User talk:Willbb234/Archive 6

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs
Please engage on the talk page rather than edit warring. It simply isn't good enough to say that WP:ONUS is a free hand to remove things that you disagree with.  ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ianmacm Blocked from that page as well. Doug Weller  talk 07:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Unblock discussion
Leaning Endorse unblock, but the "personal attacks thing" gives me pause. Calling me "buddy," or "bruh," or any other unearned term of familiarity would make me angry/angrier. I mean I would unblock if you would but won't if you wouldn't. Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Deepfriedokra The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame. Doug Weller  talk 14:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Some advice
Hey. I'm not at all involved in the issue going on, just happened across the AN discussion, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume good faith here for a moment. As far as I can see, there's roughly two issues happening: the whole edit war/reverting thing, which I'm going to ignore for a bit, and the civility/no personal attacks thing, which I'm going to expand on. Because, as you said, communication is key.

Things can be insulting and/or incivil even without using a single expletive, and a lot of what you're saying comes across as really, really patronizing, which is insulting to the person you're talking to.

The way you use "buddy" falls into this. what a load of shit, buddy is a fine way to rib a mate who spouts some nonsense. But for the most part, folks on en.wiki aren't mates you'd go down to the pub with for a couple beers. They're more like business acquaintances, random strangers you pass on the streets, and the likes. And then saying it is a good way to get people's hackles up and give them the impression you're talking down to them. Which is rude.

Same goes for the way you describe the entire situation on AN. Once again, things like Anyway, along comes Doug and bang he blocks me from editing the page!? Perfectly fine when you're regaling your mates with a story. Not so good when you're on AN and trying to convince strangers that no, you're not being incivil.

AddWitty NameHere  21:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For any admin considering an unblock see their ANI post
See - thread "Block of Willbb234:"  Doug Weller  talk 13:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at Tucker Carlson
Your recent editing history at Tucker Carlson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Content removal at Tucker Carlson
I'm sorry but this edit was completely inappropriate. We don't remove entire paragraphs just because somebody added sourcing, which is not WP:SYNTH. If you have a concern about that section, please address it or raise it on the talk page instead of blanking the whole thing. –dlthewave ☎ 23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * maybe take another look and you'll see the WP:SYNTH. I suggest using your eyes next time. And by the way, what we don't do is add whole paragraphs of information on controversial articles without first gaining consensus. This was not done in the first place. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus. Your edits don't help. regards, Willbb234 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing about ONUS: Removing content with an explanation like "I challenge this" or "this is synth, look at your eyes" with no further explanation (which is basically the same thing) is not a legitimate challenge, it's disruptive editing plain and simple. That's why I came to your talk page to discuss your conduct instead of going to the article talk page to discuss the content. Politeness and civility go a long way - When you're ready engage other editors respectfully and fully explain your reasoning, feel free to open a talk page discussion and I'll be happy to talk about whatever your concern might be.
 * And unless there's a specific article restriction, editors are not required to discuss or gain consensus before adding content, even when the topic is controversial (which Tucker Carlson's disinformation is not). –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite partial block from article namespace
I've indefinitely partially blocked you from editing articles. This is because You can still edit talk pages, file requests for dispute resolution, etc. To directly edit articles, however, you will need to explain how edit warring and dispute resolution work on English Wikipedia in an unblock request. Any admin is free to undo my block as they see fit, though they should probably consult Doug Weller about the previous block that I overrode. See Guide to appealing blocks for instructions on appealing a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * you're continuing to edit war in new articles after being partially blocked from two articles previously
 * your latest edit war includes exhortations for other people to discuss the dispute without making any effort to do so yourself
 * you are still including uncivil statements in your edit summaries while edit warring (see Special:Diff/1143703963 for instance)

Any editor who lies - and yes, it was lying as the NBC source didn't say these things (I read through it twice) - should be ashamed of themselves. Lying, cherrypicking sources, and deliberately misinterprating sources is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than edit warring is. The editor should be ashamed of themself and I don't see how anyone would think otherwise. Editors who have an issue with this should debate whether the sources actually said these things as opposed to the way I dealt with the situation.

I am a constructive editor and I don't believe this block does any good to the encyclopedia. Regards, Willbb234 18:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Also I did attempt to discuss the new stuff. Willbb234 18:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Also please don't talk to Doug I don't believe he is suitable to be an admin and his judgement is poor. I would encourage any admin who wishes to unblock to look at this independently and not consult Doug. Regards, Willbb234 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Willbb234, I agree with your concerns regarding the text that was added to the Carlson article. It fails IMPARTIAL.  However, the Carlson article is one where editors need to be careful.  Many RSs are clearly presenting over the top versions of events that don't fit with the facts.  However, if you want to have a positive impact on the article you need to do so via carefully handling the talk page.  When it feels like a group of editors are "out to get" the article subject it can be difficult to strike that balance.  The best way to do it is propose new text and sources.  I think that could be done here.  I have to admit, I do find it exhausting as do a number of other editors who are concerned about article pages looking like long attack articles.  Still, it's hard to get consensus if you are blocked!  In this case at least you can make your voice heard and object to the version of the current text. Springee (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Willbb234, while Springee is correct about taking care when editing and discussing such articles, I urge you to ignore much of their post as editors are not out to get the subject and this is hardly an attack article. Keep in mind WP:AGF as thinking otherwise will not lead to collaboration and is likely to interfere with your ability to successfully make your points. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Tucker Carlson
The issue is that the original text was problematic (as I think we have already established here). It was also added without conensus and the original editor provided no edit description nor did they attempt to fix the issues once they had been pointed out. Why, then, should I spend my time fixing content that was added by someone else? You might say that I would do it in the interest of the article as a whole, but I believe other editors are much better at writing content on contientious issues like this. I am happy to remove content or discuss it, but reading through American sources on topics which I am not all that familiar with and then writing content on that is not in my expertise.

I think that it is entirely reasonable that the content is therefore removed before consensus can be gathered. I am glad that other editors fixed the content and re-added it into the article, but when I saw the synthesis of sources that allowed one to come to a certain conclusion I immediately removed the content again, as I don't believe that it is my responsibility to babysit you through the process. Just fix the content yourself.

Another reason for my response is that they content added was clearly not impartial and used language that furthered a specific viewpoint. I am tired of this kind of content being added (and there's an awful lot of it in this article as Springee has pointed out) and so my reaction was natural. I don't have time for editors who want to act like this and so I removed the content. I also shouldn't have to repeat myself when giving justifications. I hope this clears things up and I believe you should be grateful that I took the time to justify my actions as it is clearly on those wishing to include the content to give their justifications in the first place. I would be happy to discuss specific parts of the text further but it seems this has already been done to some degree. Willbb234 23:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BOLD. The first addition does not have to be discussed or already enjoy a consensus. OTOH, if the editor knows their addition is likely to be very controversial, it might be better to start on the talk page and collaborate with others to refine it into a consensus version.
 * In this case, at least for those who know the situation and sources, it was not seriously controversial content, and any minor issues could be worked out by other editors tweaking it. You violated WP:Preserve by completely deleting it, rather than improving it, tagging issues, etc. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * and, I hope it's okay that I'm moving this to user talk. It seems like a better fit since at this point we're discussing editor actions rather than article content.
 * Willbb234, I feel like I need to address a few things you've said which appear to be inaccurate or not in the spirit of collaborative editing.


 * As others have pointed out, editors are not required to gain consensus before adding content to articles. BOLD edits are legitimate and should not be reverted due to lack of prior consensus.
 * "Why, then, should I spend my time fixing content that was added by someone else?" Because we're all working together to build an encycopedia. If you see something that needs to be corrected, then fix it!
 * An editor did address the concerns you raised in your initial revert here. They added a source and changed the incorrect "thousands" figure.
 * Yet you reverted with the summary "adding additional sources to support specific parts of the content violates WP:SYNTH." I'm sorry but that's not a thing. Adding sources is not SYNTH, so I'm sure you can understand why you were reverted as no valid rationale was given. You refused to elaborate on the article talk page and even when asked directly on your user talk; you expected editors to know what you meant as if the issue was self-evident. Explaining things that you do not think need to be explained is not "babysitting"; it's an essential part of collaborative editing and you should not have been making changes to articles that you are not prepared to explain. Don't expect editors to do this work for you if you're not willing to explain what it is that you want. Because of your refusal to elaborate, editors had to play a guessing game until we came up with a version that was acceptable to you. This was insulting and disrespectful of our time - remember, we're all volunteers.
 * ONUS only really applies when a legitimate challenge has been raised. You have to give a good reason; you can't just say "I challenge this" or refuse to explain your reasoning. And you shouldn't continue to remove content after your stated concerns have been addressed, unless new issues have arisen.
 * I hope that you take this feedback to heart and find ways to work collaboratively with other editors. –dlthewave ☎ 05:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

the issue is that you're wrong. I hope that you take this feedback to heart and find ways to work collaboratively with other editors. Willbb234 14:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I was being WP:BOLD by reverting and the process after this is WP:BRD. The editors should have discussed this before adding it back in for the second and third time as there were reasonable objections made. BOLD goes both ways and I think you should know that. In a more general sense this becomes a discussion bout inclusion and exclusion i.e. whether the content being out of the article or in the article should be the status quo and then discussions should go from there. From my perspective, damaging content should be removed from an article before discussions take place. Maybe you prefer to keep it in but that's not my problem.
 * Maybe you didn't read what I said. I am not going to fix writing that is both wrong and unfamiliar. There's is never a situation in which I could work collaboratively with someone who is lying and is writing content that is bad for the encyclopedia as a whole and they know they are doing it. They are the worst editors.
 * Okay so you've raised the issue of synthesis many times because it's really bothering you. Here's the thing - you'd be correct if I was talking about sources in a general sense. Sure, adding additional sources to support a claim is not synthesis (I am aware of how Wikipedia works) but with respect to the article, these additional sources were synthesis. Maybe you could look at the context of where this was written next time? Because I seem to recall I wrote this in an edit summary where I removed content that had been synthesised from sources. Contextual clues should help you to understand actions and I really shouldn't have to spell it all out or you. Next time I'll be aware that you struggle with this and I'll try and be more accommodating.
 * As you said yourself, we're all volunteers and I'm under no obligation to fix anything myself. If there's an issue and I remove it, you can't justify it's replacement by simply stating "the editor who removed this is too lazy to fix it himself so it should stay in the article".
 * My challenges were legitimate so ONUS applies here. Even if they weren't legitimate, it's usually the best course of action on a page like this.