 2 3 4. See @Doug Weller's intervention and edit summary.
• @EthiopianHabesha misrepresents or misunderstands then repeatedly invokes WP:ONUS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BURDEN etc in order to remove reliable sources published by Cambridge University Press etc sources, with the comment, "choosing sources you have to be carefull [sic] because there are also writers who write for their own agenda such as for ethnic nationalism, secionism [sic], advocacy, propaganda, divide and rule". EthiopianHabesha has invoked these policies disruptively and to support above edit warring: 5 e.g.
• Arguing in circles while ignoring wikipedia content policies. See this question to @EthiopianHabesha by @Doug Weller, non-responsive was the response of EthiopianHabesha.
• Insists that they understand policies and know how wikipedia works, nevertheless: 6
• Puzzling hints on my talk page on "fit for fighting"

Outside of Doug Weller's attempts to explain wiki policies patiently since November 2016, we have had a DRN case too with @EthiopianHabesha. No progress at or after DRN despite Robert McClenon's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The editor exhausted my patience and time and I had to give up. His invocation of our acryonyms suggests to me that he is using them as tools without fully understanding them, which might be a competence issue. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to concur with User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Doug Weller that this editor has some sort of a competency problem, probably having to do with limited English, and that they should be advised to edit the Wikipedia in their first language, and that they need to be indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia because they have shown that they can't contribute constructively (even though we assume that they want to contribute constructively). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My limited involvement with this editor tends to support Robert McClenon's view. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins, please see the article I recently expanded and balanced: Ifat Sultanate article before it looks like this and now it looks like this. Here is the edit history. After the article is balanced, stories from all sides are presented and I beleive people were able to know new sourced information that they never known before. Based on my knowledge information disseminated by extrimists dominate while infromations disseminated by moderates and relevant experts on the topic which are written by highly educated neutral intellectuals who do not write for any agendas are usually avoided because their information is against extremists agendas. I am not defending any nationalistic group but here only just to let know wikipedia readers that there is also another information exists by sourcing contents based on wikipedia rule. If there are no editors who balances articles then wikipedia is likely going to be a tool used by editors who keeps on removing sourced contents which were added to balance views held by extremists. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha: You have expanded the Ifat Sultanate article, but it suffers from the concerns Robert McClenon has mentioned to you several times over the last few months. I am delighted you added sources. But, the summary you added with this edit, for example, is not a faithful summary of pages 42-45 of the source, it is POV-y. It does not fairly or accurately summarize Pankhurst, rather your summary seems to filter out and reflect your concern above, "information disseminated by extrimists [sic] dominate while (...)". That is the persistent problem. The evidence repeatedly suggests that your aims here are not to build an encyclopedia according to community agreed content guidelines, but to fight and censor whatever bothers you by invoking acronyms such as WP:IMPARTIAL, etc. That you exhausted Doug Weller's patience, one of the most patient admins and policy-experienced contributors we have, is not a good sign. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it would have been helpful if you could indicate the sentence you were talking about. I guess what you are talking about was the sentence begining with "Ifat was finally defeated by Emperor.....". Please see and it was added by other editors and was sourced with "The Glorious Victories, p. 107". The last paragraph was also added by other editors. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I meant the whole thing you added. See the link above. I have started cleaning up the copyvio, use of a source which copied wikipedia (which you did not add), etc. This is not that article's talk page. So let us skip it. It is irrelevant to the OP case filed by @Duqsene, or the issues raised above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha, you have said you want a "balanced" article several times on multiple pages, however your edits prove the opposite. This addition by you, which was corrected by Sarah, misinterpreted the citation to put the blame on Egyptians rather then Ethiopians/Amda Seyon. [34] Do you prefer it to be balanced only when Abyssinians are represented in a negative light? Duqsene (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Admins please please please save the Ifat sultanate article from being used to attack me. The recent edit made by Ms Sarah is just to prove my work is bad and now the scholars work is being paraphrased out of context. Out of the many, let me just explain one of them. When the source said the conflict was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan (by encouraging the Sultan of Ifat to seize the envoy of emperor Amde Tsion, while on his return from Egypt after giving a letter containing a threat) as can be seen here, in the article Ms Sarah added "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" as can be seen here (the second sentence under "Conflict with Christians" section). Ms Sarah again ignored the most important part of the letter sent to the Egyptian sultan saying Amde Tsion will "tamper the Nile" if he does not stop perscuting the Christians of Egypt as can be seen here, and this is not included but only the threat on neighbouring muslims (which I think is not the primary concern for Egypt) is included when tampering the Nile is the primary concern of Egypt (based on the scholars opinion) since without Nile there are no Egyptian people. This very important part of the letter was deliberately ignored by MS Sarah simply to show my work is bad, and if user is trying to improve the article then how is it fair to ignore this?

With respect, Ms Sarah Welch can you please clarify on:

1)Why you said "it was triggered by Amda Seyon I" when the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan, contorary to this?

2)Why not include the primary concern for Egypt, tampering with the Nile, as explained in the source here and why make it look like as if the Egyptian Sultan is very much concerned with muslims of Ethiopia than the Egyptian people who can not live without Nile?

If there are no editors pointing out this kind of clear issues and debating with MS Sarah to convince one another then I am realy worried how Wikipedia articles are going to be. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha and Duqsene: I just started working on that article, am not done (EthiopianHabesha: please check the source again). If you have concerns, let us start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is not the right forum to begin discussing that article, by either of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the one I quoted was from your work finalised yesterday on 16 January and still today it is the same [35]. With respect, I think why did that is deliberately but not because you did not finalised editing that part. Thanks, EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the source said "Fear that the Ethiopians might tamper with the Nile was nevertheless to remain with Egyptians for many centuries"[36] clearly indicating that the Egyptian Sultan (who precipitated the conflict between the Christians and Muslims) was also worried this might be a reality, eventhough in todays scholars opinion Ethiopia did not have that technological capacity at that time. Why not also include this quotation in the inline citation which is just added today? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will explain here, and let us discuss it further there please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I hesitate in supporting an indef ban for EthiopianHabesha, but something needs to be done given their conflicts with Duqsene and many others over many months. Perhaps we can start with a 3 month block from wikipedia, and 12 months sanction from Ethiopia-Somalia-Horn of Africa space articles, or something reasonable, and let the articles in this conflict-prone space to evolve. Perhaps we should also start an arb process, and add Ethiopia-Somalia-Yemen-Horn of Africa space articles under WP:ACDS. @EthiopianHabesha: Please do consider Robert McClenon's suggestion that you consider contributing to wikipedia articles in another language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:Ms Sarah Welch who recommends a time-limited block. I will point out that indefinite does not equal infinite, and will state that, in my opinion, an indefinite block is needed, that is, a block that continues until the subject editor can compose an unblock request on their talk page, in English, that can be understood as showing that they understand that the original block was for both poor English and combativeness. If we only give this editor a three-month block, it may be no different when they come off block. If we give them an indefinite block, and they request an unblock in good Commonwealth English in two weeks, that is even better (although I am not optimistic). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might not be unreasonable to perhaps suggest to the editor that he seek some form of mentorship, preferably from someone who might know whichever language he is most familiar with, Ethiopian, Ge-ez, or whatever it is. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to any form of mentorship for this editor if the editor will agree to it. I will be satisfied if the mentor writes the unblock request and states the terms of the mentorship, as long as the unblock request is in what the community here considers to be standard written English. Unfortunately, I have found that combative who have a problem with their English are also combative about insisting that their English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to these proposals. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards User:Robert McClenon's suggestion to block the user indefinitely. I feel User:Ms Sarah Welch's proposal of a time limit block will bring us back here, as the user still seems oblivious to his disruptive editing. Mentorship is a good idea, granted with a clause of strict following. Duqsene (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I support User:Robert McClenon's proposal to block the user indefinitely. JimRenge (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Inserting comment to prevent automatic archival. I think that different editors have different views as to how to deal with this editor, but I don't think that anyone just wants this thread archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentLooking at this User's history, User has had prior Block. Has had Wall of Text debates with other users. Has edit warred(continues to do so in slow form now). In his wall of texts argues and throws much conjecture and/or threats of ethnic violence due to wikipedia edits. Fights tooth and nail to structure articles to his ethno-nationalist POV. There is more than just a language "barrier" here, there seems a consistent pattern of behaviour of as Robert McClenon noted of ""angry ethnonationalist editor" and "combativeness" (not a Direct Quote of Robert). These articles on the Horn of Africa will not get better if we permit such behaviour to continue not only with this user but the others who have participated in this wikipedia version of "ethnonationalism conflict".HarryDirty (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

HarryDirty, just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit war Zekenyan and Blizzio but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [37] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as Otakrem and Pulheec who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources (almost all written by neutral writers) from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - user HarryDirty got blocked today [38][39] because user is a sockpuppet of Otakrem whom I used to have long arguments in the past. If there are no editors who watches and deal with these kind of editors (here to advocate) then it's likely they will come back and remove or add and disappear (In few days HarryDirty already has removed a lot of sourced contents [40]). Wikipedia needs editors from this region and one that knows the people, history and politics of Horn of Africa very well. When MS Sarah said "the conflict was triggered by Amda Sion" [41][42] contrary to what the scholar said [43], and when Ms Sarah left out one important part of the letter containing a threat (tampering with the Nile) [44] no other editor complained and if I did not, it's most likely readers would have got inaccurate information. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with JimRenge, Robert McClenon etc recommendation of a block. Unless admins have additional clarifying questions, it may be time to wrap this up, one way or other, and close this out. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch User:Robert McClenon I do not believe this issue with User:EthiopianHabesha is being treated fairly. The lack of sufficient English skills should not come into play when the issue hasn't really got much to do with the edits themselves. We are dealing with Duqsene, which I still believe is Otakrem. A user that has so far made around 5 sock accounts. The last time I brought a case up about his supposed sock, it was successful. Either lock some of these pages in the HOA section or deal with the users correctly, because this user will keep on coming back with new accounts, so it isn't EthiopianHabesha that is really the issue here. Resourcer1 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by your comments here, you also blank citations [45] Red herrings and false accusations are not helpful. Duqsene (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Resourcer1: SPI allegations need to be handled in the appropriate forum, and if there is evidence you allege there is, let us establish it and have no qualms at Duqsene being blocked by SPI admins. AGF until then, and avoid casting aspersions. It is not just English-skills of EthiopianHabesha, it is their consequent editing and walls of text on the talk page that is the problem. Just look at the edit history of Amhara people and Talk:Amhara people. Also see notes of admin Doug Weller there and above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resourcer1 who looks to be an associate of EthiopianHabesha, is blanking citations multiple times on the Amhara peoples page. [46] [47]Duqsene (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• • We have agreed to block editor EthiopianHabesha, can admins intervene. Duqsene (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support topic ban, oppose indefinite block, as follows:

• First, if the topic ban sticks the issue of NPOV editing will be resolved and a block will therefore lose any preventative quality.
• Second, if a block is imposed it will be vastly harder for EthiopianHabesha to prove their bona fides over time, sufficient that one day the topic ban may one day be lifted.
• And third, a block on top of a ban comes too close to WP:BITE, especially in a subject area with very few active editors.

I'll also add my voice to EEng's by asking that the next passing janitor put this glacial discussion out of its misery by assessing and applying the relevant consensus. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to other active cases

There is a related ARB case that just been filed by an editor who registered their account few days ago, on January 10 2017. EthiopianHabesha is one of the named parties. I am not sure if that ARB case will get accepted, how or if it impacts this case, but FWIW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at that case (which has now been declined) and it seems quite complicated (I don't understand what the supposed libel issue is, for instance), so apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick, but the claims being made about the applicability of BLP policy to large groups are reminiscent of a now topic-banned editor, Middayexpress, who used to make similar claims in this area. Robert McClenon might well remember the Middayexpress case, but for others, the final AN/I discussion that resulted in the topic ban is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Middayexpress eventually quit Wikipedia promising to recruit new editors from the Horn of Africa to carry on their work. Given the similarity of some of the arguments being made in this case to those employed by Middayexpress, it might be worth investigating possible links further. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not again!?! The Horn of Africa has been an area of battleground nationalistic editing for a long time. Unlike some other real war zones, it hasn’t gone to the ArbCom to have ArbCom discretionary sanctions imposed. However, I urge the community to deal with this particular combative English-challenged editor (EthiopianHabesha) without regard to other combative editors. (By the way, the ArbCom case hasn't been declined; it is still in the process of being declined.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'm not familiar with how ArbCom works, and took an editor's opinion that the case should be declined as a statement that it had been declined. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The other two threads about disruptive editing in the Horn of Africa area have been archived. Is there any intent to take any action on this thread? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, I am wondering about that too. EthiopianHabesha has been inactive after January 24, but only after repeating some of the same behavior at Talk:Oromo people and the article. I am wading through the paperwork to petition adding Horn of Africa space to AC/DS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would very much support the general principle of that idea. I have a little familiarity (only a little) with Ethiopia and the Oromo people, and they may well be one of the most politically controversial current topics related to that country, along with matters of how the Amhara and other groups have historically treated and regarded them. Having said that, I have no idea of how to exactly phrase a specific request for DS for the topic. Unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this -- late, as usual -- & as probably the one active Wikipedian who knows the most about Ethiopia & all of the potential problems for WP it poses I wish someone had dropped me a note sooner. All I can say at this point is wow. And admiration for @Ms Sarah Welch: & @Doug Weller: for trying to sort this matter out.

The problems with any Wikipedia article on Ethiopia will be as follows: (1) Lack of easily accessible information on many of the subjects; (2) potential ethnic/nationalist/religious disagreements (e.g., look at the article history for Demographics of Ethiopia & see how the numbers for the numbers of the Amhara & Oromo ethnic groups are routinely manipulated -- some folks in that country insist that the majority are & always will be the Amhara); (3) a large population who are just learning about the Internet; (4) a lack of understanding in Ethiopia of Western concepts such as "we can agree to disagree". (Yeah, #4 might sound racist, but having read much Ethiopian history I've found many disagreements over beliefs & ideology in that land tend to be settled not thru words or appeals to reason, but with fists, bullets, & extralegal measures.) In short, there be monsters & landmines here, & many people who might be attracted to improving articles on Ethiopia -- which is understandable, since it is a fascinating country rich in culture & history -- will find themselves getting their fingers burned not only by falling into an example of (2), but knowing little or nothing about it due to (1).

In the case of Oromo people, there is a lot of bad blood not only between the Oromo & the dominant Amhara & Tigray peoples, but the Oromo & other ethnic groups. Both sides have made some unsustainable claims about the other, & both sides have done some bad things to each other -- although the Amhara/Tigray have had the upper hand for the last 100-150 years. There are some errors & omissions in the article (I fixed one glaringly obvious one, which I suspect had slipped thru due to the edit wars ongoing), & once things have settled down a bit I'd be happy to provide some advice on how & where to improve the article -- with reliable sources. For example, if one has access to JSTOR one also has access to the invaluable Journal of Ethiopian Studies, which I didn't have before I grew tired of being the only contributor to articles on Ethiopia. (Another is Annales d'Ethiopie at persee.fr)

So @Robert McClenon:'s suggestion is quite reasonable. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Question to @Llywrch:: I regret to say, given awareness of other controversial national topics like in China and Turkey, for instance, that there have been and still are a number of sources, including even in China academic journals, which might be considered pretty biased here. I have access to at least some books by Brill and (I think) some Ethiopian journals. I'm fairly sure the Brill books are reliable, but is there maybe a question regarding the real reliability of any of the Ethiopian journals here like there is in China and a few smaller countries? John Carter (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The easiest answer to your question would be that it's not relevant to WP:AN/I. But since it is a question Admins will need to know if discretionary measures are applied, I think it should be answered for reference.

First of all, there is practically no publishing industry in Ethiopia. I do own a few books published there, but they have been published in partnership with Western presses so I can't offer an opinion about the quality or reliability of books published in Ethiopia. As for academic journals published there, I have seen a journal of Ethiopian medicine (which can be found online), but I couldn't say how reliable its articles are since I know very little about medicine. In the area of journals on history, the two I mentioned above are very reliable.

Most Ethiopian academics are part of the Ethiopian diaspora, teaching at a university & publishing in North America or Europe -- so their reliability can be judged that way. There are two academics who work & live in Ethiopia that I am familiar with who are reliable: Bahru Zewde, who teaches at the University of Addis Ababa, & Richard Pankhurst, who has lived most of his life in Ethiopia & has written a library of books on that country. (The biggest problem I've encountered with Pankhurst's works is that he tends to reuse large parts of his earlier books in his later ones.)

Now if your question is about the Ethiopian news media, the answer to that is simple: Ethiopia is at the bottom of the list of countries in terms of press freedom, & in 2008 or 2009 went so far as imposing severe restrictions on NGOs about commenting on conditions inside that country. Many times, looking for information on contemporary events in Ethiopia, I could only find information in blogs or social websites -- which don't meet Wikipedia standards, despite my sense they told the truth. I did quote the official Ethiopian news sources for some details, but in a careful manner, & only about things I felt were verifiable, e.g. "ENA reports that the government opened a new hospital in this woreda" -- one could visit the site & verify if a hospital actually was built & opened; if not, well then it's clear the official news agency was lying.

I need to point out that this threatens to offer a simplistic view of Ethiopian government public relations. On one hand, in many cases the information I looked for simply did not exist: government websites were often little more than a series of IIS templates someone in the IT department uploaded during an afternoon & no one ever looked at again. Government ministers rarely had CVs available online, let alone official biographies. Ethiopian society still relies heavily on oral sources of information -- with all of its weaknesses -- which means there is no reliable sources for facts or assertions that are commonly accepted as true. On the other hand, I found the website of the Central Statistical Agency, which handles the Ethiopian censuses, very professional & surprisingly accurate when you consider what they had to work with; I fully trust their census reports, which I used as much as possible in the relevant articles.

To repeat myself, the information about is often incomplete, very uneven in quality, & requires some experience to not only find but understand & use. And I haven't even touched on the countless rivalries that permeate that country, which can lead the involved parties to lie; fortunately, many of those are not very sophisticated in their misrepresentations & can be caught in their lies. (On the other hand, I found several people with personal ties to Ethiopia understood very well how to participate on Wikipedia & were very constructive editors. I only wish I knew how I could have retained them.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• It'll soon be a month since this thread began. Is this going anywhere? EEng 05:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Eventually, yeah. Ethiopia as a broad topic is, more or less, as Llywrch indicates above, a bit of a mess, and we are trying to find some ways to resolve it. Understandably, however, with such a big mess (about 100 million people and 80 ethnic groups in the country) it can reasonably take a while to resolve. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Several of the editors who were the subject of this and other AN/I discussions regarding editing of Horn of Africa articles seem not to have edited since late January. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on the glacial time scale of this thread that's just an eyeblink. EEng 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I just wondered whether it could be a deliberate strategy to avoid further scrutiny, and thought it was suspicious that several editors all stopped editing at around the same time. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder who the user Kraker234 (talk · contribs) is, who just tried to close this discussion? Paul August ☎ 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

Well, in any event this thread is one month old today. Happy anniversary! Shall we have cake now, or have a combined Valentines Day celebration tomorrow? EEng 12:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two weeks more and you may as well have gone to Arbcom. For the half-dozen people still watching, how do you feel about a topic ban without the indef block? They appear to have suspended their editing anyway, and a topic ban might address the specific POV problem while still letting them improve their editing skills elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I support that. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No objections to an indefinite topic ban, which I'm guessing is the proposal. If, in time, the problematic editor returns, he or she can edit elsewhere to establish their good name, and/or appeal the ban at some point if circumstances warrant such. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support that too. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging everyone else who contributed to this thread: In the interests of wrapping this up, how would you feel about the compromise outcome of an indefinite topic ban from all edits relating to the Horn of Africa (including, obviously, Ethiopia and Somalia), without the concurrent indefinite block?

Pings: @Buckshot06:, @Duqsene:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, @JimRenge:, @Llywrch:, @EEng:, @Robert McClenon:, @Paul August:, @EthiopianHabesha: -- Euryalus (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me. For a SPA, the difference between a topic ban and an indefinite block is a distinction without a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Paul August ☎ 01:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support JimRenge (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• No opinion because I haven't absorbed the thread. I was just lighting a fire under people to get things moving, which I guess I did. EEng 02:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The topic can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#.22Reliable_Sources.22_are_given_too_much_power_through_Wikipedia_Policy

Someone locked my topic simply because they disagree with what I'm saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest it again. You need to drop the stick now. You were told by a number of editors in that section your linked to do so. Not just one, but multiple editors. No one was "abusive" or abused their privileges. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think someone who participated in the discussion should close a discussion. You can just stop replying if you don't want to continue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering that the IP has edit-warred to retain a section with a title that constitutes a personal attack and has completely failed to notify the editor they are attacking, may I please request a swift boomerang so we can get past this? Sir Joseph, I think the editing history of this page and the actual nature of the discussion there shows that simply no longer responding is not going to settle this. Some discussions need to be shut down, and there is no policy stating that involved editors cannot do so when it obviously needs to be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I begin to lose sympathy when someone starts a fruitless conversation that is closed, then starts a fruitless conversation about the closure of their fruitless conversation which is closed, and then comes to ANI to make a fruitless complaint about... well... you get the picture. TimothyJosephWood 18:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the conversation was originally moved, not closed. But you tried... 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Funny... It sure looks closed to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was moved to the proper section... There is a fundamental difference 104.148.178.88 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was closed with the message that you are complaining in the wrong place. The fact that you then started complaining in the right place is immaterial to that fact. The fact that you feel the need to debate every detail is, actually, material to my request to the admins above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do recommend that the IP watch their language here and the personal attacks, but I will also say that I feel the discussion was closed down prematurely by someone involved. The situation about WP and our RSes in today's state of journalism is a serious issues that needs to be discussed, and shutting down these discussions seems a way to avoid that, particularly when more editors beyond the IP got involved. (I note I did participate so it would absolutely be wrong of me to re-open it). --MASEM (t) 19:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a collegiate discussion going on between me and North8000, which was the only redeemable part of that thread, and I for one am more than happy to pick up in a new thread (or leave it be entirely, as the case may be) without the argumentativeness of the IP editor interfering with that discussion. I wholeheartedly endorse the close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It looks to me like the IP has a couple of legitimate beefs here. Not that @Jytdog: was abusing, but that as a participant he shouldn't be closing the conversation. And that calling infowars a "fake news" site in the Pizzagate conspiracy theory article is not quite right, even per the cited sources. The sources do list infowars in a table of 'fake news' (their scare quotes) sites to avoid "if you want the facts", but they also characterize it more finely than that, as "Includes a mix of conspiracy theories and real news" on the Daily Dot, and "Propaganda" on USNews. These are a little different from what most sources usually mean by "fake news", and it wouldn't hurt to clarify that in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The closure wasn't due to the IP's contention that Infowars is not fake news (I agree with the IP on that point, actually), but due to the fact that the IP was attempting to undermine the value of using reliable sources for our content. That's an argument that is not going to get anywhere. It's not only nonsensical to suggest that our policy wrt this is a problem, it's mind-bogglingly ridiculous to imply that there's any other way of sourcing our content. I mean, seriously. The IP's argument was based in a form of hard solipsism and an extreme form of philosophical skepticism. Their argument boils down to (though I doubt it was thought through to this level) the bald-faced assertion that we can never know the truth about anything. Frankly, it was nothing but a giant waste of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added one comment at the very end of the thread, so I guess I would qualify as "involved" myself, but, honestly, based on what I had read in the thread, I might have closed it myself. There is a question whether the person involved should have, Jytdog, but I think that there is far less question as to appropriateness of closing the thread. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My argument is based around the fact that there is legitimately biased information on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with philosophical skepticism. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And your argument seems to be one that you are completely unwilling to drop the stick about. Under such circumstances, I believe that should further rather pointless repetition of arguments continue, there might be not only grounds for closing this thread here, but perhaps at least consideration of sanctions at the IP editor apparently engaged in tendentious editing as per WP:TE. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I will gladly drop the stick when MjolnirPants stops misrepresenting what I've said. Dropping the stick works both ways... 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your inability to comprehend the implications of your own claims doesn't in any way reflect on the way I've characterized them. If I've been mischaracterizing them, one would expect you to have corrected me, but instead, you just keep saying that I'm mischaracterizing your arguments while you repeat them ad nauseum in the face of multiple editors explaining just how incredibly illogical they are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(e-c) Actually, I do not believe that it is necessarily your call and your call alone regarding when others should drop the stick, and I get the impression from this thread and that earlier thread that you have been advised regarding that often enough that there might be grounds for sanctions should they continue. Also, you seem to confusing your basis for starting this later thread, which was criticism of Jytdog for closing the earlier thread, with your argument with MjolnirPants, which is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to reread my posts on this topic. I never mentioned MjolnirPants until he mentioned me first. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that doesn't prove just how poorly you're reading/comprehending what's being said to you, I don't know what does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I really don't care enough to argue with you lol 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Maury Povich says the lie detector test are in and... That was a lie. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course I care about Wikipedia, but I've realized that this argument specifically between us will never go anywhere and it's better to just stop wasting both of our time. I appreciate the debate. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest boomerang - Editor clearly is refusing to get the hint. Wikipedia policy is very, very, very clear about what qualifies as reliable sourcing. This argument is being prolonged unnecessarily, for no other reason than to just argue.--WaltCip (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• I suggested a boomerang in my first comment, in case this is not clear due to the crooked wall of text which followed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how much good a boomerang would do in this situation considering the history of the IP here includes only 2 edits to Fascism, a few to pizzagate, the now closed discussion at WT:RS, and this thread. Having said that, no objections to one, or to someone closing this thread as a fairly clear instance of tendentious editing. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Boomerang...or just close. Doesn't really make a difference to me. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose boomerang, re-open the discussion - I have read all of the thread linked in the OP, but not any precursors. A key statement was made by the OP: "You're right in the sense that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of Wikipedia's editing policy." That being the case, the OP cannot know whether they are opposing the policy or the editors who do not apply it correctly, and the ways to deal with the two are completely different. I suggest to the OP that they should gain more policy knowledge and experience before taking on these weighty issues. But they have been debating in good faith, intelligently, and without personal attack, so they should be allowed to continue as long as anyone cares to debate with them. They cannot be disruptive of a discussion that they themselves started, and server resources are not in such short supply that we need to shut down non-disruptive debate that some (or even most) consider pointless. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

But they have been debating in good faith, intelligently, and without personal attack The first two conditions are arguable, and the last clearly false. Have you looked at the title of this thread? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

An overstatement no doubt made in frustration, which the OP might wish to correct. In my experience such things (and far worse) are routinely forgiven when the circumstances are considered. If the discussion shouldn't have been shut down, we forgive the somewhat emotional response to that. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As is clear from a reading of the discussion, the IP's contention is that our policy on reliable sources amounts to an endorsement of factually incorrect information because we like the sources. The editor also refuses to read/understand/accept any response which points out the failings of this, repeatedly asking me and others to justify WP being wrong about things which he asserts WP is wrong about, and asking us to defend using information we know is inaccurate. I fail to see any possible benefit to WP which could arise out of such a discussion. The editor is either unwilling or incapable of understanding the responses they have gotten, or the epistemological connotations or philosophical basis of their own arguments. I'm more than happy to help an editor understand why WP works the way it does, but when I explain it clearly and their response is to accuse me (and WP in general) of intentionally endorsing false claims, there's nothing to do but stop them from causing further drama through whatever means necessary.

To that end, the IP editor seems to have stopped for now. So now, we're left discussing all the myriad connotations of their arguments in a way that wouldn't have been a problem if we'd just closed the thread and left it at that without dragging it out at ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see any possible benefit to WP which could arise out of such a discussion. -- Right, I get that you're one of those who consider the discussion pointless, yet for some reason can't walk away from it. If all editors agree with you, the OP will be left to debate with themselves and the thread will be archived for lack of activity. If not, the majority has no right to tell the minority what they are allowed to discuss. In my opinion a thread improperly closed is exactly what ANI is for; if you can suggest a better venue or approach, I'm all ears.
If the OP repeatedly edits against clear consensus, etc, etc, that's an entirely different matter. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're discussing an editor's right to speak non-disruptively. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to Mandruss' complaint, I believe this is a topic that would potentially led a disruptive change for the better at Wikipedia if discussion were allowed to continue, but mayn editors see the initial "disruptive" nature as troubling and immediately want to shut the door on it (for a myriad of possible reasons). That's human nature to shut down anything that requires massive change, but we can't be so quick to close down the discussion, even when the IP is angry or perhaps canvassing for answers once others have joined in. Certainly there are perennial proposals that have been discussed so many times that we know there's no route for adaption, so shutting down arguments in that case make sense. But this example certainly does not fall into any PEREN case. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If either of you can come up with a policy proposal in which we drop our reliance on reliable sources entirely (which is the IP's contention) and replace it with ... something... which even has the potential to make WP more accurate, I'm all ears (seriously: good luck with that lol). If either of you want to discuss the particulars of our policy, as North8000 and I were doing briefly, again; I'm all ears. But don't sit here and try to act like I'm advocating shutting down a discussion because I disagreed with the OP. That's just some bullshit. Oh and the reason I keep responding? I enjoy it. That doesn't make it productive. And don't try to blame the continuation on me, either, because I see both of you continuing the discussion you're disparaging me for continuing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I take no position on the content policy issues, which are completely separate from the question of whether that thread should have been shut down, the legitimacy of this ANI complaint, and any boomerang proposals. Also, you seem to conflate the closed discussion with this one, and again they are completely separate issues. Finally, no one is "blaming" or "disparaging" here, no one is "act[ing] like [you're] advocating shutting down a discussion because [you] disagreed with the OP". I can only suggest that you re-read what we have said, more calmly and less defensively. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

no one is "blaming" or "disparaging" here Please explain to me the purpose and implications of "Right, I get that you're one of those who consider the discussion pointless, yet for some reason can't walk away from it" if not to imply without stating outright that the disruption is at least partially my fault (which is a disparaging remark). It's okay to disparage me, by the way. This forum is for the purpose of disparaging others in a way that turns out to benefit WP, and if you think my involvement is detrimental, you should disparage me for it. But don't deny that you're doing that.

Also, I'm not upset in the slightest, I'm enjoying this quite a bit, as I just pointed out. But the fact you seem to be missing is that the reason the thread was shut down was due to the content. The propriety of any closing hinges upon the content of the closed thread. So you can't tell me that the close was improper without implying (perhaps not intentionally, but still) that the content was legitimate. Now, I admitted above that there was some legitimate content, however little, in the closed thread, but I also pointed out that this legitimate content could easily be forked off into a new thread. Which is what should have happened. Instead, the IP created a thread here which attacks another editor in the title, without notifying that editor, then edit-warred with me and an admin to keep this thread here. At which point a few editors have joined in to prevent the swift closure of this thread.

Now, I'm enjoying this, as I've said before. I'm happy to keep going. But I'll also be the first to admit that nothing helpful is going to come of this. If you would like to come with me over to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources and have a nice discussion about the weaker points of our policy as it currently exists, I'm all for it. I think you might be surprised to learn that I, too have a few problems have with the way policy is currently worded (and thus, implemented) that I would love to see hashed out. Or we can continue going round in circles here, taking up enormous amounts of space at ANI (Note: nobody's worried about server space, but huge walls of text make this page very difficult for us squishy humans to navigate effectively) and keeping me entertained. I'm okay with the latter, but again: it's just not productive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, if telling someone you feel they are in the wrong is "disparaging", you've been doing a lot of "disparaging" yourself, and "disparaging" is an instrinsic element of any dispute. I'm not going to continue this with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, if telling someone you feel they are in the wrong is "disparaging", you've been doing a lot of "disparaging" yourself, and "disparaging" is an instrinsic element of any dispute. Umm, thank you for rephrasing what I said, but I don't think you really grasped my meaning, as you felt the need to dictate it back to me as if I were unaware of it. I assure you that I was aware of the meaning at the time I said it, and still am. You might notice I didn't say anything about whether you should speak your mind, only that the implications of what you were saying were wrong. The thing I advised you not to do was to act like the content of the discussion was immaterial to whether or not the closure was improper. I might once again point out that there's no policy which states that closures must be made by uninvolved parties, and WP:CLOSE focuses on the closures of deletion discussions. With informal discussions like the one in question, there are no community-established guidelines governing closures. There have been attempts to get such a policy put in place, but they could not gain consensus due to the community's awareness of situations like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The thing I advised you not to do was to act like the content of the discussion was immaterial to whether or not the closure was improper. - It was, which is my entire point and position. Again, the majority does not get to dictate what the minority discusses, when there is no disruption occurring. Again, if you don't see a point to a discussion, walk away from it. Disagree if you like. Better yet, show me a policy or guideline that says I'm wrong. Barring that, we have now achieved circularity, which is when I get off. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, the majority does not get to dictate what the minority discusses, WP:TPG was established by consensus so... You're wrong. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to point out the part of TPG that says someone can shut down a non-disruptive discussion because they feel it's a pointless waste of other editors' time. I'm fairly certain it does not exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Listen, if someone wants to revert the closure, then revert the closure, especially if they think they can contribute something that will make it more than the daily "why don't you give equal treatment to social media and tabloids as you do the lame-stream-media" dead-end conversation. It's really not that big of a deal. I'm sure @Jytdog: isn't one to go to hell and back over something so petty. If we're going to revert a closure for purely bureaucratic reasons to reach a foregone conclusions through a differing but equal route, then leave it alone, and stop wasting everyone's time. Either way, it's not something that requires ten pages of ANI debate. TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The OP making the complaint seems to have not said anything in the last 15 posts, counting this one, to this thread. Maybe we could just all take a break until and unless he comes back? John Carter (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hey "The Process Must Be Exactly Followed" Mandruss: I was not notified of this thread. Also, if you really believe that either a) the discussion at WT:RS has a good chance of producing change to RS (the main purpose of WT:RS) or b) the IP was asking authentic questions and was actually listening to the answers (the other purpose) -- then by all means revert me. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  @Jytdog: Unresponsive to my argument, sidesteps the issue as I see it. I'm going to decline your invitation to incite an edit war over that close. You should address my argument or remove the close yourself. If you have no p&g basis for it, withdraw it; that's a core Wikipedia principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• While I agree the process should be followed, the thread was started by the IP and Mandruss came in about three hours later. I don't see he necessarily deserves blame here - I probably deserve more, having commented before he did. I guess none of us bothered to look to see if you were notified, @Jytdog:, and I guess for that you deserve apologies from all of us. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion is whether the conversation should be reopened. If you think it should, then do it. You've been invited twice. If not, then there's nothing else to discuss it seems. TimothyJosephWood 00:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, notifying editors that their behavior is under discussion is mandatory and your failure to ensure that was done, here in this discussion in which you have so avidly participated, just cuts the ground out from under your stickler arguments. Listen, I followed IAR. The IP wasn't listening and it became clear that the thread was just disruption. If i had even a shred of belief, based on what they wrote there and at Talk:Pizzagate, that the thread wasn't just IDHT battering to get the source treated with more respect in WP, I wouldn't have closed it. Again, if you really believe that the discussion there was authentic, then please revert me (my saying that means i won't re-revert). Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done [48] - For the third or fourth time, there was no disruption because there was nothing to disrupt. As for notification, that was the OP's responsibility and they were wrong to omit that. If you wish to seek a sanction for that failure, go right ahead, but that's independent from the close question. It's more than a little ridiculous to say that every editor who participates in an ANI complaint is required to go verify that the defendant was notified. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, have fun I guess? Everyone knows that conversation is going nowhere. Just another in the endless series of complaints that Wikipedia listens to reliable sources instead of random editors. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has:

• accused me of lying in an edit comment.
• shouted at me in an edit comment.
• insinuated that I am intentionally obtuse, i.e. not editing in good faith, in an edit comment.
• accused me of being condescending in an edit comment.
• Breached WP:BRD.[58][59][60]

I asked him on his talk page to stop this abuse but got a snippy rejection. He has also failed to stop making uncited edits while the content concerned is under discussion at Talk:Dual polyhedron and Talk:Polyhedron. Other editors are now joining in the discussion, but he is still sniping at me. I feel unable to continue a sensible discussion while all this is going on, it is clearly meant to intimidate me. I would ask at least for a topic ban (other editors are taking up his case so there is no danger of losing NPOV), and whatever sanctions against the abuse in the edit comments might be deemed appropriate.

Of course, if any of his complaints against me are justifiable than I will be happy to apologise as necessary, but at the moment my words are not being taken in good faith - for example a cup of tea was spurned in one of those links above - so I see little point. Certainly, no offence was intended on my part. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Basically, this is a content dispute; see Talk:Polyhedron and Talk:Dual polyhedron for the boring details. "Accused of lying" means, in this context, that I believe Steelpillow's preferred version of article content misleads the readers. "Intentionally obtuse" means Steelpillow's continued insistence on placing a [clarify] tag on a sentence I added, whose context (the difficulty of defining non-convex geometric duality) had already been gone over at great length in the discussion. Condescending means that Steelpillow told me to go read elementary texts on the subject of my professional expertise, and, after already having been informed that it is a subject I am familiar with, told me he was disappointed he had to remind me of things that, in actuality, I needed no reminding of — I still think "condescending" is an appropriate description of this. And under what interpretation of our guidelines is making an edit and then reinstating it a single time a breach of anything? Geometry is not a subject under 0RR restrictions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There are clear personal attacks in the edit summaries by David Eppstien. Just because you disagree with an editor is no excuse for you to call him a lier - which you did in the first diff.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say "Steelpillow is a liar", an ad hominem remark about an editor (and one that I don't believe to be true — I have no reason to doubt Steelpillow's general honesty). I said "Steelpillow insists on lying to the readers", a remark aimed at the content Steelpillow preferred rather than at the person. The article content in question is technically true, but only for an appropriate and non-intuitive choice of technical definition that Steelpillow insists on omitting — this is the basis of the dispute. My position is that, without adding the qualification that I want to add, the content is very likely to cause readers to think false things. But perhaps this edit summary was infelicitously phrased. Do you have a more civil and concise way of writing "causing readers to think false things" in an edit summary? Because I stand by that statement — I believe that it is an accurate description of the content in question. It may help (or not?) to note that there is a long history in mathematics of calling misleading oversimplifications made for pedagogical purposes "lies" — that exact word — see e.g. [61]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

What you need to do is talk about the content only and not about the editors. While there may be a long history of using the word "lying" and making personal attacks in mathematics and perhaps in Academia, there is no place for that sort of behaviour in a collaborative project like Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• And he's still at it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Still at what? Repeating the same claims that your preferred version of the content is misleading to readers, this time without even using the word "lie"? Yes, because I still believe it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no content claim in the edit being referred to: this can be seen in the linked diff of the "reply". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"the article stays in its misleading-to-readers state" is not a content claim? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• My diagnosis: David Eppstein's description of Steelpillow's comments as melodramatic and condescending seems accurate; I also note that Steelpillow's comment about tea, which may have been intended to be read in a friendly way, comes across as dismissive, and would have irritated me if I were the recipient. David Eppstein's responses got tetchy, and the use of the word "liar" "lying" and the all-caps were not necessary or helpful. A good outcome would be for David Eppstein to apologize for the shouting and for Steelpillow to apologize for the condescension and agree to engage better in the content discussion. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I clearly did get tetchy and shouty, and I apologize for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with JBL's assessment (though the actual word used was "lying" not "liar"), and I'm glad to see that David Eppstein has apologized. I hope that Steelpillow will do likewise. Paul August ☎ 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have said, I am happy to apologise for any perceived condescension. This was not intended. David is a highly reputable mathematician and my purpose in drawing his attention to basic texts on the subject was because that is where Wikipedia turns first for its references - as an WP:EXPERT working in the stratosphere it is sometimes hard to remember that - and it was highly relevant to the content dispute. With hindsight I could evidently have phrased myself more carefully, and I apologise for giving the wrong impression. Further, I did not appreciate the depths of David's resentment and the tea episode was a light-hearted attempt between two experienced editors and geometers (I am not in David's league but I have a few papers to my credit) to calm things down. That the light-heartedness was again open to misinterpretation is also something I should apologise for.

If I have been "melodramatic" then I'd like to be shown where and how I have been more so than David has, so that I can avoid doing so in future. Also, once I know what I am being asked to apologise for, then I will be happy to do so there as well.

However I must temper this with the observation that throughout David has pursued a tactic of aggressive violations of advice and guidelines; ignoring BRD, failure to cite sources for contentious edits, reluctance discuss an issue before returning to aggressive editing, etc. etc. - the diffs I gave are the tip of the iceberg there - and that was what put me in the position in the first place, of trying to bring him round. It was I who opened the talk page discussion, not him, and I did that because he was already being aggressive, e.g. here and here.

I have always assumed good faith on David's part, while he has transparently failed to do so in return - check out all those POV-pushing allegations in the diffs.

Personal attacks in edit summaries are worse than those on talk pages because WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL gets difficult, so I should like some admin comment on the present violation of WP:ESDONTS, which is a policy and not a mere guideline. Look at the statements above "I didn't call him a liar ... I accused him of lying", with a link to a blog post in support. Now, I think you can all see that if I had responded to his edit comment with something like, "Everybody lies in maths articles" and linked to that same blog in support, David would have gone even more ballistic and you would all have accused me of dirt cheek. And we all know that such language games cut no ice on Wikipedia anyway, the meaning is abundantly clear. So I really do not see a level playing field here. I have done my best to keep the discussion civilised and David has rejected all attempts at that - or, to put it another way, his own attempts have been confined to arrogant slapdowns mixed with the odd policy violation. So yes, I am happy to apologise for any false impressions given, but I feel that at the very least, David owes a lot more than he has yet given, along with an assurance that he will behave himself from now on. Also, an Admin judgement on his policy violation - followed by his bizarre attempts to justify or talk round it here - needs proper consideration. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You have twice said that you were willing to apologize, but you have yet to do so. By contrast, David Eppstein has already apologized in a clear and straightforward way. And, as in the content dispute, essentially nothing you've written is responsive to anyone else. This suggests to me pretty strongly where the problem lies. --JBL (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people I know regard "I am happy to apologise" as an apology, and I have given that twice now. I hereby apologise to David for a third time for any perceived condescension in my posts, which I can assure him was not intended. I beg to differ over my contribution to the content dispute, but I don't know why you brought that to ANI, it doesn't belong here - can we deal with it in the article talk pages where it belongs and not throw mud here for the sake of it? It was not me who violated policy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people perceive "I would be happy to apologize" and the insertion of words like "... perceived ..." as blame-shifting and as avoidance of taking responsibility for one's behavior. Frankly, your behavior here and on the articles reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing. As for your request for a response from an admin concerning WP:ESDONTS, let me make it clear that in my opinion, as an admin, David Eppstein's choice of words was inappropriate, especially since, as you correctly point out, they occur in an edit summary. But he has apologized, and so have you. I think that ought to be the end of it. Paul August ☎ 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I was about to say, "OK if that's where folks want to leave it, I am willing to give it a try". But now Joel_B._Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not only making snarky comments here (as JBL) but elsewhere is accusing me of childishness and posting cryptic comment on David's talk page. With both him and David at it I feel badly intimidated and am unwilling to get back into the content discussion. David has apologised only for his edit comments, not for the rest of it, and we have seen from his "liar" vs "lying" wriggling that he plays with words and meanings. Is there anything that can be done to extract undertakings from these two to treat me with respect and assume my good faith from here on in? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talking about childishness in edit summaries (as in that diff) could easily be seen by some as condescending, so that might be something to apologise for, too. Hopefully then this thread can finally be closed.

Regarding assuming good faith, I think it's best to assume good faith on the matter of assuming good faith, rather than requiring proof that someone is going to assume good faith. Κσυπ Cyp   08:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. There is a difference between an untried editor and one who has visibly demonstrated a lack of good faith, but I take your point. I am content that the behavioural issues have now been acknowledged at Admin level and the editors concerned know the score. I'm OK for this to be closed now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Oops, no, he's started up again. His claims about me here are quite false and couched in deliberately disparaging tones. So much for that apology. Can somebody please stop this guy from disrupting our discussions? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I invite ANI readers to follow Steelpillow's new link and judge for themselves whether my contribution there is in any way not content-based, uncivil, or disruptive. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil or disruptive in what David Eppstein has posted there. Paul August ☎ 02:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess his bizarre and negative misreading of my views must be the root of his problems rather than a symptom of them. It's just proving hard to get past. But that is a content issue. OK, let's can this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in the long comment you linked to about your views. The only sentence that even mentions you (the part about "insistance on the sentence "all polyhedra have duals") is purely about your actions, not your views. You have repeatedly reverted any changes to this sentence, at the two articles in question [62] [63]. Ipso facto, you have insisted on keeping this sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a content issue. I rest my case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)