Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038

User:Levivich long-term tendentious editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Levivich is a user who is respected on this project, but also has had long-term issues with assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks masked as criticism, and general tendentious editing. These issues are often masked by the fact that he's gifted with rhetoric and verbose, but core to the issue is that if you are on the other side of an issue from him, he will try to discredit you personally using a variety of means. I have collected below a list of examples showing this trend long-term:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#Personal_Attacks_and_Legal_Threats_at_the_Daily_Caller: Levivich interogated a fellow editor about their connection to a subject and argued that they could be disbarred for their behaviour on Wikipedia.
2. This unfortunate inicident where he implied that people who disagreed with him were no better than Nazis. He followed up the ANI thread with this reply where he doubled down with the Nazi analogy.
3. False civility and accusations of bad faith and incompetence in ARBPIA over the definition of BRD.

   That led to this incident which included this gaslighting where he played the victim when he was edit warring when he was fully aware of how ARBPIA works.

4. This lovely diff where he baits Cassianto in a thread by using way over the top racial slurs rhetorically to prove a point.
5. This thread where Levivich called GorillaWarfare pedantic and too stubborn to admit something. Eventually that issue got sorted out, but the over the top attacks on GorillaWarfare are part of the tend here: no one who has an opinion different than Levivich is behaving reasonably.
6. This comment where he supported SirJoseph implying that Objective3000 was a holocaust denier by saying, and I quote, Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is wrong, unless the theater is actually on fire, in which case it's a public service
7. This lovely diff where he told BMK to stop sounding like a nazi. He also had this great quote where he compared BMK using the phrase "only solution" in Wikipedia related matters to the Nazis Final Solution. It was eventually struck, but that is part of the trend here: over the top critiques followed by apologies after the damage has already been done.
8. Finally, the thing that brings me here today: this blatant assumption of bad faith and attempt at baiting where he says Talk about a dog whistle and you answered! accusing SPECIFCO of canvassing and me of bias simply for trying to clear out ANRFC. For those outside of the United States Dog-whistle politics is a reference to a type of politics where people speak in code to try to canvass supporters while still staying within the formal rules. It is usually associated with racism, which isn't the case here, but contributes to the negative connotation the word has in the United States.

This is just back to September 2019. If you want to go back further, I'm sure you could, but I didn't have the time today and I think I've established a trend. We have an editor who uses rhetoric to attack others, gaslight them, and compare them to historical atrocities all while saying he's just making a comparison. If you disagree with him, you are subject to these techniques, and it is not limited to one issue.

All of these are individual incidents that on their own likely wouldn't be sanctioned, but we have a trend here, and we call that tendentious editing. Something needs to be done about the long-term trend here, and someone has to raise the issue, so I'm bring it here. I am sure that each one of these diffs will dissected to prove I've missed something: that may be the case, but the trend here is what matters. Even if Levivich was 100% correct in all of the above circumstances, he'd still be acting inappropriately, because form of behaviour only discourages users from contributing to the encyclopedia, and chases them off from difficult areas. We've had multiple apologies here. We need a commitment the community can enforce. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the response to my challenging Tony's close? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• That right there is an example of what Tony is talking about, WP:Casting aspersions instead of responding to the meat of the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, well, this is weird. I think Levivich and you are both good people. The diffs you provide are not really that bad, The Daily Caller one, for example, he called out a legitimate concern albeit maybe not in the best way: someone presenting as a lawyer and demanding changes to an article is a pressing problem, and we need to know if they are doing this in their capacity as a lawyer or not (else we have to just block them anyway and let them sort it out with OTRS / Legal). I think the sensible move here is to go to AN and request review of your close - which, incidentally, I though looked reasonable on its face. Guy (help!) 21:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is disconcerting, but it's from October of last year. GorillaWarfare, do you have reason to believe Levivich has improved since then? Drmies (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and Drmies:, that's the issue here. Levivich does a lot of low-level issues that never get anything more than a warning when he does them because they aren't enough for sanctions on their own, but when viewed long-term show someone who will basically accuse anyone of anything to win. I don't really care about my close: it's a minor thing on a topic that I don't really care that much about. What I do care about is a user who basically takes a take no prisoners approach to everything he approaches, and has shown this overtime. Anyone who doesn't agree with Levivich is wrong and is in violation of some policy, stubborn, a nazi, pedantic, responding to dog whistles, whatever. It wears people down and makes them not want to get involved in anything he's a part of. That's an issue. Editors shouldn't have to respond to accusations of bad faith every time they are on the other side of Levivich.

Drmies, on your point, yes, I intentionally did long-term diffs here to show that we weren't just dealing with a one-off thing. If it was just one of these diffs, it would be dismissed as a small thing that happened once, and out of character. The issue is here that it isn't a one time thing: we have at least 9 months of him accusing others who disagree with him of various things, and then apologizing when pointed out to him, but still doing it in the future. It's a rhetorical tactic: just like a TV lawyer saying something outrageous and withdrawing it for the jury. It needs to stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, think you misspelled GorillaWarfare there, courtesy re-ping. creffett (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy ping. I'm not sure Levivich and I have collaborated or had any substantial discussions since that incident, but we certainly run into each other once in a while on-wiki and what interactions we do have are generally pleasant. I actually don't see that particular incident as all that concerning—I came in to the conversation too hot, and any poor behavior on Levivich's end was not one-sided. We both later apologized to one another. No comment on the other incidents listed in this report, I haven't really taken a look at them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare, sorry, I should have been more clear--I was actually concerned also, or mostly, about the fact that Levivich apparently made two edits that had to be suppressed. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Happy to discuss that particular matter with any oversighter if needed, or there's a thread on the oversight-l mailing list (October 1, 2019). Looks like TB's original concern was with the subsequent conversation, so hopefully my earlier response is at least somewhat relevant there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The behavior seen here is corrosive and should stop. Paul August ☎ 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: The thing is, ever since Bbb23 effectively accused Levivich of being a sock, until a few months ago (can't point to when, that's proving a negative I guess) I was the first to remind Levivich to "sign in under [their] original account", etc. And yet: I have never been given a hard time over it, never been accused of being a fascist, communist or anarcho-syndicalist (perhaps, like Ferris, they don't believe in -isms; after all, he was the Walrus), even though I must at some point been a bane irritant on their happy enjoyment of this community. The question is, why didn't I get the accusatory treatment?
  Obviously, I'm not disputing your diffs; I'm not sure I'm even disputing the trend; perhaps I am wondering if we're making an Austerlitz out of an argument, to coin a phrase... ——Serial ^# 22:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, OK, that's concerning. Has Levivich ever said straight out whether he has edited under a previous account? Guy (help!) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, yes, multiple times, at ANI, ARC, and elsewhere, and I'm happy to do so again: this is my one and only account ever. I never edited before making this account. BTW, I've also been CU'd multiple times, and I've always given (and continue to give) blanket permission for CUs to CU me again whenever they want. (Including Tony.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• As knowledgeable as you are about Wikipedia's policies, you must be aware that your "blanket permission" sounds impressive, but means absolutely nothing. Not only do CUs not need your permission to check on you if they have the evidence needed to support a check, but they are actually precluded from making "innocence checks". If you've been CU'd "multiple times" (I wonder how you know that?), that means that there have been multiple times that CUs have had good reason to check on you. As for negative results: well, it's not hard to fool the CU tool, all it takes is some time and discipline. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You've managed to turn around the fact that CUs have come up false for Levivich and make it sound like that's somehow suspicious. Are you making an accusation? If so, then provide your evidence. If not, then I think you owe Levivich an apology for your evidence-free insinuations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

CU is not magic pixie dust. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the English Wikipedia has local policy to the contrary, but CheckUsers are generally permitted to check an editor's IPs on their request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against sockpuppetry allegations. Best, Vermont (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Such checks are prohibited on the English Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:CheckUser#Policy).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've had the opposite experience of Levivich. I've found him to be helpful, smart and funny. I don't find the diffs above that bad. For example, his warning the lawyer about COI is standard. The "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" could be interpreted as opposing Sir Joseph (that's how I read it). This is him explaining about punching up versus punching down. And the dog-whistle thing was just a reference to Specifico's request for a "BLP-oriented admin", which should describe all admins. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• This is pretty bad...I'm fairly disappointed because I didn't expect this kind of behaviour from Levivich.... and ...what kind of response to the allegations is this[1] ?! I'm sorry but this is serious. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Levivich's response was probably due to this discussion. ——Serial ^# 23:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. This ANI thread was opened shortly after I said I was going to escalate the close challenge (which I was going to post to AN but will not do any longer because of this thread). GCB, predictably, I dispute most of what Tony wrote, but I assume no one wants to read a point-by-point rebuttal from me. If anyone has anything they want me to address, I'm happy to do so. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich, I took the time to read everything throughout... I soften my opinion a little... you know what? I believe this [2] is a piece of ideal guidance into solving the issue.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have to say that list is not very impressive. Side note, the link you have on point 8 appears to be incorrect. I think you want this one. Less so when you look at the context of each incident. It is even less of a good look to start this report while they are disputing an action you took. PackMecEng (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• I think this is the diff that TonyBallioni meant to post under bullet point #2. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you. Fixed :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Long-reply to everyone: as has been pointed out, this was brought in the context of Levivich contesting a close I made. No, this is not revenge for that: I really am fine with whatever outcome. It was raised now not to try to poison the well, but because you need to raise these issues when they happen otherwise the community doesn't look at them as they are stale. I also included things that were older and were eventually resolved, yes. I did this to show the trend here. As a summary of what is going on here, I think we need to keep three things in mind:

1. Levivich is a generally popular user who uses a lot of humour in his writing. He is also rhetorically gifted.
2. It is indisputable that Levivich has on multiple occasions compared individuals to Nazis. Called them pedantic. Said that users accusing other users of being holocaust deniers were justified, and played the victim despite knowing the rules. All of these are in the diffs above.
3. Each of these occasions on their own never led to anything more than a warning because they were relatively low-level.

The problem with #3 above is that if this continues long-term, you have an editor repeating the behaviour in #2 without any consequence and people saying "well they've never been told." We have to have this discussion. A prolific editor who regularly gets into disputes also regularly assumes that people in disputes are acting in bad faith and personalizes them. This isn't just in one topic area, this is everywhere. This needs to be addressed, even if it is just the community saying "Enough, you are warned not to assume bad faith or otherwise belittle or attack other users." We have to be willing to do this to popular users, and I've noticed this trend going on long enough that I thought a discussion should be had in this instance.

If this was a one-off instance, it would be one thing, but it is not. It is a long-term trend in civil and sometimes uncivil tenaciousness, and that is corrosive, even if the complaint is in response to him challenging one of my actions, the assumption of good faith applies to my actions as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Tony, he didn't say the things you're attributing to him, or at least he didn't mean them in those ways. For example, he didn't say: "that users accusing other users of being holocaust deniers [was] justified". He said: "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is wrong, unless the theater is actually on fire, in which case it's a public service." And later in the same discussion, he said: "For the record, I do not think O3000's quote was revisionism or had any bad intent–see WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE–and I don't agree with Sir Joseph's view of it, but I also don't see evidence of SJ carrying on with it after it was handled... until it was brought up in this report." There's nothing at all problematic about those comments. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

He actually did say everything I said he did. As I’ve pointed out: the saying objectionable things and backtracking is a trend here. He only withdraws statements after they’re pointed out as being problematic by others. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate GorillaWarfare's clarity, and will add that I have never had an issue with Levivich. In my experiences, he has always been collegial but with a sense of humor that might test the strength of the limb he might venture out on, which may explain his "Nazi" comment. I'm more inclined to liken his use of the term to this Seinfeld clip. I also believe he is the kind of editor who will take Tony B's concerns to heart. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• +1 - Personally I've never had any issues with Levivich and have always found them helpful, I believe we've had differences here and there but meh who hasn't butted heads here, Some of the diffs could be considered perhaps OTT but nothing worth blocking or sanctioning over imho. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Take to SPI; no need to belabour it here and get blocked (yes please); Lourdes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Davey2010: Did you ever considered how Levivich -- who has been here 8 years less time then you, and has only 1/10th of the edits you do -- gained the capability of being helpful to you, that their knowledge of Wikipedia seems out of scale for an editor who's only been here for 1.5 years? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, do you always have such a disdainful view of newer editors? Of course a newer editor can be helpful to a more experienced editor. Such helpfulness is hardly a smoking gun that proves sockpuppetry. Perhaps you should stop casting aspersions. Either file your SPI or drop the stick. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC) No, I do not "always" have a disdainful view of newer editors. in fact, it's infrequent when I do -- only when the evidence and circumstances seem to call for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC) BTW, thanks for repeating the comment I made above about Levivich wp:casting aspersions, it's worth repeating, but don't you feel a tinge of guilt that your second diff is a post I made that I immediately removed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC) BMK, pray tell, what evidence? Every time you've accused me of being a sock or returned banned user or somesuch, you do so in vague terms, basically saying I'm so proficient that I must have prior experience. Can you point to any actual edits, or specific comments I've made, that support your assertions? I have said to you on numerous occasions that this is my first and only account, and you've said here flat out that you don't believe me, which means you think I'm not telling the truth, i.e. I'm a liar. I'm really dying to know what exactly it is that I have done that makes you hold this opinion about me. You do realize that I'm a volunteer, like you, who gives up my free time to try and build an encyclopedia, with you, and everyone else. What exactly is it that you think I'm doing here? It's been a year and a half and I just don't understand what secret agenda you think I have. Enlighten me? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC) So let's be totally clear, shall we, and get this on the record: Did you ever edit Wikipedia under another name before you began editing as "Levivich"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC) No. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Thank you. I'll bookmark this discussion for possible future use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC) BTW, one of my favorite sayings is pertinent here: "Having an open mind is a virtue, but not so open that your bran falls out." Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Nobody gives a crap. Go file your SPI. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Is there a reason you're so steamed up over this? How is this a matter that affects you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, honestly, someday, it'd be nice if you could tell me why your opinion of me is so low. I've been waiting for 18 months, man. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Cow patties, you know exactly why. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC) You've never, ever, once, substantiated your accusations. And above you accuse me of casting aspersions. I mean, really, tell me: there is no part of you that believes you should provide, at least, one diff, before you tell a fellow editor you don't believe they are telling the truth about who they are? Correct me if I'm wrong, in 18 months of you making this accusation against me, you've never posted even one diff. Not one. Years ago, you were accused of the same thing, and yet you make this accusation against me with no diffs. I think you're a reasonable person deep down; how do you tolerate this inconsistency? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Let's be perfectly clear: I didn't accuse you of casting aspersions, you did cast an aspersion when you implied that TonyBallioni opened this report because of your dispute with him over the close of something or others. That is an aspersion, and you cast it. [3] There's no "claim" about it, it's right there in black and white. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC) You can randomly bold and italicize words all you like, but the chronology does seem to back up Levi's version of events. You know, just like you think the chronology backs up your view that Levi is a sock. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC) In general, very little that I do is "random". There's absolutely no doubt that TonyB's filng of this report came after the dispute with L. about the closing, what's in question is whether the dispute was the reason for the report. I happen to have a higher opinion of TB than that, and I take his word that is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC) You can't take his word for something that he didn't say. Regardless of Tony's prior concerns, it was his most recent run-in with Levi that triggered this thread. Tony said so himself. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to say that this thread came in response to Levi's confrontation with Tony. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC) He literally said the thing that brings me here today. So yeah, it was the reason. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry, no, it wasn't. You implied that the existence of your dispute with TonyB about the closing was the reason he filed the report, but what TonyB actually said was that your behavior in the closing dispute -- not that you dared to disagree with him (your implication) -- was the reason he found it necessary to file a report. Those are very different things. You continue to imply that TonyBallioni's reason for opening the report was to get back at you for questioning his close, and you continue to ignore that this whole thing is actually about your behavior over the course of time, including in the closing dispute. Now, I think that's clear enough for any reasonable editor evaluating this discussion, so I'm not going to continue to respond to any more of your and Lepricavark's attempts to mislead other editors. The facts remain that you cast an aspersion on TonyB's intention in opening this report, and that you continue to dig that hole, with Lepricavarak's help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I reject your aspersions regarding my motives. You'll find that very few people share your bizarre version of events, but feel free to believe that we are the ones digging a hole. Suffice it to say that you will be brought back here if I ever see you repeat your accusations/insinuations against Levi at a venue that isn't SPI. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Upon further review, you need to reread point 8 of Tony's initial post. It's the part that says Finally, the thing that brings me here today... followed by a link to the dispute between Levi and Tony. Levi's confrontation with Tony was indeed the catalyst in Tony's decision to open this thread. So yes, you did accuse Levi and you were incorrect in doing so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Forgive me, BMK, when you wrote That right there is an example of what Tony is talking about, WP:Casting aspersions instead of responding to the meat of the matter, I thought you were accusing me of casting aspersions. Similarly, I thought that Tony did open this report because of my dispute with him over the close of something or others, because my dispute with him over the close is diff #8 in his list in the OP, which he described as the thing that brings me here today. I must be confused. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, just as TB described: backpedaling after the fact to attempt to get themselves out of trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC) BMK, I wasn't backpedaling, that was sarcasm. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, yeah, I know that you removed the post. But you still proceeded to insinuate that Levi is a sockpuppet because... he's been helpful to a more experienced editor. That sounds like an aspersion. Levi has now categorically denied editing Wikipedia before he created this account. In fact, he's denied it twice. (Not sure why that first one wasn't good enough to be "on the record".) If you don't think he's telling the truth, file an SPI. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC) So, you think it's an OK thing, perfectly reasonable and ethical, to post a diff to someone's deleted comment? As for the other thing, I wanted it on the record, because I hadn't read those protestation from Levivich above -- you see, I had already read the top of the thread earlier today, and it's not my habit to check the entire thread every time I come back to it. I generally check the bottom, where the newer comments mostly are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC) My mistake. You responded to it, so I assumed you had read it. Find me a policy that prohibits posting diffs of deleted comments and I'll strike it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Check the timeline. My response there came after I asked L. for a definitive statement down here. An ethical editor wouldn't need a policy to force them to remove something they shouldn't have posted, they would do it because it's the right thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, you're right about the first part, my apologies. As for the second part, no. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Gee, I really can;t do anything for you if you can;t read time codes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC) So Levivich is editing just for 18 months?? I believed he was a senior editor...oh well, maybe some people just learning fast.. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Davey2010, I haven’t asked for sanctions here: I’ve simply raised the issue that continually saying over the top things about others is an issue he’s had for a while, and this is never addressed. The long-term issue is what I’m concerned about. I think most people who have commented here agree that the conduct is sub-par, and hope the concerns are taken on board, like Atsme said. I’m fine with this being closed as a warning to him, but it’s a warning I want on the record: the continual assumptions of bad faith and over the top rhetoric towards others are getting really old. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I was stating this as an overall thing - I wasn't saying or implying you were looking for sanctions etc so apologies for the wording there. –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • This is basically an WP:RFC/U thread, and those don't work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
      • When RfC/U was shut down, the proponents of doing so swore up and down that AN/I would not be effected by it. But how could it not, since the dropping of the venue for the problem didn't alleviate the problem, and the complaints had to go somewhere? Unless we're going to say that behavioral problems just cannot be dealt with, we have to deal with them, and this is now the only place to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
        • As an aside, I skimmed through Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116 § Do Away with RFC/U, and, in accordance with what I recalled, I don't see anyone saying AN/I wouldn't be affected. (There were some who didn't think AN/I is a good venue, either, but they didn't claim there would be no effect.) isaacl (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Messing about with whether you are legally representing someone or not is both bad on wikipedia and really bad in real life. It really can get you disbarred so that warning seems fine to me if a little dirrect. 2. I mean if he had called out specific people then I guess this would be an issue. His opinion was more extreme then mine but I don't think it is ourtrageous to get upset at people being labelled as sick or not. 3. He got tripped up by ARBPIA, say it ain't so. To be clear it look like him and EL C worked it out with no hard feelings. 4. "Baiting" is AGF at its finest. As far as I can tell he is explaining the obvious about mysoginy. 5. Yeah, not great, so there is one though it look like again that got worked out. 6. If anything Tony's blatant misreading of the situation is actionable. Levivich was making the point out that just saying "Godwins Law" is not a defense. Something he months ago explained it detail. 7. Meh, he was a bit over the top but BMK was calling people a cancer and a disease. Not sure why you didn't have a bigger issues with that as it is just as bad. 8. Not even going to bother. This looks like a notherburger built up based on the fact you didn't like being challenged. I don't think he needs or deserves a warning. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• No surprise in seeing this here, it was only a matter of time. WP's most dramah loving editor at WP's most dramatic drama board.[redacted] Cassianto^Talk 05:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

(Lourdes 11:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

• @TonyBallioni: I have two questions I'd like to ask you: What could I have done differently in bringing the close challenge on your talk page that would not have resulted in you filing this thread? How do you think BMK and Cassianto's comments in this thread compare to the disruption you're accusing me of? I think you're a reasonable person (like BMK), but I can't take on board what I don't understand, and I don't understand your reaction here. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, in your short time here, I haven't seen you anywhere else; if there's a heated discussion to be had, then you can bet your last pound that you'll be a part of it. That is my point and there's nothing disruptive about me making it. I also note your thinly veiled personal attack at me by inferring that I'm "unreasonable". Cassianto^Talk 06:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• I can only speak for myself, but Levivich has generally been cordial with most editors, so far as I’ve seen. Though I have indeed seen escalations from time to time. Don’t get me wrong. He edits in contentious subject areas, but that’s not always a blanche carte for some of the behaviour. That being said, when challenged, they’ve generally been conciliatory. This isn’t always the case, but I think they’ve been a generally good editor. I don’t think a sanction is warranted, but if the community disagrees, I think it should be in line with what TB suggested; a logged warning to be more civil. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• On the second point first: I’m not playing that game. This isn’t about BMK or Cassianto. This is about you.
  On your first point: There’s a general agreement here that you take things over the top sometimes and that the diffs I’ve linked aren’t great even if not sanctionable. Your response has been to play the victim: that this was about me responding negatively to a challenge to my actions rather than to you assuming bad faith and describing the behaviour in an over the top way that was obviously phrased to get a response. I’m sure that was intentional: it’s how you operate, as I’ve documented above. Calling a request a dog whistle that someone came running to is obviously designed to attack them in a way without swearing. If you had simply left it at the comment about escalating, I wouldn’t have cared. Instead you decided to accuse another editor of canvassing and me of not being thoughtful enough to realize I was being canvassed. It’s over the top, and I as I said, over the top and then apologize when called out is something you do somewhat frequently (see diffs and discussions above. What we need is a commitment that the behaviour will actually stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I myself remember wondering who Levivich may be, but it's not a current concern. I find their policy-based comments at the AFD and DR clueful and think that they're also a good asset for the project. I do find that jumping to a nazi reference was inappropriate, though. —PaleoNeonate – 08:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• I coincidentally noticed this thread immediately after reading about their hubbub with GorillaWarfare on the Arb noticeboard which I found incredibly concerning (redacted edits immediately after an ArbCom block.) On the most part I don't mind Levivich, but I was on the other side of the argument during their crusade against the standards at NFOOTY and while I don't have any specific evidence of tendentious editing/criticism personal attacks directed against me, honestly the whole thing just strikes me as odd on the whole. For the best example I can add, see RSkinner96's WP:POINTY argument on 6 July here: [4]. It's the little stuff like the exchange I found with GiantSnowman falsely accusing them of a personal attack here (Proposal: Scrap the one appearance...) I also checked their contributions out of curiosity. A tenth of their whole edits are to ANI or the Arbitration boards, the fact they edit once on their own user talk page for every six mainspace edits (per [5]) also strikes me as odd. Whether a formal minor warning gets logged here (which I would support based on the above) may not matter, but hopefully this ANI can clue them into the fact their dramatics are being noticed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• While I don't wish to impugn Tony's motives, anyone should be able to appreciate why the timing of this post is questionable, coming in the immediate aftermath of a dispute between Tony and Levi. I have no doubt that Tony came here because he felt he had valid concerns, but it's hardly surprising that Levi would feel targeted under the circumstances. While there may be an underlying problem with Levi's behavior, I think Tony has overstated his case by including diffs that aren't really all that concerning (#4, 5, 6, 7, IMO). The only one that's extremely bad is #2, but that was two months ago and we aren't going to sanction or warn Levi for it now. Although, seriously Levi, please don't ever say anything like that again. That was indefensible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'll start this comment by saying that I consider myself to be on good terms with Levivich - I've had a number of thought-provoking and amusing discussions with him, we wrote an article in collaboration, and I agree with JzG's assessment that both he and TonyBallioni are good peoples. Levivich can be quite cutting in some of his remarks when he's in dispute with people, and the fact that he is a good writer and rhetorician perhaps makes such remarks all the more effective. Is this so unusual here though? In this very thread, there are experienced and respected editors coming within a whisker of flat-out calling him a liar, and suggesting that he loves dramah so much that he would actually enjoy being hauled over the coals here. In an environment where that is condoned, are we really going to take him to task for making the odd inflammatory remark? Going through Tony's diffs, I see some comments that are perhaps less than ideal, but if you look at the entirety of the threads that those diffs come from, you will see that many of them contain sub-optimal comments from other people - often very experienced people, and often worse than anything Levivich said. I would encourage Levivich to reflect on Tony's observation that he sometimes goes a bit too far before reining it in, and to try not to do that; I would also encourage a large proportion of the regulars at this noticeboard to reflect on whether they themselves ever say anything that isn't within the spirit of the collaborative and civil environment we all want to encourage. Many of us could up our games when it comes to that. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well said, Girth Summit. Second everything you said. creffett (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

+1 to what Girth said ~Awilley (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: -1

• Levivich has been particularly nasty to myself and several other editors. The editor has followed contributions unclollegially, and casted aspersions, and even sent several improved articles and even DYK submitted articles to AfD. In one AfD the editor demanded that four previous !votes be thrown out, and when I questioned Levivich they posted an incredibly tedious response. Like other editors above I also agree that Levivich spends a majority of time in WP Drama and would hope that the editor would spend more time in other areas of the main space. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  If what you are saying is correct, then it's certainly worth discussing here. But you do need to provide diffs as you can't expect that other editors will do the necessary research to verify your accusations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This refers, especially, to this brutal AfD in which no-one—including Lightburst—comes out of it covered in glory. This was Levivich's "tedious response"; the tediousness of it for Lightburst was presumably the fact hat his "argument", such as it was, was forensically dissected. They then continued on Carole Henson's talk in a simiar vein. Frankly, I'm surprised LB wants to raise these sleeping dogs. ——Serial ^# 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, poopers - Serial# - you said "...in which no-one .... comes out of it covered in glory." Just curious...that AfD was one of my best efforts...and you didn't even notice I was one of the no-ones. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'm so sorry! Of course, you're dead right, apologies, I only read the rotten bits  :) of which you were nowhere near. On of the sensible ones...Apologies for covering you in the same mud that Levivich, LB, 13 and me were wrestling in  :) ——Serial ^# 14:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You have been rather terse with me in the past, and it is expected that you would be found here defending Levivich. The AfD above not even close to what I was talking about - but nice cherry picking. That Bachelor Lake AfD was a train wreck, and that AfD nominator was eventually sanctioned for other tendentious editing. But no, that is not even close to the behavior I was outlining above. If we get in the weeds on this, I will have wasted another day and Levivich will not be sanctioned anyway. The editor has too many defenders. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That is certainly your choice, but it's obvious that no action can be taken against Levi on the basis of your claims if you aren't willing to support them with diffs. If you believe this editor is causing serious problems for you, it may be worth your while to spend some time pursuing a resolution here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Please retract your aspersion that it is expected that you would be found here defending Levivich; after all, WP:BMB is policy. Many thanks! ——Serial ^# 17:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst really likes calling people tedious when they explain why he's wrong. Reyk _YO! 22:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about this because I respect both parties in this "dispute", if that's what it is. I know that User:Levivich was being accused of being a sock almost as soon as he arrived, and that seemed a little unfair, but I will be honest and say that I don't really care if he has been here before under another name - he wouldn't be the only one. It's hard from the above to make out exactly what the complaint about him is, but as far as I'm concerned, all he needs to do to resolve this is to say, "I'm sorry if I've been rude and I will try not to be rude in future". So I agree with Girth Summit. Deb (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

@Deb You said: "..but I will be honest and say that I don't really care if he has been here before under another name.." I'm sorry, do I understand you correctly??? Are you are saying that it's okay to abandon an old account and open a new one, just because one feels like it? And you don't care!?!? How the hell is this fair to people who are sanctioned under the draconian, ridiculous bans for years, and even thou they trying vigorously and obey the rules can't have their bans lifted?! ..and despite all of that they continue to work hard to have their bans lifted. (yes! I'm talking about myself) What the hell is going on here I'm asking!? Please clarify this to me because I'm more than seriously concerned about your statement. I'm shocked! GizzyCatBella🍁 18:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC) GizzyCatBella, this isn't the place to discuss your own situation. SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I'm not discussing my situation. What I believe I'm seeing here are double standards and unequal code of conduct for editors. I'm sorry but I demand an explanation, please. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: It's nice of you to say "please" in your demand for an explanation, but you actually aren't owed one. Deb is entitled to keep her own opinions. (I suspect Deb was referencing WP:Fresh start accounts, when she talked about people editing under new names.) In any case, the SPI thing is off topic here. ~Awilley (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I hope Deb though of a "fresh start" account. If yes, then I agree, I wouldn't care less myself. But we don't know if this would be a fresh start account or somebody who is trying to cheat, do we? So please understand my greatest frustration when I read something like "..I don't really care if he has been here before under another name - he wouldn't be the only one." (I'm ending this topic here)GizzyCatBella🍁 19:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC) GizzyCatBella Let me be more specific. The emphasis in my comment was on the word he, and I think that's clear from the context. I don't care if Levivich has been here before, because from what I've seen of him, he's a good and useful contributor. I would not have the same opinion of someone who was a blatant sock trying to avoid detection. Deb (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying Deb, I'm sorry for reacting so strongly. I thought of a huge injustice because of my situation, hence my original response.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, I have seen you around for a while. As far as I can tell, we agree more often than not. Even when you are correct on the substance, though, you have a habit of making your points more forcefully, more dramatically, and with more rhetorical flourish, than you need to; and you also have the habit of pursuing an argument for far longer than is needed, and not dropping the stick when it's obvious the argument is going nowhere. These are tendencies the community has lost patience with in many other editors with far longer track records, and in many cases have led to a string of noticeboard discussions, short blocks and other minor sanctions, and endless recrimination. You can nip that in the bud now, by recalibrating a little. Just food for thought. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think that Vanamonde93 is putting it rather kindly. What I have seen is very little partipation from Levivich in article improvement, but widespread bludgeons on talk pages and noticeboards. The "rhetoricl flourishes" are many, but the majority of them are not supported by factual or policy based analysis. Often there are convenient omissions or misrepresentations that serve a rhetorical purpose but only confuse the editorial discussion. Little deflections, straw men, and irrelevancies feel like they're being weaponized. It's often quite effective. And yes, there's personal unpleasantness as well, e.g. his complaints about Tony Ballioni's straightofrward close at the Biden allegations article. Complaints and grudges, but no constructive suggestions. That's been my limited observation of Levivich. Others may be more familiar with examples.Here is one I recall. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• In SPECIFICO'S link [6]- which pertains to Levivich's removal of "Peter Navarro" related "BLP" material twice, as discussed at BLPN, Levivich was essentially challenging editors to produce sources that would contravene his removal of material from the article. So, about 10 independent reliable sources were presented that contravened his removal. Levivich responded "but do you have any academic sources, like WP:RS/AC-compliant sources?" Let me point out here - 10 independent reliable sources more than meet the criteria for retaining the material.

Second, as pointed out in the discussion, this is moving the goal posts, instead of admitting they were in error. Then they continue arguing against several editors, even when editors show him names of prominent economists that support the content that should be restored. At best this is being difficult. At worst it shows tendentious editing. Such behavior is an attempt to control article content in the face consensus opposition. In any case, it is not helpful. The thread is certainly worth reading. I might have more to say in my own comment later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I hardly think you contributing to this discussion will affect anyone's opinion of Levivich, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've seen Levivich around a lot and have never had any issue with him, but I think he should take this reasonable concern to heart. Just because you can think of a cutting remark doesn't mean you should use it. Cutting remarks are unlikely to persuade and are likely to drive away editors who don't enjoy being the target of them. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• My personal experience with Levivich has been quite positive, and having reviewed the diffs given here they don't strike me as anything Wikipedia's (ridiculously low) discussion standards can't accommodate. Think what you may of his style, the diffs are pretty clear that he's rarely disruptive; and there's much to be said for his "common sense" attitude in approaching some of these more questionable issues. The one thing I would strongly advise - and that goes for everyone - is to keep "ultimate evil" analogies to a minimum, since they don't grace anyone and are rarely justified. François Robere (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comments: LEPRICAVARK has said I should post some diffs or evidence of what I had stated above. I hope it is organized well. I took a look at Levivich's AfD participation and it revealed that the editor was following myself and or the WP:ARS. I noticed some very condescending comments and tendentious editing before the diffs I present here, but as Tony B has said. It takes loads of time to hunt down diffs and organize them so I am only detailing some of the more recent issues that perhaps show a pattern. Also there is one situation I list below which occurred at WP:DRV where Levivich refers to editors as Nazis and then doubles down when questioned by an admin.

• Here Levivich calls editors who disagree Nazis This was in a March 20, 2020 during the deletion review of a coronavirus related list/article the editor stated that anyone who thinks Wikipedia should have lists of BLPs by disease should not only be site banned but also jailed...It's Nazi-esque, in the true sense of that word. You think that's an aspersions, go ahead and complain. An administrator posted some advice on Levivich's talk page, but Levivich just doubled down on his PA with another Nazi reference. Levivich Posted a Picture of people giving a Nazi salute. He was taken to ANI for these incidents and was issued a formal warning.

• In March 2020 I noticed Levivich was following my contributions and or of the Article Rescue Squad, dismissing !votes, taking ARS improved articles to AfD and casting aspersions. I looked at 25 AfDs Levivich was involved with and 8 out of those 25 !votes and nominations (December 24, 2019 to March 15, 2020) involved articles which were nominated for improvement on the Article Rescue Squad. Levivich does not participate in many AfDs and has only been involved in 16 AfDs since I documented the 8/25 AfDs and uncollegial following of the ARS contributions.

AfDs 7 of the 10 articles below I either nominated for improvement at ARS or started

1. List of fictional counties Here is an aspersion at an ARS nominated AfD where Levivich dismisses !votes contrary to the arguments made by ARS block voters. March 31, 2020 The AfD finished as No-Consensus.
2. John Trevena (lawyer) This is an article I started May 2019. Levivich nominated the article for deletion March 15, 2019. The namination seemed like a WP:REVENGE AfD because it came after many aspersions by the editor. It was an overwhelming Keep at AfD.
3. S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes ARS saved this article and it closed as keep March 7. I was surprised when Levivich nominated the article for deletion the same day it closed (March 7). The Levivich AfD finished as an overwhelming Keep this time as well.
4. EverlyWell (2nd nomination) ARS added the article to the rescue list Feb 2, Levivich voted to Delete Feb 3. This article was deleted
5. The Fellowship of the Ring ARS added the article to the rescue list January 29, Levivich visited the AfD that same day at the AfD to !vote Merge The article was deleted
6. List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire ... ARS added the article to the rescue list January 25, Levivich visited the AfD January 26 to !vote Delete The list was kept
7. Telegraph Road Bridge ARS added the article to the rescue list January 11, Levivich visited the AfD January 12 to !vote Delete The article was deleted.
8. Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) ARS added the article to the rescue list January 3, and Levivch visited the AfD to !vote Delete and cast an aspersion in the AfD: “ARS Block Voting Machine again” The article was kept.
9. Sunshine Shen ARS added the article to the rescue list December 13, Levivich visited the AfD to !vote Delete Dec 24. The article was deleted.
10. Jennifer Mee (This was another article I started) The article was sent to AfD and on December 23, 2019 at AfD Levivich stated that four !votes from ARS members should be tossed. "Pardon me for saying so, but the four keep !votes above should be tossed, and I'm happy to elaborate on that on my talk page. Here's a real keep !vote." I went to the editor's talk page (as instructed) and waited a whole day before Levivich finally responded with a very tedious opinion. about dismissing my !vote. The article was kept.

• DYK: Here is an aspersion/accusation Levivich made at the DYK nomination of S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes after Levivich failed to delete the article at AfD. March 15, 2020 by Levivich ...And while you and your ARS canvassing club might be able to block-vote promotional articles and prevent them from being deleted, I still hope someone in the DYK chain has the good sense not to allow this toy store advertisement on the main page.. The article was accepted at DYK after Levivich's AfD completed.

• I appreciate that Tony B has brought this matter here. It is my hope is that Levivich will recognize the problems myself and other editors have outlined and make adjustments. I for one have not had a very good experience with the editor. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In the diff showing Levivich's "tedious opinion", your take was quite different: "I normally appreciate your very clear-headed remarks and your detail oriented !votes". I ask because I too appreciate his clear-headed, detailed responses wherever I have seen them. Can you give a sense of the proportion of what you see as problematic vs remarks you appreciate from this editor? If you are both prolific at the AfD board, perhaps the interactions you've outlined represent only a tiny portion overall. I'm just trying to get a sense of context. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 05:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Come now, everyone knows you're only allowed to use the ARS listings if you're going to vote keep. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: Thanks for the question. The point is that the editor is not at all prolific at AfD. I attached their record and you can see they followed the WP:ARS multiple times and even sent an ARS improved article to AfD on the same day it closed at AfD after massive improvement. The editor then posted more snarly dismissive aspersions when that same article was being considered at DYK. Regarding the "tedious responses" of Levivich, nobody should dismiss 4 other editor !votes at AfD with aspersions, and then hyper-analyze other editor's AfD !vote rationales: we all have different styles. It is also one aspersion after another (they are in green) dismissive of myself and other editors on active AfDs. Here are the AfD records of myself and Levivich - you can see the editor is not at all prolific at AfD.

The editor has participated in 200 AfDs May 2019-May 2020

I have participated in more than 2000 AfDs May 2019-May 2020 Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• In this comment[7] Levivich stated that I carry outedits that purport to say that non-Jewish Poles were the primary targets and victims of the Holocaust despite me stating clearly in context of the Holocaust Jews were the main victims and should be mentioned first. in discussion I had with him[8].As someone who described a lot of Nazi German atrocities on Wiki and created article on Operation 1005 this false claim was highly offensive to me. My experience with Levivich was highly negative, he is aggressive, unwilling to discuss without engaging in attacks and makes serious false insinuations like the one above. After I disagreed with him, Levivich went event as far as following me edits and inserting known Nazi and advocate of German superiority and ethnic cleansing of Poles as source of information that Polish city of Poznan was supposedly majority German[9]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice exercise in taking things out of context, MMA:

1. You were suggesting that "Poles were the primary targets of the Nazis", and you pushed it across several articles despite the objections of multiple editors.[10]
2. The Poznan edit was backed by a source that passed an extensive discussion on WP:NPOVN.[11] The fact that you don't like it does not give you the right to represent Levivich's edit as sinister. François Robere (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Editors who continually get away with this sort of behavior are emboldened, they push the envelope and it gets worse. -- GreenC 04:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• This thread is a really good example of why AN/I is such an unpleasant place, that really isn't suited to these types of discussions. Early on there was some aggressive pushing that Lev is a sock, despite any actual evidence, and despite no c/u results. We've now largely moved on to any editor who has had a content dispute with Lev coming in and saying why Lev's disagreements with their content points were problematic. Normally we don't let people go after other editors in such a free-form, willy-nilly way, calling them "highly negative," and utilizing "widespread bludgeons" to edit. Whatever good faith purpose was intended by this thread has now been outlived. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I can kind of understand some low-level suspicion of a newish editor who jumps right in and very quickly becomes familiar with how things work around here. Harder to understand is treating a clean CU finding as further proof of guilt. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have to say now that I have read up on WP:RFC/U, as pointed out by NinjaRobotPirate, I can see why it was discontinued. Pretty much everything that is going on here is what was discussed here that lead to its discontinuation. It reminds me of Two Minutes Hate with no specific aim or remedy. So given the community consensus against threads of this nature and the fact that this is not actually a request for sanctions as pointed out by Tony, I think this thread should be shutdown. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)+

• I have to agree with PackMecEng. I was going to post something in support of Tony B., but I am really uncomfortable with this thread. The community has gotten rid of RFC/U. I think what's happened here shows why we shouldn't use this venue for recounting the past sins of an editor who at worst has some very low level uncivil violations. In contrast, it seems an authentic tendinitis editor does not last long in an AN or ANI thread before the community binds together and sanctions the individual. Or an admin might intervene, depending on the situation.

Hence, I think this thread has lost its direction. Tony B. did request a warning. Beyond Tony B's original recounting, I don't think much more should be said other than support or oppose a consensus warning. And that argument does have merit because Levivich has been warned before (as a result of ANI?). Also, note, as an Admin Tony could have "warned" Levivich himself based on the record presented. And, I wish he had done so to be done with it.

There is flexibility in that decision because it can be appealed. If it was appealed, then there is a focused discussion for AN or ANI, with either "endorse" or "oppose". So, I also think this thread should be closed knowing Levivich has been notified. At the same time, Levivich has been commended in this thread. So, let's leave it at that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Close with no sanction or logged warning. But heed the complaints as they are not meritless overall. One really shouldn't ever be comparing any editor or thing to Nazis unless said editor says they are one, or an entity was one. Using this association fallacy diminishes the Nazis, the horrors they caused, the evils they performed. I was greatly disappointed when Godwin used his own "law" against some of those he opposes politically, which basically leads him to lose the argument by making such an association fallacy.--MONGO (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would close this with "come on Lev, be better" but that either makes me the ultimate hypocrite or well-reformed. This is a typical "throw it Arbcom" scenario as ANI and the community have failed to work it out satisfactorily, but does this need another four months of drama while whatever is left of Arbcom collects themselves for a real decision, ever? I don't think so. Kick this into the long grass with a nice polite warning. Next. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• In response to a post in this thread, I've created the shortcut WP:TENDONITISEDITING. EEng 04:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Editor removing blocked users' userboxen to tidy a project list.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've tried to clarify with User:Galendalia (discussion here) what the benefit to the project was of these edits, which merely make busy work. There's simple misunderstanding of our userpage guidelines, which are pretty clear that by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags; neither of those reasons applies (there could be no "significant concerns" as to the userboxen, and, obviously, no project-related tags were being placed). Further, this should not be done for trivial reasons; the reasons given (to tidy up a list) would rather seem the definition of trivial meta-work.

The reasons I have been given for these edits (I'm not making significant changes only minor therefore does not require a consensus as the editors are not coming back. This includes the addition/removal of tags, I am another editor, editing the user pages of indefinitely blocked users or sockpuppets. By getting the list cleaned up is considered project related) are inadequate.

I advised self-reversion, or, failing that, raising a voluntary thread, but that fell on stony ground, so here we are. There must be something more productive to do when you've time to make 2000 edits a month! ——Serial ^# 18:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The users removed were those permanently blocked for a variety of reasons. I removed the gnome and/or Fairie tags as they auto populate the main lists for both of those. I do not see this as an issue as it is house keeping. However the editor who opened this ANI thinks “it is trivial work” of which it is not. It’s called house keeping work. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As User:Bbb23—ever meet him? He'd doubtless have found you of great interest—might have said, no reason to edit this userpage. ——Serial ^# 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: - I am sorry but what does this user have to do with this conversation (besides you trying to get him/her involved)? I never touched his page as he/she is active. Serial please chilltake a breather and step back so that the administrators can handle this as there is no more need to dispute this between us. Thanks! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please retract your aspersion that I should "chill"; it is either intentionally rude or accidentally patronising. ——Serial ^# 19:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is neither. It is the same as saying please step back which is part of the DR process. I have edited my comment. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 19:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: Short copyright problem, BLP problem or some sort of extreme polemic...do not alter user pages. There's really nothing served by the effort. Tiderolls 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Transclusions of deleted templates probably should be removed, otherwise creating the template would result in an unwanted change to the user page. It was subsequently removed by a bot (as "TFD outcome", when there was no TFD; a page with the same name was speedily deleted as vandalism several years earlier). Templates that add categories should also be removed in some circumstances but not all. Peter James (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:GNOME and WP:FAIRY are designated as humour. I can't imagine why it matters whether there are some indeffed users amongst those who have chosen to display those userboxes.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Looking at your history, Galendalia, you seem to be taking an active role in multiple areas of the site where you lack experience and are making mistakes and creating an unnecessary burden for other editors. I recommend slowing down, editing the mainspace, and listening when others are telling you that something you are doing is problematic. Nihlus 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Galendalia, if you're reading this, it's considered poor form to edit others' user and/or talk pages. Simple as that. MiasmaEternal^TALK 22:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If I was indefinitely blocked, and I had my userboxes removed, I would be pretty peeved myself. Those userboxes are a connection to the Wikipedia community, and may be used as an indicator to get the editor to appeal and become part of that community again. I would like the removal of infoboxes reverted. Though in my case, since I have pending changes and rollbacker, and if I had those rights removed, those infoboxes would be misleading, and should be removed. Tutelary (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I do not support the removal of trivial userboxes or templates from blocked or inactive editors' userpages (and I'm afraid I think those under discussion here do fall into that realm). However, there are definitely rare situations where the continued presence of one or more stale template or even a userbox can cause disruption or confusion to current editors. There I have been willing to step in and remove them. Examples I've deleted from some userpages/subpages include {{Adopting}} and {{adopt me}} templates, which unhelpfully retain inactive usernames on Category pages that really do need to remain current. Also, certain userboxes that claim some sort of user right, but which are patently untrue, only serve to mislead others, whether by intent o]r otherwise. I think Galendalia's attempts at housekeeping were well-meant, but were unnecessary and a bit misguided. I don't hold a view on whether they need to be reinstated on blocked editors' pages, so long as no more removals of this type are made. I would observe that there does seems to be a bit of a gap in the guidance at WP:UP about the deployment or retention of misleading templates/userboxes, and when it is acceptable for another editor to remove them. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you Nick for not bashing my work. One thing that did come out of this is one of the editors that I did remove it from has their personal information on their user page which included real name, address, email, phone number, and their work information. I don’t plan on doing this anymore as it caused a giant uproar amongst Wikipedians. Honestly I think this conversation can be completed and closed. The point has very well been received. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 01:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Since User:Galendalia appears to understand that they should not alter user pages. There's really nothing served by the effort and is poor form, that these particular edits were unnecessary and a bit misguided, and that over all, at this point, they lack experience and are making mistakes and creating an unnecessary burden for other editors in certain areas, this can indeed probably be closed.
  Having said that, USPS could be brought up to at least GA status. ——Serial ^# 08:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Before this is closed, I would encourage that one or two administrators review Galendalia's recent history and his predeliction to play hall monitor even though he's a brand-new editor. He's working on several projects, not the least of which being WP:DRN where he has no business being involved given his lack of experience (just a month), and seems to want to run around the place fixing things and cleaning house rather than exhibiting much interest in contributing to mainspace and learning the basics. After a recent edit war at Queen of Hearts (film), which resulted in his filing a wholly inappropriate SPI report on User:MarnetteD after he made a very minor cosmetic edit, I've had concerns about Galedalia's real purpose in being here, and whether it aligns with the aims of this project. As I noted, he recently joined WP:DRN as a volunteer, then after a previous encounter with admins over the SPI report, decided to leave WP, dumping his DRN cases on ever-helpful user User:Robert McClenon, who graciously took them over. Now he's back and back at his same games. Galendalia should be strongly encouraged to leave the activities that lead to this report, along with areas such WP:DRN alone until he gains considerable experience and concentrate on editing in mainspace while he learns basic policies and practices. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough analysis, Drmargi. You'll note that, while telling other editors to "chill" isn't a personal attack, "playing games" is. Hmmm. There's also the attempt to chill the discussion by way of allusion to a "conversation with the WMF" when Galendalia's behavior is scrutinised. The conditional "I may have edited as an IP" is also of interest. ——Serial ^# 08:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: @Drmargi: First off, I dumped no cases on Robert. I asked prior to my departure and per our guidance on the DRN, and he said he may be able to take them but wasn't sure. I continued on, as I spent the weekend thinking about things (as requested by numerous users on my talk page), and I carried the case and it is almost at resolution pending one editor's remarks and if they agree with it. Secondly, I am in a few things, including a conversation with WMF about the onboarding of new editors. For you to ask administrators to review my history and to state I am "playing games", of which the latter is a personal attack on me. That is the reason adding Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers to this mix. My very first day I asked for help on something and was bitten. I asked the experienced editor why they were doing this and being hostile to me and they never responded. This seems to be the norm and it was something I brought up in the group discussion with WMF about the onboarding in which it was stated this is not the first time we have had this complaint. He even linked some useful articles on this that were created by outside sources as to why the newcomers decide to leave. It appears only outside people have issues with what I am involved in, including DRN. For people constantly saying I am brand new, it is definitely a reason to throw out as I may have been editing for years under an IP and just created my account. No one knows that or knows me on here or my background. When I have questions, I ask. I have already stated I will not perform "housekeeping" on the lists. As far as any projects I am involved in, which are few (CVU (graduate and have rollback rights), I am listed as a TeaHouse host because there are somethings I can provide advice on and I have been warmly welcomed by numerous people who are also hosts. I am the coordinator of the Wikipedia:Spoken articles as this has great potential and it was not being utilized. Recommendations were provided by an administrator and a fellow coordinator which are going to be implemented over the weekend so it meets the new requirements. I participate in DRN and 3OR to assist with things I can do. In 3OR, I have never had kickback on anything I provide my opinion on and I always point to the policies regarding it. I do not get involved in more than one case, however, I will post the appropriate notices and if something odd (i.e. an editor posting it on my talk page, I will make a remark to the volunteer to let them know. I would sincerely appreciate if people would stop the personal attacks and if this discussion can be closed, as requested and seconded. Thank you. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 05:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Broader issues with Galendalia's editing

While the above issue of Galendalia improperly mass-removing userboxes from other editors' userpages seems to have been resolved, I agree with Drmargi that there are broader issues with Galendalia's editing. To begin, I'll acknowledge that the Galendalia account is just over a month old (although they say that they have previously been editing as an IP for over a year) and newbie errors are to be expected. The issue, as I see it, is (1) them wading into areas that needs significantly more experience, and (2) their needless escalation and accusations of "I'm being attacked" when errors are (politely) pointed to them. Here are four other instances in addition to the above discussion, where I have observed such conduct:

1. Galendalia left a note for MarnetteD expressing suspicion that Marnette was socking as an IP. MarnetteD pointed out that Galendalia was misreading the editing history and the suspicion was (obviously!) unfounded. Instead of simply apologizing and moving on, Galendalia opened an SPI case (Admin eyes-only), which had to be speedy closed and deleted.
2. Galendalia recently opened six simultaneous RFCs at WP:RSN. After Atlantic306, Redrose64 and I (politely IMO) pointed out that they were not following the procedure for the RSN noticeboard or RFCs, and that their actions were (inadvertently) disruptive, Galendalia repeatedly complained about being attacked and proceeded to retire/vanish (they reconsidered on the urging of several editors, including me).
3. Galendalia just concluded moderating a DRN. Unfortunately, setting aside the resolution of the case (which was to "list [the disputed content and sources] in the Miscellaneous section"), several of the statements made by Galendalia there about wikipedia policies and process were simply wrong and probably misled Tayi Arajakate and Aman.kumar.goel. For example, After extensive research, I can verify that Anjana Om Kashyap DOES NOT meet the requirements for WP:BLP and then suggeted that the page be speedy-deleted; The sources provided are not considered reliable as they are opinionated against the journalist. etc. I won't belabour the point but the article would clearly survive any attempt at AFD (let alone speedy deletion), and one of the "disputed sources" is a reported cover-story in one of India's most prestigious magazines.
4. A short while back Galendalia reverted a series of edits by a new editor Thehitavada. The editor was in the middle of a process of replacing {{cn}} tags with (mostly) reliable sources and had even placed the {{Under construction}} tag when they were reverted and warned. When Thehitavada pointed out this error at Galendalia's talkpage, instead of apologizing and backing down, Gelendalia replied with this non-sequitur about vandalism software score, blanking of content, BLP etc... none of which was relevant or applicable (neither the article nor the edited content is about any BLP and, again, the editor was adding sources!).

Not really sure what course of action is required here since I don't doubt Galendalia's enthusiasm or good-faith. Tentatively, I'd suggest that Galendalia (1) get a mentor to guide their editing, and (2) back away from areas such as WP:DRN where knowledge of wikipedia policies and their application is crucial. Other comments and suggestions welcome. Abecedare (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Galendalia I would recommend Galendalia step away from places he feel like he does know enough. And get a mentor when he goes in to new places. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 00:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have also noticed the overreach by a six-week old account. I advised them to slow down and get some experience when they were giving advice on the Teahouse weeks ago. When I applied for Autopatrolled recently I saw they had applied for about three different permissions at WP:PERM (template editor, event coordinator, mass message sender at five weeks?). Add to unnecessary procedural requests (example, example, example) that have been started by them (also at WP:COIN, example), and joining multiple groups with the apparent aim of gaining some kind of authority that extends above that of a novice editor. Pretty much all of these point to overreach in one way or another: giving advice where the editor is not experienced enough to give it, asking for permissions where they are not experienced enough to use them, and participating in higher-level discussions where they really shouldn't be (DRN example above) because they do not have the experience.

That's the past though. They seem to have resigned from Wikipedia as a result of this discussion (See User talk:Galendalia), but really all that is required is to step back a bit and gain skills gradually, rather than to try to do everything at once. Wikipedia welcomes editors with this much energy, but experience is not gained in a month or two, it takes time. I hope the editor will take this advice to heart, as it is repeated often in the above thread. I'm not sure what remedy is appropriate should they continue to ignore this advice, but one is probably necessary in that case. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So this should be my final response. If I wronged you I apologize but niceness works both way. Telling me to do something is not what volunteers are for. We are all here to assist in the Wikipedia project. I have decided to only continue in the following:

1. Spoken Wikipedia as the project coordinator
2. The Teahouse as I have received great feedback from some of the main players there. I also don’t respond to requests unless I know something and can assist. I think I’ve answered about 10 questions total, if even that.
3. Continue fighting vandalism as I was trained.

Now to clear a couple things up. I never edited with an IP address however Abecedare misinterpreted what I wrote which was “I may have been editing for years under an IP and just created my account.” I never said I did but it’s not only for me but any editor. For example the user mentioned early in an Under Construction. The account was just created today (in my time zone) and was editing like a pro and knew how to do things. So there is a possibility they may have been editing as an IP with no issues and decided to create an account.

This also stands to Serials comment about WMF. I brought it up because I was invited by an editor to participate in the discussion for both CVU and because I’m a newer editor. The discussion, for clarity, is what can be done to get new users trained and up to date on editing, sources, etc. For serial to make an assumption on why I brought it up is unfounded as I clearly stated who and why I’m involved. As far as my requests when I asked for something it was declined and explained and I agreed. So I’m not sure why people are bringing those up as there was no issues on them other than me requesting which any editor is allowed to. I spoke to Rose and I withdrew them all.

I will be taking advice to heart and backing off to a few things.

The4Lines has also stated they would be willing to adopt me and I am taking them on that offer.

I am also going to ask that those involved in this discussion to please stop posting the same messages you posted here to my talk page. It does not need to be repeated. I’ve already removed one persons comments from my page because they did just that.

I also want to mention about the template and technical requests. The templates I’m working on are for the project. The technical question is because I asked if there is a way to ping volunteers of the project to have them engage in discussions on the project talk page. None of these are an issue. I am allowed to ask questions and requests of templates in the correct forum which I am directed to by an experienced editor on where to ask them if they do not know.

Permission requests: I asked about being given the right to edit just certain ones and then it was pointed out that I didn’t need them for most so I thanked them and was able to edit the templates that needed it.

The IRC: I understood what they were saying and thanked them and left it at that.

The feature request is something I see on other projects so I was inquiring about if it could be done or if something was already in play for it.

The Event Coordinator: I was told this was the place to go to be the coordinator of a project, once they explained it was not, I thanked them and moved on.

The Mass Messages: Falls in line with the group ping to volunteers of the project. My request was denied but it was explained where I could post it to have someone deliver it. I (once again) thanked them and then created the messages per their criteria which were sent out. Again, I’m looking for ways to get the volunteers engaged in the talk page discussions that I’m looking at holding. I have not yet responded to the group ping request as I did see someone knows what I was looking for so I need to get back to them.

Not all of these requests were “unnecessary procedural requests” as stated above.

So now can we please put this to rest? I’m spending way to much time on this when I could be working on the 3 things I listed above.

I am sure I will see you around hopefully under better circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Relevant to this discussion: WP:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Galendalia. ——Serial ^# 12:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Good grief! Can you please stop trolling me and everything I do? It is like you 1) just won’t let this die and 2) you keep adding fuel to the fire. I had my rights before all of this happened and, while yes I was upset about my rights not being renewed and pulled early, I understand it. I attempted to make my case and it failed. I’m fine with that. Crap happens. You need to find something better to do maybe update an article or something (as you have previously told me to do). Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's completely normal to point out a related discussion. Comments like this are not going to help you. Nobody is out to get you, we are looking at justifiable concerns related to your editing abilities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I just came here to share some concerns about Galendalia's choice of mentor, and here we go again: any comment or feedback on Galendalia's actions is met with anger and immediately preceived as either trolling or a personal attack, both extreme responses to routine comments that fail to take assume good faith into consideration. I was accused of attacking Galendalia simply for pointing out he was too inexperienced to be making some complex edits and had failed to discuss and gain consensus in the correct place. But as ThatMontrealIP points out, the comments of other editors are perfectly benign, generally helpful comments designed to guide an editor, not attacks, trolling or anything like them. After two rage quits, and the stream of problematic activity on Galendalia's part over the last couple of weeks, the concerns some of us have about his editing are more than justified. It's just a shame that he seems incapable of or unwilling to step back, hear what we are saying, take away from our remarks what is helpful, and try to improve. Instead, all we see is walls of defensive text, promises that are soon broken (he's already moved beyond the three area he claims he plans to work on above), a failure to learn even the most basic procedures and a desire to engage in activities far better left to much, much more experienced editors. Equally problematic is his desire to supress editors' ability to discuss here, and instead to shut this thread down. I see a stream of blocks in his future if he continues like this. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Please kindly explain how I’ve stepped outside my 3 areas listed above? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 21:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also there are no “walls of defensive texts”, but rather explanations of why I did such actions. I have stepped back, I’m staying on my 3 activities and I have not “broken any promises”. I only know @The4lines: because of graduating from CVUA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Galendalia/Archive_1#Wow). I felt it was ok to take him up on his offer as he has a very positive track record on Wikipedia. I’m surprised you would go on about him not being here for more than 7 months. He expressed the same sentiments that @L235: did. My work has been commended (even by Kevin himself) and no where does it say I need to only work on main space articles. In fact, I am allowed to work behind the scenes and do other things that benefit WP as a whole. Yet it is constantly repeated I need to stick to editing the main space. The reason I’m trying to end this conversation is because I’d like to move on but yet I can’t when I keep getting notifications that someone yet has posted more on here about me. I feel that my rollback rights have nothing to do with this discussion because they were pulled mostly because of this discussion, so it is in fact opposite of what is stated. Even the admin stated that he felt based on this discussion to not renew my rights and pulled them a few days early. I have every right to defend myself against what is being said about me and my actions. I offered a very clear overview of why and what. I do see Serial as a troll towards me because the moment I make a small mistake it’s immediately posted here. I will also say I’m not the only one with these types of feelings as I’ve seen numerous conversations he’s involved in, an ANI he’s involved in, amongst other things. I feel as if the main contributors here are all scrutinizing everything I do. I called you out for a personal attack based on you stating I’m only here to play games which as I see it you violated “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.” You have not yet provided any diffs that prove I’m playing games but yet you are attaching my behavior as such. I have no problem assuming good faith, however, in the way some things are worded, I can’t take them as good faith. As for your comments Dr Margi:

False - “met with anger” (there was no anger in that. It is a statement on how I’m feeling about the introduction of something that is the opposite; see above for further details)

False - “dumping his DRN cases on ever-helpful user User:Robert McClenon, who graciously took them over.” (As I previously stated he never took them over.)

Personal Attack - “Now he's back and back at his same games.” (as stated above)

Not required of me to do - “...concentrate on editing in mainspace...”

Both false and again an attack on my personal behavior - “It's just a shame that he seems incapable of or unwilling to step back” (I have stepped back and I left all of the areas I said I would and have not gone back to them) (seems incapable of is the personal attack part)

False - “I was accused of attacking Galendalia simply for pointing out he was too inexperienced to be making some complex edits and had failed to discuss and gain consensus in the correct place.“ (as stated above that is not why you were accused of a personal attack it was because of your games comment)

Uh - “ I see a stream of blocks in his future if he continues like this.” (exactly for what when I’m defending myself and pointing out exactly what I see. I’ve accepted my mistakes, I’ve made the changes.) Seems like a threat to me.

Maybe it’s time for arbcom! Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 22:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: I don't really know how you could possibly think Dr Margi is threatening you. They're not an administrator and cannot block you. You need to worry when this lot starts telling you the same thing. Now, do I have anything to add. Yes. I see a stream of blocks in your future too. Nick (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia's mentor

Let me preface my comments by noting I have no issues with the editor who has kindly volunteered to adopt and mentor Galendalia aside from questioning the wisdom of an editor with seven months' experince taking on the task so soon. That said, The4lines has recently offered to adopt and mentor Galendalia after his rather lively first month editing here. The two appear to know each other from a shared interest on-site (I'm unclear what), and The4lines has been offering Galendalia a bit of encouragement during his recent difficulties. As a result of this discussion and comments made on Galendalia's talk page recommending he seek a mentor, The4lines stepped in and offered to take on the task. Moreover, he's set up a mentorship so that Galendalia is taking on the first tasks traditionally completed as a mentee. All commendable so far.

The problem is that The4lines only has seven months' experience on engWP himself, and Galendalia has already begun to step out of line; note the discussion above, but also his recent contributions that extend beyond his three planned areas of emphasis. I think The4lines's intentions are good, and he is eager to be a good mentor, but simply lacks the experience on engWP needed to take on a mentee as challenging as Galendalia. Galendalia needs a firm, highly experienced mentor who will draw lines when needed. The4lines is still learning himself (and we know how steep the learning curve is on this site, as well as how long it takes to ascend to the top). I'm not sure he has the knowledge and experience, however good his intentions, to recognize what lines need to be drawn, how and when. On the other hand, The4lines does seem to be able to communicate effectively with Galendalia thusfar, which is rare. But I can't help but think that perhaps The4lines would do well to mentor in collaboration with a much more experienced edito who can help him to guide and limit Galendalia, particularly where not mainspace editing activities are concerned. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmargi I totally agree with you, I'm still learning, you are right and Galendalia is starting to step out side the lines. So a much more experienced editor would be great here, as I can communicate with Galendalia and when the experienced editor can gudie me on how to help Galendalia and may also draw lines when needed. If any experienced editor would like to help me mentor Galendalia feel free to reach out on my Talk page. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 21:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have officially decided just to retire. It is sad that all of you look at personal attacks as just a certain set of rules when it actuality on the same page it states “Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.” That has definitely been done to me quite a few times starting on day 1 when I went into IRC and was setting it up and got my ass handed to me by an operator because I wasn’t cloaked or confirmed at 3 months. Just the way they said it and then only linking me to something irked me. I opened a pvt conversation with that individual and asked why they were being so hostile, and not only with me, but even towards people asking questions. The response I got was the exact same link and boom I’m off chat. It should also be noted the same operator did this to a very long time admin who has never been on IRC and he got the same treatment (either the same day or the next I forget). This then preceded and still continues to this day. I have read a number of essays here on Wikipedia that some of you may have written or you may not have. After reading through a lot of the ANI over the past couple hours, I feel some people should go read them again as a refresher. I’ve read up on the proper way to handle things and honestly a lot of the feedback I’ve gotten over the past month was in the form of bullying. This entire conversation should not have even started because there was not much of an attempt to persuade me or even really much of an explanation and I explained I disagreed and boom I got this ANI notice, which has turned into, what I see as, an all out war on me. I do not see admins making the statement “you should not be part of this until you get more experience (or in some cases you are too inexperienced) as very futile in helping a new(er)(ish) editor in any form. How about “I think you may have overstepped a little. Here is how we can approve this:

Hey Galendalia I see you are wanting to help at xyz. We usually prefer to hold off for new users joining these high level discussions so soon. Allow me to guide you so you can understand the policies as they relate to whatever, here are some links, etc etc.” It sure as hell beats “Slow down and learn the policies” great! What policies? There are a shit load of them and they are all over the place. One policy links to 7 other policies which links to 3 other policies and this cycle continues. I have every right to stand up for myself and explain myself, however, if someone is going to try to quote something I did or said, they need to put the full thing out there. Not just the part that shows the bad. There was a lot of good I did too in my short time here. I have worked with some great admins who have taken the few minutes to show me the error and how to correct it and where the policy is. They did not disparage me, in fact they made me feel welcome. I made many newcomers feel welcome too and fully explained why I may have reverted something. I’ve participated in many 3ORs in which the feud settled and the three of us came to a conclusion about whatever it was. How did I do that? I cited the policies the policies that the other admins and generous long time users has given to me in my arsenal of tools for Wikipedia. There were times I may not have agreed with someone’s POV in those discussions but we continued the conversation politely and worked through it. I can handle being called names, I can handle a lot of things but when the discussion has gone on this long and not one person has addressed any of the points I made here, but instead has to keep adding their 2¢ or 50¢, yes it pisses me off. One person out of this entire conversation had a positive statement to say about me. Just one! But others seem hell bent on trying to get whatever they want. Yes Nick I did see that as I threat. I don’t know who all is admins unless I interact with them on a regular basis. I don’t ever recall any conversation with Dr Margi until this thread in which she inserted her POV with me “back to playing my games” and whatever else she said which I’ve addressed. I started to join the GOCE but after my first article I had not done things right and they kindly pointed out what was wrong and I thanked them and left the group as we had all agreed I need to learn some things about editing. I’m not as bad a person as everyone in this thread is making me out to be which is highly disappointing and disrespectful to another human. Being in the military, while being great, has one major downfall which I have. I do my best to not become argumentative but again when the tally is 9 against me. I don’t have a choice but to defend myself. When I’ve asked questions it’s met with go to this board and open a request. When you say that if there are special circumstances like with RFCs then when directing someone there it should be mentioned hey the have special caveats make sure to read them or instead of linking to the board itself how about to the instructions which then makes it a lot clearer. I have done that a lot. Instead of say oh go to WP:BLP I actually give them the link to the exact part I’m looking at so they don’t have to go through a 20 page article looking for something. I still do not get how I “broke my promises” and “went into other areas” after I said I wouldn’t. I’ve spent most of the weekend either cooking, working on the new layout for the spoken Wikipedia project (of which no policies are being changed, just the layout) and I answered one question on the Teahouse earlier today. Even my (now ex) mentor is saying I stepped outside my lines but no one is saying how. I spoke with the user and it was regarding basically an edit war where numerous people were tagged in it. I archived it with a link to his page (as a pre-emptive response to not get an dispute going on the Teahouse) and we talked about it there and I suggested (after he provided clarity) some options. I was actually surprised a user of over a year would even post that at the Teahouse. He decided to follow normal dispute process and start a conversation on the talk page. I have no issue with having a mentor and it doesn’t matter to me who. I noticed 4lines asked if anyone would be willing and not a person offered up. So that shows me how the people here operate. I wish you all the best. G 2600:8801:C500:160:EDAD:CF6D:8F9E:A7E9 (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Galendalias' responses

• I have removed myself from being a Teahouse host and will no longer participate in that venue until I have been here longer. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have read and understood what everyone is talking about on here and I feel that right now I am accepting fault for my mistakes (no matter how trivial), learning from them, and moving on to make Wikipedia better for everyone. I have learned from everything listed here and I am stopping my defensive stances and accepting I scewed up and I have limited myself to minimal activities at this point. As stated above, I have removed myself from the Teahouse and anything that involves any kind of dispute (other than CVU related) activites. Furthermore, instead of waiting for everything to build up, I would ask that you kindly and politely inform me of something you see that I am doing that is related to the above. Please explain why and point me to the right direction so I can learn. No one learns when they are just told (as mentioned above) to go to a link and read the other 30 links as that does not allow someone to edit. It is my hope we can move on from this now and work on other things more important in our lives (real or otherwise). If anyone would like to be my mentor that meets the requirements outlined above, I would gladly accept. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 23:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: I would like to be a co-adopter for Galendalia. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 01:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would not recommend this. Your own competency is only fractionally better than Galendalia's. You are not suitably experienced to provide the necessary guidance that is needed to keep Galendalia from getting into further trouble on this project. Nick (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Nick I have spoken with a few admins and they suggested the same thing. I am curious though as what you mean by Galendalia from getting into further trouble on this project. Could you kindly explain please? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Galendalia I don't want to speak for Nick, but he might mean: You've only been here a month, but managed to rack up a ~7,000-word ANI thread. Thing is, it being not a particularly auspicious start is probably the point. ——Serial ^# 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129 That largely covers it. I was also somewhat unimpressed by Galendalia retiring, then almost immediately unretiring when 'their' supersize ANI thread was closed. Nick (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Nick Thank you for clearing that up. I did not come back after it was closed. I came back because after reading all the issues I did make mistakes and I accepted those (see above paragraph). I feel I could do well if I stay in my lane and follow the policies. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:OWN by Freeknowledgecreator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological.

• freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Freeknowledgecreator appears to have appointed himself as WP:OWNer of these articles related to the pseudoscience that is conversion therapy. He's reverting all attempts to improve the articles, and edit-warring to include inappropriate images which convey a false impression of legitimacy (see WP:NPOVN § Freudian pictures, Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality § Freud's view of homosexuality). He's also fighting a one-man battle against all comers at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. All this is normal, except that the edit warring really needs to stop.

It's not a simple WP:ANEW job because the reverts cover two articles and persistently reintroduce problematic content such as (a) a false claim made about Freud's views on homosexuality; (b) the image of Freud, which everyone else who has commented to date agrees is inappropriate; (c) primary material from tendentious sources like the Washington Examiner (e.g. the statement that Rod Dreher, a (Redacted), according to the linked article, criticised Amazon's removal of the book, cited to the primary source, Dreher's opiniopn piece "Amazon.com Surrenders To The Homintern" in American Conservative; for the younger of us, "homintern" is a reference to Comintern, the bogeyman of the McCarthy witch-hunts). I have been unable to find any reliable secondary reporting on the primary-sourced opinions I removed, which also include Vice and an Australian queer website.

Freeknowledgecreator disputes the that the image and caption imply that conversion therapy fits within the mainstream practice of psychoanalysis or that Nicolosi's claims about Freud were accurate (spoiler: they weren't; "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too."[Freud, Sigmund. "Historical Notes: A Letter From Freud." American Journal of Psychiatry 107, no. 10 (1951): 786-787.]). At this point, despite his numerous reverts to include it, he appears to be alone in this view. Guy (help!) 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted edits - for example, by you - that I have every right to regard as poor and harmful edits, and I am not sorry for doing so. You seem to be obsessed by pictures of Freud and have attributed an utterly unwarranted importance to them. That the images are "inappropriate" and "convey a false impression of legitimacy" is your baseless assertion. They are entirely appropriate images in articles related to psychoanalysis and you are wrong to remove them. Anyone who reviews the revision history of those articles will note that you have also edit warred. Your comment that the image caption at one of the articles makes "a false claim made about Freud's views on homosexuality" is itself false. The image caption is about how one person interprets or understand's Freud's views; it is not about Freud's views themselves. JzG's claim that "everyone else who has commented to date" agrees that the image of Freud is "inappropriate" is also factually wrong. No one but him supported his position at one of those articles, at the other article, (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality), Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate. I could go on to dispute JzG's claims, but it would be pointless. The bottom line is, the whole thing is a content dispute that can be resolved by discussion. Wikipedia has standard dispute resolution procedures, and they can be allowed to do their work. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2020

JzG's statement above about Rod Dreher is a BLP violation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is, if "according to the linked article" he is described on those terms. But beyond that, it seems that participants do not favour your version, so why are you edit warring to include it, anyway? El_C 20:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The article on Rod Dreher does not describe Dreher using either of the terms JzG used to describe him. If you are "not sure", then presumably the comment by JzG should be removed, to err on the side of caution and protecting living people. As for the Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality article, you are right that most of the editors who have commented do not support the image, so I have removed it for the time being. The reasons given for opposing it have been spurious, of course. Where other issues are concerned we simply need more time to work things out and establish consensus. JzG's aggressive editing approach has not helped. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't sure because I was still checking. Now having checked, I suppose it's open to interpretation, but probably ought to have been phrased less sharply. El_C 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, it is a BLP violation. Let's not deny that for the sake of not hurting JzG's feelings. He is guilty of doing the same thing at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. I won't repeat the comment he made about Dreher there, but you can see it for yourself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have redacted it. El_C 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, the article describes Dreher as promoting a racist book, this [12] makes rather a nicely nuanced case for him trying and failing not to be racist. The fact that he's anti LGBTQ is not in the least controversial: he has a history of tweets against gay marriage and trans people.

But I don't care that much: the issue is that he's a right-wing commentator writing an opinion piece in a right-wing journal, he has precisely zero expertise on the subject of conversion therapy, so the inclusion of his diatribe with its, yes, bigoted title ("homintern", a clear reference to the "homosexual agenda"), from the primary source with no secondary source discussing it, is WP:UNDUE. As are the queer voices in QNews and Daniel Newhauser in Vice. We don't include contentious primary opinion pieces in low-quality sources from people who are not subject matter experts, especially when we have reliable secondary mainstream sources that cover the essential facts. Guy (help!) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable for an article dealing with a controversy to state what people, rightly or wrongly, said about that controversy. If something controversial becomes a matter of public debate, it is not only permissible, but necessary, to state what people said about it whether they happen to be experts or not. The controversy is not directly about conversion therapy, but rather concerns the rightness or wrongness of a bookseller selling a particular book - no one can really claim to be an "expert" about such an inherently contentious ethical issue. Your position is indefensible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, have you read WP:RS at all? Reliable, Independent, Secondary is the Wikipedia trifecta. Primary opinionated sources in opinionated publications fail at least two and usually all three arms (e.g. the Washington Times is generally considered a source to avoid).

You keep making these statements of opinion-as-fact. My position is not "indefensible". It is absolutely defensible. You might not agree with it, but the idea that extremist non-expert opinions should not be quoted direct from controversial primary sources is hardly indefensible. Guy (help!) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It is 100% reasonable to use these sources for statements about opinions that appeared in them, which is the only way they are being used. The opinions of the writers of those publications are being presented only as such, not as statements of objective fact. Your complaint that the writers are "non-experts" shows a misunderstanding of the issue. The controversy was over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one is an "expert" on that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, no it's not. Primary sourced opinions from non-experts are rarely considered appropriate unless there is evidence from secondary sources that they are considered significant. There is an old saying that opinions are like arse holes: everybody has one. Reliable, independent, secondary. Otherwise every single article could be overwhelmed by POV-pushers mining the internet for quotes they like. Guy (help!) 22:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely and utterly, even willfully, missing the point. The controversy is over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one can claim to be an "expert" on such a subject, making the "expert" status of the writers irrelevant. Your position is ludicrous. It would mean that Wikipedia would simply be unable to discuss an important public controversy, over an issue which no one can claim to be an expert about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, the facts give the lie to this. For example, you reverted content on the scientific status of conversion therapy three times within 24 hours, [13], [14], [15] despite unambiguous consensus on Talk that this was appropriate and necessary for NPOV, but left it in after I added one minor formatting change [16]. The RfC that produced consensus for inclusion was started, it appears, because you kept reverting Markworthen e.g. [17], [18], who was adding the scientific status of conversion therapy. Edit summaries such as "Restore previous; thank you, but I do not consider any of your changes improvements" are representative. While it is absolutely clear from these and your comment above that you don't consider anyone else's edits to be an improvement, it looks very much from the Talk page as if you are in a minority of one. The same applies to your cllaim of a "baseless assertion" about the image which you consider "entirely appropriate" - again, every other editor who has commented to date disagrees with you. Guy (help!) 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your claim about the image is factually false, as already noted ("Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate"). The RFC is ongoing. Despite what you claim, it has not produced consensus in favor of your specific edits. You should simply be patient and let the RFC and talk page discussion proceed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, I have found the comment to which you refer. You are correct: Bilorv was not against inclusion. So that is 5:2 against. In particular, Muboshgu, an admin and a psychologist, and Markworthen, also a PhD psychologist, both support my "indefensible" interpretation of how the image is likely to be viewed and the inappropriateness of its inclusion. Maybe you'd like to change "indefensible" to a word that more accurately reflects the fact that my opinion is in the majority and supported by two subject matter experts? Guy (help!) 22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, there's an RfC? Where? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Wikipedia does not give any special status or authority to people who either are, or claim to be, credentialed experts. I am not moved by statements unsupported by evidence whether they come from credentialed experts or from the man in the street. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, are you "moved" by the content of Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality? He didn't believe homosexuality could be "changed". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to answer pointless, vexatious, or presumptuous questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You say you won't be moved by statements unsupported by evidence, so I point out the evidence on Wiki and you have nothing to say? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I will of course not answer irrelevant personal questions. You should not ask them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, "irrelevant"? This whole thing started because you're trying to tie Freud to conversion therapy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I will not answer irrelevant or inappropriate questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, good thing I haven't asked any of those. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the RfC is about inclusion of the scientific status of conversion therapy, at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

What I hadn't realised is that when Freeknowledgecreator argues for the stable version, what he means is the version he himself wrote from whole cloth. This goes a long way to explaining the WP:OWN issue. Looking at the history, the first substantive edits by anyone else were by Markworthen in April, and were promptly reverted by Freeknowledgecreator, leading to that RfC.

Freeknowledgecreator doesn't just have a dog in the fight, he is the dog. Guy (help!) 22:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point that I might actually have good reasons for reverting other people's edits. Markworthen is definitely editing the article in good faith and trying to be constructive. Unfortunately his very first edit to the article introduced a major factual error - as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, I get the sense that you overrepresenting WP:FRINGE views well outside the scope of mainstream due weight. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That has never been my intention and you present no evidence that I have done any such thing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The use of Freud [19], as stated above, is an example of that, I would challenge. I'm sorry, but that comes across as tendentious editing. El_C 23:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All I did in that edit was restore an image caption that was, in fact, perfectly correct. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am of the opinion that it was a highly WP:UNDUE and borderline tendentious. El_C 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be undue and tendentious to restore a factually accurate statement? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly. El_C 23:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A factually accurate statement is a factually accurate statement. If you believe a factually accurate statement "distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly", the burden is on you to explain how. In my view, a factually accurate statement about what Nicolosi writes in his book is not a way of "invoking Freud's authority", and it is unclear to me what "authority" you believe Freud could have. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you really just ask how the founder of psychoanalysis could be an authority? Anyway, the image of Freud with that caption serves to editorialize. Its usage as such is, at best, highly unusual. El_C 00:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

All this discussion has come down to is you insinuating that the content I have added to the article is somehow biased and providing nothing of substance to back up your accusations. You cannot plausibly claim that a caption that you actually admit is a factually accurate statement is a form of editorializing. That is simply a baseless claim on your part. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not baseless. You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption. As an uninvolved admin, who may choose to invoke WP:ARBPS, that isn't an so much an insinuation as it is an evaluation. El_C 00:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption" is an assertion that you need to justify and provide evidence for. You have provided no justification and no evidence. I believe there is none you could provide (the image and the caption are not even in the article at this time). You are, it appears, proposing sanctioning me on the basis of claims you have made that you cannot support. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have substantiated my position amply, I challenge. If I were to propose sanctioning you, it would be more so because you appear to be seemingly oblivious to your borderline tendentious editing. Continuing to ask for "evidence" when I have addressed the matter already, does not do you credit, I also challenge. El_C 00:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you have not substantiated your position. You have made a series of baseless or unsupported claims (such as that a factually accurate statement is biased editorializing), which you apparently want or expect me to accept automatically, in the absence of any evidence or any justification for them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you are entitled to think that I failed to substantiate. I obviously disagree. But regardless of that impasse, I may still use my discretion as an uninvolved admin. El_C 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, the same issue with FKC has been addressed by multiple editors(including me) in Christchurch mosque shootings article i.e [20] by Netoholic. It sure tells you something that another editor from another article made the same complaint against this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  In other words, you're wasting your time to make an "I don't like you" comment. Find something better to do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, it's worth noting that the number of times when you and I agree on something is rather small, so this may indeed be significant. Guy (help!) 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  The issue started when I removed a content from a section called "Background". The content was clearly original research. The sources were from 2014 and 2013 and they are all not related to the topic of the article, WP:OR To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. It included this In 2014 and 2015, local press reported an allegation that a congregation member had been radicalised at the mosque.". This was in the background section of an incident of a shooting by a white superamist who killed 50 muslims in the mosques. However, I got reverted by this editor who said Undid revision 947758337 by SharabSalam (talk) seems both relevant and helpful for readers in terms of putting events in context. When I started a talk page discussion about this, I added a synthesis tag to the section but I got reverted by the editor FKC and everyone who tried to add that tag was reverted by the editor FKC. Another issue, in the same article, and after everyone agreed to change "Islam is practised by over 57,000 New Zealanders, around 1.2% of the population" to "Based on 2018 census information, over 57,000 New Zealand residents affiliated with Islam, around 1.00% of the total population." FKC reverted saying "Thank you, but it is unclear, vague, and ambiguous what "affiliated with Islam" is supposed to mean; it is much more helpful to readers to use language people can actually understand". The other editor just reverted FKC disruptive revert without an edit summary because it was clear that this editor is just reverting any edit in that section. FKC then reverted saying "No. That is not good enough. You cannot make unexplained reverts. That is rude and of no use to other editors. You must give a reason for your edits and you must discuss disputed edits on the talk page - stop being so rude". Although this has been discussed and agreed on in the talk page. Another editor comes and revert FKC [21] without any edit summary. And as I said above, he didnt let anyone put "orginial research" tag to that section [22]. There is no question that the content in that section was original research. Yet, FKC was always saying that there is no evidence. I dont know what "evidence" he wanted. The editor who should bring the evidence is the one who is claiming that the content is related. I saw this discussion in my watchlist and I was surprised that FKC is also making troubles in other articles. Also, this is not a "I dont like you" comment. I dont have any like or dislike feelings towards this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• There is no ongoing disagreement at the Christchurch mosque shootings article. Your lengthy, self-important comments serve no purpose. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  It demonstrates the WP:OWN issue with your edits that I'm aware of which has been noted by multiple editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  It demonstrates that I at times disagree with other editors, which is true of nearly all active editors. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  So you kept removing the original research tag from a section that was full of original research and multiple editors have said in the talk page that it contains originial research [23][24][25][26][27] and reverting any attempt to remove the original research? [28][29][30][31]. This is just a dispute? Im not the only one who noted your WP:OWN issue. There is also Netoholic [32].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  Since there is no ongoing dispute at that article your comments appear to serve no purpose except to abuse me for having disagreed with you in the past about a long-since-resolved issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  This thread is about your WP:OWN issue. You actually made me leave that discussion because I was upset of how you reverts all the edits that were intented to improve that section. Can you tell me how is this information in the background of the Christchurch mosque shootings that is sourced to irrelevant sources from 2014 "In 2014 and 2015, local press reported an allegation that a congregation member had been radicalised at the mosque" is "both relevant and helpful for readers in terms of putting events in context"?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not interested in discussing irrelevant past issues. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• You may also notice that FKC usually says "no evidence", "what evidence do you have?" and "there is no evidence" when the fact is not disputable. For example, someone says this is original research because sources that are used are not related to the topic of the article, FKC would say "what evidence do you have" or "no evidence for what you are saying". Imagine if someone in the morning said "it's morning" and the other asked "what evidence do you have that it is the morning", what FKC does is the same.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The following NPOVN discussion from 2 days ago, which I have just closed as being superfluous to this more recent report, is also of note, I think. El_C 07:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (FKC)

Freeknowledgecreator is topic-banned from the subject of conversion therapy.

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 10:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as being unnecessary, and based on false and unsupported accusations by the proposer. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - is this more of a content issue than a behavioral issue? Has anyone tried Wikipedia:Dispute resolution with FKC yet? BOZ (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  BOZ, no it's not. Read the above: FKC not only rejects any edits other than his own, but also rejects, out of hand, the possibility that any view other than his is defensible, even when (as is the case every time thus far) he is in a minority, sometimes a minority of one. Edit warring, misleading content and WP:OWN. Guy (help!) 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Your claim that I reject "any edits" other than my own is false. I definitely consider some of Markworthen's edits at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality helpful. I can give specific examples if needed. You are trying to support a topic ban on me using claims that are outright false. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Boz. More of a content dispute and edit-warring by both parties. Be careful of any boomerangs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I can't see any justification for that. It's just a question of finding the right balance between describing the content of these books and the current position. It would help if the arguing would stop. And if images and captions seem to be contributing to the problem, it would make sense to remove them. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This whole thread leaves me quite unconvinced that FKN is taking an appropriately neutral and encyclopedic view of this subject. If a topic ban is what it takes to get them to move on to something where they can be more neutral, then so be it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think the user's extensive history of combative and relentless responses to any level of criticism is a clear indicator that these issues of ownership, edit warring, and general refusal to engage in civil discussion permeate their editing behavior in this topic and beyond. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support in lieu of other measures, at least temporarily. This thread demonstrates a wp:battle attitude and strongly gives off the impression of WP:IDHT. A topic ban is a very blunt hammer, but to get this level of disruption from an image and caption is a sign that perhaps energies are best diverted elsewhere. CMD (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The sheer amount of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE on display below in the discussion is frankly ridiculous, especially their "discussion" with EdChem towards the current end, who seems to be pretty well on point with their description of the situation. Heiro 05:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • My mistake, in that discussion, if it is one, is perhaps simply to go on trying to discuss in a situation in which fruitful discussion is perhaps impossible. I don't see that this is a reason I should be topic banned, however. As for the contested caption, it is now out of the article and I would not dream of restoring it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I tried to get FKC to engage with the problems that are evident in his editing. Sadly, the discussion below portrays FKC as unable to reflect on whether his editing in the area is neutral, based on reliable sources, accurate and encyclopaedic, and avoiding of false balance in handling fringe and pseudosciene material. I concur with JzG that he does not accept good-faith input from others and with Heironymous Rowe that IDHT seems a serious problem. Just to be clear, my problem with FKC is not that we disagree, it is that FKC is not engaging with the actual issues – the quality of his editing, his actions, problematic OWN behaviour, and the goal of encyclopaedic content for WP's readers. I hope that Nil Einne will take another look at contemplate some action. EdChem (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as uninvolved. Between the above and below discussions, it's clear that FKC has decided that what they believe is relevant must be factual, what other people believe is opinion. There is no comprehension that they could be wrong, just a continuous wall of WP:IDHT and dismissing anyone who disagrees with them. It's intractable, and I think a topic ban is the minimum that will get through to them that their method is not collaborative or helpful to the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support While acknowledging FKC's dedication, collaboration requires occasionally taking advice from others. One counter example: diff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the above comments, and because I think it would actually do FKC some good to realize that they are not right on every occasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• The behavior by FKC below is pretty astounding in its clueless combativeness (e.g., as noted by and in response to JoelleJay). I am not sure that this is the exactly right sanction to fit the nature of the problem, but I am at least not opposed to it. --JBL (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe the discusion above highlights the core of the problem: it's not that FKC disagrees with people, but that he asserts that no other interpretation but his is reasonable or possible. He has refused to accept good-faith input from uninvolved editors, e.g. El_C, and reverts all edits that he does not like. This is a violation of WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Conversion therapy is a contentious topic, where religiousn freedom advocates argue for the "right" to pursue treatments that professional psychologists reject as harmful and ineffective, leading to legislative bans on its promotion and the usual fights over whether the state has the right to ban harmful practices when they are pursued out of religious belief. Against this background the involvement of an editor who refuses to acknowledge the validity of any POV other than his own, is a serious problem. Any editor can become passionate about a topic, but when that steps over into content ownership we have to take action. Guy (help!) 10:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I take from this is that you are angry that I have disagreed with you and some other editors and want to punish me. If you are trying to insinuate that I have a perspective in favor of conversion therapy you are mistaken. The truth is that I have no interest in promoting conversion therapy, and indeed, I have little interest in conversion therapy per se. I have not, for example, made that many edits at Conversion therapy, and certainly not edit warred with other editors there. So what justification could you possibly give for banning me from that article? This edit is a typical example of the edits I have made. Do you see a problem with it? What I have been interested in are articles about books related to the topic area, eg, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals and Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. In some cases, I am the only significant contributor to those articles (as with Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals) or at least the key contributor (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality). You have said exactly nothing to justify banning me from them. I am content to resolve whatever disagreements exist at those articles through discussion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I tried warning Freeknowledgecreator on their talk page about their inappropriate usage of images and captions in a manner that I have evaluated as borderline tendentious editing. Unfortunately, they have not responded with any sort of introspection about that. Which, I'm sorry to say, is not a promising sign. El_C 10:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You made some unsupported claims asserting that a caption that you actually admit is factually accurate was biased editorializing, something which you have never justified. The edit at Conversion therapy I linked to above gives the lie to JzG's implied accusation that I am on some crusade to promote conversion therapy. It is a baseless smear. He comments, "Conversion therapy is a contentious topic, where religiousn freedom advocates argue for the "right" to pursue treatments that professional psychologists reject as harmful and ineffective, leading to legislative bans on its promotion and the usual fights over whether the state has the right to ban harmful practices when they are pursued out of religious belief". Where is my advocacy of 'the "right" to pursue treatments that professional psychologists reject as harmful and ineffective'? It doesn't exist. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about that. I have yet to evaluate that which you allege as being a "smear." And "lie" is not the best term to use — rather, assume that maybe there has been an error rather than intentional deception. As well, you keep calling my evaluation unsupported. I argue that this conclusion is false. Moreover, you have received an explanation from multiple participants, including myself — input which you have failed to substantively and specifically address. The behaviour is coming across as increasingly tendentious even as we speak. Finally, you need to fairly represent the available reliable sources in a manner that reflects due weight. It is not your right to do otherwise — rather, it is your obligation to adhere to that principle. El_C 11:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"gives the lie to" is a common English expression. It means that it shows that something is false. It is not actually an accusation of lying and should not be taken for one. However, JzG's accusations about me are clearly false. He has implied that I have tried to promote conversion therapy and that I should thus be topic banned from the entire area. The history of the dedicated article on Conversion therapy shows that this is utterly false. I have A) never promoted conversion therapy and B) never done anything that a reasonable person would conclude justifies banning me there. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to edit the main conversion therapy article to be promoting conversion therapy on Wikipedia. That's not a prerequisite. Again, I'm only aware of the problem with the two image and caption sets. And the problem that you don't realize it being a problem. I have no further comment on the proposal at this time. El_C 11:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not promoting conversion therapy on Wikipedia. I have never done it anywhere in any form. People making completely false accusations against me is "problematic". The caption of the image of Freud at Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals states, "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Bieber and his colleagues discuss Freud's views". What exactly would the problem be with that bland and utterly uncontroversial statement? SlimVirgin saw no problem with the image and stated as much on the article's talk page. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

True, that Bieber caption is less problematic than the Nicolosi one, but it still comes across as an inappropriate appeal to authority. I respect Sarah, but in this case I would disagree with her on this matter. You are taking too many liberties with images and captions if this is your modus operandi. El_C 11:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is an utterly unremarkable, bland, and factually accurate statement. It is not "problematic" or an "appeal to authority". That is an entirely baseless claim. Stating that Freud is the "founder of psychoanalysis" is simply true, not a suggestion that his views or anyone else's views are correct. If SlimVirgin too now stands accused of promoting the views of Irving Bieber, then that is a strange development. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. You are responsible for your own edits. Maybe it's relatively benign, but along with the much, much worse Nicolosi caption, it perhaps begins to illustrate a pattern. That you fail to see this connection is not on me. El_C 11:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't. It's just that if you accuse me of promoting the views of Irving Bieber, because I support the inclusion of an image of Freud in an article, then by that logic, SlimVirgin should stand accused of the same thing, since she supported the image too. Why the double standard? "Maybe it's relatively benign" is an empty, vague comment that nicely shows that you cannot clearly identify any real problem with the image. There isn't one. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You are still failing to see a connection between the two Freud image and captions sets. Again, that is not on me. El_C 12:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You have again made a vague, evasive comment that contributes nothing to the discussion. Whatever else it is, the "maybe" part of your comment above is not the language of someone who has clearly identified an important issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, continue to ignore the connection. I am done with this comment thread. El_C 12:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, that's interesting, since I am not angry at all. When you say you disagree with me and "some other editors", that's somewhat disingenuous: you disagree with me and somewhere between most and all other editors depending on the specific question. That's the point. You give a very strong impression of weighting your own opinion somewhere between 10x and ∞x that of any other contributor. It's disappointing that at this late stage you're still misperceiving this as "make the nasty man go away" and mistaking broad statements about the contentiousness of the topic area (which are accurate, to the best of my ability) as attacks on your own personal view on it. I have no clue what your personal view on conversion therapy is, and I don't care: the problem is not your personal view but your reversion to your preferred version of the article, regardless of who edits it or what rationale they might give, based on comments and edit summaries that strongly imply that you have appointed yourself as arbiter of what goes in there. Guy (help!) 11:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Disagreeing with other editors is neither forbidden nor a reason for banning someone from a topic area in itself. It might become that only if an editor is unwilling to respect consensus. I am content to resolve disagreements through discussion, and try to establish consensus. You have over-reacted to some behavior at two articles by proposing banning me from the entire topic area of conversion therapy. This is despite the absence of anything like the behavior you see as a problem at the Conversion therapy article itself. Your proposal is not reasonable. Your (very recent) claim that you do not think I am pro-conversion therapy is inconsistent with, for example, your comments at Talk:Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. They imply that I have tried to promote Bieber's views by adding an image of Freud. That does amount to accusing me of taking a pro-conversion therapy stance, since Bieber supported conversion therapy. The accusation is baseless. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, dude, you might want to stop digging. I have repeatedly made the point that disagreeing with people is fine. The problem is when you assert that no other vierw is even defensible, and that is the problem here. Guy (help!) 11:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If I really thought "no other view is even defensible", I would not have A) compromised by removing the image of Freud from Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality and B) done all I can to try to discuss things with other editors there to establish consensus, even when this is difficult. I am the one who suggested the ongoing request for comment. I wouldn't have done so had I seen no merit in the views of other people. Again, why would you propose banning me from the entire topic area of conversion therapy due to disagreements at two articles, neither of which is Conversion therapy? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I missing something? AFAICT, one of the articles that is of concern is one on a book about conversion therapy, so the whole article would clearly be covered by such a topic ban. The other is also on a book, with a slightly wider focus, but still deals significantly with conversion therapy. If you are causing problems in those articles, it seems likely that the subject area of concern is conversion therapy and the topic ban therefore makes sense. It's a bit like asking why someone is proposing a topic ban for the Global warming subject area when they were only causing problems in IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and Scientific consensus on climate change but never caused problems in the global warming article per se. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The disagreements at those two articles primarily relate to the inclusion or exclusion of images. If JzG or others consider my views about the inclusion or exclusion of images a problem, then why propose a topic ban on conversion therapy-related articles, rather than a topic ban on images? It is illogical. I would have every right to suggest that JzG is the one causing problems at those articles with his unreasonable positions, and propose banning him from them, except that unlike him, I don't propose banning people from articles when they disagree with me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the concerns surrounding your use of images relates to concerning you appear to be using them to promote conversion therapy. In other words, the specific concern is that you are unable to edit acceptable in the area. While I make no judgment on the accuracy of this view, it's not illogical to ban you from the subject area, anymore than than it would be to ban someone from the global warming subject area if they added misleading images to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and Scientific consensus on climate change. Perhaps a more focused topic ban of modifying images including captions in the global warming subject area would be sufficient. But it's not illogical to propose the wider ban.

What is mostly illogical is a ban on images, when the problem is the editor is unable to edit acceptably in the subject area, perhaps because of strong existing views or whatever. An editor who is misusing images to promote a certain view point in a subject area is not likely to move on to a misusing images to promote a different view point in a different subject area. But an editor who is misusing images to promote a certain view point in a set of articles may very well move on to misuse text to promote a certain view point in that set of articles. In fact, AFAICT, there was already a concern over text since it related to the captions as well as the images themselves.

Also, considering the outcome of the NPOVN thread, I find it hard to believe that JzG is the primary one causing problems in relation to this set of images. That doesn't mean your editing is enough to justify a topic ban, but it does mean your suggestion that "JzG is the one causing problems at those articles with his unreasonable positions, and propose banning him from them" is silly. There may or may not have been sufficient reason to propose topic banning you, but there's almost zero evidence that I've seen that you have cause to propose topic banning them.

In fact, your whole response in this discussion reeks of someone who doesn't understand why their editing is of concern, or how we handle stuff on wikipedia. And yes, I'm including the nonsense defence about your lack of causing problems in the specific conversion therapy article, and your further nonsense image topic ban suggestion. And while I'm not saying this is enough to merit a topic ban, it's understandable why Guy is so frustrated if this is the sort of stuff they have to put up with. I strongly suggest you think carefully about your editing since frankly while I have hardly looked at the dispute, your responses here are to me strongly indicative that your editing is a problem. You're basically even if not intentionally, attempting to talk yourself into a topic ban.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The accusation that I have promoted conversion therapy is a complete falsehood. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

WTF does that have to do with anything I said? Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned an accusation against me. It seems pertinent to respond that the accusation is false. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I never mentioned any accusation that you "promoted conversion therapy". Please read what I wrote more carefully. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"From what I can tell, the concerns surrounding your use of images relates to concerning you appear to be using them to promote conversion therapy." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongest apologies, you are right. I should never have said that. I tried to make my response as general as possible to avoid issues like this but forgot I had said that at the beginning. I also should have checked my comment more carefully before responding to avoid this confusion and my false accusation against you. Again I can't apologise enough for these mistakes. What I should have said is "appear to be using them in a manner which misleads readers about conversion therapy". What I was trying to convey, but failed to, is that the concerns over your editing related to whether they are sufficiently neutral in the subject area of conversion therapy. They don't relate to how you use images per se, but how you used images in this particular instance because they seem to indicate a problem with your editing in the subject area of conversion therapy. Therefore a topic ban on conversion therapy is logical, whether it's justified and whether it's too broad. A topic ban on images is not particularly logical because the reason for your editing problems seems to be because of how you edit in the subject area, rather than because of how you handle images. As I've now uncovered, it was a fool's errand anyway. Despite your misleading claim, this isn't just about images. Concerns have been raised about your editing in those articles beyond simply images. I should have looked more carefully from the get go rather than take you at your word this was just about images when it's quite clearly not. (Although I do stand by comment on the logics of topic bans if they was just about images.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said the dispute was just about images. Obviously there are other disagreements as well (the disagreement was apparently only an image-related one at one of the articles). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) The more I look into it, the sillier your response is. According to the opening statement "reverting all attempts to improve the articles <removed> He's also fighting a one-man battle against all comers at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality". When I visit that talk page I see extensive comments by Freeknowledgecreator. Again, I make no judgment on whether the opening comment is accurate, and especially not whether Freeknowledgecreator is causing sufficient problems to merit a topic ban. But the idea that this is just about images and their captions seems false. The suggestion that a topic ban on images would be a better alternative is just completely silly. Again, I'm not sure if I can be bothered to look into this enough to support or oppose a topic ban, but my current view is a full hearted supported based nearly totally on the utter nonsense responses in this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The proposal that I be banned from the topic area of conversion therapy misses the point that I am not even interested in the two articles where there have been disagreements primarily because they relate to conversion therapy, rather I am primarily interested in them because they are book-related articles. Try to avoid making overly long wall-of-text comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don'r really give a flying flip why you're interested in the article. If you are unable to edit acceptable in the set of articles for some reason, then that is a problem we may need to deal with. It doesn't matter why you got interested in those articles. Again, if someone is causing problems in he 5AR and scientific consensus articles, it doesn't matter if they're interested in those articles because of an interest in the concept of scientific consensus, if the problems they're causing indicate they cannot edit acceptably in the global warming subject area and so should be topic banned from it. Your response on wall-of-text comments is noted however fairly ironic considering this existing ANI which is full of such comments by you, and checking out that article talk page shows more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(EC) continued from edit of my comment at 03:22 above. This obviously isn't enough to actually support the topic ban, hence why despite this view I make no judgement on the actual merits of a topic ban. But I can't emphasise strongly enough to Freeknowledgecreator that their responses here are basically the opposite of a boomerang. They're basically trying very, very hard to talk themselves into a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I have caused no problems at Conversion therapy, or most other conversion therapy articles, it is completely unfair to suggest I should be banned from them. In the case of the two book-related articles under dispute, the problem has been caused by edit-warring between myself and JzG, and I obviously am not solely to blame; JzG's behavior has also been a problem. I understand that the way forward is through patient discussion and building of consensus. Again, the proposal of a topic ban is unfair. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think my involvement in this discussion is at an end unless I can be bothered looking more into the dispute to figure out if there is sufficient justification for a topic ban. It's clear I'm not getting through to you. But let me repeat one final time, that if you continue to ignore the good faith concerns others have expressed with your editing, and especially whether you are able to edit acceptably in the subject area considering the way you have edited so far, and refuse to take onboard such concerns and improve your editing then don't be surprised if you're topic banned or worse, now or sometime in the future. Note that not being solely to blame doesn't mean your editing is acceptable, or that a topic ban is not justified. Also I never brought up edit-warring, because I didn't know it was a concern and frankly it doesn't seem that important in the grand scheme of things. The primary concern over your editing doesn't seem to be about edit-warring and the fact you think it is, is likely further indication of why your editing could be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No one has done anything to show that I cannot edit responsibly in conversion therapy articles per se. JzG obviously did think that edit warring was a major problem, despite the fact that he was edit warring himself and contributing to the problem, as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, I made a total of two reverts in support of consensus on Talk. You made three, against that consensus, and have consistently reverted numerous other editors who have altered, and I cannot stress this enough, your monograph. You wrote virtually all the text in the article, you revert anyone who changes it, you then demand that others step back and not edit war as long as your version remains current. This is in the article history and on the talk page. In discussions there you're generally in a minority, usually of one, and yet you continue to try to enforce your version of the content. Can you see why several people above have suggested that is indeed a problem? Guy (help!) 09:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not interested in a long argument with you, but "you revert anyone who changes it" is factually false, and anyone who checks the revision history carefully can see that for themselves. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Break 1

• Thinking out loud, and having read the background content, I'm wondering if a brandishing the ARBGG Discretionary Sanctions might restore some order and let others have their say rather than the consensus of Freeknolwedgecreator. Hasteur (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have encountered both Guy and FKC in the past. It is my observation that neither is particularly good at reflecting on relevant feedback and even backing off when they have made a mistake, and I believe that both would benefit from further skill development in this area. However, I find the characteristic much less problematic in Guy, where it appears to me to come from the amount of time he spends dealing with fringe material and editors whose additions are not intended as beneficial to the encyclopedia. That is not to say that FKC's intentions fall into that category, and for the record, I don't think that they do – I think FKC is genuinely here to contribute to an encyclopaedia... but that his self-confidence leads to blind spots and that, in those cases, this makes his contributions problematic. One example would be the responses to Nil Einne which read like FKC is determined not to engage with or admit to hearing what Nil Einne is saying. Sadly, FKC's inability to see the flaws in his own work is causing a problem on this article, and in the topic area in general.
• This is the version of the article that FKC submitted for GA review. He was essentially the sole editor at this point, and evidently he sees it as being at or close to GA standards, and yet:
  • The first paragraph of the article states that the book is about conversion therapy as promoted by its author, which does not remove all (my emphasis) homosexual feelings. It adds the author's view that homosexuality is the result of a developmental disorder. It does not tell the reader that the entire notion of conversion therapy is pseudoscience and that the views being advocated are rejected by every major scientific and medical organisation and that these practices are viewed as unethical and (in some places) are illegal. It doesn't say that "does not remove all" means "little evidence that it has ever removed any" homosexual feelings – in other words, that this "therapy" (a) doesn't work and (b) is often harmful, are apparently also not relevant information for the lede of an article of a book about conversion therapy.
  • FKC will defend that the article is about the book and not about its author or the topic discussed by the book... but these are fundamental pieces of information that need to be presented to readers. FKC will also argue that the second paragraph covers this, however that paragraph says:
  • Nicolosi's reparative "therapy" departs from traditional technique and influenced the practice of conversion therapy, still without saying that conversion therapy doesn't work. This can be read as "Nicolosi's approach was revolutionary / ground-breaking / unconventional" rather than the truth, that it is based in religiously-inspired prejudice and a time of very substantially different social times... and I don't mean the time when it was written. Placing a book in the context in which it was written is important, but it was way outside the mainstream in the 1990s too.
  • Next, we are told that criticisms of the work are based on Nicolosi's scholarship rather than because the entire field is utterly discredited. We get that "some" described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific, which is not only weasel-wordy but also an odd way to describe the unanimous view of the scientific and medical mainstream. We then get that APA opposes reparative therapy, apparently not because it is harmful pseudoscintific bunk that an ethical psychologist would not advocate and that it is based on the totally rejected notion of homosexuality as a mental disorder, but rather because the APA has a position that is in conflict with the theory underlying this "therapy." In other words, when the lede finally gets to conversion therapy being a pseudoscience, it is written like there are differences of opinion and that reasonable people can disagree. The book was then removed from Amazon after a campaign by gay rights activists, without mentioning that the campaign was not about a "we don't like this" political campaign, it was because the book promotes harmful and unethical practices that have done a lot of damage to many people over the years - which is why laws have been passed making these "therapy" practices illegal. Also, shouldn't the facts be stated as facts: Conversion therapy is discredited and dangerous pseudoscience (followed by references from a bunch of major medical sources, etc) rather as Nicolosi says but the APA says otherwise?
  • If FKC can't see any of the flaws in the lede, then his judgement of what is and is not encyclopaedic is flawed.
  • FKC included a picture of Freud with a caption "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological." In fact, the entire summary is referenced only to Nicolosi. On the talk page, FKC defends this even when it is pointed out that Freud's own words show that he did not see homosexuality as pathological, stating in this section:

    Markworthen, I am sure you are acting in good faith, but the statement you removed ("Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological") is not "erroneous". It is clearly, demonstrably, and unambiguously true. Please consider that it is not a statement about Freud's views, but about what Nicolosi says Freud's views were. Nicolosi does indeed write that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological. You may argue that what Nicolosi writes is mistaken, if you want, but it is nonetheless true that this is what he writes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Is there any circumstance in which presenting a picture of XXX with a caption saying that YYY says XXX believes ZZZ, when in fact XXX believes the opposite of ZZZ, and not including anywhere that YYY's beliefs on XXX's views are mistaken or a misrepresentation, is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article? Instead, FKC argues that an article on Nicolosi's book is not the place to debate what Freud's views were on homosexuality, which is true in one sense but preposterous in the face of a quotation from Freud that is clear in its meaning.
  • Look at the mentions of pseudoscience in the rest of the article: We are told that Gwen Aviles from NBC News dismissed conversion therapy as "pseudoscientific". We are told that Brad Polumbo of the Washington Examiner describing Nicolosi's work as "harmful pseudoscience". That's it. Where is the medical and scientific consensus? Where are the high quality reliable secondary sources on the subject of both conversion therapy and specifically Nicolosi's work?
• Even without looking at stonewalling on the talk page, behaviour in the two GA reviews, posts that totally miss the point of policies – arguing for the Freud image because GA criteria call for illustrations in the face of content guidelines (like representing facts accurately), for example &nadsh; and behaviour on other articles (like on Nicolosi's article), I see more than enough reasons to doubt FKC's about to edit about conversion therapy topics to believe removal would be appropriate for the sake of encyclopaedic content. EdChem (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, you have every right to disagree with or criticize aspects of the article Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, as written by me in the past. I don't see what purpose it would serve to laboriously discuss these disagreements here, however. I could respond to all your points in your overly-long comment and present different views, but ANI is not the place for this. You may have a point that criticism of conversion therapy should be presented more strongly in the lead. I do not object to that, in principle. Discussion about this and related issues has been ongoing on the article's talk page, and I will be happy to respect a consensus that develops there. In response to your complaint about how the version of the lead you link to above presents the APA's view, there is not much I can say, except that the wording you criticize closely follows exactly what the APA does actually state in the source used in the article. The caption you complain about is entirely factually correct, as already noted. As for, "Where are the high quality reliable secondary sources on ... specifically Nicolosi's work...", my response is that I included what discussions specifically of Nicolosi's book that I could find. There are not that many of them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to wade through all of the above, nor even read what ever article it concerns. But in my experience, FKC is very prone to "ownership" of articles as well as insistent and incompetent judgments.

He's completely alienated me from work on a separate matter and I plan to stay away from any project with which he's "involved." There's simply no way to "deal" with such a person. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Another "I don't like you" comment, this one from someone who admits that he does not know, or even want to know, anything about the articles we're discussing here. If the discussion has reduced itself to this, it appears that it has more than served its purpose. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think this statement: Is there any circumstance in which presenting a picture of XXX with a caption saying that YYY says XXX believes ZZZ, when in fact XXX believes the opposite of ZZZ, and not including anywhere that YYY's beliefs on XXX's views are mistaken or a misrepresentation, is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article? EdChem (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC) really demonstrates what FKC is not acknowledging as a problem. What reason is there in the first place to include a Freud picture in an article about a book from the '90s? His views held no relevance then or now and are even unlikely to have shaped Nicolosi's "therapeutic" approach, given his inaccurate representation of Freud's attitude. I would actually wager Nicolosi's mention of Freud was an appeal to authority itself. So why argue so adamantly that this completely irrelevant image-caption pair be kept? What context is it supposed to provide for readers? Knowing nothing about FKC or their editing outside of this ANI and the linked NPOV, I would get the impression that a) the "context" was to align the book's views with those of a highly-recognizable psychology figure, correctly or not, and potentially to suggest Freud was a proponent of conversion therapy; and b) the set was added by an editor who is extremely possessive of how this article is presented. If this behavior is sufficiently duplicated in other articles on this topic, I'd be supportive of the proposed ban. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That comment falls into the realm of personal opinion. You say Nicolosi is wrong in what he says about Freud. There is, of course, no point in debating it, because we don't do original research here. The picture of Freud is there simply because Nicolosi discusses Freud in his book and because the book makes it rather obviously clear that Freud was an influence on Nicolosi. There is no evidence to the contrary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so after glancing through some of your other talk page and GA review comments in a variety of topics I get the impression you are eternally engaged in these sorts of drawn-out, combative arguments. I think it's worth reflecting on why almost every substantive interaction you have with other editors takes this form. It is definitely a concern under the purview of this ANI that your immediate response to any degree of criticism frequently consists of bombarding the other editor with condescending declarations that they or their perspective are completely wrong; allegations they are personally attacking you; misinterpretation and mischaracterization of their arguments; zeroing in on a single facet of their criticism while ignoring other elements or how it fits into the broader picture they are presenting; not even attempting to convey you understand their reasoning or why anyone might come to their conclusion; and not acknowledging that their opinion might be valid when it is echoed by multiple other people. I am not going to go through and link examples because what I have said should be readily supported by a brief overview of your contribution history. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There is little point in berating me for expressing disagreement with other editors, with whom after all I have every right to disagree. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, you have every right to disagree with or criticize aspects of the article Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, as written by me in the past. I don't see what purpose it would serve to laboriously discuss these disagreements here, however. My impression is that EdChem points out that failure to follow WP:NPOV, WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV is not new, rather than making criticism about a particular article. I had an example in mind that I couldn't relocate, but I found some other examples. FTN noticeboard thread where instead of understanding that WBG's concern was undue WP:FRINGE promotion, an argument was posted about personal opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Here's the difference of an article after an FTN noticeboard notice: [33]. Here's an edit on another article removing WP:PSCI-conforming material from the WP:LEAD (where citations are unnecessary if it's a summary of the article's body), claiming that it's unsourced and a BLP violation, when the body did cover it... —PaleoNeonate – 04:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your links above concern unrelated articles and subjects. Where there were disagreements, they are long since resolved. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And I did not vote in support of a topic ban. The goal was to remind that claiming that it's only a question of editor opinion and content dispute will not always work. —PaleoNeonate – 08:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

FKC, if my intent was to start a discussion with you about the issues I highlighted, I would have done so at the article talk page. Much of what I highlight has already been changed. My point was that your judgement of what is NPOV content, based on suitable RS, that suitably deals with FRINGE and PSI issues, is demonstrably flawed in relation to the topic of conversion therapy. The fact that you continue to defend demonstrably poor choices, like whether the unanimous views of the major psychological and medical organisations on both the nature of homosexuality as a normal variant in behaviour and conversion therapy as inherently flawed and harmful is a fact to be stated in WP's voice or (as you appear to be doing) as just an opinion to be give falsely balanced by the views of conversion therapy advocates, shows why this a discussion at ANI about your conduct and not a content discussion at an article talk page.

Quoting FKC: You say Nicolosi is wrong in what he says about Freud. There is, of course, no point in debating it, because we don't do original research here. The picture of Freud is there simply because Nicolosi discusses Freud in his book and because the book makes it rather obviously clear that Freud was an influence on Nicolosi. There is no evidence to the contrary. I say that FKC is totally missing the point, which is that reliable sources provide Freud's views and statements and these are inconsistent with Nicolosi's characterisation of them. This is not about OR. I agree that putting "Nicolosi states Freud's were X but I, the WP editor writing the sentence, say Nicolosi is wrong" would be totally unacceptable. You declare there is no evidence of Freud's views being other than those attributed to him by Nicolosi, but Markworthen provided a reference with Freud's own words that proves your assertion wrong:

Freud, Sigmund (1951). "Historical Notes: A Letter From Freud". American Journal of Psychiatry. 107 (10): 786–787. doi:10.1176/ajp.107.10.786. PMID 14819376. Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too.

This source is a famous letter from Freud written in 1935 and quoted in greater detail in our article Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality. Freud did do some work looking at changing sexual orientation, concluding that attempting it was not generally successful nor advisable. The simple fact that FKC had no problem with including text saying Nicolosi states that Freud believed XXX and not recognising the significance that Freud's own words show that he did not believe XXX shows why his editing is problematic. FKC, it was bad enough that you presented Nicolosi's view without including Freud's actual view. It is worse that you didn't recognise the problem when the contradiction was presented to you. Over a week later, you continue to defend yourself, deny the existence of a problem, and in so doing simply advertise that you are not able to follow policy in this area. You need to be topic banned to protect the integrity of encyclopaedic content in this topic area. EdChem (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You have misrepresented me completely. You say, I "continue to defend demonstrably poor choices", concerning, "whether the unanimous views of the major psychological and medical organisations on both the nature of homosexuality as a normal variant in behaviour and conversion therapy as inherently flawed and harmful is a fact to be stated in WP's voice or (as you appear to be doing) as just an opinion to be give falsely balanced by the views of conversion therapy advocates". No, I do not. The lead of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality currently states that conversion therapy is pseudoscience, and I have no intention of altering that. You also say I, "declare there is no evidence of Freud's views being other than those attributed to him by Nicolosi". No, I do not and have never said anything of the sort. You provide no quotation from me and no link to an edit to support your assertion, and there is none you could provide. You are attributing to me a view I have never expressed. It is known as putting words in someone's mouth. You may believe that you have accurately described my views, but you have not. In fact I agree that the accuracy of Nicolosi's characterization of Freud is open to question. That someone can come here and argue for imposing drastic sanctions on me based on statements that are both false and unsupported by evidence (and which they feel no need to present any evidence for) shows the utter unfairness of this process. As absurd as it is to try to argue about how Freud should be interpreted on WP: ANI, I should note that Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality states the following, "Freud appears to have been undecided whether or not homosexuality was pathological, expressing different views on this issue at different times and places in his work." You have placed so much emphasis in your comments on my supposedly misrepresenting Freud that I have to point out that the dedicated article on Freud's view on homosexuality does not support you. Perhaps you should not accuse people of being "not able to follow policy" based simply on your view of Freud? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeating the quotation from FKC, from this thread, emphasis added: You say Nicolosi is wrong in what he says about Freud. There is, of course, no point in debating it, because we don't do original research here. The picture of Freud is there simply because Nicolosi discusses Freud in his book and because the book makes it rather obviously clear that Freud was an influence on Nicolosi. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you want to dispute what your own words (that I have already quoted) from this ANI thread, go for it. You can try to argue that all you've been doing is noting that Nicolosi argued that he was influenced by Freud, but you put a caption stating Nicolosi's summary of Freud's view in the caption – "Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological" – despite that not being Freud's view, and you included that statement without caveat. You defended your formulation even in the face of evidence that Freud publicly stated a different view, essentially arguing that, so long as Nicolosi did say what he thinks Freud believed and this is accurately quoted, the fact that Freud's view was otherwise doesn't matter. It is that you are unable to see why this is problematic that shows your judgement is flawed. Further, look at how you present the content in this version you nominated for GA: In the lede, "some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific" – the "some" being some of the critics of Nicolosi's scholarship. Are you seriously denying that this is presenting the pseudoscientific nature of conversion therapy as a matter of opinion held by some and with which others disagree? This is an example of presenting in a way that implies a false balance between those who view conversion therapy as pseudoscience and those who don't... and it continues later in your draft where the word pseudoscience is attributed to two journalists, and no medical organisations are mentioned. Your formulation is far from an unambiguous declaration in WP's voice that conversion therapy is pseudoscience, and even the current version notes the APA's opposition (albeit more strongly than in your version) without saying the organisation prohibits the practice as unethical and harmful and before the unambiguous "pseudoscience" statement of the next paragraph. FKC, I have no interest in your personal views. I do care about the content of the encyclopaedia, though, and the quality of your editing, and I do not believe that your judgement in handling content in this area is acceptable. (Note: this was written at least two hours ago, then my internet connection dropped out... posting it now though I note that FKC has continued to edit his reply in the meantime.) EdChem (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting me. You write that I argue that "so long as Nicolosi did say what he thinks Freud believed and this is accurately quoted, the fact that Freud's view was otherwise doesn't matter". No, EdChem, I do not. I certainly never said that, just as I also never said that, "there is no evidence of Freud's views being other than those attributed to him by Nicolosi", or anything even like it. As I've politely tried to explain to you, it is a matter of dispute exactly what Freud's views were on homosexuality. You also complained about an old version of the article. There really is no purpose to going over old versions of the article and arguing about the details of them. As I already noted, the lead of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality currently describes conversion therapy as pseudoscience and I have no interest in altering that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not and have not suggested that you have been other than the polite.
• The point of the version you submitted to GA is that you could not recognise its faults and still do not see them, it appears to me – which raises questions of your judgement in applying WP policy on content, and your behaviour, in defending non-compliant content.
• That Freud's views varied over his career and his later views being inconsistent with how Nicolosi characterised them is a good reason why it is inappropriate to include "Nicolosi said Freud believed XXX" in isolation. It is not about whether "Nicolosi said Freud believed XXX" is literally true, it is about that the statement is misleading if Freud didn't believe XXX. A reader unfamiliar with Freud taking this statement at face value will be mislead into viewing Nicolosi's statement as an accurate reflection of Freud. It would be like putting a picture of Donald Trump in the article on hydroxychloroquine and adding a caption "US President Donald Trump takes hydroxychloroquine as a preventative for COVID-19". Whilst a literally true statement, leaving out that the scientific evidence for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID preventative is essentially nil, that the drug can cause serious side effects (including death via cardiac effects), and that a large scale study found the drug increases the mortality rate amongst those infected by COVID-19 would make such an addition inappropriate, misleading, unencyclopaedic, dangerous, and unsupportable.
• If you cannot see why your version is misleading and unencyclopaedic then you shouldn't be editing in this area. If you had recognised / admitted that many of the problems in your version needed fixing, I would not be strongly of the view that you should not be trusted to edit in the topic area of conversion therapy. Our task here is to produce encyclopaedic content in the best interests of readers. At ANI, if an editor is not contributing to that task or is impeding it, they risk a sanction – not as a punishment, but to protect the integrity of our content and to remove impediments to collaborative work towards that goal. When I look at the article you wrote, at the long debates on its talk page, on your posts here which do not go to the heart of the issue – your judgement, actions, and suitability to work in this topic area – I come to the conclusion that (whatever your good intentions might be) the topic area would be better without your involvement. EdChem (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where you ban someone from editing an entire topic area because they do not view Freud the same way as you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And if I were arguing that, I would be in error and you would be due an apology. Sadly, this is simply another response that demonstrates zero awareness of the problems or why this is being discussed at ANI. You have convinced me that a topic ban is necessary. EdChem (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You hinged an argument above about, how "Freud's views varied over his career and his later views being inconsistent with how Nicolosi characterised them..." You presented no evidence for that claim about Freud's views. You are effectively arguing for topic banning me based on a personal view of Freud. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact this is your takeaway from the above discussion literally proves the point EdChem and multiple other editors have pointed out above. Heiro 19:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You are being completely unfair. EdChem has denied it, but his complaints about my editing at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality do in part come down to his having a particular view of Freud, namely, that the only legitimate understanding of Freud's stance on homosexuality is that he did not view it as pathological. It would be easy to provide reliable sources that would suggest the contrary, but I can see no one cares. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thank you for acknowledging my dedication, but I am certainly not going to be dedicated any longer if I am topic banned. I'd like to note that you and others who have supported a topic ban have not even explained exactly how comprehensive it would be or specifically which articles it would concern. Would any article concerned with conversion therapy to any extent (even articles not primarily concerned with conversion therapy) be affected? That would be an extraordinarily broad topic ban. It would ban me, for instance, from further editing articles I have brought to good article status, such as The Homosexual Matrix. This is entirely unfair and I have done nothing to deserve it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

FKC, the breadth and scope of any topic ban will be determined by an uninvolved administrator who closes this discussion (assuming the decision is to impose one). Typically, involvement in any article or discussion on WP about the topic that is subject to the ban is prohibited. For articles which touch on the topic but are primarily about other topics, only the part of the article dealing with the topic is excluded. Editing that appears to be testing the boundaries of a ban while staying just outside that banned area is generally not well received. In the event that a ban is imposed &nash; and that has not been decided as yet – you can seek clarification from the admin who takes action. General advice to any editor subject to a topic ban, however, is if in doubt whether an edit is permitted, don't make it. EdChem (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

FKC's efforts to work collaboratively fall far short of any reasonable mark. FKC dismisses this as "another 'I don't like you' comment."

It's necessary to simply avoid FKC unless futility is the point. Editors should go to other topics and leave him alone, rather than engaging in pointless and unwinnable disputes.

FKC's Wikipedia work causes insignificant harm to society and -- who knows? -- may even confer some equally trivial benefit.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:243D:2765:D41:7938 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This self-contradictory post doesn't really make sense... —PaleoNeonate – 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

FKC, I was content to let you have the last word, until I saw your post to Heironymous Rowe, as it does not reflect my views.

1. You write that EdChem has denied it, but his complaints about my editing at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality do in part come down to his having a particular view of Freud, namely, that the only legitimate understanding of Freud's stance on homosexuality is that he did not view it as pathological. This is flawed in the following ways:
   • It does not matter what my view of Freud is, nor does it matter what yours is – it matters what reliable sources say.
   • You have defended using Nicolosi's view of Freud's opinion and without any caveat, which is only acceptable as encyclopaedic WP content if the consensus of mainstream reliable sources supports Nicolosi's view – and they don't.
   • It does not matter whether the reliable sources support that Freud worked on sexual orientation change efforts in his early career and developed a different view later, or if his view never included that homosexuality is pathological, or if he held twelve different views over time... so long as those sources do make it clear that Nicolosi's claim is inaccurate (and thus, that Freud did not have a single, unwavering view of homosexuality as pathological), then your formulation was misleading (and inconsistent with WP content policies) and worse, your behaviour since in failing to recognise or accept that there is an issue makes your judgement questionable.
   • The issue in this ANI thread is not my opinion of Freud, nor your opinion, nor anyone else's. It is not about what content should be in the article, which is a matter for the talk page. It is about whether your actions, starting with non-compliant editing and escalated by problematic behaviour, means that the best thing for WP's readers and your fellow editors is to remove you from contributing to the area.
2. I would not support a topic ban had we only disagreed about content and a talk page discussion could be productive. But the article talk page (where you are the only one to have contributed since 19 May) and the GA reviews makes it clear that you are an impediment to productive discussions on content. Indeed, you are now arguing that the article rating should be downgraded (which you earlier opposed) because the article content has degraded from where it was "in the past", presumably meaning when you were virtually its sole editor. I hasten to add, the issue here is not the rating, it is your attitude that you are right, your IDHT responses, and your apparent belief that most changes to what you wrote are not helpful (an OWN problem).
3. I actually have a bigger problem with you presenting conversion therapy as a pseudoscience as the opinions of a couple of journalists instead of representing that view as the mainstream consensus of medical and scientific bodies. That your editing presented a false balance (some say pseudoscience, others say not pseudoscience) was bad, but your response and subsequent actions are the reason that a topic ban is needed. And those actions include in this thread, where your contributions have led to more editors supporting a topic ban.

I am comfortable giving you the last word so long as it does not attribute to me views that I do not hold. I hope that an uninvolved admin will assess consensus in this thread soon, so that it can be closed with whatever result is deemed appropriate. EdChem (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

JBL, I have done my best, under difficult circumstances, to try to politely explain to other editors why I hold views different from theirs. If you want to call this "clueless combativeness", that is your choice. Like a number of other editors, you are simply presenting the view that others must be right in what they say and that I must be wrong in what I say, without giving detailed reasons. You are free to do this if you like, but it is hardly fair. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If the problem in the discussion were that others didn't understand your views, then repeadly explaining your views might be a solution to the problem. In fact, the problem is that you are completely unwilling to take on the comments made by other users (as evidenced, for example, by your dismissive comments about every single criticism made of your behavior); since that's the problem, I can think of no way to describe repeatedly explaining your views other than clueless and combative. I do not expect this to change (since I am maybe the 4th or 5th person to point out the problem to you), but I am curious, as an experiment: are you capable of responding in a way that is neither repetitive nor purely dismissive? (Or of not responding at all?) --JBL (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, you write, "It does not matter what my view of Freud is, nor does it matter what yours is – it matters what reliable sources say." That is quite right. Reliable sources say various different things about Freud's view of homosexuality, showing that the issue of exactly what Freud thought of the subject is open to dispute. You've suggested that reliable sources support only one view, which is that Freud did not consider homosexuality pathological. You are, respectfully, mistaken. You refer to "the consensus of mainstream reliable sources". To my knowledge there is no such consensus about Freud's views on homosexuality; you present no evidence that one exists. As for article ownership, that does not consist of simply believing that one is right and others are wrong in any given instance, but of behavior that prevents others from changing an article. I have every right to say that a given edit is a poor edit or that the quality of an article has declined. That is not trying to own an article. Finally, as regards the pseudoscience issue, you state that I tried to create "false balance (some say pseudoscience, others say not pseudoscience)". I can see why you in good faith would think that, but it was never my intention. No version of the Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality edited by me, including this one, states anywhere that some people reject the position that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific or that their view has the same level of merit as that of those who do see conversion therapy as pseudoscientific. I can see how you might think "some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific" carries that implication, but that definitely was not my intention. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Break 2

• I was looking through FKC's edit history - particularly early on. And I'm struck by how frequently they edited the page Camille Paglia. And looking through the history, I'm noticing that FKC appeared in 2009, not long after a previous prolific editor of that page (User:Skoojal), was blocked for off-wiki threats, and later was a prolific sock-puppet. Looking at the authorship, FKC is the top editor, with Skoojal coming in at number 13, despite having been blocked for years. Then quickly looking at the content, and in particular, the grammar and puncuation of the edit summaries my first thought is that FKC has the appearance of being a Skoojal sockpuppet. Looking at Skoojal's top edited pages, the number 1 is Conversion therapy. I'm surely not the first person to have had this thought, but I'm not finding any previous discussion. User:Freeknowledgecreator, were you Skoojal? I'm concerned because the dispute and topic area remain the same as back then. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How does User:Skoojal compare to User:Polisher of Cobwebs and User:ImprovingWiki? Heiro 22:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The editing overlaps between Skoojal, Freeknowledgecreator, Polisher of Cobwebs (a sock of FKC), and ImprovingWiki (another sock of FKC) are substantial [34]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This actually gives a better sense of it. FKC and his socks' edits are combined, and pages where Skoojal had no edits have been removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing those numbers would be even more damning if one added edits from the many known Skoojal sockpuppets to that as well. Since they haven't edited in close to 48 hours now (which seems unusual for them to let a "conversation" languish), what is the likelihood they have now abandoned this account (FKC) and now moved on to undiscovered socks? Heiro 21:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I started to add in Skoojal's socks' edits, but there were just too many of them to do so easily. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've taken the edits of Skoojal and their major socks [35] and added them into the list comparing then to Freeknowledgecreator and their socks [36]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting! The FKC count seems a bit low for some articles, looking at this. Camille Paglia (the one that first caught my eye) had 341 FKC edits, not 21. Frederick Crews has 130 FKC edits, not 5 ... did you just include the FKC sockpuppets? Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what happened. I'm going to comment the who file out and start from scratch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem appears to be in the numbers being reported out by the Interaction Analyzer Tool. I ran it again [37] and it reported FKC with 4 edits on Camille Paglia, and 0 edits on Frederic Crews. I don;t know if running it with 7 editors fouls it up or what, but the data is not reliable. I suggest that we go by the straight forward comparison of Skoojal and FKC, with no socks included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I just ran one between Skoojal and ImprovingWiki here, but I don't know what a normal amount of interaction is between editors. This seems like a lot of overlap though. JoelleJay (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see you already did that comparison earlier. It looks like the analyzer tool is overloaded at the moment anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I asked Bbb23 to comment here as he was the closer of the 2014 SPI (in which FKC admitted to socking) and as his closure referred to "any repetition of abusive editing by this person." I do understand if Bbb23 chooses not to comment, especially given his recent experiences, but I thought it was appropriate to make him aware that this old SPI closure of his has become relevant to a current disucssion.
• It was suggested in that SPI (though not confirmed by FKC) that FKC may have a preformed view on the nature of homosexuality that would also relate to conversion therapy. Of course, having an existing view is not a bar to editing so long as the editing is policy compliant. However, if the above suggestions are accurate and FKC is also Skoojal, then the use of the Born Gay sock by Skoojal, a sock that wrote in an SPI that "[f]or the record, I do not now, and nor have I ever, believed that I was 'born gay' - my actual views on that topic are about the exact opposite of what my user name would suggest" is concerning. The intent of the sock was to present a "new, more politically correct guise (calling myself "Born Gay", and so forth), [so that] no one would be smart enough to realize who I was," clearly an intent to deceive and to advance an agenda. If FKC is actually Skoojal then what is needed is not a topic ban but a community site ban. EdChem (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If FKC and User:Skoojal are indeed the same person, they are already sitebanned, FKC and any other current socks just need to be added to the list. Heiro 02:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Move to close

This has been open for some time, maybe it's time to close it? Please could someone who isn't involved take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say yes, close it -- in line with my earlier post, which failed to "make sense" to PaleoNeonate.

So let me explain: FCR is unable to work collaboratively. Wikipedia is collaborative and so therefore, FCR is unable to do proper work as a Wikipedia editor. Spending time on Wikipedia with anything to do with FCR is futile. Obviously, this would include any discussion here.

So yes, close it. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:C858:351C:3830:AD65 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, —PaleoNeonate – 01:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Before closing, let's hear what FCR has to say about my comment above to their similarity to User:Skoojal. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Question By "FCR", is "FKC", i.e. "Freeknowledgecreator" meant, or have I missed something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FreedomknowledgeCReator ... FreedomKnowledgeCreator ... we are all talking about User:Freeknowledgecreator afaik - who I fear may suddenly be suffering from WP:ANI flu, and perhaps has suddenly entered isolation ... Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm now wondering if a range ban would be appropriate to pursue (somewhere else?), since EdChem pointed out the extensive list of socks overturned in this SPI from 2014. FKC seems to have no problem moving between potentially dozens of named accounts and IPs and using sockpuppets to make deceptive edits. JoelleJay (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Muhammad Ahmad ZooL

This user has a litany of warnings on their talk page for disruptive editing; as can be seen there, their response has always been to make personal attacks without actually addressing the problem at hand.. I myself ran into them a few hours ago after reverting this drivel; after giving them a final warning for defamatory content, they responded with another personal attack. I tried to inform them about WP:TRUTH, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA, but to no avail. The user has no plans to contribute constructively and I recommend they be blocked to prevent further disruption. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for NPA and continued adding opinion and unsourced statements. Lets see what they come back with. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Danke. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail (or any other admin): here you are. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well complete lack of acknowledgement of any wrong doing. Statement that implies they will continue to make the same edits. Continued personal attacks. Earned themselves an increase to an indef. They can ask for an unblock and it will be reviewed, but seems unlikely. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit raises the question of whether MAZ should continue to be allowed TPA. Google Translate says that the non-English sentence is (transliterated) Hindi, and translates it as "Father of Imtiaz's mother. Imtiaz's behen burst". This is not fully comprehensible (I suspect some intentional misspellings), but I have little doubt that the intended meaning involves a different English 6-letter word beginning "f" and ending "er". Narky Blert (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred revoked their talk access and reverted the edit. We should likely watch out for socks and block evasion as they intimated before they'd continue with their edits. But for now this is closed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat for deletion of Dan Peña

• Dan Peña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ejsmanalo (talk · contribs)

Anyone here can tell him updates regarding the request for the removal/deletion of a page? The subject now has spoken to his lawyer and will pursue legal means if the request cannot be honored.[38]

The article talk page has a long list of connected contributors and has been to AfD with the result of "keep". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have advised the user that they may not continue to edit Wikipedia if they keep making legal threats.[39] —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not all of them are connected, I looked at the contributions of one - a "promotional SPA" - and it was a vandalism-only account, with contributions that were the opposite of promotional including one revision that should probably be deleted. Peter James (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not worth keeping the article with so little content, but legal threats are unlikely to be the most effective way of getting it deleted. It probably needs an administrator to look at the talk page - most of the discussion there looks like it should be removed. Peter James (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• He seems to be a notable, but controversial individual. The number of COI editors suggests a keen interest in managing his public profile. Wouldn't deletion of the article and the talk page amount to whitewashing? I think it should remain as a stub. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

Could someone take a look at this from an editor claiming to be the subject of the article. Cheers, Number 57 15:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Added {{uw-legal}} to their talk with a request for clarification. Cabayi (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

My bad - I missed the obvious point in the second link - the account has been shared with their assistant. Blocked as a compromised account. Cabayi (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment whatever is there must be verifiable. Additionally if there are BLP issues or promo issues perhaps an admin could take a look. Wm335td (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edting by User:Moyezan

Moyezan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has joined WP in 12 May 2020 and is exclusively concerned about topics surrounding two ethnic groups in Southeast Asia, both called "Mro" (Mro people (Awa Khami) and Mro people (Mrucha)). They unilaterally engange in wild page moves (22 in two weeks, with a total edit count of 138), as a result of which one of the affected pages is already move protected.

They have been warned twice about it (last time by me using «uw-move4im» today 08:09 (UTC)[40]), but nevertheless continued to perform two page moves at 08:14 (UTC). I am sure the editor does this in good faith, but they hardly engange in discussion except for saying what they consider right, and the outcome is very disruptive. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

See also Awa khami language (formerly Mro language). Both articles have RMs in progress, but this obscure topic has little evidence as to the best titles. Certes (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a language issue or CIR but I'd propose a block from mainspace until they respond too the dozens of concerns on their talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The latest edit was a copyright violation that had to be redacted. I've blocked Moyezan indefinitely pending an unblock request that addresses these concerns, after which I think Moyezan will be quickly unblocked. But Moyezan has to respond to the concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruptive page moves

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again with disruptive page moves just days after a similar report here at ANI. This time the victim of his lowercase crusade is articles related to the National Football League Draft. Can we put an end to this before his enablers get here? Calidum 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Those were reverts of undiscussed moves (see e.g. this history) using a term that's overwhelmingly lowercase in sources. How is this disruptive, or a topic for AN/I? Did anyone even bring it up as an issue anywhere? Certainly not on my talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

IP range changing all categories of luxury automobile manufacturers

[41] [42] [43] I been reverting quite a lot of edits by these IPs which keeps removing the Luxury motor vehicle manufacturers category. [44]. I don't see the point of warning them since there not stopping, reverting back to their own edit and IP hopping. I think it best to at least address it here now rather then leaving it and the nonconstructive edits becomes a tedious mess to restore.

Examples:

• Removing the category from a coachbuilding company
• Category removed from sports car make
• This one is obvious
• Reinstating vandal after another editor reverted it
• Another example
• Removing random makes from List of automobile manufacturers

--Vauxford (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

People are more likely to look at this if you provide specific diffs of this behaviour rather than links to this editor's contributions that we have to wade through. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to do that, my bad. --Vauxford (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the whole /40 is full of significant changes to motor-related articles, a lot of whihc have been reverted, plus some blocks of other IPs in the /40. Guy (help!) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have taken a look at one article where this was done by each IP and in a first look I can't find any sourced claim in Willoughby Company, Alvis Car and Engineering Company or Waterhouse Company that any of them is a luxury motor vehicle manufacturer, so it is even more important that you identify where this category has been removed in error. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

For starters, one of the Alvis model is the Alvis TF21 cabriolet. The Waterhouse Company clearly shows they are a coachbuilding company and I don't think a coachbuilding company would make flimsy low quality products for their clients. --Vauxford (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I expect that these are luxury car manufacturers, and am not defending this editor's lack of communication, but categories, like anything else in an article, should ideally be reliable sourced. In particular I do not buy that any sports car is a luxury car. When I was young one of my friends had a Sunbeam Imp Sport, which was a sports car but hardly a luxury car. And it is unclear from the article whether the Waterhouse Company actually manufactured any cars or was a sub-contractor. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection that I recently read that there was a way for a range of IPv6 addresses to have a single talk page. Do I recall correctly and, if so, how is it done? That might help with the communication problem here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is worst then I thought. From 7 IP variant, altered the entire List of BMW engines with unsourced/questionable information and changing random years like here and here. I played it safe and reverted it to the last edit prior the IP range. I'm not experienced with BMW engines and what years they were in used etc so I think someone who is familiar with it should check through if all things correct. IPs used in the List of BMW engines article: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] --Vauxford (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP is editing from the range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:3FB0:300::/64. These addresses look to be the same person, based their automotive interests. We have this 'Fuck you' to User:CLCStudent on their talk page though I don't know what the dispute was. One IP from the range was blocked here for 31 hours by User:Glen for personal attacks or harassment. I think a three-month block of the /64 range would be justified. This range has had at least one checkuser block in the past, by User:Ponyo. If you want to leave a message for the /64 you can do so at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

IP Range now blocked for 3 months. Thanks NinjaRobotPirate --Vauxford (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Account KGFT785 making masses of nonsubstantive edits

• KGFT785 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

KGFT785 joined as an editor a week ago, and has been making hundreds of nonsubstantive edits to pages, generally by adding or subtracting spaces in templates. I left a note on their talk page, but they did not respond. It sure appears like they're trying to quickly build up their edit count for unknown reasons. Tdslk (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Judging by their editing pattern, editors such as this are usually trying to edit extended confirmed protected articles for whatever reason. Look at the bright side; they're not participating in the May GOCE drive. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 500 pointless edits that just mess with whitespace characters is usually gaming extended confirmed. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Alexdlp10

I am a bit concerned about this new account created today and gone straight over to AfD and contributing there, per [52]. Highly suspicious to me, red-flag. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering the time between their AFD comments, it seems unlikely they've actually researched any of the subjects in any depth. And they seem to be doing a lot of copying of other people's comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that copying seemed strange to me, felt fishy. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is almost botlike...exactly ten edits echoing other editor comments, then they stop. Curdle (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

They've made their ten edits - now they'll wait until they have four days, and presto! Autoconfirmed! I suggest someone keep an eye on their eleventh edit. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Eurocentric view in Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reverts

My edits have been reverted several times and I believe the main reason is "Eurocentric view in Wikipedia", for example look at it: Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis, what does "Southern" mean in this phrase? Please solve this issue. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph of the lede of that article Proto-Indo-European homeland, where it says: "A notable third possibility, which has gained renewed attraction due to recent aDNA research, is the Armenian hypothesis which situates the homeland for archaic PIE south of the Caucasus." I do not see how this could be construed as "Eurocentric"? Also, this sounds like a long running content dispute at that article, that you should be addressing via the article talkpage, not here. Heiro 04:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Worse; it's also a conduct-issue, with prolonged WP:DISRUPTIVE pov-pushing by this editor. See:

• Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Eurocentric bigotry in this page about Proto-Indo-European homeland
• Talk:Mycenaean Greece#Iranian origin of Mycenaeans
• Talk:Proto-Indo-Europeans#Caspian route?!!

See also User talk:MojtabaShahmiri for the repetitive warnings they've been issued. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: You yourself say south of the Caucasus, not just south, as you read here: Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth, the Caucasus is a border between Europe and Asia, for those who believe Europe is the center of the world, a land in the south of Caucasus is just in the south, I have corrected it three times but @Joshua Jonathan: says it is "pov-pushing". --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this seems to be connected to your attempts to push your own WP:FRINGE research and POV interpretations (see Talk:Gutian language#Germanic Theory) and the many warnings on your talkpage over this matter, I'd be wary of WP:BOOMERANGS if I were you. Heiro 06:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe: What I said about Gutians here?! Do you mean I can't edit in Wikipedia, just because as a historian I have researched about ancient Gutians in my country?! We are talking about Proto-Indo-Europeans who lived thousands years before Gutians, many great scholars believe Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the south of Caucasus, so it should be mentioned. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh my, I forgot the rest:

• Talk:Gutian language#Germanic Theory
• Talk:Proto-Germanic language#Proto-Germanic was originally spoken in the west of Iran (3rd and 2nd millennium BC)

Time for a topic-ban. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: You can ban me and others in Wikimedia but you can't ban science, about ancient Gutian language, I don't work on a theory but a project of scientific decipherment, I am an academic historian and an artificial intelligence engineer with over twenty years of experience. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We can have a long discussion over what "science" is, but as long as your theories are not published in relevant peer-reviewed journals and are established as a noteworthy point of view, they are just your personal interpretations which don't justify your pov-pushing and personal attacks. We try to protect the usefull representation of what science says, not provide a forum to eccentric views, no matter how scientific you deem your ideas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for topic-ban (MS)

Given MojtabaShahmiri's WP:DISRUPTIVE editing in pushing his personal theory of Iranian origins of the proto-Indo-European languages, I propose a topic-ban for them on Indo-European topics. See these threads for the tiresome discussions we've had with him:

• Talk:Gutian language#Germanic Theory
• Talk:Proto-Germanic language#Proto-Germanic was originally spoken in the west of Iran (3rd and 2nd millennium BC)
• Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Eurocentric bigotry in this page about Proto-Indo-European homeland
• Talk:Mycenaean Greece#Iranian origin of Mycenaeans
• Talk:Proto-Indo-Europeans#Caspian route?!!
• Talk:Middle Bronze Age migrations (Ancient Near East)#Lazaridis et al. (2017)

@Kanguole, Austronesier, Ermenrich, Florian Blaschke, Haukurth, Pfold, AnonMoos, Skllagyook, Puduḫepa, Doug Weller, and Joe Roe: your thoughts, please? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like the age-old problem of an academic expert with an idiosyncratic view, who is unable to understand why we won't help him make it mainstream. Sadly, topic bans are indeed the usual result in such cases. Guy (help!) 09:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support He’s fringe, he’s not just idiosyncratic, and I don’t think having an MA counts as being an academic even necessarily. If you look at any of the stuff he’s tried to add it’s clear he has no idea what he’s talking about. Honestly, this guy is wp:NOTHERE and should probably be banned from editing entirely.—-Ermenrich (talk)

• Support, due to their seeming determination to push their pov (including a tendency to use WP:OR for the purpose) against discussion/consensus, with a refusal or inability to WP:LISTEN or understand what is (sometimes repeatedly) explained to them, and a seemingly quite weak grasp of the topic and topics related). I agree that they seem to be WP:NOTHERE, and there may also be a competence (WP:COMPETENCE) issue. Skllagyook (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: While it can be nice to have people involved in a given academic field contributing to a given subject area, user seems to misunderstand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a way to push and promote their own views and "research". Which in this case is, as mentioned above, beyond idiosyncratic and squarely in WP:FRINGE territory. Their original report here claiming a "Eurocentric view in Wikipedia" seems to be more an argument with how it is described in the literature by academics and not with Wikipedia. A dead horse they seem to have been thumping on for months now over several article talk pages.Heiro 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I myself don't allow that my works are published in English Wikipedia (There are several pages about my works in Persian language version of Wikipedia). MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"I myself don't allow that my works are published in English Wikipedia" - Do I understand you correctly? You are a published author and you don't want any of you works used as a reference on the English language Wikipedia? That is not how Wikipedia works. All sources that meet WP:RS are usable on any language Wikipedia. Authors do not get any say in where they are used. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he's a wp:self-published author on academia.edu, so he should not be cited by Wikipedia. He claims to have published an article in an Iranian magazine, but a magazine is clearly not an RS for the claims he's making and I'm not even sure it's true.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support due to his long-term WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems. Puduḫepa 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia isn't a platform to advance fringe theories OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you support? It is not my theory, please at least the article: Proto-Indo-European_homeland, it itself says "Some recent DNA-research has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian or Iranian homeland for archaic or 'proto-proto-Indo-European', the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and early proto-IE." I have just talked about "Mycenaean Greece" and "Proto-Germanic language" in the talk page and I never edit anything in the main page. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to promote their own fringe academic theories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It is really funny, I have myself complained and then you blame me for what I have never done, I just said "Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis" is wrong, why do you support it blindly? Southern of where?? Why there should be an obscure hypothesis? --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. This has been going on to long. We can't allow our articles to be vehicles for other editors' fringe ideas, and the WP:IDHT problem doesn't look as though it is going to go away looking at the above. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You yourself know that the Caucasian/Iranian homeland of the proto-Indo-Europeans has been proposed by some great scholars, like David Reich, not me. You can ban me but other ones will add it to Wikipedia. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban with regrets: the user's talk page has related warnings going back to December 2019. —PaleoNeonate – 05:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can an uninvolved admin give this proposal a scan and weigh in on it? It would be nice to put this to bed, one way or the other.Heiro 21:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you remind me of old warnings, you said that I shouldn't use my own works and I never did it. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Second the request by Heironymous Rowe. It doesn't look like this is likely to attract any more discussion than it already has.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User harassing specific Wikipedia Edit Thon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A group of ultimate frisbee players decided to create a movement that we're referring to as the Sports Wikipedia Visibility Project with the goals of helping to elevate pages and content for ultimate frisbee related people who are from traditionally marginalized populations. See our website at https://www.sportswikivisibility.org/.

After we posted some content on social media promoting the kickoff to our edit-a-thon a social media user started using typical misogynistic and racist tropes regarding how we shouldn't be focusing on just women and minorities but we should be promoting everyone in ultimate. We interacted with him for a little while but eventually just started ignoring him.

Since the campaign has begun and we have created pages and content for people and teams we have gotten some valuable feedback from various wikipedia editors however yesterday it seemed that every page that we had created was getting flagged by a specific wikipedia user with very minimal feedback as to what the problem was. We realized that it was the same username as the person from social media and they are harassing our content by removing content from pages, flagging every page he can for deletion and intentionally abusing his privileges as a wikipedia user. His username is Willsome429‬.

I'm not sure what can be done but it is clear that trying to work with this person is not an effective method and we are worried that this entire month long effort that involves people from across the country will be hampered by this one racist and misogynistic teenager who is mad because we aren't supporting white men enough.

Steve Kreider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve42382, you are required to notify the user(s) you report here about the report on their talk page as it says at the top of the page. You can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ for this purpose. Also you should provide diffs and links so that other editors can understand what is going on. I have notified Willsome429‬ for you. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve42382, my son has a half-blue in Ultimate from the University of Birmingham, was on a winning UK national championship team, and won the first British Army / RAF Ultimate tournament, held in Canada last year. So I am not prejudiced against Ultimate.

Your main problem is that there is virtually no reliable third party coverage of Ultimate, and you are dramatically overusing a handful of primary sources, including blogs. The majority of the articles I've looked at are drawn almost entirely from Ultiworld. That's like having a set of articles on Star Trek drawn only from Memory Alpha. You need to establish notability based on references to reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the article subjects.

That's nothing to do with male or female. There is just virtually nothing on whihc to base a proper Wikipedia article, because we're not a directory. Guy (help!) 17:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Steve42382: Your "it is clear that trying to work with this person is not an effective method" rings a bit hollow as you've not made any substantive effort at communication with Willsome429 before coming here. I took a very brief look at Willsome429's contribs and nothing jumps out as bad faith editing. If you can point us to specific edits that are problematical that would be helpful. Tiderolls 20:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of your belief of my "typical misogynistic and racist tropes", the use of which I dispute, I also find contention with almost all of Mr. Kreider's points mentioned above. "Minimal feedback" - I included bluelinks to notability guidelines in PROD rationales and a long AfD explanation on I need feminism because that should have sufficed any reasonable desire. "Same as social media" - your assumption, although I have never linked my socials to my userpage and never wish to, is correct. "Harrassing our content" - major difference of opinion. My draftifying log is long, and the one from today is no different than any other. Although I don't keep a PROD log, I've done a lot of those too as a member of New Page Patrol. My XfD stats log maxes at 500 because I have participated in more than that number. "Flagging every page he can for deletion" - no, not true at all, four articles is not "everything I can" or even all of the pages created by this "edit-a-thon". They were the ones that are not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, "traditionally marginalized populations" or not. It is very disappointing that Mr. Kreider did not reach out to me first and instantly took this to ANI, as I've had many productive conversations on my talk page and would've had another had he left a message, which he is free to do at any time. I have substantial experience in Ultimate editing and would have welcomed the dialogue on how to better represent the sport. Although Mr. Kreider may think that he is above me as a grown man and some kind of social-justice-y crusade thing, I would be open to starting a dialogue as to why I nominated specific pages for deletion. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that, unrelated to this report, I just happened on List of Ultimate Organizations per NPP, and removed what is technically known as a f*ckton of external links and unsourced/promo-only entries. There's definitely some cleanup to be done with these productions, if that was a fair sample. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

All, Thanks for all of your help. I can rescind my complaint if it's seen as invalid. My main concern was more that he seemed to be targeting our campaign as opposed to focusing on a broad scope of edits. I do see that there is some constructive edits that should be made as I learn more about some of the tagging that is being used. I also was unaware (due to my own error of not reading the top portion) that I had to contact him first. Our campaign is going to be focused on trying to clean up much of what we've posted in an attempt to continue our overall gains that we've made towards our efforts and steer clear of having unsupported content. For User:Willsome429 I'd love for you to be involved in helping to clean up all of the posts out there related to ultimate as you have expressed in social media posts your desire to get more attention to the men's professional league. For example the Tampa Bay Cannons page is woefully under-sourced and has not met your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Steve42382: I can be as broad or as specific in my editing tendencies as I want - all that matters is that I can back my edits up by policy, which I have. I will take a look at the Cannons page when I get a chance. It was disappointing to see you and others accuse me of destruction and harassment (in all caps, at that) on social media before I got a chance to give a levelheaded, policy-backed response, and it's disheartening that you chose to avoid direct interaction over the topic and instead sling terms like racism around on this high-traffic page. If you would like to open any more dialogue, please do it at User talk:Willsome429, which is my personal talk page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve42382, I see that you have only been editing for a few weeks with only about 85 edits so far. Since you are new, I am going to try to go easy on you. The Wikipedia editing community has certain social norms just as the Ultimate community has. As I understand it, your community does not rely on referees, for example. A very strong social norm on Wikipedia is that you should always try to work things out directly with an editor first before asking for administrators to sanction them. And if you need to file a complaint there is a very strong expectation that you will provide persuasive evidence in the form of diffs. Please read Help:Diff for how to do that. Harassment? Provide diffs showing harassment. "Racist and misogynistic teenager"? Provide diffs proving the racist and misogynistic part. We really need solid evidence of that. At first glance, it looks to me like you and members of your project are adding poor quality content that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the main space of the encyclopedia, hoping somehow that it will stick because the articles are about women, minorities and marginalized people. That is not a good strategy, all though I am all in favor of high quality content about such people. Far better instead to use sandbox space and/or draft space and only move content to the main space when it is well enough developed that nobody will question the notability of the topics or appropriateness of the articles. I think that somebody setting up a website to run an edit-a-thon and then operating that project ought to be fully informed about those standards. Please consider that. I remain willing to evaluate evidence of the other editor's misconduct, if it exists. But at this point, it appears that this editor is simply trying to maintain the quality standards that give this encyclopedia its credibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Steve42382: I know feeling "targeted" by a user who's nominating your articles for deletion or removing content is frustrating, whether it's done in good faith or not. However there is a big difference between a New Page Reviewer just doing their job in good faith, and a user maliciously targeting one project due to a personal grudge against that project for focusing on women and minorities. Just to be clear, you're not expected to waste any time at all trying to "collaborate" with a user in that situation. That is an extremely serious accusation. The current climate on Wikipedia is essentially zero-tolerance for that sort of thing, and addressing it strongly and without issue is being increasingly mandated by the WMF and the Board of Trustees themselves. Let me be clear: Willsome429 is wrong in stating that "all that matters is I can back my edits up by policy". A user engaged in an ideological personal crusade to grief an editorial project is not given a pass just because they comply with policies. Their involvement in such behavior is in itself a violation of numerous policies. So I'm telling you that these are serious accusations that we will take seriously. However, accusations need evidence. I'm not seeing evidence. So, if you please, where is the evidence for these accusations that the user is motivated by a reaction to your project's goals of focusing on women and minorities? Making accusations, especially serious accusations such as these, is a serious offense as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Steve42382: just a quick warning here. Be very careful about publicly reposting or linking to anything that happened outside the English Wikipedia or you risk violating WP:Outing. If you have such evidence, it will likely be better for you to send it privately to an administrator or perhaps WP:Arbcom rather than posting it here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  I had a quick look and I'm not convinced there's actually a problem here but I also don't think it can be investigated on ANI anyway per my comment above. While the OP has voluntarily linked their connection to website and social media profiles associated with it, no one else has. Editors cannot discuss things which have occurred elsewhere even if they come across it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

On the user's talk page, they have accused me of harassment again without providing any relevant diffs or evidence at all besides subjective "trolling on social media" - something I entirely dispute. The accusations are annoying and I'd rather not deal with them. If Mr. Kreider is unable to present evidence showing my racism and harassment, they should be sanctioned as such for allegations without proof. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve42382 has continually outed me in a manner that I do not appreciate, and has said that he is unwilling to talk to me unless it is "for real", whatever that means in his view. Obviously I, as a party in this, am not in a position to administer user warnings, but Mr. Kreider should at the very least be strongly reminded of policies regarding personal conduct, and if the behavior continues, he should be blocked for personal attacks without proof and outing. If he insists on using off-wiki info and is interested in having a civil discussion at ArbCom, that could be a better place to resolve the matter. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne if off-wiki evidence did exist that seemed quite convincing that Steve42382 is potentially telling the truth about having their editathon targeted, how/where might one send that evidence so as to not make WP:OUTING matters worse than they might already be? Outing is bad. So is misogynist targeting of Wikipedia editing initiatives. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said above you could send it to arbcom privately. You could also privately send it to an administrator but you probably should check with the admin first that they're happy to look in to it. Maybe try approaching any admin who has engaged in this discussion on their talk page. I can't say I agree the existence of off-wiki "evidence" proves anything. The accused editor has already basically agreed they engaged with the OP off-wiki. If you are running a social media campaign, I don't think you should be surprised if people engage with you on social media and we definitely do not forbid editors hearing from having lives off-wikipedia, including lives which intersect with their wikipedia activities. The question is whether any of the engagement either crossed the line, or demonstrated that the editor should not be involved with the OP on-wiki; which is a far more complicated question. Edit: I should clarify by privately I mean by email or other similar means. Posting on talk pages is not private, only use it to discuss stuff which you can discuss on wikipedia, like whether it will be okay to email someone. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're having trouble working out, I believe Dreamy Jazz, Tide rolls, Cullen328 and Swarm are administrators. However I don't think this is really something an individual administrator can handle i.e. if there really is a problem it would need to go to arbcom. Except that I'm still not sure if there is anything that needs to be done and maybe they could assuage any concerns. I would suggest Willsome429 disengage from the editor and any creations of the edit-a-thon on Wikipedia. While I'm still not sure they've done anything wrong, it's always messy when your engaging with someone off Wikipedia and on Wikipedia in a manner perceived by one side as being negative no matter what your intentions. There are others in NPP etc which can handle any concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I disengaged as soon as the ANI report was posted - that's a no-brainer. The only "project-related" edits I have made since then are on this page and on Mr. Kreider's talk page. After threats of using that as evidence here, I have disengaged off-wiki entirely as well. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear about some things right now: 12 days before their conduct under scrutiny here, Willsome429 deleted their user page and left behind two short paragraphs, the first of which began I used to be a Wikipedia editor. It was wild while it lasted. This doesn't appear to be something they have ever done before. They have no account activity from that edit until two days ago, when they began with reinstating an edit they made at Samkon Gado. Since that single edit, they've done nothing but delete, move to draft space, or discuss deleting or moving to draft space contributions from the editathon, until this discussion was opened here. The one apparent exception being this edit at Show choir. The one article they point to as having been acceptable enough to keep in place was personally "overhaul" by themselves before being presented, and that overhaul occurred long after this discussion was opened. Leaving aside the off-wiki evidence that's already been sent to Arbcom, I find it hard to believe that two days-worth of edits targeting material from one event isn't at least suspect. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you're not clear at all. I was taking a WikiBreak, plain and simple. I planned on just dabbling back in, but well, here we are. The reason that I have shut down all my edits after the first batch is because of this discussion and the subsequent matters that you have taken. I want to focus on clearing this up before I move on. If you would like, you can view previous versions of my userpage to see what it looked like then. The Cannons page is outside the scope of the "edit-a-thon", as they do not work on male pages. All "targeted" edits happened within 24 hours, a period that seems short to make an overarching judgement on. All of my edits are backed up by policy, and I will state it now, so that it is clearly visible on this high-traffic discussion: I did not tag pages because they were from the project. I tagged them because after an evaluation, I determined that they were not suitable for the encyclopedia. I moved Seattle Cascades (ultimate) per standard naming conventions and am not getting any love for that from project members. I'm not inherently against the project, nor am I on a crusade against it. I merely want all contributions to be productive ones. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There are just a few remaining issues with what you're stating that I'd like you to clear up. They're summarized in questions at the end.

First, apologies for describing your nominations for deletion as being "two-days worth," when what they appear to have been were a bunch dated to the evening of the 25th (over a few hours: [starting] and [ending]). And then a bunch of edits the morning of the 26th - going by the timestamps from your editing history (again, [starting] and [ending]. And then of course your additional edit the evening of the 26th after you had been made aware of the complaint [diff], and more edits the morning of the 27th ([here] and [here]).

In your previous comment here you stated The only "project-related" edits I have made since then are on this page and on Mr. Kreider's talk page. [diff] And in this comment I'm replying to you say, The reason that I have shut down all my edits after the first batch is because of this discussion and the subsequent matters that you have taken [diff].

Here are all your edits after the most conservative estimate of you being aware of this AN/I thread (being that you commented here) that weren't either here or on Steve42382's talk page:

• [diff1]
• [diff2]
• [diff3]
• [diff4]

So no, it doesn't seem you "shut down" your editing on the editathon-related content after learning of this discussion.

As for the Tampa Bay Cannons article, prior to your "overhaul," in my estimation it was in as poor of shape as any of those you've nominated for deletion or moved to draft space. And while your talk page explanation for it (diff4 above) claims you saved it for notability, you made that determination for an article that, until your overhaul, had a single source: a youtube video from the article's subject diff5. While it's true that this team is likely notable for the reasons you outline at the Talk page, it's hard to square all the effort you put into saving this one article so that you could present it as one that didn't even deserve to be moved to draft space, with all the editathon articles you chose to either move to draft space or nominate for deletion, instead of productively working on them.

So, the few things to clear up here would be, why didn't you stop engaging with content from the editathon after you were aware of this discussion here, despite twice claiming that you did? Why did you decide to fully build out a floundering page, rather than move it to draft space, before providing it as evidence of a good page worth keeping? And why was your return from a break spent with nearly nothing but nominating for deletion or moving to draft space articles from an editathon you have now confirmed you engaged with off-wiki? Seems an odd way to end a break.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Err, hello... can we cool it off with the thought police here a little? Two points: first, checking out edits from the same contributor(s) following discovery of some production unfit for mainspace is entirely bog-standard. If I see someone put out an undersourced article and I improve/PROD/AfD/draftify it, I will as a matter of course have a look at what that person has been up to recently, as there's a good chance that further instances need to be sorted out. The same applies to groups; I do this with WikiEd class projects all the time. Without prejudice to any off-wiki or other evidence of ideological or personal targeting, if Willsome429 got started with one article from that Editathon and then worked their way through related productions, it only shows sensible process; it's not something they can be strung up on. Second, lambasting someone because they chose to improve one article while draftifying another of equally poor quality is just bizarre. We are all volunteers and choose where we want to spend our time, and there's no need to provide any justification for such choices. I'd suggest you put a stop to this particular flavour of skirmish. If there is ArbCom-worthy material, it will do its thing when presented, without the extensive second-guessing going on here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello... the on-wiki behavior that IMO shows plenty of evidence of almost-solely targeting the edits of this editathon over the course of two days is exactly the other evidence of... personal targeting you're claiming doesn't exist. Further, that this editor chose to highlight specifically sex as the defining feature of what made the article they improved rather than deleted or sent to draft space distinct from the editathon-related articles is exactly the ideological evidence (do you even know if this is an accurate characterization of the editathon's work?). This also doesn't explain why Willsome429 twice misrepresented their editing activities following being made aware of this discussion.

Yes, in general our volunteer actions don't require explanation. Except of course when it appears our actions are targeting people or content for ideological and personal reasons. Ignoring a good chunk of the evidence here would make your explanation almost plausible, yet it isn't even the one Willsome429 provided. Asking after the one article they provided as evidence of their supposed impartiality and lack of bias isn't bizzare, it's practically due diligence.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may ... Willsome429 was challenged by Steve42382 to improve Tampa Bay Cannons in this edit right on this board, so should hardly be criticized for doing so, or for going the extra mile and posting an analysis on the article talk page of what sources they used and why. Further, I am awestruck at the job they did, because I worked hard trying to improve Washington DC Scandal yesterday so that it could maybe be re-mainspaced, and in doing so discovered there is practically zero in RS on the San Francisco Fury, who have a far better championship record. JzG's right, the underlying problem isn't sex bias, it's that this is a woefully under-covered sport. (I was also a bit puzzled by the hashtags in edit summaries—are we an extension of Twitter now?—but am hardly one to talk since this edit of mine will have a disclaimer in its edit summary.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Last time I post here to try and salvage what's left of this awful mess. I am not trying to be sexist, misogynistic, racist, or anything of the sort. I have tried to be levelheaded throughout this process, only to be met with anger and an ArbCom invite. Multiple editors have said that they found nothing wrong with my on-wiki behavior; there's still a claim of racism against me sitting there without proof. I was taking a break and dipped my toe back into editing with some routine work that happened to all be in the same area. I get taken to ANI and shut down most of my editing at my own discretion while leaving open the option of my talk page for dispute resolution. I actually help this edit-a-thon by moving a page that had been worked on (Seattle Cascades (ultimate)) to standard naming conventions per info that was added. I use a WP:BEFORE search to make a decision that a page is salvageable, a search that did not include "what is the gender makeup of this team?" and improve a page that I had been asked to improve. I get met with multiple long-winded and angry responses trying to back me into a corner, painting me as a terrible human being. If the parties involved want, I can restore my userpage and do some editing elsewhere to prove that I'm not an SPA attacking all that is good in the world, if that will help. Let ArbCom play out as it will with my off-wiki decisions, but as to my on-wiki conduct, there's no question that this thread should be closed and let any consequences of my off-wiki actions head to ArbCom, for there is nothing here worth punishing. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• That's not how this works. We will not turn a blind eye to serious harassment allegations just because the evidence exists off-wiki. We will be monitoring the situation and seeing it through until it is resolved one way or another. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh, Swarm, actually, this is how it works. ANI doesn't deal with alleged off-wiki harassment that goes into outing territory, ArbCom does. Which is exactly what Willsome429 says. Here at ANI we look at the onwiki actions, that's it. Willsome429 is not claiming that they can't be punished for offwiki actions, they state that these should head to ArbCom. See WP:DWH: "In serious cases or where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (e.g., where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar), you can contact the Arbitration Committee."(emphasis mine). If the onwiki activities of Willsome ar in line with policy, then there is nothing ANI should do, but such a ruling would not prevent ArbCom from stepping in based on other evidence. Fram (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The surrealist irony of this statement coming from you of all people is not lost on me. The community's on-wiki interest in a case is not expected to simply cease to exist merely because of the existence of off-wiki evidence. No one's saying that we should examine private off-wiki information openly at AN/I, however, the accused does not get to simply demand that an ongoing community discussion should be shut down on that basis. Could you imagine if we just shut down every WP:FRAMGATE discussion because it was an "off-wiki issue"? Really, Fram? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's necessary to make this about Fram as you just did, both in the opening and in the closing sentences of your post. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Steve42382: Go to Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee, give a relevant subject header, and provide links to the off-site harassment and your evidence that it's Willsome429. Because of WP:OUTING, we can't really do anything here (even though I and several other admins here would happily block anyone who shows themselves on-site to be the sort of racist misogynist piece of shit that would harass a project improving our coverage of minorities). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been over three days since Pinchme123 said they emailed ArbCom about my actions. My offer two days ago to make concessions to that user above has been answered with silence, although they have been active on the encyclopedia since then. This is (to my knowledge) the first email to ArbCom about me, but WP:ArbCom says that most requests are handled within 48 hours and I still have not heard anything from the Committee. I have refrained from editing articles covered by the edit-a-thon during the past three days, although I have had constructive dialogue with a project editor on my user talk page. If others believe that editing in non-ultimate mainspace areas would help prove that I am not an SPA attack account, I can do that, or I can post on edit-a-thon facilitator user talk pages (list per here) inviting them to discuss my Wikipedia actions on their talk page or mine. I am committed to resolving this in a way that benefits the edit-a-thon, as I never had any inherent bias against it. If anybody has any other suggestions on how to make it up to the edit-a-thon, I am happy to hear them. If ArbCom does make a separate ruling based on evidence from on-wiki and off-wiki, I shall be subject to it, but I do not want this to drag into eternity as an open thread just because there is no definitive "seeing it through" moment. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• An editor who doesn't need to be named has suggested possibly an administrator should close this. If an administrator thinks it necessary, feel free. I see no problem with it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm re-closing. It is 100% inappropriate for a non-admin to close a thread when an admin has stated that they are intentionally leaving it open. Please don't get into the habit of doing that. On principle I would normally overturn the close outright. However given the fact that the OP has seemingly abandoned the thread, I will leave the close, but I am re-closing on the basis that your close was erroneous and inappropriate. You made an erroneous claim of "no action", which is inaccurate. The complaintant was referred to Arbcom for further investigation on the basis of off-wiki evidence. You also made an extremely inappropriate assessment that seemed to imply that the OP was "chastised" for reporting something that "isn't harassment". Just because a user comes here with off-wiki evidence of harassment that can't be examined publicly does not mean their complaint is not valid and should be taken extremely seriously, and no such judgment against the OP was formed here. Formal closes are summaries for the behavioral record and yours was not only an inaccurate summary, it gave me the impression that you did not even read or understand the situation at all. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Wester and race on Talk:Death of George Floyd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Death of George Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wester has been engaging in polemics and forum-like behavior on Talk:Death of George Floyd. This began when Wester removed the race of the officer in the lead sentence with the edit summary "mentioning the race of the police officer is not relevant".

they seem to think "neutral" means we should not mention race as it "creates narratives" and "the media loves this kind of thing". they appear to be of the opinion that "the media" will call "white on black" crimes "racism", but not the reverse because of "double standards" and "reverse discrimination":

If an African American commits a crime than overemphasis on race would also be called racism. The emphasis on the race of the officer implies racism while that's not proven. Wikipedia should be neutral.

That's the media narrative poor black man versus evil white police officer. But should Wikipedia participate in that bias narrative?

If a white officer arrest a black man and something goes wrong it's racism and manslaughter, if a black officer arrest a black man and something goes wrong than it's just a fault. That's double standard and anti-white racism.

This spilled over into a WP:POINTy edit on Death of Eric Garner when Wester added "Latino" in the lead sentence "to bring cohesion in wikipedia".

I posted DS notifications ([53]) and asked the user to stop the polemic behavior. My request was removed with the edit summary "stop spamming my user page with your bias comments. It's so easy to put people in boxes."

I am INVOLVED, so I am asking an uninvolved admin to review this user's behavior and, if appropriate, institute a sanction to stop what I view as disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm too close to involved (have edited the article and touching ones but not greatly) but fully agree with the assessment this is behavior that needs to stop immediately. --Masem (t) 23:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Actions are as follows: a partial block from Death of George Floyd, Talk:Death of George Floyd and Death of Eric Garner. Any further disruption will result in more severe sanctions. El_C 23:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is outraging. The only thing I've done is discussing. I have a point that Wikipedia is practising double standards and that an overemphasis on race creates an racist narrative which has not been proven. It's not because EvergreenFir disagrees with me that's I am spamming by discussing with him or her. Also note that EvergreenFir has not responded to my argument on that talk page. Why is the race relevant on Death of George Floyd but not an Death of Eric Garner. It's so clear that those are an example of double standards. A clear violation of WP:NPOV.

Also noted that I even stopped editing before that block because I was sick of the bias in that discussion, so the block is totally unnecessary. The mod that took the action could at least hear me out. Only EvergreenFir was heard. EvergreenFir tries to silence me by putting me in a box. I have done nothing wrong and have not violated a single rule. I am multiple years active on Wikipedia, I known the rules. --Wester (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You have engaged in polemics on an article talk page, and also disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point elsewhere. We're not going to do the Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources write with this article over and over again when it comes to the race of the officer. Such disruption, especially from experienced users, will not be tolerated. El_C 00:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

What do mean engaged in polemics? That was a simple discussion. I only brought on arguments on the unnecessity on the overemphasis on the race of the police officer in the lead. I did not insults or anything. If participating in a discussion is a blockable offence than anyone should be blocked. --Wester (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The polemics I refer to are quoted at the top of this report. El_C 00:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that an overemphasis on the race of the police officer creates narratives was exactly my point.--Wester (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources write. Polemics that wish to challenge that, do not belong on article talk pages. El_C 00:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not act like the mentioning the race of the officer in the lead of that article is necessary because of 'what reliable sources write'. It's an editorial chose, a editorial chose that creates a narrative that race was a factor, while that's not proven.--Wester (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia article talk pages are not for that. They need to be grounded in reliable sources. If reliable sources write about race becoming a narrative, that should also be mentioned (in all due weight). El_C 00:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is exactly the place where those things should be discussed. It's a discussion about the content of the article, more specifically if the race of the officer is relevant in the lead of that article. I do not see why I should be blocked simply to have that discussion. This is not WP:POINT, its a relevant discussion and I do think I was blocked too fast without proper reason and rebuttal. Probably I should not have made that edit on Death of Eric Garner, that was unnecessary polemic, but 1. it was only one edit (so no reason to block me latter for that), 2. there was nothing wrong with that edit per se, and 3. like I said: if it's relevant on Death of George Floyd why not there?--Wester (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This has become circular, but I'll finish (hopefully) by saying this: your "anti-white racism" argument was not grounded in reliable sources — it was you engaging in polemics on an article talk page. We don't want that distraction in an a topic which is already that heated. Full stop. El_C 17:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wester, please do not refactor your comment after it has been replied to, as you have done with this edit. That is not allowed. El_C 00:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I sense that a lot of things are not allowed here. Assume good fate. That's also a rule here. --Wester (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to innuendo except to say that it reflects poorly on you. El_C 00:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Why? I truly have good intentions.--Wester (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW: in that post I toned done my comment to avoid a polemic, a proof that I have good intentions. Like I said, your blocked to fast. I simply participated in a discussion with no harm. --Wester (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe you. But once you write something and it has been replied to, that reply makes less sense when the content being replied to is changed after the fact. The fact is you didn't merely engage in polemics on the article talk page, you have also engaged in POINTy behaviour elsewhere. El_C 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's leave it there. --Wester (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent glorification of mass murderer Elliot Rodger, and vilification of non-notable young woman, at Paul Humphreys

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For years now a user has been intent on pushing the name of Elliot Rodger into the article of British musician Paul Humphreys, while trying to link Rodger to Humphreys' non-notable, anonymous young daughter. This campaign has been going on since at least May 2015,[54] and was revived again today.[55] I think I'm corect in saying that Humphreys' page is about him and not a place to tout some elementary school friendship that his completely unknown daughter may or may not have had.

I happen to know that Ms. Humphreys is most upset and scared about being dragged out of her anonymous life, and linked to a well-known mass murderer on one of the internet's most popular sites. Rodger chose his own path, and can stand under public scrutiny alone. I request that this information be removed from Paul Humphreys' article, and that senior users consider adding his page to their "watchlists" in order to prevent this from happening yet again. Thank you. 5.70.57.95 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's typical nonsense and I have semi-protected Paul Humphreys for six months due to the WP:BLP violations. That will make repetition harder for the next six months. Things can be missed and if anyone notices a repeat, please notify me. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. 5.70.57.95 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

193.115.71.124

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:193.115.71.124 is continuing to blank this talkpage after I warned her multiple times that she is not supposed to blank an entire talkpage and that she can put her concerns on the bottom of the talkpage. She triggered the filter multiple times attempting to do it, and now she just successfully did it after being warned that she would be reported to ANI if she continued. CLCStudent (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

She??? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.71.124 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. As the author of these works I want them deleted now... My 'neights' page has been used to prove copyright infringement, and is to be put back... So is a 12 year old post from "the da vinci code" talk page that this person also hid from view.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.71.124 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Da_Vinci_Code&oldid=878456218 As stated "Author is not copyright holder of the blade and chalice" These artistic copyrights are being violated and to be removed from infringing works including derivative works that also infringes on those copyrights.....Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.71.124 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a sock of neights, who was infected for trying to use Wikipedia to falsely claim that Dan Brown plagiarized his books. Issue a lengthy block (I'd say indefinite, but can't do that for an IP) and move on. oknazevad (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TubeYouTokTik

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is pretty much an SPA who is clearly not here except to push a conspiracy theory over at September 11 attacks using YouTube videos and massive amounts of OR [[56]] to try an argue (often using very broken English [[57]]) the article should say it was a plot by the US to blame Muslims [[58]]. IN fact I am not even sure this is not some kind of satire account frankly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I've hatted the talkpage discussion. Apparently the writers of The Simpsons are in on the conspiracy, because all good conspiracies require conspirators to leave clues on purpose. Acroterion (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be the end of it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That did not take long [[59]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm somewhat involved, a topic ban or block from an uninvolved admin would probably be indicated. I don't think a partial block would work in this case, as gthere are plenty of 9/11-related articles they could move on to. I have to say it's the first time I've been reverted with a summary like "Please, dear, I merger my hands on you." Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well we have this now [[60]], so maybe they finally get it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, User:Beyond My Ken has been reinstating content that was removed after consensus was reached at talk to remove it. Reverting multiple times despite previous consensus and his edits being challenged. I don't want to edit war, so I'm bringing it here.

Also, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=959268659 it's hard to assume good faith while I'm discussed negatively on the users talk page. Bacondrum (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"I've had past disputes with them" is a statement of fact. Why would that prevent you from AGF? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You've called me all kinds of names in the past including "right winger" which I find particularly offensive, here your mate calls me a "problem" and you agree. Obnoxious and uncivil.Bacondrum (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I get it, what keep you from AGF is that you don't like me. Well, there's nothing much I can do about that, is there? But does that justify bringing a content dispute to AN/I? The editors here have other stuff to do, I'm sure.Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't dislike you, I don't know you. I do dislike being the subject of conversation when you should be discussing edits, not how I'm a "problem", and I dislike being called a "problem". I'd like you to work collaboratively and not be disruptive, but I assume that's wishful thinking. Bacondrum (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Care to share the discussion where consensus was reached to the contrary? Bacondrum (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the current discussion to either reach a new consensus, or validate the old one, which, by the way. took place a year six weeks ago without my participation. Although I respect many of the particpants, I believe that they reached the wrong decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears the discussion was one month ago, not one year ago. Also it seems like the WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus, not edit war and expect others to prove you more wrong. I would suggest self reverting. PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the year as "2019". That makes my case not nearly as strong, but still, consensus can change even after 6 weeks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW is this content dispute really an AN/I matter? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you are being disruptive. You made a bold edit then kept reverting to it against consensus reached a month agon on the relevant talk page and your own agreement not to go past 2RR. Bacondrum (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) Please check the history [61], I made two reverts, here and here. (2) What's on my talk page is the statement "BMK is attempting to hold himself to a 2RR limit. Please contact him if you see him going past that." There was no "agreement", which implies that I agreed to do something to avoid a sanction. There wasn't and I didn't. (3) In point of fact, I sometimes have a small problem with my eyes called "floaters" small bits of stuff in the eye that, when I am tired or stressed, block parts of my vision and make it hard to read. I'm pretty sure that's why I misread "2020" as "2019". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• BMK's stopped reverting. I don't really see anything to do here. Discussion can continue on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No matter how many personal attacks, edit wars and generally disruptive and uncivil actions this editor takes, they are never held to account. I've been making a real effort to be a better editor, but every time I come across this editor its just a bloody awful, time wasting interaction, it's like they deliberately attempt to make collaboration as difficult as possible, always combative, frequently at ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone close this before Bacondrum goes too far? (Ironic, though, what he says about seeing me at AN/I, since it was he who brought a content dispute here instead of to the talk page, where I asked him a number of times to go. [62],[63]) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious seeing as yesterday, when your hounding began, you urged me to take you to ANI. Bacondrum (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unless Bacondum (or someone else) has something substantive to add, or an admin or long-time editor has a question (in which case, please ping me), I'm outta here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've had my own run-ins with BMK in the past. That being said, given their past history of being warned (and occasionally blocked) for edit-warring, I have significant concern, when I see this, that they are failing to learn from their mistakes. I hope the admins will at least see fit to make it clear that this behavior needs to stop. DonIago (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The statement above from BMK in which they state that they went against consensus because they believed the editors "reached the wrong decision" is an unwelcome arrogant attitude that goes against the grain of our work here and always inevitably causes problems. Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Not everyone has the skills or personality to collaborate on a project that necessarily demands they withstand dissent to their edits. These people tend to be our most ardent and intractable edit-warmongers. RandomGnome (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusing, vandalism and rude behavior by Swapnilkapadia09

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Swapnilkapadia09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, Swapnilkapadia09 is making edits without adding any source to it [64][65][66] Firstly I warned him (on his talk page) and told him to add a credible source to his claims after that he started abusing me on my talk page [67]. Someone who knows Urdu/Hindi will easily understand what abusive title he has named to the talk page, After abusing with me he again started to do edits without adding any source to it which you can check[68][69]--NomanPK44 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that the section title on the talk page is incredibly vile, translating to Bamboo in your mother's... I assure you that the next word is not "forest". Notifying the user of WP:ARBIPA now. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Notified. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@M Imtiaz: He has still not stopped. He is completely ignoring the warnings see his new edits. He also tried to remove this section. [70] [71] NomanPK44 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I expected that. The goal was that an admin can now block them simply for violating DS (if that makes sense). You could also take this to AE if it doesn't enough eyes here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours for harassment/personal attacks (and for edit warring). I have no problem with other admins extending the block or otherwise applying ARBIPA sanctions, but I'm not especially familiar with the sanctions process so I just put a short block in place to stop the immediate disruption. creffett (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

On further review, upgraded to a WP:NOTHERE indef - their edit history consists almost entirely of POV-pushing in the India/Pakistan area and removing warnings from their talk page. creffett (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NomanPK44

@Creffett: I think you should also take a look at the behavior of NomanPK44 who is WP:NOTHERE as well. NomanPK44 was making frivolous warnings that Swapnilkapadia09 was doing "vandalism"[72] even when there was no vandalism. He is working to censor the effects of Pakistan's defeat against India since he has registered on Wikipedia,[73][74][75] engaged in sockpuppetry over it and is continuing this disruption even today.[76] I do think that NomanPK44 should be also blocked over his WP:RGW behavior. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:I agree when I was new here I have done these types of edits and I am sorry for that but now I don't do these edits. As for battle of Chawinda edit well the battle ended on 19 September and UN-mandated ceasefire on 22 September that's why I removed the UN-mandated ceasefire line. NomanPK44 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel: I would rather another admin look at whether DS action is needed - I'm not especially familiar with the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions area, and I only got involved here because there was obvious and immediate disruption going on. The diffs you linked were indeed problematic, but most were from a while ago. I do not see current ongoing disruptive behavior, so I don't think a NOTHERE block is appropriate at this time. No objection to other admins applying sanctions as needed if they feel they're appropriate.

NomanPK44: thank you for stepping away from the area. I would recommend that even in "obvious" cases, you use the talk page as appropriate and make edit requests rather than directly editing articles related to the India-Pakistan conflict, since that is a touchy area for everybody. And to be clear: this is not a sanction or administrative action, just a polite suggestion. creffett (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Sure I will definitely now try to first use the talk page. Thanks for your suggestion!.NomanPK44 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Jaredgoop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jaredgoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jaredgoop is off to an inauspicious start. 22 edits and already warned by Doug Weller and The Banner. Given the focus on., e.g., whitewashing Elliot Kline, Millennial Woes and the Battle of Cable Street, does this look like someone we've met before? Guy (help!) 23:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not 'whitewashing' anyone, merely making sure there are sources for their descriptions. (I am actually trying to call woes a white supremacist). As for battle of cable street wanted to add something interesting anyone can read in that book. If zyou cite a reliable source for the claim on woes I i'll happily leave it alone. This is how Wikipedia works, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredgoop (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser blocked by Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, this is my shocked face. Guy (help!) 09:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editor who just got unblocked from an indeff block returned to disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MatthewGoodfan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• This editor was just unblocked from an indeff block by Graham87. Just less than a month, the editor returned to disruptive editing in an area that is so controversial in American politics. The editor moved George Floyd protests without any consensus on the talk page as you can see here. I think that the editor returned to disruptive editing so fast and therefore I think the indeff block should return.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I did not know that this was a disruptive edit. I provided an explanation for my edit, referred to a valid reference in the article as reason for the moving of the page to that title, and I did not know that I needed consensus first. I understand that now and I will not make edits like that without consensus. I apologize for my mistake.--User:MatthewGoodfan101 (talk)
• SharabSalam, This is just a general feeling, but if you don't step back from your constant shit-stirring at ANI, I think there's a good chance you'll end up excluded from it at some stage. All you had to do was ask MatthewGoodfan101 to revert, in a friendly way, and all would have been fine - as it is now. Proposing an indef block for one action that was quickly reverted (with an apology) is absurd drama-mongering. Also, the original block was incorrect, as both I and the blocking admin saw, so there can not possibly be grounds for reinstating it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll just add that describing an editor who has had *one incorrect block* as a "Disruptive editor who just got unblocked from an indeff block" with an accusation that they have "returned to disruptive editing", is poisoning the well, is dishonest, and is very much out of step with WP:Civil and WP:AGF. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• It was certainly naive to move such a busy and controversial article without a prior consensus, but it was done for a reasonably justifiable reason, the move was easily reverted and MatthewGoodfan101 apologised. It feels to me like just a mistaken overreach of WP:BOLD editing; unless I'm missing more of a recent pattern of this kind of stuff, calling for an indef block seems extremely harsh. ~ mazca ^talk 12:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Boing. Graham87 —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• The editor has apologized for their undiscussed move and I apologize for taking this too far. I was a bit angry.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand what there is to be angry about. But a good rule of thumb is not to edit Wikipedia while angry. Anyway, I did move protect the article now, indefinitely. It's best to leave further moves of this extremely high-visibility article to admins via RMs. El_C 12:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beyond My Ken offering personal abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[77]. Now old mate is swearing at editors in his edit summary, this is yet another example of BMK launching a WP:PERSONALATTACK for no apparent reason other than disliking a citation format. But I suppose he'll just get a pass, again? Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[P]lease don;t do shit like this is not a personal attack. Do you understand the difference between personal attacks and expletives? El_C 22:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Come on? So I'm right to just go around swearing at other editors? So we don't have to be civil anymore? Great, noted. Bacondrum (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Such language is rude and uncouth. It can be perceived as a personal attack (as indeed it was) because it is so abrasive and in-your-face. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Grapefruit can be divided into edible sections. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra}

And yet, "shit" referred to actions, not to a person. But BMK, I don't understand why that change was "shit"--I like having editable sections. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The section is still editable, through "References", but that was not what was "shit". They combined the "Informational notes" section into the "Citations" section, so that it read:

• Citations and notes
• 1. Note 1
• 2. Note 2
• 1. Citation 1
• 2. Citation 2
• 3. Citation 3

Which is confusing, since the notes and the citations are numbered separately. And that's about all I have to say about this piece of WP:Harassment from Bacondrum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, except for this: when my brother and I were kids, I threw a rock which broke his tooth. I freely give that to Bacondrum to use for his next harassing AN/I report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• so now I'm being accused of harassment WP:AOHA and that's being used by old mate as an excuse to start edit warring [78] A quick check of the pages history will show I've been collaborating on this page for some time now without issue. However, BMK has started turning up on various pages I edit and reverting me recently. Check his history. Bacondrum (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not think I have ever used the word "shit" on Wikipedia except in a quotation, and I would advise BMK and any other editor to avoid words like that. But it is not swearing and he did not call an editor "shit" but rather their edit. Some editors regularly use far more profane language for unknown reasons but there is no consensus to stop the use of such profane language except in cases of direct personal attacks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so just to clarify. If I don't like an edit, I can call it "shit"? Or "fucking stupid"? or "A cunt of an edit"? What's the standard? Bacondrum (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a personal attack, but uncouth. I object to scatalogical commentary when I can. There are so many other words for this sort of shit stuff. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And some of those other words are just fucking completely odious. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Just say "sounds like something BMK would say"; that's insulting enough. But for him, you might need to tweak it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hehehe Bacondrum (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra hahaha! Sweet, I fucking absolutely love swearing and shit stuff, I'm glad to know its not considered fucking uncivil or a personal attack. Thanks for clarifying. Bacondrum (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's jarring and my mom would have washed my mouth out with soap. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

haha, I hope it wasn't the old Solvol brand soap! That shit is would be painful as all fuck. Bacondrum (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm wondering why the edit BMK changed was a bad edit. [79] SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's got me fucked, couldn't see anything wrong with it. Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sarah: See above and look closely at the result, especially the numbering of the items. Outta here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was entertaining at least. I'll keep it in mind that cursing out other peoples edits is not explicitly out of bounds. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picklespitlizyr - persistent tag removal and ad hominem attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Picklespitlizyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked Picklespitlizyr on 29 May. They had been persistently removing maintenance tags from the Copper Canyon article and otherwise disrupting the article. They started back up today, and I left a non-templated message inviting them to explain why they felt their edits improved the article.[80] In return, they left a message at Talk:Copper Canyon that made no attempt to address the content of the article, but instead referred to my "obsession" with it.[81] When I suggested they address the content of the article and not make comments that could be deemed a personal attack, the response was to call my adminship "a disaster".[82]

Since the comments are addressed at me, I don't think I should take further administrative action. However, something needs to be done with this user. Either somebody needs to work with them and get them editing collaboratively, or they need to be blocked if they're going to keep attacking other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an user that saw by coincidence this message, I don't see anything wrong with the reported user. Sorry that I was wrong. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a simple example of "C.Fred"'s behavior as a sysop, page wasn't vandalized more than one good-faith edit (that was the last ip's edits before his page semi-protection) and "C.Fred" fastly acts. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Just fresh off a block and after this previous random wikihounding, Picklespitlizyr is again pulling random retaliatory wikihounding directed at me. He/she is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by user Smeagol 17 on Alita: Battle Angel

Smeagol 17 (talk) is continuing to make the same edit over and over again on Alita: Battle Angel that undoes the product of a previous discussion on the talk page with no consensus. He's been reverted several times, been pointed to the relevant healthy and productive talkpage discussion on the very topic he's trying to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alita:_Battle_Angel#Unsourced_claim_box_office_point_from_edit_summaries, and been personally warned to stop making the same edit with no consensus which he's ignored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smeagol_17#May_2020. When directing him to the talkpage to discuss his opinions, he wrote a throwaway sentence that didn't explain anything at the end of an already finished discussion and continued to make his same edit. When directed to start his own new discussion on the talkpage, he resorted to a personal attack before stating a random general fact that for the life of my I can't equate to any point he's trying to make anyways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alita:_Battle_Angel#Some_here_do_not_understand_that_studios_do_not_get_the_entire_Box_Office_gross before making his same edit again claiming his point had been clarified despite nobody even replying to his post. As revertions, the evidence of prior talkpage discussions on the same subject, user warnings and the opportunity to open his own talkpage discussion have proved fruitless, can someone else please take a look at this? Davefelmer (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• With all due respect, Davefelmer, you suggested on two separate occasions that they just aren’t aware of Wikipedia policy and that they should make a seperate thread as is protocol. It would be helpful if you actually cited the specific policy and protocol to which you were referring. KyleJoan^talk 04:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I did write on the talkpage before being directed to by anyone, as is easily seen. Got no response both times. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Merely writing on the talkpage and getting no response does not give you carte blanche to go about continuing to make unconstructive edits and ignoring previous discussions, as has been explained. It is precisely the fact that you got no response and thus no consensus to undo changes that were already established through previous discussion that means you don't do it. It is also not my nor any other editor's job to swiftly or otherwise answer anything you write on the talkpage, especially when said response is titled as a personal attack/dig and I can't even infer your general point or rationale in the response. Davefelmer (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I just corrected your timeline. Also, keeping obvious nonsense from the lead section of a prominent article is more important then not stepping on your toes. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Other than the fact it looks like an edit-war there, this sounds more like an WP:DRN issue. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem; you are not the arbiter for what is 'obvious nonsense' and what isn't. That is editing in bad faith. When your edits have been reverted and you see talkpage consensus for the prior version, you must get a new consensus on the talkpage before making any changes. If you do not get that consensus, you don't make the changes. It can be frustrating if you personally dont like the way something is presently written, but edit warring is never the correct response to it. Davefelmer (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbiter? I just simply thought you posted in the wrong noticeboard as there is the specific noticeboard I pointed to above for content disputes. It does seem kinda trivial that you can't come to a simple compromise, everything always seems long winded with you guys know. Govvy (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, that reply was meant in response to Smeagol 17's last comment. Davefelmer (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You did not respond to my arguments and show no understanding of my point or issue at hand, but instead of asking for clarification you revert and threaten me with administrative action, misrepresenting the timeline of our interactions. Sorry, but your behavior shows that archiving consensus with you on this issue will be impossible, at least by myself. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I’m not obligated to respond to your arguments on a talkpage. You are the one that is obligated to get consensus for a change that already had consensus if you reach an impasse. From me or from other editors on the talkpage. If that takes a while to come, it takes a while to come. If it doesn’t come at all, then it doesn’t come at all. That’s not up to me, those are just the project rules. And secondly, I don’t even understand the point you’re attempting to make on the article talkpage in the first place so I can’t offer any input. Davefelmer (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not obligated to wait for your consent to remove clear nonsense (that you yourself added), especialy as you clearly do not want to talk about the substance of the problem, instead presenting your personal wishes as wikipedia policy. Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You don’t need MY consent, but you need a general consensus. I may have added in the changes personally, but they were the product of a discussion on the talkpage that has been linked both here in this thread and to you personally. If you want to change an established edit, you need consensus. Whether you believe the current version is ‘nonsense’ or not is up to you but it has no bearing here. Please read WP:CONS. Davefelmer (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So, you and wallyfromdilbert represent wikipedia consensus? Where did you made an effort to incorporate my legitimate concerns? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

once again, it isn’t everyone’s duty to address anything you say. Wally and I are not sole arbiters of Wikipedia consensus but we engaged in a talkpage discussion on the very subject you are talking about and came to a consensus on the wording used. I don’t even know what your concerns are, you haven’t so much as made a clear point that I can personally see to reply to, and neither wally nor mysticdan, who has also been active on the page and replied in this very discussion, have seen fit to reply to you either. That should tell you something. You simply opened a discussion where you threw a dig at a user in the title, made a random comment about a break even point in the body that has no relevance to anything, didn’t raise any question or addressable concern of any kind, and then are wondering why nobody has responded. Davefelmer (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not wondering why you don't reply. I am wondering why you do not understand the simple point. And instead of asking to explain what you do not understand, you engage in your current behavior. The others mentioned do not revert my edits or report me, so please do not hide behind them. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

nobody is hiding my guy, you were the one complaining about nobody replying to you on the talkpage. If you’d like to expand or edit your talkpage comment to explain how what you wrote has any relevance to the article and what you are proposing to edit something to and why, I’ll be happy to take a look at it this evening. Davefelmer (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I not complaining about nobody replying on the talk page. First, it is you who are compaining about me, after you reverted my edits and reported me without engaging on the talk page. Second, I am not proposing to edit something, I already did it and you reverted it. As for explanation: how about you re-read the page-linkend deadline articles and read what I linked on the talk page, then re-read your proposed edit. Maybe after that you will notice that you calling the film break-even point budget is nonsence. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I see the filer of the complaint more at fault here. Smeagol attempted to engage on the talk page, and there was no response. Either this is WP:SILENCE, or it's a bad faith refusal to engage and stonewall any attempt at reaching consensus. Also, edit summaries claiming that the edits are vandalism[83] are unimpressive behaviour. I don't see why this has been brought to ANI at this stage either. Number 57 11:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve said, I don’t understand the point he’s trying to make on the talkpage. Hence instead of saying that I wanted to wait to see if another editor would engage with him. Also, how do you see it as more my fault when there’s a clear discussion on the talkpage linked in this thread that concluded with the inclusion of the very information he’s trying to revert? On top of the fact that when he did finally post on the talk page, the post was titled as a personal attack. I also don’t understand your point about labelling edits as vandalism. The edit summary you link to clearly shows me calmly reasoning with the other user and citing the previous talkpage discussion agreement to include the information he’s trying to revert. I really don’t understand this response. Davefelmer (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The "rvv" in your edit summary could be interpreted as shorthand for "revert vandalism" Mysticdan (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah no I meant it simply as revert. I didn’t even notice I added an extra ‘v’ in the beginning. In any case, I made the explanation as clear and informative as possible. Davefelmer (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't revert someone, telling them to get consensus on the talkpage, refuse to engage with them on the talkpage when they open a discussion, and then proceed to revert them again by stating they don't have consensus. Above, you wrote Merely writing on the talkpage and getting no response does not give you carte blanche to go about continuing to make unconstructive edits and ignoring previous discussions, as has been explained., but the reverse is true, too: refusing to engage on the talkpage with someone making good faith efforts to reexamine consensus doesn't give you carte blanche to simply revert their edits as being against consensus. As Number 57 said, that's classic stonewalling. Grandpallama (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Category removal before discussion closed

On May 22, User:Rathfelder nominate a number of categories involving Climate change denial for deletion [84]. That discussion is still going on, and has not been closed.

Today Rathfelder is making mass edits to remove those categories from articles. [85]

Their explanation on my talk page is:

"The current discussion is bound by the earlier discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive289#RfC:_Category:Climate_change_deniers. Please join the current discussion if you have some constructive suggestions." [86] Referring to an August 2019 discussion.

My feeling is if the categories in question were supposed to have been deleted by the August 2019 discussion, then why did Rathfelder think it necessary to nominate them for speedy deletion? And since when does a discussion at BLPN have jurisdiction over the deletion of categories?

In any case, they're removing them before the closing of the deletion discussion, edits which should probably be mass reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I added these categories in ignorance of the earlier decision. It is quite clear what the decision of the present discussion will be. We do not categorise people by opinion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Many, many discussions on Wikipedia turn around to the opposite of what appears to be the obvious conclusion at some point (I can point to two or three on this page alone), that's why we wait until the discussion has been closed by a neutral party who assesses the consensus. You've jumped the gun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We do categorise people by opinion, hence the whole Category:Conspiracy theorists tree. Number 57 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• If there is a violation then it's on me not Rathfelder, since I am the one who alerted Rathfelder about earlier decisions. But I believe there is no violation because (a) it seems to me that the initial nominator for speedy deletion was not Rathfelder but BrownHairedGirl (see the actual discussion); (b) there was a CfD as well as a WP:BLPN discussion in 2015, as mentioned in the intro of the second (2019) WP:BLPN discussion (c) WP:OPINIONCAT says remove the category from persons' biographies and this will apply even if the category is not deleted (Rathfelder avoided deleting for some cases where somebody might argue that the opinion was a defining characteristic); (d) WP:BLP says material can be removed immediately and without discussion if it's contentious and poorly sourced, which was sometimes arguably so, for example the sole evidence for categorizing Vicky Hartzler was that she tweeted "Global warming strikes America! Brrrr!".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• None of the posters above has described the sequence of events accurately. I am tired and headachey so off to bed soon, so I don't have time to diff-farm ... but no, I did not nominate any of these categories. Read the discussion.

However, the issue is simple: once Rathfelder had nominated the categories, they should not have begun to depopulate them. That's the closer's job, if the result is delete. And Rathfelder did depopulate: see 135 edits.

This is one a series of recent instances in which Rathfelder has been disruptive at CFD. If I feel less headachey tomorrow and this discussion is still open, I will post some links to that. But just note three facts:

1. To each of the nominated categories, Rathfelder correctly added a CFd tag (see e.g. [87])
2. Each CFD tag says:

   Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

3. Rathfelder made 135 edits emptying the categories.[88]

Is that wilful disruption? Or is it yet more of Rathfelder acting incompetently, like their spree of disruption in April on Dublin categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Although there may be BLP issues here, I don't think they justify going around the normal processes for handling category deletions, i.e. any depopulation and deletion should be left to after closing. Likewise, if something is clearly snowing, let an uninvolved party decide that and close early rather than going around the normal processes. Even if Rathfelder was the one who added the categories and now realises it's a mistake, once it's as CSD it would be better to let the discussion play out. Rathfelder is free to disown their actions in the discussion. In the even the community finds the categories should stay, we don't delete them and re-add them so the editor who originally added them can say they now regret their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's not acceptable to anticipate the results of discussions. Deb (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is entirely concerned with the consequences of the decision made last year to delete similar categories. I announced my intention to purge them in the discussion and there was no objection. If the eventual conclusion is to keep them all, which seems very unlikely, I will reinstate them. Meanwhile it seemed important to identify the articles which generate real difficulties, as opposed to the large number of articles about politicians which merely mention climate change denial in a non-defining way. Purging of disputed categories is not a very unusual practice. Rathfelder (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The purpose of the CSD is to come to a consensus about what to happen with the categories. This will be based on our policies and guidelines, including in reference to previous discussions where relevant. This is what seems to be happening in that discussion and it should be allow to play out. If the decision is made to delete the categories then they will be depopulated and deleted. Until that happens, you need to stop mass editing without clear consensus. Acting as if a decision has been made when it hasn't is indeed an "unusual practice". And polluting edit histories with 2 edits when there should have been none is a silly suggestion. To put it a different way, just calm the heck down and let things play out as they will, rather than getting all itchy fingers and doing something prematurely. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced contents

Please have a look at the pages Ambalavasi and Polyandry in India an anonymous guy (2402:3A80:12A2:3CD1:557B:CB9F:7074:22DC) blatantly removing sourced contents by saying "not in the source".

[[89]]

The statement he removed was clearly mentioned in the provided source [2] of the article Ambalavasi here [[90]]

[[91]]

This statement also clearly mentioned in the provided source [13] and [11] of the article here Polyandry in India [[92]] and [[93]]

The same edit is also done by IP's 106.200.38.139 and 2402:3A80:530:DF60:4D00:555C:CA7A:45C. The editing behavior shows both the edits are from the very same person. Please block this user.Outlander^07@talk 18:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IP making unsourced and badly-sourced edits to Ashkenazi Jews and edit warring, refusing to discuss in Talk

An IP (User:217.132.62.197) is persistently making unsourced and misrepresentative edits (based on misinterpretations of a source and claimed personal experience) and ignoring explanations in edit notes in Ashkenazi Jews. I reverted them three times but do not want to violate the three-revert rule (by reverting more than that, which is my understanding of the rule) but they don't seem to be willing to listen and seem determined to misinterpret a source by adding their WP:OR and ignoring its fairly clear conclusions. (If I have violated the 3RR rule, I will of course, self-revert until this is resolved.). I would have engaged them in Talk, but I am unsure whether one can ping an IP (and this IP seems largely unwilling to listen/engage and has made strange personally-directed and somewhat uncivil/accusatory comments such as this [[94]] and this [[95]] with unsupported assertions in response to my source-based notes such as this one [[96]]). Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Here is the page's edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skllagyook (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you.Skllagyook (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Also the same IP (217.132.62.197) seems to be making the same poorly/inaccurately/misleadingly sourced and disruptive (or potentially disruptive) edits to the Ashkenazi page of the Hebrew Wikipedia. I reverted once (or rather modified/added to their edit to make it less misleading) but wish to avoid an edit war. What can be done? Can something be done by you/from here? Or would I need to address this on the Hebrew Wikipedia equivalent of ANI (if so/if it exists, how can I find it)?

See (can be translated into English automatically with many smartphones of with Google translate): ::https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/מיוחד:היסטוריה/יהדות_אשכנז

Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No, nothing can be done here. Sorry, I do not have sysop privileges there. Their reporting platform is at he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות_ממפעילים. El_C 23:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Drassow

I am raising concern about personal abuse directed at me by User:Drassow. On 5 May Drassow wrote the following on a user talk page: "Sounds like you're the different side of the same coin for atheism. You're acting like a manchild over Slugger being in favor of a synonymous term that makes sense contextually." [[97]]. They used the term "petty manchild" again against an administrator User:JzG [[98]]. I asked Drassow to explain or apologise but they blanker their talk page with the words "Still don't care dude" [[99]] Can someone advise on how I proceed please? Thank you in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I really dislike writing anything here as rule... but OK, I'll just float something from the teachers (and parents) playbook.

Scenario 1

• Child performs attention-seeking behaviour
• Teacher reacts to attention-seeking behaviour
• Child thinks "this is working", and continues attention-seeking behaviour

Scenario 2

• Child performs attention-seeking behaviour
• Teacher pointedly ignores attention-seeking behaviour
• Child thinks "this is not working", and discontinues attention-seeking behaviour

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that a warning may be in order about WP:PA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Exceptions are valid when at the editor's talk page or at an administrator noticeboard to discuss behavior. —PaleoNeonate – 13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree in principle but not in practice. The user in question has been previously adequately warned. With this kind of behaviour, in my opinion, any response at all would be a reward for attention-seeking behaviour. Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have an opiinon on the "manchild" issue, but we clearly have an edgelord here. I personally love edgy contentious political arguments but they belong in other venues. --AdamF in MO (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's indeed not a very welcoming statement... —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:, you seem like a knowledgeable type of person. Do we allow userboxes featuring terrorists?--AdamF in MO (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I see you already pointed at WP:UBX on their talk page. @Drassow: Would you care to explain the intention, especially while under scrutiny at ANI? —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's vague and arbitrary logic used to remove my satarization of a clearly ego-driven meta of the userboxes. Shall I delete anybody's userboxes that I find divisive or abrasive? Any cabal referencing userboxes are divisive by definition, hypocrite. Drassow (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You really believe that more personal attacks and making a point with a terrorist infobox after being reported is the same as traditional Wikipedia humor? —PaleoNeonate – 05:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/958633021... —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Drassow)

We clearly have and edgelord who’s here to stir up shit. It seems to me that ANI has always tolerated this kind of behavior too much. Drassow should be community banned for personal attacks, uncivil behavior and a battleground mentality. —AdamF in MO (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mindful that he's literally above just abused another administrator as a "hypocrite" for asking a perfectly civil question, then I would support this proposal. I don't appreciate being called a "manchild" - I am an adult thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is to far up the page to get any traction at this point, probably. —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think people would be reluctant to support an outright ban this quickly, but a final warning at minimum is deserved for that comment above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

He will certainly just ignore it and blank it off the page. That’s if there’s an admin with enough bandwidth to pay attention to it. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Support CBAN. Else issue a final warning and a notice that the warning must not be removed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm no longer convinced that a warning would change anything, considering that the response so far was WP:BATTLEGROUND... —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support immediate community ban, due to this diff. Yesterday, Drassow retaliated against Adamfinmo for this ANI by removing a userbox from their page, with the edit summary Do you like it done to you? This user is clearly unable to edit collaboratively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

He was given a warning and blanked the page while adding "Find something better to do than vandalize my page". The guy is making a mockery of expected behaviours, and showing utter contempt for administrators. If everyone starts doing this then the whole thing begins to unravel....Contaldo80 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment This didn’t get much traction from the admins and no headway was made with Drassow. That’s a real shame. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate or CIR mis-editing of COVID data

• Spencer1594 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases_by_state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Washington (state) medical cases by county (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it's time to escalate this to administrators. I and others have warned this editor repeatedly, directly on their talkpage, in edit summaries, or on article talkpages [100][101][102][103][104] that they should not try to totalize data where there are many Washington State counties missing, including King County, which is the largest by population. But they persist [105][106][107]. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I left the user the general sanctions notification and a warning that challenged edits must be discussed. Please notify me (e.g. a ping from a discussion which does not show consensus for a repeated edit) if there is an ongoing problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

They also were doing this on the US state cases table ([108], [109], [110]; the last one was literally 1 hour after responding (incomprehensibly) to my request to stop [111], and their next edit after that was reverting Bri on the WA page) although they at least stopped disrupting the US table the second (third?) time Bri and I asked. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with an Editor on the Deep Learning Super Sampling article

Hello, I currently have a problem with the User talk:62.248.185.87 editor on the Deep Learning Super Sampling article. He keeps stating that the article is an advert I wrote (maybe he thinks that I'm working for Nvidia). He seems to think that the article contradicts itself and put tags about it, but he do not propose anything to improve it. He keeps in this non-constructive attitude whatever improvement I try to add on the article. He wanted the article to be deleted from the beginning.

Besides, this user is extremely aggressive towards me since his first edit. The first thing he wrote on the talk page (and the second on Wikipedia, except if his account is a sock puppet) is: "Article is self-contradictory, lacks verifiability, uses vague, non-descriptive language and is written like an advertisement". It looks like an insult to me, and he has not stopped to use this kind of language in the article talk page. I tried to improve the article at the beginning but: first it was never enough for him, second he did not participate in any way except by throwing trash at whatever I tried. When I asked for advice on any proposal from him, he did not answer. But it was OK for him to write on the talk page that I wrote nonsense after I edited the article. I'm not editing on Wikipedia to be insulted by complete strangers.

His last remark is "These repeated baseless accusations while refusing to read or address edit summaries is not even remotely close to good faith participation". It is funny to write something like that for an editor whose only edits are on the talk page of this same article to explain that what I wrote is either baseless or is an advert, or removing parts of the article itself.

In have more than 14000 edits on wikipedia, and I created articles on a variety of subjects (I know I can make mistakes when I edit, and I accept critics, but not insults). He is not a registered user (OK it's his right if a prefers to edit that way), he is very aggressive, and almost only posted thrash on the talk page for this same article. He has also started to insult another editor who just tried to say on his talk page that he should be more careful when talking to other editors here Hervegirod (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have informed 62.248.185.87 (talk · contribs) about this discussion and told them I would semi-protect the article unless they engage with the discussion on talk. Please forget about the aggressiveness for now and explain at Talk:Deep Learning Super Sampling why the IP's concerns are unwarranted. You might also ask them why they remove text which they apparently think is inappropriate, but still tag the article in the same edit (diff). Please ping me from article talk after two or three days if the problem has not been resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not tag the article in the same edit in which I removed the claim. What you are looking at there is a edit reversal of a reversal of 2 edits made by a previous editor. You really ought to get things such as this correct if you are to make moderating decisions. Currently you are forcing me to defend myself against false accusation you have made - even though you are supposed to act as an neutral arbiter of disputes. Those edits were put in separately and concern different parts of the article. Making false accusations against me does not help resolving disputes and does not bring forth a sense of trust.

I removed a sentence from the page simply because they are not in the supposed source material. I brought this issue up on the talk page up all the way back in 13th of April, only to get told that Hervegirod does not remember where the claim they added is from, (adding such claims of the type is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy), and later Hervegirod had another article inserted as a source material and the wording slightly altered. The new referenced material on a quick word count is an 2716 word long article, something which is important later. I obviously read the referenced material in detail and with plenty of attention, and thus discovered that the claims were still not in it! Furthermore the article actually went on to pretty much say that the claims in the Wikipedia article are untrue! Hervegirod wrote that the quality is the same, but yet the article made no such claim. The performance was not shown to double on the quality preset, it went from 57 to 91 fps, even though Hervegirod insists that it did. And thirdly none of the testing even was at the claimed 4k output resolution.

I have furthermore repeatedly referenced, explained and expanded on this both in the edit summary and in the talk page of the article - yet have not gotten any answer to it - not even once has this point been addressed by Hervegirod. Separately despite all of this, my edit of the removal of the non sourced and dubious claims were then reverted by CrazyBoy826 less than 60 seconds (diff)(!!!) after I originally made the change. It's not physically possible get yourself acquainted with an approximately 2716 word article in 60 seconds. Thus as the user making the reversal clearly had not read the article or familiarized themselves with the edit, it could be undone, which is what I did, and that's what you are looking at there. So you mischaracterized my edit, but let's set that aside and focus on the issue at hand.

The claims made by Hervegirod above contain mostly untruths, half-truths and mischaracterizations. Key among them is the insistence in claiming that removal of untrue or non sourced material is somehow "non-constructive". The very opposite is true. WP:PROVEIT says this The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. This criteria has not been filled even remotely, despite me giving a very generous month and a half to fix the issue. Removing untrue claims is not "non-constructive" in any way whatsoever, the very opposite is true - It's arguably some of the most constructive changes one can make in Wikipedia. It is simply not my responsibility to find a source for Hervegirods claims. How could I find a source for Hervegirod's claims if Herverigod is unable to find sources for their own claims?

Here's some of the other mischaracterizations and half truths: Claiming that I keep stating the article is an advert that they wrote. I never claimed that the article is an advert they wrote. I wrote on the talk page that it's written like an advertisement, which is the same exact words as used in Wikipedia, such as Template:advert. Furthermore I even referenced some of what the related templates, such as WP:Weasel said and how it was parallel to the article at the time. It's not really accurate in the first place but "kept stating" is something that's would have been done multiple times. I have not really said it so in the first place let alone KEPT stating it. That's an inaccurate characterization of me, which is for the record almost the only thing Hervegirod comments on, my character. Of course the actual fact that they repeatedly insert something in to their own article that's not supported by their own sources or apparently even true would not make a good argument.

Claiming that I wrote that they wrote "nonsense" on the talk page of the article: There is literally 0 mentions of the word "nonsense" there and I never described anything that they put on the talk page as nonsense. That claim is literally just outright untrue!

Claiming that I have not "propose anything to improve it": I did not just propose to improve it, but I actually did improve it! Removing untrue and non sourced claims from an article definitely improved it and I feel good about it.

Claiming my last remarks were the ones written above: That's a complete mischaracterization of my message. My message was almost entirely about the claims which I took off from the article - the only reason I wrote that was due to him repeatedly attacking my character while refusing to engage in dialogue about the actual claims they had written in the article. The message I responded there literally contained nothing about the claims themselves. Hervegirod asked me, and I quote "Do you ever read what people answer to your questions?" - there was no reason to assume I had not read the answers. Also pointing out errors in, such as the cited source not containing claims they had written on the article is not vandalism and accusing me of it was entirely unwarranted.

Claiming that I'm starting to remove parts of the article: I removed a single sentence which contained two non sourced and dubious claims. That's a broad over description and yet another mischaracterization.

Claiming that my only edits are on the talk page: If my only edits would be on a talk page would we be here?

All in all it's a character assassination which doesn't address the fact that the removed sentence claimed something which was not only unsupported by the claimed source material, but actually contradicted by it. Unlike claimed in the sentence, the performance did not double on the quality preset in the game control, it went from 57 fps to 91, far from doubling, and the results was never described as "same quality" in the article, and that's besides that the testing never even was at 4k output resolution unlike they wrote on the article!

Lastly it's not correct to say that I have not engaged in the talk page. It's quite the opposite. I explained in detail how the cited source material did not contain the claim made in the article, only for Hervegirod not only not to respond, but to come to complain here instead. Saying that I should engage in comment page doesn't actually alter what I've done so far as I've already done it, but I'll keep doing it and await for Hervegirod to start doing the same, instead of just complaining here. Good starting point for that would be to admit that the source material for their claims doesn't contain what they wrote in the article, and therefore the removal was justified. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Many of us are over the thrill of arguing with a wall of text from a random angry person. I'll look at the content issue later and try to extract whatever meaning there is from the above. It will be necessary to state what the problem is (problem = article content and edits thereto) in a digestible manner. That will be sorted at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I attempted some improvements there. Definitely issues on both sides, and too much argument to read. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

John Smith2 - here only to promote book sales

Special:Contributions/John_Smith2 (talk) appears to only exist on Wikipedia to promote book sales. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and deserves an indefinite block (WP:NOTHERE). He did 13 trivial edits over 10 minutes on 2 September 2017 to get autoconfirmed, and since then his edits have consisted of adding books he is promoting to the further reading sections of articles. The current book being promoted is:

• Malik, Jamal, Islam in South Asia: Revised, Enlarged and Updated Second Edition, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have had a look and given the user a COI warning and a one-off warning for advertising. If he continues to edit in this way, a block may be in order. Deb (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Technical move request: Death of George Floyd -> Killing of George Floyd

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editors on talk have expressed widespread preference for the "Killing" title, but technical problems prevent us from making the change. The major outstanding objections -- lack of autopsy and charges -- have been resolved. Obviously, this is a very time-sensitive request and editors' wishes should be reflected as soon as feasible. I love to cite WP:NODEADLINE, but not here. Allowing editors to make their desired change immediately might help to 'defuse' tensions and save lives. Feoffer (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This looks like this is effectively a request for closure for Talk:Death of George Floyd#Requested move 27 May 2020? — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It could be, but there's no harm in allowing discussion to continue under the preferred title if we want to keep it open. But the existing discussion shows a clear preference and probably consensus for the 'killing' title. And this is a topic we don't want to 'wait' on, like we might we might for other articles. The next 24 hours, this article title might actually matter; we should let the editors' 2-to-1 preference stand for the time being Feoffer (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the request and moved the page to the new title. El_C 11:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Mahasundari devi legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mahasundari devi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has threatened legal action if his user page which contains content about his grandmother (there is an article at Mahasundari Devi) is deleted. I have told him he needs to discuss concerns on the article talk page, that he cannot have article content on his user page, and asked him to read WP:NLT. Awaiting his response. I don't want to be overly hasty about blocking, but I thought I should mention it here. Hopefully, he can be guided w/o blocking. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

Unfortunately has declined to withdraw his threat, if anyone else wants to do the honors. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 12:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

NLT block applied. Cabayi (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wjrz nj forecast

Repeated WP:DE mass changes adding WP:OR WP:CBALL content. WP:IDHT ignoring WP:V and WP:CS. WP:CIR. Prior ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#User:Wjrz nj forecast repeated addition of WP:OR WP:CBALL for similar behavior.

Refs in the edit below are links Playbill and general info on Broadway production, not specific WP:V details that "the show suspended production due to the COVID-19 pandemic":

• Chicago (musical)
• Mean Girls (musical)
• Girl from the North Country (musical)
• Jagged Little Pill (musical)
• West Side Story

...and dozens of others.

Antagonism towards other editors re: guidelines above: 1 2 3

User's edit summaries:

• "There’s a source now, I hope everyone recognizes how perfect these edits are"
• "I know some people don’t like me making any edits, but I’ve added a source so I hope I don’t get deleted"
• "Sources are so cool"
• "Don’t like my edits? Meow"
• "Now you can’t block me for unsourced editing! Beat you there!"

AldezD (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, yesterday they went back to talk pages where they had edited and apologized for their edit summaries here, here, here, and here. Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Username note: WJRZ-FM is an actual radio station in New Jersey, so this username is probably a violation of WP:Usernames. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reported to UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have talked to someone about my username already. However, if it is a violation, I would be happy to change it, just let me know. I don’t see what’s wrong with my sources. I’ve been talking with User:Paul Erik about how I can make the sources more useful. Please leave any information about how I can add content on my talk page, if you see I was happy to change it. I apologized for my edit summaries, and if there is a way to delete them, I would like to do that. Could someone please explain why this was taken to the administrators? Thank you. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti incivility and personal attacks

In this deletion discussion, Vmavanti attacked another editor who !voted a different way, writing "What are you, eleven?" Later they wrote about opposing !votes, "These are bot responses." I would have ignored this except after I closed the discussion, they went on my talk page suggesting that I am a bot. The user has made many contributions to WP so they must be aware of WP:NPA. buidhe 13:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is so childish it hardly merits a response. It is a very bad idea for non-admins to close discussions, certainly not without very good reason, which was not given. The crux of the matter was sources, and that needed to be discussed more fully. Are we against Talk now? I was encouraging people in the discussion to read more carefully. For that, some would like to put me on trial. This has a faintly historical ring to it...
Vmavanti (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: It is a very bad idea for non-admins to close discussions, certainly not without very good reason, which was not given is at odds with community norms: see WP:NAC. A reason, too, is not required: all that is is that the closer is registerd, competent and experienced, all of which apply here. Your nomination, in fact, was so erroneous that no-on else agreed with you, and one of the few things that non-admins can close are discussions where the result is beyond doubt a clear keep, as was the one you initiated. Of course, you will always find one or two admins who disapprove of NACs, but the community disagrees with them at this point in time. All the best. ——Serial ^# 14:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have got so fed up with this editor's incivility and personal attacks, not least by his characterisation of other editors as "childish" when it is in fact he who behaves in a ridiculously childish manner, that I am afraid to disagree with him about anything. See, for example, his responses here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not very conducive to an atmosphere of collegiality, etc. ——Serial ^# 15:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see they were blocked a year ago for personal attacks or harassment and warned against doing it again. Here comes another one. Blocked one week. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Harry munday

Harry munday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Harry munday been going around on articles about certain camera models and pasting advertising and manual like content [112]. Text describing bias opinions about a company and WP:NOTGUIDE (eg. "Sony's Terrible Warranty and repair services" and "Optical Filter Stack (UV/IR cut or colour filter) (40-100USD per unit) (not provided by sony)") I already warned them on my talkpage about not making those kind of edits which they later blanked out. After reverting both of my reverts [113] and [114] they then posted some passive-aggressive message on my talkpage about "Sony Community Notice. I didn't want to keep reverting and turning it into a edit war but I can't be wrong that this kind of content shouldn't be on Wikipedia? --Vauxford (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR(++) violation on the Sony α7R III article. Hope they learn from this relatively mild sanction, otherwise WP:NOTHERE may be invoked. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I misread the dates; not 3RR but definitely edit-warring. Block changed accordingly. Favonian (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Favonian What should I do if he continues reverting the edit after the 24 hour block? --Vauxford (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Report him again. No guarantee that other admins will be as harsh as I hinted, but his two attempts to remove this discussion from ANI probably won't count in his favor. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Favonian, at the very least there will be escalating blocks. That is pretty special behaviour there. Guy (help!) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User Barbarossa51

My personal assumption is that this is a sockpuppet of previously indef'd user Mielato72. Both vandalized the same article within the span of a few days and did no edits anywhere else. --85.76.133.183 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Brianjd (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't file a case as an IP. I doubt anyone will care enough to lend a helping hand here, so I guess this will be all. Thank you very much in any case. --85.76.133.183 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mielato72. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Zaathras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• "yea, you can fuck right off with that."
• "stepkids are still one's own kids, jerk"
• "We don't report a negative, twit"
• "your personal opinion is piss-all important"
• "Go outside and jerk yourself a soda"
• "You're not an admin, back off"
• "First off, you have no authoritative backing to issue warnings, so we can laugh that one off."
• "It'll lead to a block or ban for you buddy bro, if you keep using templates incorrectly."

Buddy bro? Last time I saw someone tell another to "fuck off" it resulted in a 24 hour block, making me suspect the cited behavior isn't considered acceptable here. - Alexis Jazz 18:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras needs a short break from AP2 to rethink their approach. I’ve not found their approach to be as helpful as could be. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I took serious umbrage at Rufs10's misuse of an SPA tag on another user, though I see I could have expressed myself better, and in other parts of the Biden topic ares as well, so my apologies for that and will endeavor for calm in the future. The "jerk yourself a soda" is a funny line from Bugsy though. Rufs10 came in guns hot to my own talk page though and I responded in kind. I stand by the last 2 diffs. Zaathras (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight. I did not misuse the SPA tag in the talk page discussion at Talk:Joe Biden#RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header. I attempted to put the SPA label next to user:BetsyRMadison's comments. Any person can objectively look at her contributions and come to the conclusion that she is an SPA. 251 of her 364 total edits have been to a page with "Joe Biden" in the title. That's nearly 70%! That's not say, she necessarily is doing anything wrong (as I've made clear several times), but the closer of a contentious discussion need to be aware of potential SPAs . I also am not the only person to use the SPA tag within this discussion [115]. Yet, Zaathras took it upon himself to revert me twice when I put the tag into the discussion. As for coming in "guns hot", all I did was use a standard warning about removing other's talk page comments [116]. Zaathras has an attitude problem and I am not sure why he is staunchly defending an SPA which he has no clear connection to.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)\

Yes, let's get the facts straight, for the record, I am not an "SPA." As of May 26, when Rusf10 accused me of being SPA, I'd been a volunteer at WP for 32 days. In those 32 days I rarely do any actual "editing" but rather I primarily discuss "current events" on talk pages. Rusf10's statement "Any person can objectively look at her and come to the conclusion that she is an SPA " is wrong. Scjessey disagreed with Rusf10 on the talk page (here [117]) and said she does not think I resemble an SPA. And, to be clear, the vote that Rusf10 says "the closer of a contentious discussion need to be aware of potential SPAs" is a vote that Rusf10 brought to the talk page, Rusf10 has a vested interest in, and my vote is opposite of Rust10 (which is what Scjessey addressed in her comment on the talk page). So I am curious why Rusf10 is so staunchly trying to falsely accuse me of being an SPA, going all the way to this level, when other editors have disagreed with Rusf10 for tagging me with that.

Also, for the record, right before Rusf10 accused me of being an SPA, Rusf10 had gotten confused on the mathematical "Plurality Method" and incorrectly claimed something had a "plurality" of the vote when it did not. So, in good faith, I explained to Rusf10 how the "Plurality Method" works. I assume good faith with Rusf10 but I will note here that it is very coincidental that after I corrected Rusf10 on the "Plurality Method" is when Rusf10 wanted to tag me as an SPA.

Finally, as for the other person Rusf10 says accused me of being a SPA, since April 14 - the time I was accused, that person had devoted 79% of their time on article pertaining to Biden, so under Rust10's theory, that other person is an SPA too. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: I'm actually male, but I am certain I would make quite a fetching female if schooled in the appropriate attire and makeup. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To Scjessey - Dang! I am so sorry for that! I'm sure you're right, you'd make a fetching female if schooled. Thanks for having a sense of humor, I'm embarrassed {blushing} BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This needs to go to AE. I see multiple BLP issues, severe incivility. That arena is hot enough and does not need further heat.--MONGO (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO:AE does not solve problems. It is the problem. I have much more faith in our larger community of editors to resolve problems. AE may have been started with good intentions, but it has become a kangaroo court.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of these are unambiguously way over the top. There's a little bit of controversial precedent for leeway on usertalk pages, but tacking on "twit" and "jerk" to edit summaries in mainspace? Or "go outside and jerk yourself a soda" on a talk page? That one's a first for me ... quite shocking. At minimum a clear warning is in order here, if not a short block. It can be easy to get the idea that AP2 articles are battlegrounds by the way some people talk, but for a relatively newish user, it needs to be clear that's not how to operate (and that if someone is misbehaving, take it to a venue like this rather than attack them -- which really just makes things worse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have topic banned Zaathras from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics for six months. That will probably suffice to make the point that battle-ground behavior is not appropriate at Wikipedia, and particularly not for a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Or "go outside and jerk yourself a soda" on a talk page? That one's a first for me . You should look up Soda jerk, then. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with the term. Gee whiz guess he was just being friendly then. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not to get overly technical, just slightly technical, according to WP article "Bugsy,"[118] That quote is recognized by American Film Institute 2005: AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes: Virginia Hill: "Why don't you go outside and jerk yourself a soda?" – Nominated. I took it as Zaathras attempting to ease the tension with humor. Humor is good, especially for easing tension. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• Thanks. Never saw that one. What an excellent example of why trying to insert humor (or pop culture references, or culture-specific idioms, or sarcasm) into active disputes and/or powder keg topics is at least as likely to do harm as help. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• You're welcome. You could be right, but to me this may be an excellent example of why, when a person who may become blinded by one's own passion to be right & have everyone agree with them, they should step away from their computer and laugh a little, as opposed to fueling their internal anger by hunting for reasons to complain about a person who disagrees with them. The way I see it, a "powder-keg topic" is just a topic where someone has 'self-personalized' the topic to a point where they feel they are the topic. When that happens, they become so blind with passion, they abandon all logic, and vent their rage toward anyone (possibly everyone) who disagrees them. Sad really. In my view, when that happens, it's best to step away, put things in proper perspective, and laugh (which is what I feel Zaathras was trying to do). As Psychology Today[119] puts it, "laughter can boost the immune system, relax muscles, aid circulation, and protect against heart disease. It can abet mental health, too; laughter can lower anxiety, release tension, improve mood, and foster resilience." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Zaathras has now "banned" me from their talk page. I'm actually not sure why exactly, but then again, I don't really care. It's nothing to actually act on right now, but I figured you might want to make a note somewhere to take that into consideration in case Zaathras makes an appeal at some point.

@BetsyRMadison: To answer your question on Zaathras' talk page: calling other editors "jerks" and "twits" as well as telling them to "back off" is what I consider working against other editors. Banning an editor from their talk page for unclear reasons isn't exactly "working with" other editors either. - Alexis Jazz 18:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To Alexis Jazz - You did not answer my questions (here [120]). This morning, you went to Zaathra's personal talk page to give me a message (here [121]). I have no idea why you went to Zaathras' talk page to give me a message, but you did. And in that message, you told me that you did not report Zaathras because of anything he said in the 8 comments you posted in your complaint (above here), but instead, you told me , "But that wasn't even what I created the report for. Zaathras was not working with other editors but on several occasions against them. That doesn't help the project, so I reported it." That's when I asked you why you did not mention anything about that in your filed complaint (above on this page). And, I asked you for specific examples, and which projects you were talking about. I also told you that I don't know how it helps you resolve your real concerns when you do not mention them so that Admin Johnuniq could help you resolve your real concerns.

It seems now, for some reason, you're not answering my questions but instead you're complaining that Zaathras told Rusf10 to "back off" after Rusf10 went to Zaathras' personal talk page to threaten Zaathra's (here [122]) and after Rusf10 forcefully personally attacked Zaathras . When Rusf10 did that, you did not go to Zaathras' talk page and accuse Rusf10 of "working against other editors" but instead you (here [123]) went to Zaathras' talk page to tell Rust10 that you would file a complaint against Zaathras for telling Rusf10 to "back off." Sure calling editors a "twit" and "jerk" are minor violations of WP:CIVILITY and should not be done, but you already told me that's not why you reported Zaathras. And truthfully, you didn't seem too concerned WP:CIVILITY when Rusf10 threatened Zaathras & personally attacked Zaathras, but that's besides the point.

I cannot and do not speak for Zaathras, but it's very possible that Zaathras banned or blocked you from his/her talk page because, perhaps, when you went to his/her talk page to give me the message you gave me, it may have seemed to Zaathras, that perhaps you were attempting to use his/her personal talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Look Alexis, I have no idea why you went to Zaathras' talk page to give me a message. I don't know why you came here, to your original complaint page, to give me a message. I don't know why you told me that your real issue with Zaathras has nothing to do with the 8 comments you put in your complaint (above here). And I don't know why you won't answer the questions I asked you earlier. Like I told you earlier, you and Zaathras both work hard to improve WP articles and I feel you & Zaathras both deserve to have your real concerns discussed and resolved. In my view, it will be impossible for you to get your real concerns resolved if Admin Johnuniq & Zaathras never know what your real concerns are. Since you haven't answered my questions, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask you a new question: is your real issue/concern with Zaathras simply that Zaathras does not agree with you on things? Is that why you did not mention your real issue/concern that you have with Zaatrhras in your original complaint here? BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: You can't ping people by linking their talk page. Linking a user page or using the {{ping}} / {{re}} template (which link the user page) works.

I said I didn't report Zaathras because of the discussion/reverting of the SPA thing with Rusf10. I didn't even look into that, I have no idea who (if anyone) was right or wrong there.

When Rusf10 did that, you did not go to Zaathras' talk page and accuse Rusf10 of "working against other editors" but instead you (here [141]) went to Zaathras' talk page to tell Rust10 that you would file a complaint against Zaathras for telling Rusf10 to "back off."

I haven't told Rusf10 anything on Zaathras' talk page. I made this report here, and when a report is made here it is mandatory to notify all users involved. See the top of this page.

Sure calling editors a "twit" and "jerk" are minor violations of WP:CIVILITY and should not be done, but you already told me that's not why you reported Zaathras.

No, that's exactly why I reported Zaathras. Along with the "fuck off", "piss-all", "back off", "buddy bro" and other generally hostile behavior.

And truthfully, you didn't seem too concerned WP:CIVILITY when Rusf10 threatened Zaathras & personally attacked Zaathras, but that's besides the point.

WP:OTHERSTUFF (also, personal attack? where?)

I have no idea why you went to Zaathras' talk page to give me a message.

You said "out of the 8 diffs Rusf10 is complaining about" on Zaathras' talk page. Rusf10 didn't complain about 8 diffs. I did. I corrected you. - Alexis Jazz 23:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: I infer from a quick look at the above that you are arguing with an editor who takes a different view regarding American politics. May I suggest taking a lesson from real life: how often have you seen such arguments lead to productive outcomes? In real life, people argue with each other to pass the time and/or to impress third parties. Those reasons are not much use here—apart from those who fiddle with commas or categories, everyone who edits a Trump or Biden article is likely to be a true believer and debating them is a waste of time. Just stick to talk-page discussions focused on content with respect to core policies: WP:RS + WP:DUE + WP:BLP. It would be better to leave User_talk:Zaathras alone for now—an appeal at the moment would certainly fail, while it may very well succeed after a period of constructive engagement elsewhere, as appears to be happening. This ANI report concerns certain blatant problems listed in the OP (original/opening post) and there should be nothing more needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Californianinexile

User:Californianinexile is systematically deleting sourced information on articles on upcoming elections and not responding on their talk. Could somebody take a look? Abductive (reasoning) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may add, multiple editors including myself has tried to reach out to him again and again but he's just keen on removing our hard work. Smith0124 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've warned them that at the very least the need to provide some sort of explanation in the edit summary when delete large blocks of text, and reminded them that they need to be willing to communicate per WP:BRD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the edits they were doing, but it looked like they were rapidly deleting large chunks of info without explaining why. Abductive (reasoning) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've informed all editors since the start of this month of 2020 United States gubernatorial elections (the article mentioned on CIE's talk page) of discretionary sanctions & tagged the article's talk page.

As an aside, the colour scheme used on the article violates WP:ACCDD - "Don't use color as the only means of conveying information". Cabayi (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous way was completely unreadable. Also, this is a rule constantly broken on election articles with the result maps. Smith0124 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Californianinexile (talk · contribs) was created in September 2018 and has never edited a talk page. They are currently blocked for 24 hours but that should be extended if they resume unexplained deletions, or unexplained anything if their edits are challenged. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well his block expired and guess what then happened on 2020 United States Senate elections. No surprise. Smith0124 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partially blocked from 2020 United States Senate elections 'til after the election (6mo). Hopefully CIE will engage in discussion & the block can be lifted, but past conduct doesn't look promising. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Cabayi and Johnuniq: - Californianinexile has moved on to doing the same at 2020 United States gubernatorial elections : [124].   // Timothy :: talk  18:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I reckon blocking article-by-article will not be effective. An TBAN is in order, IMO. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Given that Californianinexile (talk · contribs) hasn't responded on any talk page, or even shown any sign of reading their own talk page, a TBAN would be futile. I've blocked 'til after the election. It looks like forcing an unblock request is the only way to start some interaction. Cabayi (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Cabayi: I believe this problem maybe continuing with a new account - User:Wowza97 - [125].   // Timothy :: talk  20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ponyo got there first with a CU block but didn't state the master. I assume it's CIE? Cabayi (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've now left a note confirming such on Californianinexile's talk page. Note that from a CU perspective Californianinexile has a large network of IP ranges available to them and has edited extensively both logged in and out. Semi-protection of their primary article targets will be necessary if you want to impede them from editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Semi-protected gov, house & senate for a week. Cabayi (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

...and adjusted the block to an indefinite block for the extensive sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Problematic BLP editor

Rolleygiacalone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the 2nd time I'm reporting Rolleygiacalone to ANI for this very issue. Despite a block then and my repeated requests (1, 2, 3) and warnings for them to source their edits (1, 2), they have continued unabated. The edits in question, while small are controversial with regards to BLP articles and are seemingly thumb sucked from somewhere but only they seem to know the origin.

Here is an example of such an edit: an initial is added to a name even though the existing source makes no mention of it and no new or updated source is added. More examples can be seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on and so on.

It should perhaps be noted that this editor also created an article, since deleted that was deemed to be a blatant hoax so I'm not quite sure they are here to build an encyclopedia. Then of course there is the issue of their complete lack of communication, something they were warned about when blocked previously by 331dot and something they have ignored completely. I'd greatly appreciate an admin taking a look. Robvanvee 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted the editor opted to remove the ANI notice to this report as well as a final warning and personal plea from SummerPhDv2.0 moments after filing this. Robvanvee 10:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked again as they were given a final warning on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks 331dot. Robvanvee 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't find an appropriate speedy deletion category, but Now 100 Hits: Summer is obvious WP:CRYSTAL (see release info, indeed 26 June 2020) with possible IP block evasion. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can't see how it fits any CSD criteria. I did move it to draft space, as it isn't clear it is notable and it is crystal balling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds uncomfortable and ... possibly dangerous. EEng 07:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft space hoaxes

Apologies if this doesn't constitute as an 'urgent incident' or something similar, but I already asked about what to do over on the help desk.

There's a user, Michael grutsch, who has been making plenty of drafts that are either fancruft, hoaxes, or things that are not relevant to Wikipedia and are more suitable for a fan-Wiki (mainly referring to drafts created to put up the full transcript of a non-notable episode of a cartoon of Nickelodeon). I've mainly known about this since I had seen an article they created, SpongeBob in RandomLand, was a completely non-notable episode of SpongeBob and even had the plot/summary of the episode 100% copy/pasted from the SpongeBob Wikia page. I had proposed that article for deletion (was using Twinkle, I believe I was meaning to use 'XFD', but accidentally went on with 'PROD' instead) and it was later deleted and moved to be a draft. However, this is just one draft. There's many drafts created that many, if not all, will never pass. Regarding the fancruft info, there's drafts where it literally states, ""Class Fight" was made by Michael grutsch for an Idea for the loud house season 5, along with the other episodes he made, since he gonna become a producer when grows up." Here's the drafts in question for the info I outlined above:

• Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House) + Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House)/Transcript
• Draft:Pogo Trouble (Oddbods)
• Draft:First Day of Middle School (The Loud House) + Draft:First Day of Middle School (The Loud House)/Transcript
• Draft:Lori goes to College (The Loud House)
• Draft:Lynn High (The Loud House)
• Draft:Papa Louie 4: When Wings Attack (Flipline Studios)
• Draft:SpongeBob in RandomLand (SpongeBob SquarePants)/Gallery
• Draft:Papa Louie 3: When Sundaes Attack (Flipline Studios)
• Draft:Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants)/Transcript
• Draft:First Day of Middle School (The Loud House)
• Draft:It's My Party (The Odddbods Show)

Not sure if I got them all or if I'm missing any... I'm also not sure if this amount of fancruft or draft hoaxes is enough to warrant a block or anything, but it's clear that most (if not, all...) of these are not what Wikipedia is intended for, and is instead, more suitable for a fan-run Wiki. Apologies again if I shouldn't have immediately came here for this issue and instead nominated the drafts to be deleted, but I thought I could come here seeing how I had reported a similar issue here in the past. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of these are clearly hoaxes since The Loud House hasn’t finished its fourth season so barring the editor being a writer of producer of the show they can’t know summaries for The unannounced fifth season.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt, but the season five drafts are basically fan-creations- "...was made by Michael grutsch for an Idea for the loud house season 5..." Magitroopa (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If they were in user space, they could be deleted under WP:CSD#U5, since this user appears to putting material up just to have it on the web. If they were in article space, there's WP:CSD#A11. There's not a criterion for draft space, though. So, one option would be to nominate then (as a group) at MfD.

The other option...while my optimistic side would like to think the user will straighten up and become a productive editor, if they keep making pages like this, they'll wind up blocked (WP:NOTHERE), and the blocking admin can delete them in the cleanup. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it isn’t too soon, if they’re dinking around in mainspace like this and this, latter seems to include more hoaxes. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Like I mentioned in my original post here, the "SpongeBob in RandomLand" article I had gotten deleted had a plot 100% copy/pasted from SpongeBob Wiki- that "Reef Blower" edit has the plot 100% copy/pasted from here as well. The "Release" and "Reception" sections are 100% copy/pasted from there too. Another one from this edit with the plot copy/pasted from here. I guess we'll have to see if their edits like this continues. Magitroopa (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: The copy-paste is a separate issue. There, the user is attempting to create a page about a real episode—although it's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The material they copied is licensed for free use; however, they don't attribute the source when they copy. And that would be an easy fix, so that isn't really enough to warrant admin action. The real issue, IMO, is abuse of draft space as a personal webhost. There's also an active thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that I've just commented on about this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've vetted the drafts. Some appear to relate to actual episodes or games; they've been left alone for now. Some were galleries or transcripts for actual episodes. They were empty, but there's no way to populate them without infringing copyright, so I speedy deleted them per WP:IAR. Where the creator said the stories are his ideas, I've trimmed the infoboxes to remove the association with actual production and nominated them for MfD.
  The MfD can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House). —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Question - Does someone want to check the weather in Tierra del Fuego? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect etymologies

User:Gderrin is a prolific writer of plant articles. Part of his writing is providing botanical etymologies, that consist most of the time of words/word parts of Latin and Greek origin. Gderrin has admitted, despite his keen interest in providing botanical etymologies, that his knowledge of Latin and Greek is limited. Over the last two years, I have corrected hundreds of edits in which Gderrin, misread, misinterpreted or misquoted his sources, as he seemed to have confused several linguistic entities in Latin and Greek (cases, adjectives, nouns, compounds, verbs, participles).
Currently, Gderrin seems to push another etymology on Balanophora, that is already his fourth attempt for Balanophora, that differs from his earlier three attempts. His first three attempts were some form of Original Research, as none of his sources ((Wiktionary for the first two attempts, Brown's Composition of scientific words for his third attempt) mentioned the full compound Balanophora and he merely selected on face value, possible words in which Balanophora could be analysed (see for an overview here). There are still tens or maybe more than a hundred plant articles left on Wikipedia, that are the result of Gderrin analysing a compound, without providing a source that explains the full name.
Gderrin has requested earlier for an administrator to intervene (see here) and accused me of unwarranted deletion of certain etymological sources, while at the end of his request, it became clear that the diffs as provided by Gderrin showed that he might have misread his sources (administrator Someguy1221: "I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited. When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value. I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading, which also saves me the time of having to find and evaluate a source myself.")
Although I might sound harsh in our latest dispute on the etymology of Balanophora, I sincerly do think it is necessary that Gderrin accepts that it is no longer in the interest of Wikipedia that he continues to add etymologies that in several cases can be considered as unreliable. Any help would be appreciated. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Do you really think Wimpus is bluffing with all that jargon at Talk:Balanophora? What makes you think Wimpus is wrong? Sure, edit warring is bad and people should be nice, but the real issue concerns putting false information into the encyclopedia backed by possibly incorrect sources. One of you is doing that and it must stop. Can you show an example of Wimpus adding incorrect information to an article or posting incorrect information on a talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Johnuniq:. Thanks for your help. "Can you show......?" No, I can't, because Wimpus doesn't add information to articles, only reverts what others have added. Here and in other articles, Wimpus removes reliable references without discussion. The reference I added is a book written by Maarten J. M. Christenhusz, Michael Francis Fay and Mark Wayne Chase and published by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. In my opinion, it should not have been reverted, whether or not another editor considers it to be incorrect, without discussion first. Incidentally, I replaced my earlier reference to Wiktionary (on 30 March 2017) with a reference to a book by Roland W. Brown. Wimpus also reverted that without discussion, leaving the article without an etymology. It would be great if Wimpus were to add etymologies to articles that don't have them, rather than only reverting articles that do. Gderrin (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin:, your statement: "No, I can't, because Wimpus doesn't add information to articles, only reverts what others have added." seems to be at odds with the edits I have made the last few days:

1. [126] Adding the etymology as provided by the describing author.
2. [127] Replaced incorrect etymology of Balanophora by using different source.
3. [128] Replaced etymology that does not mention any words, by etymology that mentions the Greek origins.
4. [129] Reinstated the source I had previously added that mentioned the Greek and Latin origins, instead of Gderrin's etymology that fails to mention the Greek origin.
5. [130] Reinstated the original etymology/referevce of the describing authors, that was removed by Gderrin (reverted earlier by Gderrin without any discussion).

@Gderrin, could you try to answer the question of Johnuniq ("Can you show an example of Wimpus adding incorrect information to an article or posting incorrect information on a talk page?") again? Wimpus (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin:, could you still answer @Johnuniq:'s question? I have mentioned in my request to intervene that "I have corrected hundreds of edits in which Gderrin, misread, misinterpreted or misquoted his sources, as he seemed to have confused several linguistic entities in Latin and Greek (cases, adjectives, nouns, compounds, verbs, participles).", but you have not responded yet to this accusation (or provided any counterevidence). So, do you agree with my assessment, or do you think you have made far less mistakes? And would the number of mistakes you have made be considered as a threat to the reliability of Wikipedia?

I have already answered Johnuniq's question. No, I have not misread, misinterpreted or misquoted anything, and if the implication is that I am dishonest, no, I am not. I have made more than 30,000 edits to Wikipedia and created more than 2,000 articles to Start Class or better. Only one editor has reverted any of those 30,000 edits. That same editor repeatedly removes references without any prior discussion, and not only to pages I have edited, often with condescending edit summaries like "Please do not add incorrect etymologies" or "Please read your source carefully before adding information". That same editor is not prepared to compromise or to try to reach consensus and as far as I can tell, has never added an etymology to any one of tens of thousands of potential plant, animal or fossil articles that lack them, seemingly only taking pleasure in telling other editors, sometimes also distinguished botanists and Latin scholars that they are wrong. Gderrin (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"No, I have not misread, misinterpreted or misquoted anything, and if the implication is that I am dishonest, no, I am not. " Okay, now I do consider you as dishonest and it can clearly be demonstrated that you are again not telling the truth. Remember in the previous "reguest to in intervene", the administrator told you: "When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value." And again, you seem to be regress to "not telling the truth" again. So, for example, your translation "canaliculata" (adjective) with "small channel" was not an example of misreading/misquoting Brown? Wimpus (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin: as it seems that you flat out deny that something went wrong with your etymological edits ("No, I have not misread, misinterpreted or misquoted anything), it is imperative to show that this is clearly a false statement. I would like to ask the administrators to take this into account. Giving his repeated denial, I would not expect that he would seriously reconsider changing his (etymological edit) behavior.

A ton of examples

1. [131] λεκάνης means "of a dish", not "dish" (confusion of nominative and genitive case) λεκάνης = lekánēs not lekánē (incorrect rendering of Greek) source does not mention full compound 2. [132] source does not write phitros but phitra. 3. [133] corona (=noun) is translated as "crown" by Brown, coronata is not translated as "crown" (=adjective) by this source. 4. [134] caro (=noun) is translated by Brown with "flesh", not carnea (= adjective) 5. [135] kamptos is not translated with "to bend" by Brown. full compound can not be found in Brown 6. [136] globula is not mentioned by Brown. 7. [137] full compound not mentioned by its source (Brown) 8. [138] indicating that lepidota is Greek (while that feminine form would be written as lepidōtē (λεπιδωτή). Incorrect inference of information of source. 9. [139] source does not indicate that the adjective orbicularis is the diminutive of the noun orbis. 10. [140] source does not indicate that the adjective campanulata is the diminutive of the noun campana. 11. [141] source does not mention word caudiculum. 12. [142] misidentifying word-part as diminutive full compound is missing in the source 13. [143] source does not mention arborella 14. [144] source does not mention that adjective capitellata is the diminutive of the noun capitulum 15. [145] source does not mention mimulum. 16. [146] source does mention full compound own translation of compound is incorrect 17. [147] source does not indicate that adjective foliolosa is a diminutive of noun folium own translation would relate to a noun, not to an adjective. 18. [148] source does not indicate that adjective crenulata is the diminutive of the noun crena. 19. [149] provides genitive case, but gives translation for nominative case 20. [150] source does not mention specific orthography smaragdyna. smaragdyna is not Greek (and is also not suggested by the source) as the Greek feminine ends on -ē (σμαράγδινη) 21. [151] source does not mention ágrostos. full compound can not be found in source 22. [152] source does not indicate that perfect participle globatus is an infinitive full compound can not be found in source 23. [153] incorrect translation incompatible with information from source 24. [154] source does not translate sepalum with plural sepals (but with singular sepal) compound can not be found in source. 25. [155] source does mention full compound own etymological analysis seems unlikely (and contradicts other source, that mentions full compound) 26. [156] source gives circum for "around", not "circus" 27. [157] gives genitive case pugionis, but provides translation for nominative case pugio. identifies something as a suffix, while the source seems to indicate that it is just a noun 28. [158] source give other translation ("neighbouring" instead of "neighbour") 29. [159] gives genitive case pholidos, but provides translation for nominative case pholis. full compound is not mentioned by the source. 30. [160] full compound is not mentioned by the source clavia is translated as club-bearing while that is the translation the source uses for claviger. clavia can not be found in the source 31. [161] full compound is not explained by source antenni is not mentioned by source (antenna is the form mentioned) source writes -fera and not fera. 32. [162] etymological explanation refers to Diosma, while that is not mentioned by the source. 33. [163] identifies dienema as Greek form, while Greek feminine ends on -os (διήνεμος) 34. [164] translation of gamos as gamete can not be found in the source 35. [165] identifies a word-forming element as "compound" 36. [166] confuses feminine singular montana with neuter plural montana, with providing a translation based on the latter (that is incompatible with the epithet of the plant) 37. [167] full compound is not explained by source translation of granum as granite is not provided by source. 38. [168] source does not indicate that perfect participle stricta is an infinitive 39. [169] source writes kalos, not kalo 40. [170] translation applies to nominative and not genitive case. 41. [171] confuses nominative and genitive case. 42. [172] compound not mentioned by source. suggest that compound would derive from unlikely flora [=goddess of flowers] instead of more likely flos [=flower] suggest that florum is the plural of flora 43. [173] suggests that densiflora derives from Latin medius full compound is not explained by the source 44. [174] compound can not be found in source suggest that compound is derived from flora, that is actually mentioned by the source as the "goddess of flowers". 45. [175] compound can not be found in source suggest that compound is derived from flora, that is actually mentioned by the source as the goddess of flowers. translate flora as "flowers" instead of "goddess of flowers" as mentioned by the source. 46.[176] full compound is not explained in compound translation for mutator (=changer) of the source is misapplied to other word mutatus 47.[177] translation of puber in source is misapplied to puberula 48. [178] word despectans is not mentioned in source participle despectus is translated as ínfinitive 49. [179] full compound can not be found in source (while wording in Wiki-article suggests otherwise) 50. [180] full compound is not explained by source. ouris can not be found in source 51. [181] flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower) full compound not in source 52. [182] other translation than in source 53. [183] mentioning of "bi" as part of "pinnatifida" (that is actually impossible) compound not explained by source 54. [184] γλυφή (gluphḗ)' can not be found in source it seems that Wiktionary as source was replaced by Brown as source, without changing the actual content, leading to a mismatch between text and source full compound not mentioned by source 55. [185] flora (goddess of flowers) instead of flos full compound not in source 56. [186] source indicates that the words are Greek, not Latin full compound is not explained by source 57. [187] calycina can not be found in source translation of calyx is misaplied to calycina in Wiki-text 58. [188] confuses nominative and genitive case full compound is not explained by source 59. [189] iphthima is not Greek (ἴφθιμη). Incorrect inference from source 60. [190] sphacelatum is not mentioned by Brown as Greek word 61. [191] confuses genitive with nominative case full compound is not explained by source 62. [192] misapplied translation as given for Brown for podion to pedion full compound is not explained by source 63. [193] confuses nominative and genitive case full compound is not explained by source 64. [194] confuses nominative singular with genitive plural full compound is not explained by source 65. [195] confuses (considering translation) philos with philia confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 66. [196] Brown write holos, not holo full compound is not explained by source 67. [197] Brown writes mesos, not meso full compound is not explained by source 68. [198] pterus is not mentioned by Brown full compound is not explained by source 69. [199] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 70. [200] full compound is not explained by source labels Latin word triplex as Greek (not supported by source) 71. [201] full compound is not explained by source Brown writes ochros, not ochro. Brown writes pteron, not ptero 72. [202] full compound is not explained by source misapplied Brown's translation of philia to phileo. 73. [203] Brown uses melas as nominative, not melanos. full compound is not explained by source 74. [204] flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower) full compound not explained in source 75. [205] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 76. [206] confuses for two nouns the genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 77. [207] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 78. [208] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 79. [209] Brown writes aden not adeno Brown writes lasios not lasius full compound is not explained by source 80. [210] Brown writes rutilus, not rutilis. full compound is not explained by source 81. [211] confuses genitive and nominative case 82. [212] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 83. [213] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 84. [214] Brown writes phyllon, not phyllum (on specific page) full compound is not explained by source 85. [215] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. full compound is not explained by source 86. [216] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. full compound is not explained by source 87. [217] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. full compound is not explained by source 88. [218] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 89. [219] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. Brown translates ovalis with "egg-shaped", not with "egg" full compound is not explained by source 90. [220] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 91.[221] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 92. [222] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 93. [223] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 94. [224] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 95. [225] confuses genitive and nominative case Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 96. [226] Brown writes niger, not nigro. Brown translates montanus as "of mountains" not "mountain" full compound is not explained by source 97. [227] Brown writes forma instead of forme full compound is not explained by source 98. [228] confuses florum (= of flowers) with flos (=flower) full compound is not explained by source 99. [229] Brown writes cauda, not caudum 100. [230] translates montis (= of a mountain) with "mountains". Inconsistent with source.

Wimpus (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC) added another fifty examples Wimpus (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am actually surprised how indiffent some editors (like @Peter coxhead:), but also other editors) appear to be and seem to turn a blind-eye to the etymological mess created by @Gderrin:. The evidence is quite clear (and I have added another fifty examples) and this is not merely a content dispute that can be solved by discussing the specific edit on the talk page. Gderrin has repeatedly misread, misinterpreted and misquoted his sources an he is willing to make false statements to cover up his mistakes. Echoing adminstrator Someguy1221's remarks ("I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading,"), I can not assume that Gderrin's etymological edits can stil be trusted. Each single edit has to be checked. As I do no possess each single source that Gderrin is using in his etymological edits, I am unable to check a large number of edits. And trying to find out from Gderrin what is actually in thoses sources, is a frustated endeavor. Giving Gderrin a topic ban for "etymology" would considerably protect Wikipedia and would prevent that false etymologies (that do not correspond to the cited sources) are being spread. Wimpus (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin:, I am still waiting for a response. It is impossible to deny that something went wrong in the aforementioned 100 edits that I have provided as an example. Wimpus (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, @Gderrin: refuses to respond to the accusations and continues to make edits that conflict with the sources used. Wimpus (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Qui tacet consentire videtur. Wimpus (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, in case you need more diffs, I am more than willing to provide those. Wimpus (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: Your 00:56, 19 May 2020 diff at Balanophora changed the "name is derived..." from:

the Ancient Greek words balanos meaning "acorn" or "glans" and phoros meaning "to bear"

to:

the ancient Greek words balanos (βάλανος), meaning "acorn" and pherein (φέρειν), meaning "to carry"

Your point 4 at Talk:Balanophora explains your position. However, not many editors would see a substantive difference between the above two explanations as "to bear" and "to carry" seem equivalent. Is the main point phoros vs. pherein? I understand you are saying the underlying issue is a systematic problem, but is this example worth a dispute? Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(Johnuniq), not this specific example, but it shows that:

1. it is part of a pattern that Gderrin adds over and over again different etymologies in the same Wiki-article, without being aware that these etymologies differ, while he considers each single etymological edit he has made as "correct"/"reliable".

2. difficulties arise when someone is being unable to compare different sources, as he is unfamiliar with the specific linguistic content. I am unable to discuss with Gderrin theses linguistic issues, and Gderrin only resorts to statements that his sources are reliable (even the blog he added yesterday (that included a non-word in its etymological analysis), while initially denying that he used a blog).

3. it can be detrimental to Wikipedia, when someone "invents" an etymology by comparing the full name to a list of single Latin and Greek words without actually knowing what he is doing. Gderrin didn't respond previously to administrator Someguy1221's question: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon".

So, I am actually concerned that Gderrin will continue to add incorrect etymological information to Wikipedia, without even noticing. So, I kindly ask an administrator to intervene.Wimpus (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, in the context of an article about a plant, rather than an article on etymology or linguistics, referring to the Latinized component -phorus, which can easily be sourced, e.g. from Stearn, W.T. (2004), Botanical Latin (4th (p/b) ed.), Portland, Oregon: Timber Press, p. 466, is sensible.

I have engaged in discussions with Wimpus before, sometimes at length. He seems to be unable either to understand or else to accept why his edits are a problem. He clearly could improve etymologies, and I agree that they often need improving, because modern biologists lack the knowledge of classical languages that would have been common in the past. However, he appears to prefer to remove them, even when they are sourced, if the source does not meet his exacting requirements, which as far as I can tell, include requiring them to

1. give the exact form of the source word or words in the original language
2. explain the full compound.

On (1), I do not believe that readers of articles about plants need the original Greek or Latin. I like to see it, but it should not be a requirement.

On (2), Stearn's Botanical Latin, the "bible" for the scientific names of plants, has an extensive glossary providing meanings for components of names. There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name.

In summary, I agree that the originally added etymology for Balanophora could be improved, but cannot agree with the way that Wimpus acted. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, considering your remark: "There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name." Gderrin has used this approach in his first three attempts in the aforementioned example of Balanophora, but presents three different etymologies that differ on orthography (balanus versus balanos; phora versus phoras [=d-stem]), language (phora as Latin or phora as Greek) and meaning (phora as "bearing" or as "crop"). Do you think that using this approach will lead to consistent results, irrespective of someone's knowledge about Latin or Greek? As I have tried to show with this example: I have serious doubts. Wimpus (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: the key issue seems to me to relate to the old "verification not truth" slogan. (See the essay WP:VNT.) Our task is to present verified information.

• If Gderrin or anyone else has misrepresented the source, then correct that misrepresentation – this is unarguably correct.
• If the source gives an incorrect meaning according to other more reliable sources, then add to the text accordingly. Respect WP:NPOV; it's what the sources say that matters, not what we think, so if multiple meanings are widespread in sources, all need to be reported.
• Removing an explanation of meaning altogether because the only available source(s) are not completely precise (e.g. saying that -phorus is Greek rather than Greek-derived) does not help our readers. Our mission is to report what reliable sources say. Sometimes this might mean putting up with imprecision, but by careful omission you can usually manage to present correct and fully sourced information.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, thanks for the answer, but my real question was: "Do you think that using this approach will lead to consistent results, irrespective of someone's knowledge about Latin or Greek?" Wimpus (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: Peter coxhead answered your question rather well, actually. Perhaps you misunderstand it? Or is it because he didn't jump on your bandwagon of dumping on Gderrin that you won't accept it? Or did you miss it because it wasn't the "yes/no" you were expecting? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to regardless of their knowledge level. It has policies and protocols in place to ensure consistent results and reliable information is the end result. Peter's answer nicely summarizes the key policies/protocols. TelosCricket (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@TelosCricket:, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to regardless of their knowledge level.". The procedure Peter coxhead suggest, requires a higher level of competence of the editor, than is required when you are merely quoting verbatim a source. In the example of Balanophora, you have to understand that it is 1. a compound, 2. that the compound consists of two parts, 3. that the compound would probably consists of Greek words. As, Gderrin didn't used a source, trying to explain the full compound is probably dependent on some pre-existing knowledge. In case you would ask me to give an etymological explanation of the Persian خوارزمشاهیان‎, I do not know where to start. Is this a compound, it is a verb, an adjective? I might try to find a Persian dictionary, but the Persian language might contain all kind of linguistic categories and rules, I might be unfamiliar with. I will actually be prone to make mistakes. In case I would not find this Persian word in a Persian dictionary, it would become a hazardous task to find the single elements of which this Persian word consists. My request related to WP:COMPETENCE: "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." I have tried to explain that Gderrin editing in etymolgical sections creates significant errors and therefore it is necessary for an administrator to intervene. Wimpus (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree. First, errors are a content matter, not an administrative matter. Second, Gderrin is not the problem here. You and your approach is. Over and over, when you point out an error, Gderrin does indeed try to correct it. But you demand perfection and wage a war of arbitration until your preferred version is the one that remains. Peter Coxhead's answer was a way to work within the policies and protocols of Wikipedia to correct errors. Stop assuming bad faith on Gderrin's part. Stop questioning their competence. They are clearly very competent, and in most of the cases where you have gone after them, the corrections are minute and subtle. Most readers wouldn't even understand the difference. You may be an expert in Ancient Latin and Greek, but that doesn't mean you exclusively get to edit etymolgical sections or decide who else gets to. Stop trying to correct Gderrin or get them to stop editing in your sandbox and start helping them make the encyclopedia better.TelosCricket (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have only encountered Wimpus and Gderrin in the last couple days but wanted to chime in here. I've been going over their edit histories in the days since I first encountered them both and I don't think I'd characterize this dispute as a content dispute (as you, @TelosCricket: did in your comment below). The primary source of conflict seems to be Wimpus's fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules, guidelines, and mission, as well as their unconventional and strongly held opinion on exactly what an etymology section in an article should be.

Wimpus frequently deletes entire sourced etymology paragraphs, which might include 4 or 5 derived words, with edit descriptions like "OR etymology" or "xxx is not a Latin word" when the only problem with the copy in question is something as small as one word using the wrong case (eg. Greek genitive 'lago' vs. nominative 'lagos'). In some cases it's not even that there is anything wrong with the copy, instead Wimpus seems to take issue with listing any form of a word because they cannot find the precise case intended by the original author listed explicitly in the source cited. When I reverted some of these unnecessary deletions Wimpus's first response was to engage in an edit war, which seems to be a pattern of theirs. In the cases when I have gotten Wimpus to talk about their issues with an entry they have been relatively civil and clearly knowledgeable; they seem, however, to lack (and be unwilling to gain) a basic understanding of what information belongs in a Wikipedia article, what the point of a word's etymology section is, or what to do when a dispute arrises. One alarming practice I've noticed by Wimpus is their seeming unwillingness to discuss issues with an etymology on the Talk page of the word in question. Instead they seem to keep any discussions on the talk pages of individual editors. While this may be a good faith misunderstanding of how talk pages should be used, in practice it makes it much more difficult for other editors to be aware of disputes and help form a consensus.

Wimpus's unwillingness to expand their understanding of what information is valuable to the readers of Wikipedia; their propensity for flaunting Wikipedia's standards for conduct; and their quickness to delete copy from an article that could easily be improved, and contains useful information as is, does not (in my eyes at least) describe a content dispute, it describes a disruptive editor whose actions reduce the information available to Wikipedia's readers and make it more difficult for other editors to improve articles. I have no specific course of action to recommend but wanted to provide an additional voice to the conversation. Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skoulikomirmigotripa: You can not correct an error made by a source, by simply writing something else, that can not found in the specific source, without providing any additional source. In case that would be your standard pratice, you should immediately revert such dubious edits. I can easily correct all kind of etymological mistakes as can be found in etymological sections, but that would create a non-correspondence between the text in the Wiki-article and the text as can be found in the original source. Wimpus (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skoulikomirmigotripa:Ah, well, hope blooms eternal, or something like that. I made the comment below because I had honestly hoped that it could be settled as a content dispute without either editor being sanctioned (e.g., a boomerang). Both are valuable to the project in their own way. But, you are right, there is a conduct problem. TelosCricket (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@TelosCricket: Sorry friend, I hate making things complicated and I completely agree with you that both are valuable, or at least could be. I wouldn't have spoken up except that what's going on seems like a chronic issue and seems so damaging to articles in a section of wikipedia that already gets notoriously too little love. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This should probably be closed as non-actionable. It is mostly a content dispute, albeit a large one drawn out over many articles. Gderrin and Wimpus are both very knowledgeable editors who disagree. Wimpus is prone to edit warring, but otherwise there isn't a conduct issue at hand here. TelosCricket (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Change my mind. TelosCricket (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Wimpus does not appear to have understood the comments by TelosCricket, Peter Coxhead, Johnuniq and Skoulikomirmigotripa above and has decided to escalate the situation by harassing me, such as [231] (above) and on my talk page [232]. I acknowledge that Wimpus may be knowledgeable about Latin and Greek, but do not think that implies the right to harass, cast aspersions or assume bad faith with comments such as these, suggesting that I am a liar. Nor does Wimpus have the right to revert or delete the referenced contributions of other editors such as here, here, here and other places with derogatory edit summaries and without prior discussion on the article’s talk page.

I propose a 24-hour block to send a clear message to Wimpus that it is unacceptable to harass other editors and that reliable sources are not to be deleted or reverted without prior discussion. Gderrin (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I picked (at random) no 56. from Wimpus' list: The name Plectorrhiza is derived from the Latin words plektos meaning "plaited" or "twisted" and rhiza meaning "root". Without even opening the source, I can tell that "plektos" is Greek, not Latin. Checking "rhiza" it is also Greek, the Latin word for root is "radix". I found a source that actually gives a proper etymology for "Plectorrhiza", and as I suspected, it's Greek. See pg. 550 of Native Orchids of Australia: The generic name was coined by Alick Dockrill in 1967 and is apt, because it refers to the tangled roots which are such a prominent feature of the mainland species (Greek plectos, plaited, twisted, rhizos, a root). If someone is inclined to add it in to the article. I am illiterate on the subjects and will not be trying my hand at it right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, so the etymology should have been corrected, not it, and the source removed. Gderrin (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Etymology section break

@Wimpus: You must stop anything that looks like poking Gderrin. The situation at Wikipedia is that the victor takes the spoils, and correctness (actually, belief in correctness) is overruled by consensus. Unfortunately this topic is too technical for mortals to follow and I have seen a couple of editors claiming that something on the internet verifies a particular statement regarding etymology, so you are outnumbered. It is traditional at this noticeboard to not care about content but I am concerned about the possibility that inaccurate information is being added to articles and I would like to make another effort to examine, say, two examples (not a hundred examples!). Are you aware of two articles with what you believe is a significantly incorrect statement regarding the origin of a name? If so, please quote the incorrect text, with a link to the article, and a brief explanation of why the text is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Two earlier mentioned examples:

1. [233] "The name is derived from the Ancient Greek balanus (βάλανος) meaning "acorn" and phorá (φορά) meaning "crop"‎."
   1. No source is given for the full compound. His analysis in "balanus" and "phora" is merely a guess.
   2. Wiktionary is used as source.
   3. According to his source (Wiktionary), balanus is Latin and βάλανος is Greek.
   4. He uses the very (considering this specific etymology) unlikely translation of "crop" for φορά. Acorn-bearing (that would be more probable according to other sources) is different from something like "having acorn-crops".
2. [234] "The specific epithet (atroclavia) is derived from the Latin words atra meaning "black" and clavia meaning "club-bearing", referring to the prominent dark-coloured ends of the sepals."
   1. full compound is not mentioned by the source (Brown, 1956)
   2. clavia is translated as club-bearing while that is the translation the source uses for claviger.
   3. clavia can not be found in the source

It find it troubling that someone is "inventing" etymologies and refers to sources that do not support the actual content that is cited. Wimpus (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary-links are accessible. No etymological information can be found for Balanophora on Wiktionary.

Brown (1956, p. 213): "L. clava, f. club, cudgel, graft; clavula, f. dim.; claviger, -a, -um, club-bearing:"

Clavia nor atroclavia (or atroclavius) can be found in Brown, only a word with similar ending, like laticlavius (Brown, 1956, p. 486): "having a broad stripe" (according to Lewis & Short derived from clavus, not clava). In Latin. clavus also referred to a "purple stripe on the tunica". Whether atroclavia would be "having a black club" or "having a black stripe" shouldn't be a guess. Brown can be downloaded from archive.org, see here. Wimpus (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks, I'll look at this. Meanwhile, you must stop referring to other editors. The issue is content in articles and we assume other editors are working in good faith to improve articles. That means, no more "He uses" etc. (the issue is what text is in the article, not he). Please don't add anything here unless it strictly concerns these two examples. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may add a bit of context to example 1 (Balanophora). I'm not completely familiar with the beginnings of this content dispute, but I think it may be useful to take a look at the recent edits to the Page's etymology section may be useful. Keeping the focus on the content itself, I'll just say that I believe that have been at least 2 well sourced fixes to issues listed in example 1 have been implemented and have since been reverted. The Talk page's conversation on the issue may also give useful context. (Please forgive the lack of links and any errors, this is a mobile post) –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology further discussion

As has been pointed out before, there are three issues that relate to Wimpus that need to be sorted once and for all:

• Personification and attacks on other editors, particularly Gderrin, who edits in good faith, albeit not always as precisely as would be ideal.
• Constant removal of etymologies that should instead be edited to improve or correct them.
• Wimpus's refusal to accept, against consensus, that when no source exists for the complete scientific name, reliable published sources (like Stearn's Botanical Latin) can be used for the components, provided it is made clear what is sourced and explained.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we know. I'm going to make an effort to check some actual content using the two examples in the previous subsection. Please only put comments there that strictly concern those two examples. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@Gderrin and Wimpus: This is a significant concern. I see these issues:

• The two examples at #Etymology section break above seem to show what Wimpus has referred to as "[inventing] an etymology by comparing the full name to a list of single Latin and Greek words". However, they are from 2016. There are a hundred other claimed examples above which cannot be evaluated by uninvolved/uninformed people such as myself.
• Peter coxhead above states that Stearn is authoritative and "has an extensive glossary providing meanings for components of names. There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name." Peter coxhead supports Gderrin's edits and opposes Wimpus's approach of removing rather than improving etymologies they consider improper.
• My humble opinion is that editors should not explain an etymology by consulting what amounts to a dictionary (Stearn's glossary). Such an approach seems to conflict with the realities of Wikipedia, namely that we have to rely on reliable sources and not use synthesis (original research). That's not just a rule we should follow—it's fundamental to the fact that anyone can edit and it would be unacceptable for a new editor, or any editor, to add derivations with a source for each word, but none for the topic. However, my opinion is just that—an opinion. The issue would have to be resolved at a suitable noticeboard such as WP:RSN although it would be disappointing if established editors were not able to see that it not ok to invent derivations from personal knowledge backed by dictionaries.
• There are at least two other editors who believe Wimpus is too pedantic and wants the source to say exactly what is added to the article. Further, Wimpus's approach has received very little support (is there any?).
• Another reality of Wikipedia is that consensus rules, even if the consensus is that original research is fine. It could be argued that any such claim of consensus would be faulty because if uninvolved editors were to investigate, they would agree that OR is prohibited. However, the practical situation is that uninvolved editors are unlikely to get involved in this esoteric topic. That means Wimpus has to back off even if correct.

Sorry, but I don't see what can be done regarding this mess. No one should add etymologies without a source for the topic (at Balanophora that would be a source describing Balanophora). Yet no one should be abrasive or edit against consensus. Wimpus should be aware that Wikipedia's procedures are flawed and it is the noisy editor who will eventually be sanctioned, while the polite editor will be supported and merely asked to fix any problems they might have introduced. If new examples of the problems arise, I would be prepared to look and possibly advise about how to hold a central RfC that might throw light on what articles should say about etymologies. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you. In the light of what else is happening in the world ..... Gderrin (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you for your analysis.

• Considering your remarks: "Wimpus's approach has received very little support (is there any?)."

In the previous request, administrator @Someguy1221: mentioned:

"I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon"."

Peter coxhead is claiming consensus, but there seems to be at least three dissenting editors.

• This is not the only issue at stake in those two examples. The information in the text did not fully corresponded to the sources cited. Balanus is not Greek but Latin according to the source, clavia is not mentioned by the source and a translation of claviger was misapplied to clavia. Besides the whole issue of OR, making such mistakes is a clear example of disruptive editing: "...misrepresents reliable sources". Gderrin has not shown that in those two examples, that the information as cited, did truthfully represented it's sources. And I do not think that there is a clear consensus that it is okay to misrepresent sources.

The same issue was mentioned earlier by administrator Someguy1221:

"I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited. When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value. I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading, which also saves me the time of having to find and evaluate a source myself."

Two recent edits of Gderrin similarly show (08:21, 30 May 2020 and 21:48, 30 May 2020) that sources are misrepresented.

• [235] "The specific epithet (polyanthemos) is from the ancient Greek poly- meaning "many" and anthemos meaning "flower'."
  • According to the source: "Eucalyptus polyanthemos: Greek poly-, many and anthemon, flower, of the inflorescences.
• [236] "The specific epithet (peninsularis) is from Latin, meaning "a narrow body of land", referring to the distribution on the Eyre Peninsula."
  • Without consulting the source (as I do not have access to this source), I seriously doubt whether peninsularis, instead of peninsula is the word for "a narrow body of land".

In the first example, I can easily correct the mistake, in the second example I have to ask Gderrin for a full quote. But in tens of other edits, I have to ask Gderrin similarly for full quotes as I seriously doubt whether he did not misread/misrepresented his sources. In case we can not fully trust an editor, why shouldn't an administrator intervene? @Johnuniq, couldn't you ask other administrators to chime in? Wimpus (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Johnuniq: Stearn's Botanical Latin and its glossaries do not amount to a dictionary. Stearn is the "bible" for Botanical Latin. If a botanist wants to make up a scientific name, they are almost certain to consult Stearn, and his judgements on various issues are part of the ICNafp. If you can find a botanical taxonomist who will agree that Stearn is not a reliable source for components of scientific names, I will be amazed. Obviously if a source for a complete scientific name exists, this should be used (although noting silently that these sources simply copy from one another, including errors, and are almost certain to have produced many etymologies via components). But if none exists, and the components are sufficiently obvious, my view is that the consensus has been up to now that an explanation can be given in terms of the components. The kind of wording I have used is something like "A [the original author] did not explain the origin of XY. The component X- means ...^[1], the component -Y means ...^[2]" We can certainly have an RfC on whether this is acceptable, preferably via WP:TOL with notification to all of its sub-projects.
Not having access to Nicolle (2013), I don't know whether it actually says that peninsularis means "a narrow body of land". It wouldn't surprise me if it did, since I regularly encounter explanations that are not wrong (as this one isn't) but which omit steps. If it does say this, it should of course be corrected to "The specific epithet (peninsularis) is from Latin peninsula, meaning "a narrow body of land", referring to the distribution on the Eyre Peninsula.^{[ref to Nicolle][ref for addition, e.g. Stearn]}" The question is why Wimpus didn't simply make this correction, rather than complain, yet again, about another editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coining a name in Latin is something different than analysing a Latin name. In case an author coins a name on -clavius, it can possibly refer to clava, clavus or even clavis (e.g. arteria subclavia is the artery below the collarbone [collarbone = Latin clavicula, diminutive of clavis = "key"]). We can not reliable reconstruct, whether clava, clavus or clavis was intended, without the help of a source, that discusses the full name.

In the case of peninsularis, Gderrin subsequently suggests on the talk page: "The epithet peninsularis is from Latin, meaning "a narrow body of land". (The Latin word is peninsula.)" that "from Latin" is sufficient to make clear to our readers that "a narrow body of land" does not pertain to peninsularis. I find it odd, that in this case he selectively omits essential parts of the etymology. In case, I would have added Stearn, I would have added all kind of additional information, while the onus was on Gderrin to non-ambiguously represent his source. And I would have created a discrepancy between Nicole and Stearn, while in this case that would be a false suggestion. Wimpus (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, your suggestion that I shouldn't complain about ambigous edits and should alternatively made a correction to Eucalyptus peninsularis by checking other sources, seems misguided. Here, you can see that in this case Nicole possibly referred to peninsula instead. Gderrin should have mentioned right away, that the translation was pertinent to peninsula instead of peninsularis. You can see in other instances, Gderrin simply removed (without mentioning a thing on the talk-page) the Greek words I have added here and here. Is it really worth the trouble to perfect Gderrin's recent etymological descriptions that lack any Latin or Greek words/elements as in: [237] "The specific epithet is from ancient Greek meaning "a meadow or well-watered, fertile spot" and "loving".", [238] "The specific epithet (pachyphylla) is from ancient Greek meaning "thick-leaved".", [239] "The specific epithet (paedoglauca) is from ancient Greek, meaning "child" or "youth" and "pale blue or grey", ..."? Gderrin could probably remove (without seeking consensus) those Greek/Latin words or word-elements. So, it is not a matter of simply making a correction. Wimpus (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As is almost always the case in these discussions, the underlying issue is what the purpose of the etymological information is. I believe it is primarily to explain the meaning of the scientific name to our readers, the overwhelming majority of whom are not interested in the precise word from which the name is ultimately derived. Thus what matters most is to know that pachyphylla means "thick-leaved", so there is nothing wrong with just saying (in my slight rewording): The specific epithet (pachyphylla) is derived from ancient Greek and means "thick-leaved". The way forward is to have an RfC via WP:TOL to consider:

• The purpose of etymological information about scientific names in organism articles.
• How exactly to explain and reference the information, given that there are potentially different kinds of source, which I rank in priority order as:
  • The original author's explanation (which in recent years is not infrequently inaccurate as to the classical language involved)
  • Glossaries of scientific names that give an explanation for the complete name in context (e.g. in the genus for a specific epithet)
  • Glossaries of scientific names that give an explanation for the complete name but not in context (e.g. the whole epithet but not in that genus)
  • Glossaries that give components of scientific names but not an explanation for the complete name in context.

What is not useful, again in my view, is to discuss this at AN/I. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not fully versed on the current version of this debate as I've only had time to read half of it, and that's probably all for now - I am even busier at work now thanks to the epidemic. Coming back to it after a while though, I think that this debate has been made more technical than it needs to be. If someone started adding explanations for why people had certain names, and cited books of names explaining their general origins, we would reject that content immediately as only the person or his parents can explain what the name means. If someone edited an article on an invention and tried to explain what a part did by citing a source predating the invention, and then defended the source by saying the parts have very similar names, we would reject that content immediately. Someone who insisted on doing either of these repeatedly would eventually be banned from Wikipedia if they failed to heed warnings, and this would not be a controversial decision. But then people start debating Ancient Greek and no one wants to participate.

So we have a niche area of Wikipedia with basically three interested editors, and two of them are okay with blatant original research. The fact they don't see a problem citing sources predating the content being cited should be enough for anyone to see what the problem is. And if there's not going to be an agreement on that, there's no point even starting the real technical debates over source reliability and proper derivation. You can just cite something that's close enough, guess that it's true, and no one will care. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: sorry, but your analogy isn't right. Consider my first name, "Peter". Why my parents decided to call me "Peter" is one matter. The meaning of "Peter" (rock or stone) and its etymology are different matters. Of course we cannot say why the original author decided to give a plant the specific epithet "petrensis" unless they explicitly say so, but we can say, referencing e.g. Stearn, that "petrensis" means 'found among rocks', and it has this meaning regardless of the genus the plant is placed in, or whether the original author made a mistake and thought it meant something different. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But in case your name would be "Petriclavius", we can not reliably assess without consulting a source for the full name, whether Petriclavius is derived from clavus, clava or clavis (cf. laticlavius < clavus, atroclavia < clava according to Gderrin, subclavia < clavis). So, it is still OR to select one of those three options, without citing another source. And possibly, different describing authors might arrive at the same epithet when coining a name, despite having used different building blocks. Wimpus (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And in case we would analyse the name "Peter" without consulting sources that would specifically deal with the English name "Peter", various Wiki-editors could arrive at πέτρα, πέτρος, πετρόω, πετράεις, πετραῖος, πετράς (Boeotic for τετράς = fourth day of the month) or πετρανός (- Lat. veteranus) by browsing through a dictionary. Your suggestion leads to inconsistent results (how could you otherwise explain the first three etymologies of Balanophora that differed significantly). Wimpus (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Someguy1221, given your limited time, I do not expect that you will continue to participate in this discussion, but your response clearly shows that editors (but probably also administrators) might be reluctant to join this conversation, due to all the technicalities involved, while in other instances, they would probably be more outspoken and would probably reject these edits. As in the aforementioned two examples, I hoped that these clear-cut cases of "misrepresenting sources" (as the text and the sources are incompatible on various points) would give an administrator enough ammunition to intervene. In the previous discussion, Gderrin seemed to avoid giving a full explanation of what actually happened in his edits. In the current discussion, Gderrin similarly does not seem to make any effort, in explaining those contested edits. I find it rather baffling that he utters sentences like: "In the light of what else is happening in the world ....." in response to Johnuniq's analysis. An editor could ask Gderrin to explain why he has misrepresented sources on such a large scale and could try to find a solution that would actually protect Wikipedia. Instead of topic ban, an administrator could alternatively ask Gderrin to add his etymological explanations first on the talk-page with a verbatim quote from the source, before adding this to the main space. Wimpus (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Sorry, but "two of them are okay with blatant original research" sounds to me like blatant original research! Gderrin (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize as I am almost certainly going to get the indentation wrong, but I wanted to contribute. First, I want to note that a draft for a RfC about etymologies was started here. Due to all the nonsense 2020 brought, I had to put it aside. Second, I agree that using Stearn (and other such sources) to derive etymology is OR and probably shouldn't be done. However, Wimpus's behavior, especially toward Gderrin, is not appropriate. Being technically correct does not give one permission to belittle others or poke them as Wimpus has been doing. That needs to stop.

• Question can we all agree to stop etymological edits (that means all parties, not just Gderrin) until the Rfc is complete? That may take a while given everyone's time constraints, but I will make the effort to significantly revise the draft. TelosCricket (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@TelosCricket:, I wouldn't mind to stop temporarily making any etymological edits. My intention with this request was Gderrn to stop making any etymological edits, but this would temporarily have the same effect. Do not hesitate to contact me, in case of linguistic questions. Good luck. Wimpus (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Gderrin: At 12:09, 31 May 2020 above you wrote "sounds to me like blatant original research". That suggests a lack of engagement with what has been said, so let me clarify the situation now that Someguy1221 has confirmed my understanding. Editors may be blocked for persistently adding original research to articles. If anyone is inventing etymologies based on their personal knowledge backed by individual words in a dictionary, they are violating WP:SYNTH (i.e., they are performing original research). If that persists before an RfC with significant input supports the procedure, I will issue blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I do apologise if you or @Someguy1221: took offence at my rejoinder. I should be trying to calm things down, rather than reacting to what I saw as an insult. Neither I, nor @Peter coxhead: nor any of the other "plant editors" I know have invented etymologies based on our personal knowledge, with or without the use of a dictionary. I would contend that neither Stearn's Botanical Latin nor Roland Brown's Composition of Scientific Words is a dictionary in the usual sense of the word. They function to translate Greek and Latin words and word-components into English. I did not know about the RfC proposal. I do hope that might improve the situation. Happy to comply with @TelosCricket:'s request. Gderrin (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• From the discussion above, and until a satisfactory counter-explanation is available, I regard inventing etymologies from a dictionary ("glossary") of words and word-components as original research and it must stop. @Wimpus: Please do not take this as an invitation to remove existing etymologies, not unless there is consensus on talk. Everyone should wait for a widely notified RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I am not going to make any etymological edits in the meantime. Wimpus (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism and rude behavior by Pappé

• Pappé (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I'm reporting Pappé because he's not here to build an encyclopedia. The vast majority of his edits are full of WP:OR and his WP:POV. Some examples of his attacks are: (Bullshit article obviously made by dishonest person who switches 'North Africans/Maghreb' into 'Berbers' out of the sources., You seem to be emotionally very sensitive about this subject. 1930 is 21th century and modern enough, Take yours or go back dealing Moroccan topics., Stop deleting facts. 'Atlas' you are a Moroccan nationalist., Moroccan nationalism out) Calling someone "XX nationalist" is definitely insolent. After expanding and removing OR from that article (Kutama). This is how I'm rewarded! Being called a nationalist. This behavior is not only in En wiki, It's also in Fr wiki (Contributions, Talk). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pappé (talk · contribs) edits infrequently and has not responded to concerns raised on their talk page. I think an indefinite block is in order. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have indeffed the user for battleground behaviour and lack of communication. El_C 09:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism and mischief by Justanothersgwikieditor

• Justanothersgwikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is not sincere in improving the BLP "Chai Keong Toh". Some of his mischief [[240]], [[241]] include:

1. Adding information that are unsourced

2. Vandalism and distorting information

3. Imposing his views without reliable sources

For "1", he added unsourced material " He left IDA in 2016 to join Singapore Power (SP Group) as CTO and vice-president." After my complain, he removed it.

For "2", he vandalized and distorted several information on the article. Changed "United States" to "United State]". He also changed a publication article from  "Towards A Greener And Energy-Efficient Internet" to "Green Internet - Dated 2009" for no good reason. He also added "He will subsequently be the Chief Engineering & Technology Officer (CETO) of IDA" which is distorted information. The source provided points to the person being concurrently holding both positions, i.e. Assistant Chief Executive and CETO at that time. He also replied "1,610 google results versus 19,600 google results as no overwhelming". Clearly, 19,600 is 10x more. This indicated his mischief and twist of fact.

For "3",  he insisted adding "Singaporean" without reliable sources, making claims that was the BLLP's name on birth registration (no proofs/sources), and claiming his race (again no proofs/sources). He insisted adding "newly created position" by stating it is "more important", without backing why and how he knows it is more important? He has moved and changed the BLP name from "Chai Keong Toh" to "Toh Chai Keong" without reliable sources and without first discussing with other editors. He made the move using WP:BOLD instead of WP:RS CanadaMaple123 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

CanadaMaple123 - per the instructions at the top of this page, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Simply mentioning that you're mulling it over a few days ago probably isn't sufficient. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I will strongly suggest you read through the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Vandalism, WP:BLP, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:BRD.

1. I admitted that I added material that is unsourced, the reference I got is a poor source so which I did not added in the reference and I added the information, forgetting to add a citation needed tag to that line. On your first notification [242], I had removed it [243] per WP:BLP.
2. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism From changing United States to United State], to be exact, the change is ''[[United States]]'' to ''United State]'' [244], is an editing error where instead of 2 closing brackets are removed, the s and and the bracket are removed, this is not vandalism. Also, with the change of title of the reference Towards A Greener And Energy-Efficient Internet to Green Internet - Dated 2009, the change is made with reFill 2 [245]. The title looks innocently correct and I admit I should have looked more carefully during preview. The reference is [246] which the page is titled Green Internet - Dated 2009 while the material title is Towards A Greener And Energy-Efficient Internet. This particular edit made 15 changes or more by reFill 2 but that particular reference is by Chai K. Toh. The references stated that Toh was appointed as Assistant Chief Executive in 2015 and another article published in 2015 clearly stated his position as Assistant Chief Executive. The other reference states that he is both an Assistant Chief Executive and Chief Engineering & Technology Officer. It is a minor conclusion that he was firstly appointed as Assistant Chief Executive and then Chief Engineering & Technology Officer. If my phrasing makes it deem that he is no more the Assistant Chief Executive, I am more than happy to rephrase it accordingly. I also like to point out that CanadaMaple123 is twisting my words and hence creating mischief, He also replied "1,610 google results versus 19,600 google results as no overwhelming". Clearly, 19,600 is 10x more. This indicated his mischief and twist of fact., this is in reference to a google name search based on Toh Chai Keong and Chai Keong Toh, respectively which can be evidently seen here [247]].
3. In the original article [248], it was written Chai Keong "C.K." Toh FREng is a Singapore-born computer scientist, engineer, professor, and chief technology officer. which typical translated Toh as a Singaporean. As per my usual editing, I changed Singapore-born to Singaporean which was subsequently challenged. On CanadaMaple123's provision of source on his Chief Engineering & Technology Officer title [249], information was obtained he is a Singaporean which I am happy to accept as a source for his nationality. For context, the claims that was the BLLP's name on birth registration (no proofs/sources), and claiming his race (again no proofs/sources) is based on User:Juancarlos.canoescriba's remarks that Web records showed this person consistently used "Chai Keong Toh" for over a period of 20+ years. [250]. Singapore agencies, companies and education institutes uses official records of names for press releases and based on the reliable source provided by CanadaMaple123 states Toh is a Singaporean, Toh is a common surname in Singapore for Chinese Singaporean, see Toh (surname) for reference. It is a conclusion that I have drawn and replied in the talkpage and not in his Wikipedia page. For the newly created position, it is stated inside the reference, that the position is newly created. A google search on IDA's Assistant Chief Executives [251] shows that there are various Assistant Chief Executives for various groups and I think this is important to point out that this is a new position, Assistant Chief Executive (Engineering And Technology), and not a succession. This is a content dispute.
4. In reference to my statistics and the references provided so far, 1,610 google results, government agency and a business federation press releases, there are plenty of strong reliable sources. As what CanadaMaple123 has pointed out, it is a WP:BOLD move, supported by reliable sources (WP:RS). As per CanadaMaple123's post on User_talk:Lectonar#Page_revert_and_protection, Lectonar had said it is a WP:BRRD situation. On the page name change, I admit I may have been a bit hasty and decided to seek consensus by raising a move request.

Before the page move request, three new editors who are related to the page topic and vote for a consensus to move the page back to its original name and were banned for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CanadaMaple123/Archive. CanadaMaple123 was banned for three days and the unblock request is another story. After being blocked for sockpuppetry and lifting of ban, CanadaMaple123 continues to WP:CANVASS for votes[252].

In all, this is a content dispute and should not have being brought to ANI. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Justanothersgwikieditor: - I am reporting on your editing behavior. I am glad you admitted to [1] adding unsourced content, [2] changing United States to "United State]", [3] Changing the publication article title, [4] doing name change in a hasty. Too many of these are "mistakes", which I felt an experienced editor like you is hard to understand. I am a relatively young editor (less than 1 year). I also felt you are a bit of a bully, keep reminding people wikipedia policies when you yourself violated some. You have given 4 references, 1 existing, 1 found by me, and 2 given by you from an organization called IMDA. But IMDA is not IDA. Also, 4 references are insufficient to change a person's name. Kindly declare your COI. Do you work for IMDA? Do you have a COI with the BLP? Please add value and reliable content to the BLP instead of making contentious changes. Note: As a young editor, I frequently consult other editors for help and I learn from others. CanadaMaple123 (talk)

@CanadaMaple123: Item 1 has been sufficiently discussed. Item 2 is a normal, common editing mistake which is acceptable and not vandalism, we fix things as we go about it. You are accusing me of vandalism for this. Item 3 is an automated process which depends on tool to automate the filling of references which I am supposed to check and confirmed. I admitted I slip in checking in this. If you will read the wikipedia article IMDA Infocomm Media Development Authority(IMDA) , IMDA is a merger of IDA of and Media Development Authority. I hereby declare that I have no COI with the page topic and IMDA, IDA and MDA. I will like you to declare your COI with page topic and the three editors (if they are friends, fellow students). Again, I like you to refer to WP:BRD on the changes I made. I made changes, we discuss whether should something be included or excluded and I edited accordingly. Changes that you wanted and I do not agree on need to be discussed on page talkpage and not on ANI. Already, please read up on WP:CANVASS. You invited editors, admins and attempted to influence them to force through the changes and then started an ANI against me for vandalism and mischief for which there is none. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding on, I did not provide any sources or references with regards to IMDA. The two sources are already in the article before I started editing and the articles while stored in the www.imda.gov.sg website, they are referring to IDA press releases. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: - Key point is do not edit if there is no value added or nothing new (backed by reliable sources). Avoid editing as if it appears to be WP:VD or WP:PA or impulsive editing. I do not have a COI and I do not know the other editors. Also, I realized you had made many many small or one-off edits (from your contributions history). This appears you are ramping up your edits count? I usually just edit once and publish it once I am very sure all the changes I have made, after checking on the preview page. I am not interested to have many edits count to get BARNSTARS or badges. I focus on reliable content development for the encyclopedia. I also create new BLP pages. Finally, I am not convinced by your edits and contentious name change you made to the BLP "Chai Keong Toh". CanadaMaple123 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Bot-like behavior by User:YUMSUKLIB

User YUMSUKLIB is replacing Citation Needed templates with very low quality references [253], [254], [255], [256], [257]. Nonsensical edit summaries, bot-like tempo. Recommend an indefinite vandalism block and a mass revert of the user's entire edit history. Geogene (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Warned. A block would be overkill at this time. I've left the user a friendly warning. I have, however, rollback'd their edits. If in the midst of that mass undoing there were reliable sources which were removed, I apologize for that collateral damage. Hopefully, the user will take the time to review the reliable sources guideline I linked for them, and self-correct for any future edits. El_C 18:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We now have Special:Contributions/YUMSUKLIB, Special:Contributions/PaulineNdhlovu, Special:Contributions/Omon Ize-Iyamu, Special:Contributions/Atuha and Special:Contributions/Nikemove. El_C 20:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, indeed all acounts are newbies and looks indeed like typical spambot editing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have indeffed those accounts (and will continue to do so) pending an explanation as to what is going on. El_C 20:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I read somewhere (possibly now archived) that these edits are part of an edit-a-thon; I'll see if I can find the link. There are definitely concerns with the edits, even if they can be attributed to an organized event, as I've seen many sources being added that are nowhere close to meeting WP:RS and in some cases they are simply Wikipedia mirrors as citations.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

meta:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref is one of the tags. DMacks (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it is not working, as there are many edits which are too low quality to be retained. El_C 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This page lists User:FNartey (WMF) as the main contact for the project. He should probably be made aware that Step #2 (i.e."Find a reliable source that can support that article") of "How to Participate: Five Basic Steps" isn't being met in a number of cases and the clean up effort will be a substantial drain on volunteer time if every citation added has to be doubled checked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps User:FNartey_(WMF) who seem to be the initiator should be contacted, I am not quite sufre if this idea 1Lib1Ref makes really sense if they only add low quality refs ... CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Without any Wikipedia training, it seems like a recipe for failure. El_C 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is also creating quite a lot of copyvios. I had to spend nearly an hour yesterday cleaning up after Special:Contributions/Hope Nakapite. Number 57 21:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio issues also with Special:Contributions/Muleta_Mutemwa. El_C 21:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of citations issues also with Special:Contributions/Risper_Chemutai, Special:Contributions/Mmaua. El_C 21:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to jump in here - the source added to the only page affected by this that I watch - Kimono - just seems to be a Wikipedia mirror of a much earlier version of the same article. If someone's running part of this event through bots, I have no idea where it's getting the sources from, as linking back to a scalped, shittier version of the same article running on another website is obviously self-defeating. Might as well put "source: my common sense in my brain", or something. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

MKCheserek (talk · contribs) also seems to belong to this group. They have racked up two blocks in two weeks of editing. Despite multiple warnings and explanations on their Talk page, there has been no communication from them with the exception of an unblock request. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: There is also Ngangaesther making edits such as this which most definitely is not a reliable source. I really don't relish the thought of going through 500+ edits to catch what amounts to spam links.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have left FNartey a comment about the issues we've been encountering (User_talk:FNartey_(WMF)#ANI_report). To summarize, while I applaud the sentiment behind this effort, I feel as if it could have been set up and executed better. Our African articles are currently being overwhelmed — at the moment, I get the sense that this is possibly doing more harm than good. An emphasis on better Wikipedia training (copyvio, reliable sources, etc.) must be part of any future such efforts if it is to benefit the project in a concrete and real way. El_C 22:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging their other account Flixtey as well, as they appear to be more active there. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Weighing in with concerns. I hadn't seen this thread, but I've cleared over 30 CopyPatrol notices in the last hour or so, all of which have that tag. I am well aware that I ought to respond carefully, because while every edit I see with that tag is problematic, I'm working at Copypatrol where most edits listed are problematic, so if I just saw 30 out of a project producing 10,000 good edits, we need minor tweaking and education, but if it is 30 out a few hundred, we have a situation that needs to be stopped.

FWIW, everyone of the edits I reverted was not a close paraphrase by someone who needs some guidance about writing in one's own words, most were simple copy and paste from place like britannica.com. Whoever is in charge needs to do a reboot.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

C. Odumegwu Ojukwu is a prefect example into how this isn't working. El_C 12:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

+ to what Sphilbrick has said. Copypatrol is getting totally swamped with edits relating to this. I've warned about 6-7 different users who are taking part in it. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, i find most of the comments very valid as some users may not have completely understood the trainings. In spite of our preparation with the audience through series of webinars we realised some erroneous edits that we tried to correct through posts from their community leaders. These worked as some realised their mistakes and learnt through process. I don't think any of these editors had any malicious intent and I acknowledge that some of the edits may have added to workload of volunteers. 1Lib1Ref has shown significant editor retention as well as editor reactivation in the past and we are optimistic with further training of this cohort we could increase the number of editors on en:wiki in the future. I had discovered, too late last week, that the audience needed other skills besides Wikipedia skills (how to evaluate digital source materials). We want to acknowledge the really strong demonstration of why we need to increase training with this audience and community. This kind of professional development is why our partner AFLIA exists in the African context. We are working with the leadership of AfLIA to provide further training in the next couple of months through this grant proposal to ensure their contribution in subsequent years will be better than that of this years', and we are taking the lessons from this round into our next iteration to ensure that our audience is adequately prepared on issues as these. Pointing out responses to an earlier conversation on the subject --FNartey (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

FNartey (WMF), Thanks for the response. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks from me, also, FNartey (WMF). If I could conclude this with a two fold suggestion: better Wikipedia training is key, including perhaps an initial throttling of volume by each participating account. And also, better notification to the English Wikipedia community (i.e. at WP:AN, WP:VP, etc.) that the effort is underway. As you can see from this very thread, most of us could not figure out what was going on for some time, to the point that I had to block several of these accounts from editing (now unblocked), pending an explanation. An explanation which, incidentally, none of the accounts provided themselves (perhaps a template/tag about the programme being placed on the userpages of participants would also be useful). Anyway, thanks for all the good work you do and good luck to all of us with the next iteration! El_C 17:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Epilogue: It would appear that YUMSUKLIB is an acronym for the Yusuf Maitama Sule University Library, in Kano, Nigeria. Given the African-sounding names of some of the other editors who appear to also be involved (above), these incidents appear to have been some sort of edit-a-thon by students. William Harris (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit war at Bergen Community College where editor is inserting (and reinserting) COPYVIO material

The article for Bergen Community College has been updated about a dozen times by an IP editor, with sourced material removed and extensive sections of COPYVIO material added (from this official source; it also appears elsewhere on official sites). A series of reverts was undone by the same IP editor, who made clear in this edit that "This is all official College data and information coming directly from the source - the College. Please stop reverting to past versions." I'm sure that the editor believes in good faith that the edits are adding official material, but the WP:COPYVIO issue is not being understood here (as well as a possible WP:COI problem). Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Which was followed shortly after by another revert, this time with the edit summary "This is all official College data and information coming directly from the source - the College. Please stop reverting to past versions. The content in the presidential brochure is owned by the College copyright, as is the information being posted to Wikipedia. I represent the College and have the express permission to do so." The COPYVIO is clear and now it's obvious that WP:COI is also present, as well as WP:3RR problems. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted and revision-deleted the copyvio, and I (and several others) have put warnings on the IP's talk page, which the IP has seen, since he or she has subsequently posted there. I'll try to explain further there. (If I messed anything up with the revision deletion, any other admin is welcome to fix things up—I'm not as familiar with the process as I should be.) Deor (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has seems to stop. I have told them about Copyright, and COI, and paid editing. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

IP user 73.49.85.51 is adding the word "alleged" to the article on Tareq Salahi in relation to the 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches. In their edit summary, they have said this is required by a lawyer in Los Angeles and to contact that lawyer. diff Emk9 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess we have to. A lawyer says so. (A lawyer who writes illiterate stuff such as "in accordance to". Allegedly.) EEng 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(sigh) What does the source say? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite call this a legal threat, but it's getting distressingly close. Has anybody actually tried, you know, talking to this IP editor beyond edit summaries? creffett (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I just gave them my standard WP:42, BLP/help combo. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this?

Bizarre stuff happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rattler (G.I. Joe) - Bunch of new users posting brief statements that an article should be kept, the users are then getting blocked, and the !votes are then being reverted as imposters. Other editors are then coming along and adding back the (still-struck out) !votes and leaving more. Users involved are User:Mubashgu, User:ST47 z, User:61Jump, User:Feelota, and User:FuriousEagleGye. As the first three have been indeffed, I'm only going to notify the latter two. Can someone come in and straighten out what in the world is going on here? A sock check might need to happen. Hog Farm (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: All five have been indeffed now. Hog Farm (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If any additional accounts are created to edit AfDs with the same M.O., just report them to AIV for immediate blocking with a link to this report. I've semi-protected the AfDs they were targeting today, but they'll probably just move on to others.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page confusion, attacks and counter-attacks in split/merge discussion

Can someone with more patience and a better understanding of the subject matter -- which appears to be essentially interracial marriage in China -- please take a look at:

• Talk:Interracial marriage#There are many misinterpreting the source about Chinese intermarrige. [link fixed], and
• Talk:Miscegenation#Split and create new 'History of Multiracial People' article

The problems I see are:

• 1. Several of the participants do not seem to be able to write and format their comments in a way that is understandable;
• 2. A large percentage of the discussion has moved into WP:NOTAFORUM territory;
• 3. Editors are attacking each other as sockpuppets, to the extent that two SPIs have been filed here and here, and perhaps others I'm not aware of;
• 3. Worst, these elements are all mixed up together in individual comments.

The suggested splt/merge is complicated enough that it would be a difficult discussion to begin with, even without these factors confusing things. I'm wondering what, if anything, can be done to keep the discussion focused and under control. The answer is not obvious to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there any discretionary sanctions which cover this subject matter, or China? I couldn't find any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

VeritasVox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A couple of years ago, User:VeritasVox narrowly avoided a topic ban for wasting time defending Julius Evola. Evola was a figure on the fringes of Nazism and neo-Nazism, and is of historical interest in the study of fascism and extremism. Evola is now occasionally recommended reading among the alt-right and some racist or apathetic new-agers.

For the past year, VeritasVox has been a true WP:SPA at that article. Just now, this editor violated WP:3RR:[258][259][260][261] by attempting to downplay and whitewash Evola's status as a antisemitic conspiracy theorist. From the article's talkpage, this is apparently based on VeritasVox's personal interpretation of primary material. Note in that same section VeritasVox's comparison of Evola to Hitler, etc. and claims that mentioning antisemitism in the lead would be a "childish slur". Evola wrote a forward to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion where he said "The problem of the authenticity of this document is secondary and has to be replaced by the much more serious and essential problem of its truthfulness".

Considering VeritasVox's past history and the previous discussion, I'm taking this hear instead of AN3, Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• What do you think an appropriate sanction would be, a topic ban from Julius Evola, or something more encompassing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I note in passing that in 2018 there were 6 comments on the proposed topic ban, 5 of which supported the ban, while the other of was a non-voting comment which cited WP:BITE. It's almost two years later, so BITE doesn't apply. (Also "VeritasVox" means "The Voice of Truth" in Latin, and I think we're all aware that editors who put "Truth" in their usernames turn out with great frequency to be a problem, as they usually carry a POV and are often here to RGW.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It's funny you mention that, I was thinking of your past comments about "truth" in usernames when I was filing this.

As for sanctions, this editor is now a SPA who's willing to violate 3RR to whitewash an article about an obscure fascist, and has, as far as I can tell, never introduced a reliable source to to the article. At other articles, they seem to think Twitter is reliable. They are clearly willing to cite academic sources, though, based on whatever this is, using a source from 1920 to stick up for those poor, beleaguered ancient Sumerian slave-owners. To me, all this is WP:NOTHERE. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've started with a partial block from the article, that will stop the edit war. I am ope to suggestions re topic bans or even an indef block. Guy (help!) 22:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Deeply amusing that User:Grayfell seems to think that the fact that I have studied the code of Ur-Nammu in the original language means that I support sumerian slave-owners. This is another example of this editor's personal grudge against me - an editor who has in the past labelled editors arguing against his views on this talkpage as 'nazi-apologists' and posted screeds about the 'real-life consequences of nazism' as somehow supporting his edits to the detriment of all other opinions on this article.

My objection is that 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' is imprecise, and seems to reek of 'childish name-calling,' as I actually said. My edit is as follows;-

'Evola frequently criticised both capitalism and communism as subversive manifestations of the modern world, and is noted for his prologue to the second Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where he placed this critique within the context of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.'

This is not a statement denying that this was a conspiracy theory or that it was antisemitic - it is stating that Evola in this prologue integrated this view within the wider theoretical framework of his thought. To say he was an 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' is a simplistic statement that obscures the fact that his prologue levels the conspiracy therein not simply at 'the jews' but at the fundamental postulates of modernity, integrating this within much wider themes. I aim, as ever, at precision.

If your judgement is that I should be banned from editing this article, so be it. But I humbly request that Grayfell also receives a parallel ban, as his influence has been continuously toxic, rude and unhelpful, visibly tinged with a personal, ideologically rooted bias which I feel has made any dispassionate analysis of this figure impossible. This may allow further development of the article in question outside of what has become largely a personal crusade - I admit, for both of us. VeritasVox (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You can "admit" that it's a "personal crusade" for you, but you are not in any position to make the same claim about Grayfell. Not being him, all you can do is express your (very convenient for you) personal opinion that it's a "crusade" for him, you cannot "admit" that it is. But, in any case, since you do admit to crusading, it seems as if Guy's partial block of you is appropriate. Any other violations of editing propriety you'd like to admit to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to also invite the administrators, in support of the points above, to examine closely how Grayfell has chosen to frame his complaint. Note the tone and language that is being used - the framing, immediately, of me and this article in terms of the 'wasting time defending' and of (presumably) those disagreeing with him as 'the alt-right and some racist or apathetic new-agers.' I can assure you that similar rhetoric can be found in every discussion he has engaged in on the talkpage. VeritasVox (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, you know who else integrated his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories with complaints about modernity and other "wider themes"? The author of Mein Kampf. In fact the distinction you draw is one without a difference, since for the fascists, Nazis and other virulent anti-Semites of that time, the Jews were largely (if not entirely) to blame for the problems of the modern world. For them, it all went back to the Jews. What this means is that your attempt to water-down the claim of anti-Semitism against Evola is merely an attempt to whitewash him, presumably so that he will continue to appeal to modern types who like to think that their anti-Semitism is a little less virulent and a little more nuanced.

I suggest that if no one has a taste for a site ban, a topic ban from Fascism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism, broadly construed, would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• VeritasVox has repeatedly mentioned my passing comment, from over a year ago, that Nazism is ideologically incompatible with Wikipedia's values. This is not a controversial point, and that this is framed as "gotcha" is a pretty good demonstration of why yet more protracted discussion is likely to be futile. Evola had "almost servile admiration for Himmler". This is his legacy, and his uninteresting opinions about communism/capitalism are merely extensions of this. His significance isn't his philosophy or poetry. His legacy is far-right terrorism, like Terza Posizione.

Note also, that VeritasVox still doesn't seem to understand sources, as having studied the code of Ur-Nammu in the original language is not a reliable source. For the record, having read Evola, in any language, is not really a reliable source either. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The reductio ad hitlerum is incredibly simplistic, and neglects fundamental ideological differences in far-right thought. The fact that someone is an anti-semite doesn't mean we pidgeonhole them into imprecise definitions of their thought because we don't like them. This is an encyclopedia. Evola was antisemitic. 'Anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' however is, in my view, wrong because he commented on a work featuring an established antisemitic conspiracy rather than creating his own, leaving aside his obvious departures from various other elements of fascist thought. Grayfell - exactly what acts of terrorism were Evola known for?

On Ur-Nammu - yes, that was more a reaction to you deciding to interpret my edit on sumerian legal terminology as me trying 'to stick up for those poor, beleaguered ancient Sumerian slave-owners' which is an excellent example of your bad faith personal attacks and condescension. VeritasVox (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I should also make the rather obvious point that 'VeritasVox has repeatedly mentioned my passing comment, from over a year ago, that Nazism is ideologically incompatible with Wikipedia's values.' is a willful misrepresentation - I'm saying that you invoking Nazism as being incompatible with wikipedia's values to attempt to win an argument over this article on the talkpage is an example of 1. your personal belief that you are waging a war against your 'nazi' opponents who disagree with you 2. essentially a personal attack by proxy and a shining example of your really quite incredible belief in the bad faith of any/all edits you personally disagree with. Which, ironically, is somewhat totalitarian. VeritasVox (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• VeritasVox is essentially a "free rider", someone who utilizes Wikipedia as a place to comment and debate without actually contributing to its improvement. They have only 268 edits in 2 years time, and only 40 of those edits (14.9%) are to articles. The rest are to Wikipedia space, talk pages and their own user pages. They use our facilities without providing the quid pro quo of editing and improving the encyclopedia. [262] And the mainspace edits they've made aren't spread around. Half of those edits -- 21 -- are to the article under examination here, Julius Evola. Then there's 8 to Code of Ur-Nammu, 7 to Rungis International Market, 2 to D. H. Lawrence and 1 each to Ur-Nammu and Eanna. Meanwhile they have 44 edits to Talk:Julius Evola - more than twice as many as their edits to the artlce. And those 39 edits to Wikipedia space, more than any article, and almost as many as their mainspace edits in total.
  In short, VeritasVox is not here to help us build an encyclopedia. They are a net negative to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

'Without actually contributing to its improvement' is rather subjective, as is 'net negative.' I simply don't edit much. Do you now want to ban anyone who doesn't edit much? Volume/frequency of edits does not make a person more correct or more objective in their views. Your level of hostility towards me seems strange, however, Beyond My Ken. Does this arise from similar assumption to Grayfell about my personal character and attendant ideological purity, or are you actually examining my edit objectively, as an editor should? VeritasVox (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course they're "subjective", they constitute my personal evaluation of your worth -- or lack of it -- to this project. How could they be anything else? Your contribute little or nothing worthwhile, and we'd be better off without you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense, I've made several decent contributions. Minimally, but still. Thankfully, despite your pretensions to the contrary, you are not the sole arbiter of 'worth' on wikipedia (which appears to suspiciously align with not disagreeing with your opinion) and I await the judgement of the admins, who presumably pay more attention to the matter at hand than this juvenile measuring of the length of one's contribution list. VeritasVox (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am, however, the sole arbiter of my views on whether you are worthwhile or not, and I find that you are not. (Please reply again, as it will give me yet another chance to repeat that you contribute very little, but nevertheless debate and contest a lot, making you a free rider, something we really don't need.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, obviously? Really quite a bizarre response - you wish to attack me and my character but me responding to these attacks means you are correct? An odd dialectical method. VeritasVox (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know you delight in debating, that's the crux of the problem. Wikipedia is not a debating site, it's a free online encyclopedia, and we -- or at the the vast majority of us -- are here to improve, expand and protect that encyclopedia. You are clearly here for other reasons, to debate and obfuscate and defend Fascists. We don't need that, and we don't need you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly how did my edit 'defend' Evola? Exactly how have I 'defended fascists,' particularly in my other edits on, for example, Sumerian legal codes? Exactly how is that remark not a vulgar ad hominem that deserves immediate censor from the admins? You betray nothing but a belief in your own ideological superiority. Examine seriously your integrity as an editor if you choose to make such accusations. VeritasVox (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of advice, I wouldn't go too far in attracting admins to this discussion, because it's very unlikely that that's going to end up with the result you want. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I started to make a list of all the edits in which you defended Evola by softening descriptions of him and his philosophy, making him look more reasonable, etc., until I found that pretty much all your edits did that. So here's a list of all of your edits to the article [263]. The interested reader can judge for themselves if you are "defending" Evola or not, but that's sure what it looks like to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I trust in their dispassionate analysis, which has undoubtedly qualified them for their status. My advice to you would be not to resort to personal attacks, and so easily make the assumption that others are editing in bad faith. Quite embarassing that I have to point this out to someone of your apparent experience. I defend my edits as improvements to the article in question, naturally - your fixation on my 'defence' seems to be hinged on a desired 'offence' on the topic in question. I simply seek a balanced article. VeritasVox (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Where have I said that you are editing in bad faith? Nowhere. I've said that you do not edit much, that your contributions to mainspeace are negligible compared to the number of comments posted elsewhere, that this makes you a free rider and a net negative to the projecta, and that your edits to Julius Evola have been in defense of a Fascist's reputation. These are all true, and none of them accuses you of editing in bad faith. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

' You are clearly here for other reasons, to debate and obfuscate and defend Fascists.' Ie. you judge my raison d'etre to be 'defending fascists' which, once again, I have not done. This editing in bad faith and an accusation of bias - indeed, a borderline accusation of fascism. I deeply resent the fact that you appear to be unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between someone editing an article on the topic of a fascist intellectual who disagrees with another editors views, to someone who is advocating for said fascist. This breed of editorial dogmatism corrupts the development of articles on controversial subjects in particular, and you appear to be unwilling to countenenace any narrative other than the one you have chosen - that I am somehow 'defending' Evola. Once again, look at my most recent edit - an objection to imprecise terminology that seemed more concerned with inaccurate pidgeonholing. At no point do I deny Evola was antisemitic, or that he wrote the prologue for a prominent antisemitic conspiracy theory. You know precisely what you are doing, and are driven by personal animus against someone who you seem determined to brand as some sort of crypto-fascist for disagreeing with your own view of the topic, of which you appear to have no deeper knowledge than a rather rudimentary comparison to Hitler. If the admins feel I have spent too much time on this topic, so be it - but I feel that your uncivil conduct must also now be addressed. VeritasVox (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably best if we let others weigh in at this point, anyway. This is getting us nowhere. VeritasVox (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• As noted on the SPI I filed against them, about a quarter of all of VeritasVox's edits have been to Julius Evola and Talk:Julius Evola. They've been blocked from editing there for four days now, and, despite having plenty of time to edit Wikipedia, judging from the volume of their edits here, they have not made one single edit to any other article, although they found time to post on the talk page of the probable sockpuppet. This is not only evidence that they're essentially a WP:SPA, it's also pretty good evidence supporting my contention that they're a free rider who uses our resources to debate without giving anything of substance back to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Any normal Wikipedia enthusiast, barred from editing their favorite article, would be editing elsewhere, if only to demonstrate to the community that they are a productive editor. That's not the case here, so I reiterate my conclusion that VeritasVox is a net negative to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I'm an occasional editor at best who hasn't edited for quite a while. I'll likely get back into it when this fracas has dissipated. Also frankly I thought it best to wait until this was over and done with, as I don't particularly want this spilling over into whatever other topic I choose - particularly as someone has already absurdly tried to frame my edit on a sumerian legal code as being in defence of slaveowners.VeritasVox (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (VeritasVox)

• Support topic ban from Nazism, Fascism, and anti-Semitism, broadly construed. That would be in addition to the block from editing the Evola article recently imposed. (Disclaimer: I supported a topic ban from Evola in the 2018 discussion). The behaviour has not improved in the intervening two years, so it makes sense to enact the restriction. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support broad topic ban per K.e.coffman; this editor appears to be a net negative to those topics, and has continued to be for too long. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Since a lot of text has gone over the dam since, I want to point out that my support for this topic ban can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I also note that today a brand new editor named User:Soupsmarx made their very first Wikipedia edit to Julius Evola, [264] reverting back to a version before VeritasVox's edits were removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• If a checkuser finds them to be the same user, then I think we should just indef (with agreeing to this topic ban being the only condition which we'd consider unblocking). Sockpuppetry at this point would require a mixture of bad-faith and incompetence that shouldn't be allowed to edit any articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• SPI filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Serendipitous given the conversation here, but I am not Soupsmarx. Feel free to check IPs, admins. VeritasVox (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just as a point of information, CUs don;t need your permission to check. If the evidence presented is sufficient, they will check. They can also block on the basis of behavioal evidence, or the possibility of WP:Meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, well of obvious knowledge. VeritasVox (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as stated by K.e.coffman Some of the arguments they've on the talk page to try to cover up Evola's antisemitism require either a level of strong ignorance (that should have been repeatedly corrected by now) or else... Well, in either case, he shouldn't be editing articles relating to those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly how is stating he wrote the prologue to an antisemitic conspiracy 'covering up'? VeritasVox (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your responses, one additional colon each time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Admins, any comment on attitude displayed by Beyond My Ken during the course of these discussions, or do we tolerant juvenile behaviour like this? VeritasVox (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you simply cease responding, as the juvenile comments would be ones like your calling BMK "well of obvious knowledge" and the like. This attitude of needing to get snark in is part of what's going to result in your topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid if I'm going to be accused of 'defending' a fascist, I am going to respond as much as I am able. VeritasVox (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

At first you wouldn't even admit that much, and merely stated on the talk page that you wanted "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" removed on the grounds that it's not included at Giovanni Gentile (who actually criticized Germany's anti-Jewish laws instead of writing the intro to the Bible of antisemitic conspiracy theories). It was only after this undeniable fact was pointed out that you still tried to tone it down to suggest that it was really just part of a larger and more important discourse on capitalism and communism. Now your response is trying to cover up the cover up. Going through the talk page archives, we have you trying to cover up his views on rape because "this is an attack on Bannon/Trump by proxy," which suggests WP:RGW was the initial reason for involvement with the article. Talk:Julius_Evola/Archive_5 shows this carried on for a while after an RfC finished. As can be seen at archive 4, you very quickly began spouting off WP:OMGWTFBBQ as if they're magical commands that will force other editors to do what you want rather than remind them to follow how they understand those pages. (There's also the interesting comment by you that "minimizing anti-semitism is not" [fine]", as this is an attack on israel/jews by proxy", though it should be noted that the overlap between ethnic Jews, members of Judaism, Israelis, and Zionists is not complete). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Cherry-picking, I used bad initial examples, fine. Minimizing anti-semitism isn't fine, but that's hardly what I was doing - I was offering a more precise definition that contextualised this theme in his work. You may disagree with that opinion, but there's no reason for ad hominems, beyond a desire to paint your opponent as 'fascist' for disagreeing with you. You don;t want to discuss my edit further, you simply wish to assume bad faith - this has been the constant theme of this article in general - dogmatism on the part of one/two individuals unwilling to seriously discuss the matter at hand objectively, and instead satiating their delusions of 'fighting nazis' by constructing these grandiose narratives. A cursory examination of any of my edits shows they are founded entirely in either a desire for precision, a critique of the supporting source in question, or in the correct terminology. If I am to be banned, so be it - but please don't delude yourself into thinking this is anything other than using admins in the place of discussion. VeritasVox (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

And yes, Ian - I changed my opinion after you reasonably objected to it. I considered this, and I offered what I believed to be a reasonable compromise which Grayfell immediately reversed with no explanation apart from 'Hardly' and no engagement on the talk page. Who is acting correctly - I in offering a constructive edit which is a compromise between our positions, or Grayfell in reverting this with a single word? VeritasVox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Incidentally, if anyone's interest has been piqued on the topic of Evola, this is a very good lecture by a renowned Sufi cleric who mentions/contextualises him in part - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ien1qo_qI — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - It looks like the last discussion got archived due to apathy. The length of this section, and raw quantity of junk, is only going to drive-away any editors who might be interested in the topic. The article needs reliable sources, not WP:OR. For several years, VeritasVox has been interested in interpreting primary sources, but not in improving the article based on existing scholarship. Nothing good can come from this approach. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Statements above violate the law of holes quite badly. Guy (help!) 22:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This editor is clearly here to push a prejudiced agenda. Zakaria1978 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Move to close

• This thread has been open for over 10 days now. The proposed sanction was first mentioned 9 days ago, here. There are 7 "support" !votes and no "oppose" votes aside from the de facto oppose by the subject of the proposed sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COPYVIO by Truthwins018

I was about to warn this user for copyright violations, then I saw he already got away from a pretty solid SPI and has been already warned over copyrights.[265] The user is basically here for WP:RGW who is still engaging in mass copyright violations per his recent edit.[266] See results of his recent edit that how much he has violated COPYVIO. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, I've revdeled the vio, I'm keeping my eyes on the user. Their edits seem to be strange synthesis's of copy and pastes from POV slanted sources. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The User also made similar copyvios on Grand Mosque seizure, which were reverted. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the problem is recurring for days, he should be at least blocked until he convinces that he understand what is WP:COPYVIO. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Casperti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Casperti has been disruptive since the time he started editing Wikipedia. His main interest is his engagement in Pashtun-related POV pushing. To this day, he has made at least 28 reverts on Pashtun alone.[267]

From few hours ago:

• "Aman Kumar wants to threat for its POV push".[268]

"Undid revision 959870650 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk) should stay for a while since there is an user who still does not want to proof its WP:EXTRAORDINARY out of POV"[269]

"Do not make any accusations on me further like claiming censorship that just a sign of showing WP:NPOV from your side."[270] (no such accusations were made)

First of all not all of them are related to the same issues. I watch the Pashtuns page so if something happens which needs a rv then I rv. Second of all your only edits to this page are reverts of me. So if you claim I have POV then you are as POV as I am if that's what you claim.--Casperti (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The page ownership and WP:IDHT is visible elsewhere too. He went ahead to file a report against an editor on WP:AN3 even when no 3RR violation took place, nor there is a clear case of edit warring, though Casperti is himself the one who has made 5 reverts in 30 hours.[271][272][273][274][275]

He has been reported enough times on WP:AN3,[276][277] but none of it helped him to cease his disruption.

Long term edit warring, together with ethnicity based POV pushing and frequent violation of WP:NPA shows this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all there is clearly a discussion ongoing on 2 issues where you want to silence me. Second of all number 230 is not a revert but was done per User:Anupam's request see here [278] besides it was placed by myself so..... and two revert were made for 2 different issues not the same issues. Shashank5988 and you are ignoring comments by me and other users when reached a consensus here:Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved for almost 9 months. By reading those comments it is known why you do not like it. Anyways threatening does not help anything just help all of us at the talk page where we are active for a while till we solved the matter with (again) non-sided comments so no disrupting anymore by any party till we reach a consensus (again) Casperti (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And now he is edit warring to restore a blatant personal attack against multiple users[279] made by an IP address, and claiming there was "no trolling". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? edit warring on a talk page? you are just deleting its comments. If you think it is a Troll then ignore it. come on just give valid reasons. Especially Shashank5988 and you too are known to threat everyone with noticeboards. Like come on at least provide some serious things except for "IT DIDNT GO MY WAY" Casperti (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Casperti has caused long-term disruption to this project through ethnic POV pushing over a wide-range of articles. At this point, only a topic ban from all articles pertaining to Afghanistan-India-Pakistan would be helpful. Eliko007 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Casperti on Afghanistan-India-Pakistan articles

• Support. Casperti seems to ignore the opinions of all other editors when they try to discuss issues with him. He also has a clear bias against users of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, frequently removing cited material.[280] Eliko007 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

When the person was right I immediately stopped and gave its way so stop accusing. We just provided out sources with each other and the other user was right. then it ended so what is the problem? Did I go on? If someone is right then he/she is right Casperti (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Since when are you allowed to setup out here a topic ban section in this noticeboard?Casperti (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to propose a topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for clarity ANI and AN are the 2 basic places where community topic bans may be discussed. (Arbcom can also impose topic bans, or they may be imposed by uninvolved administrators in cases where discretionary sanctions apply.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Initially I thought that problem is only with Pashtun-related articles but POV pushing concerns entire South Asian subject, and  one can easily observe edit warring by this user for adding poor content on other pages. [281][282][283] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are you putting some already ended discussions here? Where I gave in to/were solved..this is Wikipedia....What do you want to achieve? Casperti (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Casperti's edits seem to be driven by prejudice against a specific religious group, which is why he finds an excuse to remove them from articles pertaining to Afghanistan [284] Zakaria1978 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, you have been known to revert everything I do see here [285]. Anyways I think this is just a collection of editors who do not like when I edit. Including WP:SLEEPER. Admin that checks this please take a look at the edit stance of these editors they are people whom I had discussions with and did not like it. But anyways I don't think this is even possible at all so why am I even reacting out here...Casperti (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless there are objections by anyone else but Casperti, I am ready to forgo the community process (and the 24-hour wait) and enact a discretionary sanctions-backed topic ban immediately. I'll wait a few hours for others to respond, however. El_C 09:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Admin @El C:, please let a non-partied decide in this special case. All these 3 people had "conflicts" with me. Please check it individually and check what edits they included. They have included random edits they did not like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please let some third party decide. This edit here [286] was quickly solved when the user gave the sources here [287] so nothing disruptive afterwards. [288]&[289] are purposeful chosen but both of them are solved by the respective talk pages here Talk:Nowruz and Talk:Shah. You can check them up, if there is disruptive editing let me know. I always cooperate in talk pages. I will ping the respective users that were involved there too: @Wario-Man: and @Wikaviani: you ask these users for the if I cooperated or just went on editing on these two topics one was for the Solar hijri calendar. When the users gave arguments/sources I just accepted it. Please read them. This edit here pointed by the last user Zakaria1978 [290] is just right. Source given said nothing about Hinduism 12 and [291]. For Zabulistan there is a long discussion going on where I am not part of it solely that one edit which these users are much aware of @HistoryofIran: and @Xerxes931:. So we have at least the people for the respective topics, where I am accused of doing disruptive and not cooperative, to decide. Please wait till someone reacts within 24 hours. Casperti (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Allow me to react within 24 hours: @El C: frankly, anyone who believes that "User:Khestwol and User:Anupam should pay visit to psychiatrist" isn't trolling needs their judgement questioned. I think your proposal, therefore, to be a good one; removing warriors from their preferred battlefield can't be a bad strategy. ——Serial

^# 11:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That comment is not placed by me at all. I said if it is trolling try to ignore instead of deleting it and the comment was not made by me it was unsigned by a random IP. Casperti (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: This Noticeboard is made shortly after I setup this noticeboard fill in by me here [292]. This is more to attack me personally as user. Other admins have reacted on that too. Please check it out. Casperti (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for letting us know about discussion. That said, AFAICT, even in that discussion while there is some concern over what others have done, your actions seem to have received the most attention. More concerning is that it's not clear to me from your comments you understand that. Also I think you're missing the point of what SN54129 is saying. Yes we know you aren't the one who left that comment. But you specifically said "view is view no matter what. It includes arguments not trolling". So you were claiming that someone who said that wasn't trolling. Personally I'd approach this from a different way. I don't care whether you want to call it trolling or what. Anyone who is making such comments isn't welcome here and you shouldn't be fighting to preserve their comments. Why don't you just ignore such editors instead of fighting to preserve their comments? Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit I could have done it otherwise but the user that openend this discussion was known for deleting discussion at that talk page as you can see here [293]. Including comments of others and User:El_C had reverted it by himself here [294] so you can see why I reverted it. But I should have looked it more carefully and I could have prevented it I admit that. But for the admin that watches the page keep an eye on this noticeboard [295] that provoked this one. Where other admins could see there is problems from both sides. We all care for the quality of the page, they are planning to use some Rfc's. So, to be fair on all sides keep an eye out for that page. Casperti (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Casperti has sometimes been disruptive and i have disagreed with them several times, but i must say that when asked to discuss on talk pages, Casperti often engages in constructive discussions, thus, i sincerely think they can be a net positive for the project if they promise to desist from edit-warring and engage in collegial discussions better than they did untill now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support because of his disruptive behavior and unwillingness to engage with other editors constructively, I support banning him from all articles related to Pashtuns. Khestwol (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems a bit unfair. I had you and Anupam on the other noticeboard that provoked this noticeboard. Your view is a bit one-sided. anyway it is better to watch out that other noticeboard to see what the best is other Admins are forming a solution because banning one editor and not the other will not prevent such actions (by other users) further. As for now I do not carry anything out on the page so that claim. This noticeboard and that noticeboard is approximately about the same problem. Casperti (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Commenting here because I have been dragged without any reason for at least two times by Casperti here on this thread. This WP:BATTLE should stop and if Casperti is capable of editing (which I think he is not) then he must prove that he can indeed edit other subjects than continue being a self-admitted SPA ("I don't want to edit other pages"[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pashtuns&diff=prev&oldid=884175056]). Shashank5988 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As expected and mentioned on the other noticeboard. You would react too. Casperti (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Length of the sanction

I still intend to apply discretionary sanctions, which does not require community consultation. Still, I'm interested in what length a topic ban participants lean toward. Personally, I'm debating between a 3- and 6-month topic ban from the IPA topic area (I originally weighed a year-long topic ban, but I'm willing to consider a shorter stint per Wikaviani). El_C 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You want WP:ARBIPA for the wikilink. Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the opinion of users who do not like me as an editor. Heavy weighed in this. But please take a look at the other noticeboard as well. Because now I cannot discuss in the talk pages because blocking me does not solve the problem on 2 source issues in Pashtuns. Check other noticeboard here [296]. It looks like I am the only one thats gets punished without having any solution for the problem. Anupam goes free out while edit warring can be clearly seen from two sides.Casperti (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, at this time, I don't see a better remedy than an indefinite tban from IPA articles. Casperti created their account for the sole purpose of removing "Hinduism" from any article related to Pakistan and Afghanistan as can be seen from their very first edits (they are a minority in the area, with many being driven off through the partition and later by the Taliban). After a six month tban, this behavior would most likely continue. I would give them the option to appeal their tban, although that should be done with community approval, especially given the WP:COMPETENCE issues that this user has, with not even realizing what they did wrong and instead trying to fault other editors. Eliko007 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, i find your above comment too harsh. I worked with Casperti several times here, on Wiki, and while we often disagreed, i would say that this user does engage in polite and constructive discussions when they're asked for that. I see nothing in their behavior that would justify an indefinite TB. I did not vote here and to be honest, El_C's proposal of a 3/6 months TB sounds well-balanced enough. Also, if you guys still find Casperti disruptive after the TB, feel free to file another request here, but suppressing indefinitely any chance of this editor to edit topics they like would be irrelevant for now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please try to consider the views of other admins on the other noticeboard:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring so you can see it is definitely not coming from my side only. I really want to solve both problems and work on it. Again it will be unfair to forget the other noticeboard that actually provoked this one, so please take a look. Casperti (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption by users: ReliableAssam, Encyclopedia-ein and IP editors.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the last couple of days the following users—ReliableAssam (talk · contribs), Encyclopedia-ein (talk · contribs), 2409:4065:e96:261f:4c97:65eb:a420:c75a (talk · contribs), 106.203.144.76 (talk · contribs) have taken to vandalizing articles related to Assam, specifically Assam, People of Assam and Kamarupa and a few others. These are all new users and seem to have proliferated after Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs) was blocked for sock-puppetry. These new editors seem to be picking up the gauntlet exactly where Logical Man, DinaBasumatary (talk · contribs) and PerfectingNEI (talk · contribs) left off, with exactly the same arguments and view points. It is very difficult to engage with these editors in any discussion and no amount of citations or references seem to get to them.

I wonder whether something can be done to protect these pages from this kind of attack. I shall provide more evidence as required. @JzG:.

Chaipau (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, I think a CheckUser might be the best person to comment first. Not that I;m averse to blocking if you can show me some substantially similar edits? I am old, tired and lazy... Guy (help!) 23:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

False accusation. I have cleaned exeggration and some POV push from Kamakhya , Kamarupa kingdom and Assam. I don't know if it is wrong to use already available citation to counter POV push. ReliableAssam (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

For example - Ahom claim to construct a wall Natamandira. But the image is specifically for Kamarupa statue or idol. This is clearly a misleading claim. I can click a photo with Ex-President Obama but I can't use his photo for my use. Here, He claims that Ahom constructed Natamandira using kamarupa statue or idol of kamakhya https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamakhya_Temple&diff=959545964&oldid=959542008 .ReliableAssam (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

His accusation is against establishment of facts. If a page will be edited by single person then it will be biased. ReliableAssam (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you—I think the issue has been resolved for now with the sock-puppets identified and blocked. We might see them again, since these are themselves 4th or 5th generation socks. Greatly appreciate all who helped resolve this particular issue. Chaipau (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at AIV

Some reports there for over 5 hours. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks by user Henryhe43

Special:Diff/955289709/960432615 This kind of personal attack (Redacted) is absolutely unacceptable. This user has made similar attacks against other editors as well Special:Diff/960432290/960433005. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked Henryge43 indefinitely, which is what I clearly stated I would do if they continued to edit war or personally attacked other editors.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of Mech people by socks and IP editors.

Sockpuppets of Sairg (talk · contribs) have been consistently trying to vandalize the Mech people page by making it appear that the Mech people are actually another ethnic group. Yesterday, one of the socks, ReliableAssam (talk · contribs) was blocked after an incident was reported here [297], and now it seems that they are trying to edit anonymously.

• Edit by sock Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs): [298]
• Edit by 2409:4065:49e:7637:7068:f15f:7113:2e69 (talk · contribs): [299]

I wonder whether the remedy for this situation is semi-protection of Mech people.

Chaipau (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, Semiprotected for a year. This is getting very old. Guy (help!) 23:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG Thank you. I am keen for this to end, but I don't know how to end it. I have tried to engage them in the past with WP:GF, but that did not obviously work. Chaipau (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Can this account be blocked without an SPI, just as NOTHERE?

This SPA Ulaş parlak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does the following since the creation of the account: 1. Adds flags to food articles against MOS. 2. Changes "Ottoman" to "Turkish". 3. Uses misleading edit-summaries calling his edits as "fixing typos". 4. Eliminates other countries and substitutes "Turkey" as the origin of the food. I think this is a sock of Shingling334 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but since this is a case of WP:NOTHERE, I would request that it be indeffed on NOTHERE grounds. Thank you. Dr. K. 00:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this sockmaster or the behaviour, but yes, if you are confident that it is them, you can block without an SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. The thing is I'm not an admin, and I think this account's edits so far merit a NOTHERE block, notwithstanding the SPI. If you agree with NOTHERE, could you possibly indef them? Thank you. Dr. K. 00:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Got you confused with DrKay. Yeah, again, I haven't looked closely at this case (and in the middle of something else), but if you're concerned with socking, take it to SPI. If they're being disruptive enough for a NOTHERE block, I'd suggest AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Dr. K. 00:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes think someone should create WP:List of users with really, REALLY confusingly similar names (like Dr.K. and DrKay). EEng 04:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: my nomination. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Red link now blue: WP:List of users with really, REALLY confusingly similar names (like Dr.K. and DrKay) EEng 02:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, that was funny. Can we create yet another list for EEng, EEng1 and EEng CN? Dr. K. 02:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess, if those other users actually existed. Is there some hidden meaning there which I'm missing? EEng 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like it may be possible to distinguish the drs. kay by presence of a sense of humor, at least. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am the first one to appreciate EEng's humour, in fact so much so that once I posted on AN to have him unblocked, so no unnecessary and misguided digs about my sense of humour, please. EEng, I wrongly capitalised the second "E" on these usernames. They actually exist. Dr. K. 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is the thread that got EEng indeffed for making one of his irreverent humorous pictorial comments, and for which I defended him and repeatedly demanded his immediate unblock at AN, back in January 2016. Dr. K. 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

JBL, I appreciate your intent but you've got it wrong. The deletion was a bit weird, process-wise, but it's more of just a misunderstanding than anything else. [300]. All friends here, I assure you. EEng 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, EEng, don't worry -- I've got lots of friends who lack a sense of humor. --JBL (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

EEng, no need for clarifications. There are those who understand and support your sense of humour and have the record to show it, and there are those who just blabber on at drama boards for no good reason. Dr. K. 16:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to turn the hose on you two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's been years since I've looked at Shingling334 but if there wasn't a risk of clutter and confusion, I'd say tag them. I know we've got some "probable sock" category and tag, but an even less certain "maybe?" category and tag could be useful for cases like this. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ian. I opened the SPI, so the tagging will be done by the attending admins and clerks. Dr. K. 01:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dr.K. is well versed in the topic area, and uncanny in spotting socks and meat puppets. Their judgement is usually pretty sound. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• I can spot Shingling334 a mile away, this is definitely not him, the behavior is very different. This seems to be a new user, I don't see any evidence of sock/meat puppetry. Most of their edits have been minor MOS violations, adding the Turkish flag to infoboxes, which I've warned them twice about. The main problem is unsourced claims of Turkish origin of various things, and removing sourced mentions of other countries, particularly Greece and Armenia, going against WP:NPOV, e.g. in Basbousa. They're currently at a level-2 warning about that, and haven't edited since then. So far they haven't made any positive contributions. It's just crude nationalism and tendentious editing, without regard for sources, rational arguments, or communication. They've only been editing for a couple of days, but it doesn't look like they'll have a bright future here. --IamNotU (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mea culpa. I admit I didn't do this with surgical precision. Thanks go to all who commented here and to the crack team at the SPI desk whose time I wasted. Take care all and stay safe. Dr. K. 21:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's not like we'd expect Dr.K. to operate with surgical precision, right? EEng 03:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Lol. Touché. Although, I'm not an MD. :) Dr. K. 16:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  So as the Jewish mother said to her daughter's new fiancé, "So you're a PhD doctor, not a doctor doctor?" EEng 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Dr.K., another possible solution: U CAN HAZ ADMIN. Guy (help!) 15:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, thank you for the compliment. I appreciate it, especially coming from an editor I have respected for a long time. After my thanks, I wish to express my amusement about what is going on with this thread. The main topic has long expired but due to side-topics this thread refuses to expire. :) Dr. K. 02:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:1+1=yes and his humorous user page

1+1=yes (talk · contribs · logs) (ignore the percents, they are used to link correctly to the page) 's user page is very messy and definitely does not fit the description of a user page. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:1%2B1%3Dyes&type=revision&diff=960161036&oldid=959762701&diffmode=source. As you can see in the diff, there are a lot of humorous and/or nonsense parts of the page. You can't even see the history. All, I know, this whole account is only used for humorous purposes. I mean, look at the sandbox of this person. It is definitely made for humorous purposes. Seriously. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if I should be posting here, but this definitely feels like a good place. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this had to come to ANI either, but I've been bold and "tidied" most of the junk away and left them a note, which they may or may not answer. ——Serial ^# 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)^^^ btw ——Serial ^# 14:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The page can be linked from 1+1=yes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a "1=" prefix; encoding the "=" and "+" shows logs for all users (or just use 1+1=yes (talk · contribs) as they are not vandalising). Peter James (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter James: apologies for density, but I don't quite see what you're getting at? ——Serial ^# 10:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The template at the top of the section; the log links show logs for all users and not just User:1=1+1=yes. Also the use of {{vandal}} to link to users who are not vandalising. Peter James (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see, yes my density it was. You're dead right of course, thanks for noticing. I've taken the liberty of switching the tempate to something easier on the eye, and, 3125A, just a heads up, but you shouldn't use the vandal template when you're not actually reporting vandalism  :) ——Serial ^# 13:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

PAs in edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please explain to User:Bosekgn that their edit summaries are unacceptable[301][302][303]? I tried to explain this at their user talk page[304], but they don't seem to be interested in discussion or in changing their approach. Fram (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Warned about edit warring and the disruptive PAs. Further edit warring or PAs should result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I left a cheery note as well and will act if necessary, if someone notifies me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devbali02 COI editing at Toki Pona

• Devbali02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toki Pona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Devbali02 has self-identified[305] as being the same Dev Bali he mentioned in[306], where he said

"Many attempts have been made to create an emoji script for Toki Pona. Most significantly, in mid 2019, Dev Bali compiled earlier attempts to create one Sitelen Emoji. This script is unique as it is "democratically chosen," with the community making and voting on changes to the emoji set regularly. Bali also made an android keyboard that makes using the script like pinyin for Toki Pona."

(The android app appears to be the one at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ourdhi.sitelenemoji )

In this post,[307] Devbali02 wrote

"The website in question, https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji, is the official website of sitelen Emoji. I will also add a link to github and google play store to add extra validity to there being certain tools for Sitelen Emoji."

https://github.com/holtzermann17/toki-pona-emoji/issues/3 references https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji

https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji says

"Make sure to visit our subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/sitelenEmoji and join our Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/486127038880577/ for more content in Sitelen Emoji!"

All of these sites have the name "Dev Bali" as the creator, exept the Reddit group which lists Devbali02 as the creator and moderator.

Devbali02 has had our COI policy (including not editing pages where you have a COI) repeatedly.

• User talk:Devbali02#Conflict of interest (COI) regarding Sitelen Emoji
• Talk:Toki Pona#Serious sourcing issues

Yet he continues to edit the Toki Pona page after being warned[308][309] and is edit warring to retain the citations to his sites.google.com page. his app on Google store, his Github page, and a file he uploaded at File:Sitelen Emoji Rendered on Apple.jpg.[310][311][312][313][314][315]

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Guy, there's a lot of words there and none of them explain simply what the complaint is here. Can you explain in simple terms which policies any the editor is, in your opinion, violating, and how? Thanks Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Devbali02 has a serious problem with IDHT regarding COI and sourcing, and is editwarring to retain material he has written and cached on file storage and sharing sites like github and sites.google. I'm actually starting to wonder if CIR may be part of the problem. Heiro 21:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them indefinitely from editing Toki Pona or its talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see from his block log that this is the new partial blocking feature I have been hearing about. It is good to see the WMF giving admins more useful tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yes - this was a feature option I definitely supported during discussions. With luck we can start to use it instead of site blocks for editors who fail to engage, for example. Guy (help!) 23:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Black Kite I have declared a COI disclaimer on the Toki Pona Talk Page. COI (with declaration) is not enough of a basis to remove information, as is clearly mentioned in the page you all cite. As far as sourcing is concerned, I have provided you with primary sources for the play store app that people allege COI for since I have made the app. You will only get primary sources for topics like toki pona. I have pointed out on the Toki Pona talk page, as several others have, that in a community this small, you will not get secondary sources or much external coverage of toki pona. Much of that article is supported by primary sources and personal sites. The issue is editors who do not have much context about toki pona or conlangs trying to use their general wikipedia skills. Context matters. I hope you read the Talk:Toki_Pona#Notability, which is from a while ago, when similar wikipedia editors had similar problems. If the information in my edit is not reliable to you people, none of the information on the entirety of the page is, yet it is a page that is there, meaning wikipedia editors more experienced than you disagree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devbali02 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a COI declaration -- no matter who adds it -- is not a magic wand that forces other editors to retain citations to web pages that you created. The material was removed because it was purely promotional material unsuitable for Wikipedia. It would have been removed even if you didn't have a COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If you had any knowledge of what you were editing, you would never had said that. Sitelen Emoji is one of the most used Toki Pona writing systems online, and just because you do not have any idea of it, doesn't make it untrue. It is large enough that it deserves a mention on the Toki Pona page. Just look at some of the social media groups that are linked on the sitelen emoji website. There are more than 70 people in the Discord committee, about 50 in the subreddit, and calling this a personal project of mine is laughable at best. I challenge you to show me 5 people writing in sitelen sitelen, another system that has a paragraph on there. All I have done is contributed to this project. I would like to repeat I DO NOT OWN SITELEN EMOJI, and that it is simply a set of emojis chosen by anyone who has an interest. It is obvious that you come from a place of immense ignorance. Bali (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: "There are more than 70 people in the Discord committee, about 50 in the subreddit, and calling this a personal project of mine is laughable at best", did you not create that subreddit (creator and sole moderator is Reddit user u/devbali02)? Did you not create that discord community (first announced by you on your subreddit, created and administered by discord user "So my name is Dev" jansewi#3483)? Did you not create sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji (which you call "the official website of sitelen Emoji")?

Again, you edit warred to retain citations to pages that you created -- pages that fail WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP called a BLP subject a "parasite" and "trumptard" on the article's talkpage. He has responded to others with comments like "Nobody cares about your conspiracy theories", when the user he responded to just posted a New York Times article. Now the IP is energetically commenting at Talk:Antifa (United States), where he called SpanishSnake a "long time wikipedia vandal". When told that aspersions like that are a personal attack, he doubled down and told others to take a look at SpanishSnake's talkpage. There is one vandalism warning on his talkpage from Jan 2019, in which both parties confirmed that it was not vandalism but a mistake.

The user has stated that offering criticism on talkpages is their main activity. Given that these consist of angry rants that are detrimental to people who agree with him, and offensive to people who disagree with him, he should be removed from those discussions.

The IP was made aware of the BLP and American politics discretionary sanctions on 24 May, and this is happening after that. --Pudeo (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I must apologize for my behavior these past few days. Looking back it's obvious that I've been acting irrational. I'm not sure if this is the proper way to remedy the situation, but i will go back and remove the offending comments. If there's a better way to remedy the situation, I'm willing to listen, and i will do my best to avoid personal attacks in the future. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [316] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [317] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [318]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I believe it is best if I stopped editing wikipedia altogether for the time being. Also, i know this is no excuse, but the vandalism accusation specifically was a stupid misunderstanding on my part. I made a hasty conclusion based on very little evidence, and didn't bother to double check. I should've known better. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove talk page access from..

blocked User talk:92.40.54.104. Adds advertisments on userpage. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I extended the block and disabled talk page access. I doubt anything useful is going to come from there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing tpa for Potato kid

Potato kid (talk · contribs) abusing tpa. Repeatedly blanking declined unblock requests for his current block. BTW if you have time WP:AIV is backlogged. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

TPA revoked. creffett (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nableezy is an editor with a long and uninterrupted history of being an unpleasant fellow editor. Recently he reverted an edit of User:Sir Joseph with the edit summary rv nonsense edit. Since the edit was far from nonsense, I asked him to be more civil.[319][320] His reply was an unacceptable accusation of vandalism at the address of Sir Joseph, and a hint at my own incivility.[321] When I told him that Sir Joseph's edit really can't qualify as vandalism, and that in addition I didn't appreciate his hints,[322], he replied with a personal attack.[323] Please notice the repeated use of the word "nonsense". I removed his personal attack from the talkpage,[324] and he reinstalled it.[325] I'd much like to see that Nableezy receive a stern warning to stop his aggressive and unpleasant interactions with his fellow editors. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is obscene that Debresser is admonishing editors for posting about others personalizing a talk page while personalizing a talk page. Sort of like how he reports users for edit-warring while he is edit-warring. His argument here appears to be that because he complained about me personally on an articles talk page I should not discuss anything personal on that article talk page. Yes, the golden rule is not quite your thing. nableezy - 02:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another storm in a teacup. Zero^talk 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, no, not really because this is a continuing issue in the area. Nableezy has a long history of being an uncivil editor. If he doesn't like your edit, he responds with unpleasantly and oftentimes threats. Further, if a new editor joins, rather than NOBITE, he'll do the opposite and chase away with threats and accusations. It's less a storm in a tea cup but more the straw on a camel's back. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see any incivility here. You straight out admit a WP:POINT violation here (At least based on prior discussions we just had a few weeks ago in the Jordan occupation in the West Bank arena ie youre upset about how a different topic is treated so you seek to "equalize" it there, which WP:POINT actually gives as an explicit example of prohibited behavior). Yes, that was a nonsense edit, a violation of WP:POINT and a seemingly purposeful attempt to degrade an article. I fail to see where I have been uncivil in my description of it, and I maintain I was being charitable in calling it "nonsense". Im also unaware of biting any new editors. If you mean the socks of the banned editors whose edits you support then say that please. nableezy - 14:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

All other things aside, if there was some objection to the word "occupation", replacing it with the word "rule" feels pretty ridiculous and, well, like nonsense. I also don't find calling something a "nonsense edit" to be anything more than minor incivility, at most, and certainly not worth pecking at an editor to the point of opening an ANI thread. Grandpallama (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Unless there are objections from other uninvolved admins, I intend on closing this report with a referral to AE. That is not a comment on the content of the report, but my own view that ARBPIA matters do not belong on AN/ANI, where nothing gets decided and they are basically a huge timesink. El_C 17:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, I disagree. This isn't an ARBPIA issue. This is a conduct issue. Not everything needs to be referred to AE. This is about conduct and being civil, not about the IP conflict area, and as such we should be able to discuss it here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted, but I think there is an ARBPIA spillover here. At any case, if another uninvolved admin agrees with your assessment, I will defer to their discretion. El_C 17:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser is banned from AE per this sanction. nableezy - 21:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, if an editor is banned from AE, and ARBPIA actions require AE, is it fair to ban someone from AE? That seems to me that admins should not be allowed to ban someone from the only place you allow someone to bring an action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting Pi.1415926535 for inappropriate behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I am here to report User:Pi.1415926535 for inappropriate behavior over a content dispute. The user try to use sockpuppet investigations to get my changes censored.

Content dispute over list of routes. Pi.1415926535 should be topic ban from these topics for taking advantage of these nearly dead articles. Transit plannerL (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a content dispute, not a behavior issue. Take it up on the article talk page and see if you can arrive at a consensus of editors. Or if you're a sock as he claims, give it up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Pi.1415926535 quickly used sock puppet investigations to address a content dispute? I think Pi.1415926535 knows users can get easily blocked from this sock thing. You can get the same IPv4 or IPv6 address or ISP and get blocked for sock. This is not appropriate behavior to resolve a content despite. Transit plannerL (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BusriderSF2015. Why don't you go there and explain whether or not you are the same person with a new account? He does seem to have a reasonable suspicion based on WP:DUCK. But see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims for other options. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535 quickly used sock puppet investigations to address a content dispute?

As opposed to you, who blanked the "list" part of a list article in a fit of pique when YOUR edits were challenged, and immediately ran to WP:ANI to get your opponent topic banned? You really don't have a leg to stand on here. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

*@Dicklyon: Thank you for helping, but Pi never used consensus to make big changes to that dead page. A good opportunity for people who does not want to go through it

*@Bbb23: request a speedy release of the outcome of the case. As a Santa Rosa essential cs information worker, I have no time to waste on fighting with someone that refuse to comply with other editors suggestions. Transit plannerL (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no time to waste on fighting with someone...

So maybe you should get back to work and leave Wikipedia editing to the "non-essential" people? --Calton | Talk 05:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Calton you are not getting ANI`d by the way. The comments are welcome, but you dont have to be obviously BIAS about it. Transit plannerL (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My "bias" is against obvious bad-faith actors. So too bad. And as for a "speedy release", here's a bulletin: nobody here works for you, and Wikipedia doesn't run on your timetable. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Transit plannerL, you're not likely to get much more sympathy here (and if you keep pushing, possibly a boomerang). Instead, go explain whether the sock accusation is right, or go to the relevant talk page for discussing the content dispute. Or just give it up. I know Pi isn't the easiest guy to deal with, but he's not exactly going overboard here, either. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Dick Lyon. I already request case process to be speed up on the comments above, because i wanna know if i a SOCK too. Transit plannerL (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying it here will have no effect at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BusriderSF2015. Go there, and say whether you are the same person who used the account BusriderSF2015, as hypothesized. Or if you are, just stop editing, since that account is indef blocked. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased User and Their Uncomfortable Language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi again. I recently posted about concerns I had about @Mikiesmonkey: on Wikipedia on the help desk and his close connection to a page I am currently cleaning up (Lynn Anderson). I definitely do not feel comfortable with the tone this user is using me or the threatening language this user is imposing on me. Other users spoke to him, which I appreciate. However, I am continuing to get hateful and rather threatening remarks from this user after he was talked to. Please see my talk page and Lynn Anderson's talk page for examples. I am starting to really feel uncomfortable editing lately feeling that I am potentially under attack. I would really appreciate if a Wiki administrator took further steps with this user. I am happy to answer any questions. Is there anything further that can be done? Thank you.

Please also see our discussion on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This user has outed himself as the former agent of Lynn Anderson and has been editing her page since 2008.

Here is an example from the latest post on Lynn Anderson's talk page:

Not necessary to flag the article, Chris. I'm not going to undo any of your work. I think you're doing an excellent job. I do hope you'll make it as "flowery" (and fairly accurate) as you did Crystal Gayle's (an obvious favorite). If I see any inaccuracies on Lynn Anderson's page, I'll merely point them out in the talk section and assume you will address them. If you purposely omit information or don't correct inaccuracies after being provided references, I'll professionally go further up the chain to get it corrected thru' Wikipedia. Again, flagging the article was unnecessary and actually silly. But I'll leave you with the control for now. I have a life outside of "W" and can't monitor it 24/7 but I'll check back. Additionally, I do donate quite a bit to Wikipedia each time their donation drive starts up, so I'm not going to have my factual knowledge disrespected by other contributors just because I was the agent of a now DEAD subject.

ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If there's anything either hateful or threatening in what I wrote above, I would certainly appreciate it being pointed out to me. I don't see it. What I am seeing/encountering is a contributor, to whom I've been extremely complimentary towards for his contributions, being consistent. What the contributor who filed the complaint seems to find problematic is, I'm merely asking "his rules" be consistent across the board. Some of the very things he's removed from Lynn Anderson's page (under the guise of non-objectivity) are glaring on the page of a subject where the complainant was a major contributor. I'm simply pointing out, if we're going to follow the rules, contributors shouldn't be able to pick & choose the subjects to which they apply those rules (based the contributor's partiality of a subject).  I've given this contributor information on Lynn Anderson which, with due diligence, can easily be sourced.  I've backed off editing Lynn Anderson's page, for now, giving him space to finish his work.  I think he doing a fine job.  The contributor (complainant) stated Lynn Anderson's page is a "work in progress" and any comments/suggestions should be posted in the 'Talk" section.  I'm simply stating, upon his completion, if he's either omitted info or if they're any inaccuracies, I'll point them out in the "Talk" section as he's requested.  I'm very knowledgeable as to the particulars of Lynn Anderson's career and there are many milestones & "Firsts" for which she was responsible.  Those can easily and accurately be sourced.  This contributor, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to deem them important when they've been mentioned in essentially every biographical article written on Lynn Anderson - even from the Country Music Hall of Fame & Museum / Billboard (both very reliable sources).  Yet, he makes mention of similar achievements on another subject's page without hesitation.  Despite my having had a relationship with the deceased subject, this does not affect my ability to remain objective.  As a consistent donor to Wikipedia during fundraisers, as I stated, I don't think I should be told not to contribute my (easily sourced) knowledge to Lynn Anderson's page.  As I explained to the complainant, I'm willing to let him finish his work but, again, I will make suggestions or changes if the finished product isn't all-inclusive when it comes to important facts. I'm sorry this contributor is easily intimidated, especially when unwarranted.  It seems more of a control issue with him.  I would like to work together.  As I explained, no one person OWNS Lynn Anderson's Wikipedia page - not me and certainly not him.  Thank you for listening to both sides of the story.  As I've stated repeatedly, I'm standing back and letting the complainant have free reign.  He does great work.  I just hope he will be fair and not ignore sourced info which is pertinent. @Mikiesmonkey:

This user was told not to be editing Lynn Anderson's page since he is technically a biased source. However, he continues to edit. User has told us he is the former agent of Lynn Anderson. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTofu11961 Why are you writing untruths? I have not edited the page in days - look at the history. Additionally, should I decide to edit it, I will. As I've previously stated, you do not own LYNN ANDERSON's page. However, I'm uncertain why you reported a total untruth by saying I "continue to edit." I understand you're probably not happy with my pointing out the double standard, but please check the history before you report inaccurate information. I'm not sure of your age, but I'm an adult. Thanks. @Mikiesmonkey:

@Mikiesmonkey: Once again, the disrespectful language is not appreciated. This is the discomfort I was referring to. This is a volunteer organization and I welcome any contributors to any page. However, when a user has a close connection to the subject, they should not be editing it. It is promotional unfairness, especially when you were in fact her agent. These are the guidelines set in place. You need to check the following link before making any assumptions: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also it is not your business to know my age or whereabouts. However, I am an adult I believe in having adult conversations here, not conversations that appear they are from a private messenger. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTofu11961 There's something very off with you and your accusations. First, you accuse me of "continuing to edit" (which the history clearly shows I haven't in days). Secondly, you accuse me of asking your age & whereabouts? I'm not at all interested in your age or your whereabouts nor did I, at any time, inquire about that information - not in the slightest. I merely said, I'm NOT SURE about you, but I'm an adult. There was no question posed in there anywhere about your age or whereabouts? This dialog with you is clearly going nowhere. Do your thing with Lynn's page. Should I feel the need to edit it at any time, YOU will not prevent me from doing so. Lastly, when Lynn was living, I never edited anything along the lines of "promotional," so I certainly wouldn't do it when she'd deceased. You do know Lynn Anderson is deceased, do you not? Just checking. Not going back and forth with you; however, YOU will not prevent me from adding or editing sourced information to her page. I will allow you the courtesy to finish your work, but please understand there is no conflict of interest when the subject is DEAD. I am NO longer an agent to anyone. I am a free, private citizen with the same right as you. If I were aware of a way to take this to a PM, I would. Since I'm not aware, this is the only way I know to communicate with you. The END. @Mikiesmonkey:

Mikiesmonkey You do have a conflict of interest and you should in general avoid directly editing the article in question; you may make edit requests on the article talk page. Death does not eliminate a COI. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of putting {{ping|Mikiesmoney}} you should sign with four tildes like this: ~~~~. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Y'all both do know that this is one of the most watched pages on WP, right? And we can all see this argument? And you're neither of you doing yourselves any favours? My suggestion: Drop it. Take it to a talk page: here, or here or here. Be polite. Work together. ChrisTofu11961, while the language may be "uncomfortable", i'm not seeing any real rudeness or incivility or anything else we'll deal with here. Mikiesmonkey, no one cares in the least if you've ever donated to a WP fundraiser; your language may be a bit forceful ~ "however, YOU will not prevent me from adding or editing sourced information to her page. I will allow you the courtesy to finish your work..." ~ so you might want to tone it down a bit. As for the COI question, there's a board for that; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clear out the FRINGE accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I don't know if it's the right place to write this. I have been having a discussion on Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology about including expert opinion to "not rule out the lab leak theory" in the page. It has been pretty intense but I think it was mostly relevant. The main argument is that it is WP:FRINGE. I don't believe it is for a series of reasons and I don't believe the lab leak subject is bound by WP:MEDRS. I was blocked a few weeks ago because I was not fully aware of the rules. I accepted it, and I significantly reduced the number of edits I make on COVID-19, instead prefering the talk pages of the articles. What happened now is that I was told to stop using the talk page for "general discussion" of the topic[326], even if I think the discussion was all along about the inclusion of a simple sentence saying that some scientists want "not to rule out the lab as a source".
• I looked around a bit and found that I was the subject of discussions on the matter.[327] [328] [329]. I really don't like the fact that no one warned me, or said they would bring this in front of admins, because I was genuinely involved in the discussion. Here is a few notable quotes talking about me: "This issue is still going on, with the above user continuing to push fringe POV claims into the article in what is now very clearly a RGW and NOTHERE manner" and being called an "exhaustingly intransigent problem" by JoelleJay (talk · contribs), "Thank you for continuing to keep the WIV page under control and free of NPOV/FRINGE/etc. conspiracy theories. There are a lot of us out here who really appreciate your work (and patience...)". I find this last quote to be very self-rightous. Where are we? Kindergarten?
• I really don't care about WP:BOOMERANG at this point, I believe I am being stonewalled, with admin involvement. I tried to act in good faith in everything I wrote. It might not look like it be it is. I will accept every "external" constructive comment on my behaviour by the way. Everything I proposed was immediately brushed aside and considered as fringe, even if I come up with a reliable quote from an expert[330] (though it is in the NYPost and other tabloids). I am tired of being called a conspiracy theorist! I am not alone believing that the "not be ruled out" reference should be added to the WIV page, Swood100 (talk · contribs) is an example. And I am not pushing forwards weird conspiracy theories websites like "wakeupsheeple.something", it's the NY POST and SKY NEWS! Come on, what the hell?
• What I ultimately want is for all the editors/admins involved in this case to come here and speak it out like adults. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• (EC) Hello, I apologize for soliciting the advice/attention of admins without notifying you, that was inappropriate of me. I have been very hesitant to get involved directly in this discussion because I do not feel I have the emotional endurance to keep up with the style of discussion in the WIV talk page. I only brought it up to Thucydides411 because I was impressed with how they were handling their responses throughout the Talk page and wanted to show support. My intention in notifying the admins was initially for more eyes on the page itself, considering the sanctions, although once I brought up specific suggestions for admin action and implicitly referred to you I should have brought it to your notice. It takes me a long time to write things, so more reasoning behind my requests for involvement will follow, but I wanted to put this prologue out there first. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I have a disclaimer on my page saying I can be intense sometimes and asking for people to talk it out with me before doing anything. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This was already discussed at the main topic article (see consensus item no. 14) and on the article talk page. ANI is not the place for content disputes, and WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are clear in any case. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: THANK YOU! No one thought it would be appropriate to point me to the right concensus (and section) just like you did? That's quite alarming actually! What is wrong with these people? No one thought to point that out to me? I feel some would have applied sanctions against me and I wouldn't have known why. Ok then, I WP:DROPTHESTICK, there is concensus. I don't agree, but I respect it. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Oh and I forgot to say that I came here because of an appearance of stonewalling, not because of the content. But the stonewalling was caused by the concensus, so it makes sense now. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: You don't need to continue, someone finally pointed out the concensus at the center of all this misunderstanding. The lab theory concensus is pretty new and the discussion on WIV page started before that. I believe that Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) could have helped with all this misunderstanding... He did not refer to the concensus even once... It's all done now. Let's move on. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian PhysiqueUL09 While that consensus provides important precedent, it is explicitly about the COVID-19 article itself, not about other articles. I also believe there are further issues that ought be discussed beyond strictly pushing for the lab leak hypothesis, although these are interrelated. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I think it is important to mention your behavior in response to the legitimate concerns brought up by other users. You have been exceptionally persistent in pushing sources supporting the lab leak theory into the article; even if you don't immediately put this content into the mainspace, starting these extremely lengthy and aggressive discussions on the Talk page still forces editors to engage with you out of concern you will interpret lack of response as a green light (like adding two different sources after no one immediately objected at the end of this RfC). Here are the discussion sections you have started or that specifically address your conduct on that page: 19 May: Concerns as source--resulting in a warning about discretionary sanctions and a temp ban on 21 May; 24 May: Genome sequencing in 3 days?; 25 May: Sampling timeline; 26 May: Removed section on international inquiry (started by Thucydides411 to explain why you were reverted); 31 May: Mobile position data; 1 June: General Request about Addition of Conspiracy-Theory Material (started by Thucydides about your edits); 4 June: Virus source.

My observations: Even after having been blocked for this before, you generate a constant barrage of synthetic inferences based on unreliable sources (not just non-MEDRS -- you've agitated for Falun Gong expert interviews and tabloids) and demand editors consider their plausibility. When they reject discussing this with you based on NOTFORUM, you double down and seem to take this as evidence they don't have a strong scientific argument against these theories--despite you yourself demonstrating very poor understanding of biology or medical publishing or protocols. You've even accused editors of pro-China censorship Impossible to prove or disprove But they still say that they don't believe it's plausible. Why is that? Because they don't want to be pinned as anti-china? As it seems to be a trend nowadays that being critical of the CCP is being critical of chinese people and, therefore, racist... this is BS and only an artefact of our over-politically correct society that the CCP is blatantly abusing. They know it's our weak point, they know that social media are another weak point. They have one of the worst human rights record in the world, yet they point everyone that disagrees with them as racists... this is really frustrating me. Will you stop saying it's fringe now? Ive got a Nature Medicine article that says it cannot be excluded. End of discussion. This behavior is what I found objectionable enough to bring up to admins, and the exhausting multi-thousand-word walls of text are the SOLE reason I have not gotten involved on that page. JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: "Even after having been blocked for this before" How long are people going to bring this back up? I was blocked 1-2 days after coming back here for editing, there's no way in the world I would have understood all the rules surrounding this!!! Read WP:ATONED what you just did is a WP:PA WP:WEAK. "This behavior is what I found objectionable enough to bring up to admins, and the exhausting multi-thousand-word walls of text are the SOLE reason I have not gotten involved on that page" what is that? With all your observations about me, did it even cross your mind that I could not be realizing what was happening? Wouldn't it have been a good idea to refer me to the specific concensus page? And I did not accuse anyone of anything! I was stating what I was observing! I was trying to explain to him why I wanted to add this stuff. There was never any clear answer from anyone, except simply dismissing it as fringe! 911 inside job is fringe, illuminaties is fringe, reptilian is fringe... And I don't think the lab leak theory to be anything close to those other subjects. The RFC was a mistake in my opinion, as this is an evolving situation and it might become very real, very soon. Now please, WP:DBO PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I bring up your block from 2 weeks ago because it was for the exact same behavior you have been demonstrating continuously since then. The consensus mentioned above was specifically for the COVID-19 page ("This should not be read as a consensus to keep the theory out of other articles, merely this one."), but regardless, the specific policies and guidelines that informed that consensus have been explicitly linked to you in the context of this article enough that it should be clear why your sourcing/edits are being rejected. Once MEDRS come out establishing a direct link between WIV and a lab leak, we will have no problem putting this in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was actually about to come here and ask that you be more concise as well, as this section is already becoming filled with comments that are unnecessarily long. I think the characterization by JoelleJay of “walls of texts” being posted on the talk page is perfectly fair. And I think JoelleJay was also relatively fair in their assessment. I realize this is a subject you’re passionate about, but you have advocated for PROFRINGE material to be included, rather vociferously, though you did indeed drop that prospect when it was explained at length why it was inappropriate. There is no “taboo”. Scientific and BLP articles require solid sourcing, and not speculation from unreliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Yes, I dropped it. But I still don't understand any part of why it is considered as fringe. And I don't think I'm a conspiracy nut. This is what I find frustrating in all this. I am also a scientist, and I feel insulted when people say that what I find is conspiracy. I don't view it as conspiracy, and I can't because It's nowhere near the 911 inside job illuminaty conspiracies that exist. This is simply a statistically improbable event, for now. But you know... Alpha Decay in nuclear physics is caused by such events... so yeah, so much for scientific rigour. This is the whole reason for the walls of text as you and the other editor like to say. It could have stopped by explaining to me what was going on, but it did not. And in my case there is a pathology that causes this behaviour. I don't think intense people like me should be banned from editing wikipedia because of how their ideas flow in their heads. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am tired of the taboo surrounding covid 19. Everyone is hush hush and think the others have some kind of hidden agenda, or are blatantly judging them for their views on it and their decisions to include refs or not. I am a pretty intense no nonsense scientist and I hate when people refrain themselves to talk about a subject because of preconceived ideas. That's the reason for all the references I posted in the talk page, and my apparent insistance on it. I hated that talk by the way as it was never clear why it was considered a fringe theory. I believe some people need to do a conscience examination about the way they talk about stuff here. All this judging of others based on information they might not be aware of is toxic. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) As has been mentioned numerous times, editors here are unwilling to discuss their opinions on the various conspiracy theories because a) this is not a forum; b) editors are trying to reflect what the mainstream, reliably-sourced scientific understanding is, and because these theories have not been covered by MEDRS in ways that are not dependent on OR/SYNTH (as in, they are not explicitly conjecturing WIV was the source of a leak), they are not being included; c) you have admitted you are not an expert and many of us editors are also not experts (I'm just a PhD candidate in molecular biology, but even when I graduate and become a real scientist I will not consider myself qualified enough to comment on virology topics because that is not what I study), so in addition to our non-expert opinions being entirely inappropriate to discuss on article talk pages, our interpretations are also potentially dangerously un(der)informed. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay's summary above is accurate. I think that PhysiqueUL09 should be topic-banned from articles related to CoVID-19. PhysiqueUL09 has expressed interest in editing articles related to radiography, so I don't think they should be blocked altogether. I just think they're causing a lot of disruption at Wuhan Institute of Virology, and will likely cause disruption at related pages, as they continue to push the theory that CoVID-19 leaked from a lab. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I got it, can't you read? "will likely cause disruption at related pages" what about WP:AGF? What about WP:ATONED? What is wrong with you? I just wrote that I got it now. This is exactly what I am talking about when I am saying the ambiance is toxic. I hate it. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no WP:AGF way of interpreting this statement you made after Thucydides "stonewalled" your proposal to add material sourced from the NY Post and National Review and SYNTH/OR extrapolations of a Nature article:

@Swood100: I think I will be moving this in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China in the Investigations of origins of the virus section. Where more people are bound to participate and if we get a concensus there it would be hard to overlook it here PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides, people in the RfC (including me), CowHouse, MarkH21, etc. have written thousands of words explaining in detail why you can't push for this kind of unverifiable content; and apparently have followed admins who have admonished you, like Boing! said Zebedee and Doug Weller, to their Talk pages pleading with them to explain these wiki policies you keep violating; and yet even after all this feedback you continued to promote the same fringe theories and poor/OR sourcing on the WIV. So personally I find it hard to believe that you will just drop the matter entirely now that "consensus has been pointed out to you", especially when you say below I will come back to you about it with yet another "told you so".JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay:

@Swood100: I think I will be moving this in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China in the Investigations of origins of the virus section. Where more people are bound to participate and if we get a concensus there it would be hard to overlook it here PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

was an attempt at getting other editors involved into the discussion. It was done in good faith as I thought that was an appropriate way to get the talk going. When I said I will come back to you about it with yet another "told you so" I was referring to me getting out of it and if this theory becomes true coming back to say "I told you so". It was inconsiderate on my part to write that, I was angry. I am sorry. I will try to distance myself from this, again. I don't have an agenda going on, I just want the pages I edit to reflect reality. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Did any of you two realized at any point that I kept it to the talk pages and I thought it was the way to go? But now people are telling me that I can't go there anymore, I won't, simple as that. And JoelleJay (talk · contribs) well good for you! I am a Ph.D candidate in electrical engineering (x-ray inspection) and I still think there is a way to talk about anything! I don't censure myself because I don't know a field, I ask questions, I argue! The first thing I learned in my studies is how to learn. I did not simply learned stuff written in a book by heart, I had to come up with answers, and that's what I am doing in my research. Turning everything upside down and looking at the box with a telescope, because of how far of it I am. This is how science should be done, not scribbling in your notebook in one corner of the lab and being too afraid to do anything. This is why you thought I was coming too hard with this, because it's how I am. Sorry for being myself. Re-read this paragraph I changed it PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh good grief, not feeling qualified to publicly defend your interpretation of highly technical articles outside your expertise != not being intellectually curious. That implication is ridiculous and offensive. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: You opened the door to it. Bottom line: what is insulting is that the lab leak (read carefully here or handling incident of samples outside of the lab) is already, by concensus in WP, relegated to the WP:FRINGE, right beside the Illuminati/Reptilian/Flat Earth theories of this world. This is what is insulting because now you feel you have the moral high ground to say I'm a conspiracy nut. And now, since it was confirmed by the Chinese government that the virus didn't come from the seafood market, it's pretty much in the spotlight. But yeah, too late for that I guess because we already ruled it out even if some experts in the field said it should not be ruled out yet. This is the real problem I have with this. People in wikipedia decided to rule it out prematurely and sent it to the fringe, making anyone that points out references about it an idiot. Too often in my academic career I had "told you so" moments with old-mentality scientists that hate going on a walk with data, preferring incrementally dinosaurilly slow progress rather than science. This is exactly what I think will occur here. And I have a strong memory, I will come back to you about it with yet another "told you so"PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

PhysiqueUL09, this noticeboard does not resolve content disputes, but it does address problematic editor behavior. As for the content matter, we have various forms of dispute resolution available for you to discuss such issues. In my view, you are displaying some problematic behavior here and in those talk page discussions. Listen, nobody cares at all about your previous experiences with "old mentality" scientists and telling such unverifiable anecdotes does you no favors. It's not needed and is a waste of your typing time. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say now, not our guesses about the future. So, if coverage in reliable sources changes dramatically, that will not be the time to crow "I told you so" but rather to say, "it is now time to revise the article". So, I want to caution you against any disruptive behavior on this matter. Please be cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Horse Eye Jack continued undiscussed mass removal of sources

In the past hour or so, despite discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293 having not been formally closed (and no RfC or listing at WP:RS/P), Horse Eye Jack has undertaken mass removal of references to CGTN, even in strictly non-political contexts such as sports, historical writers, or infrastructure / public transport metadata (not pertaining to controversial projects such as OBOR): sports ([331], [332]), infrastructure ([333], [334]), writers ([335]). As HEJ has been subject to a prior report on mass removal of mainland Chinese sources (including CGTN) in contexts not pertaining to BLP, despite the false invocation of BLP, for which they were reverted (sample 2) they are well-aware of the scrutiny that they have incurred. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't mean to post this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic given that COVID-19 pandemic is where this dispute originated[336]? I’m sure we can all agree that CGTN, a source which has been caught red handed by WP:RS spreading misinformation about the pandemic, is not an appropriate source to use for factual statements about the pandemic. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This response confounds me: as I linked to above, the mass removal of references (33 (!) from 16:49 UTC to 17:17 UTC) has extended well beyond COVID-19 pandemic or political subjects. As this problem has extended back to February (the last AN/I thread on this matter), this falls under the header's stated purview urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sports, infrastructure, and literature all have political dimensions, especially when it comes to the Chinese government. The consensus of that discussion is clear to me, is it not clear to you? I’m sure we can do an RfC and formally deprecate CGTN like we’re currently doing for the very similar RT right now if that would clear up any concerns you have about the consensus on their reliability. I find it interesting that you find one unclosed discussion (the ANI) to be gospel while finding the other (RSN) to be irrelevant, one of those discussions had a clear consensus... One did not, you appear to be taking as gospel the one without a clear consensus of any kind. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We can do without the condescending treat one unclosed discussion to be gospel while finding the other personal attack. Literally anything can be made the butt of a political joke or subject to partisanship, you will need to come up with an explanation as to how Ding Junhui's snooker performance, the death of of a basketball player, the 2018 title of the well-known Beijing Music Festival, or the start date of a high-speed railway are political. Imbuing party or international politics into apolitical BLPs is itself a BLP violation.

At the RSN discussion, there was a significant cohort of those who had indicated CGTN's quality in non-political contexts: MarioGom, Khu'hamgaba Kitap, MarkH21.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In general we can only use WP:RS on BLP pages, CGTN is not currently considered a WP:RS (at best you can argue we have no consensus but that would be a very flimsy argument) so CGTN shouldn't be used on *any* BLP pages outside of some very specific contexts like perhaps the basic biographical details of Chinese government officials. If you have issues with some edits but not others please take it up with me on the respective talk pages as appropriate.

If you want to re-litigate RSN discussions this is not the place to do it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Horse Eye Jack: To be fair, I don’t see how the CGTN reference for the dates, name of art director, and name of the theme of the Beijing Music Festival is controversial and requires replacement by a cn tag. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your point on the name of the art director and the theme of the festival (you’re also right that tagging that one wasn’t necessary), however dates for infrastructure project completion etc are inherently political numbers with a large amount of wiggle room available for official fudging. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the infrastructure numbers and most of the political removals. For the less controversial cases though, I think it would be better to just tag the instances with {{better source}} instead of deprecation-style mass removal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, that is a much better solution for the edge cases. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have the time to investigate this, but I do have a suggestion for you both: Stop your back-and-forth bickering, and wait for someone to come along and review things. Does that sound sensible? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It does, CA has reverted most of the edits and I have no plans to revert back while discussion is ongoing so its basically at status quo and besides for the COVID-19 page there is nothing urgent here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion is a content dispute, and should take place on the reliable sources noticeboard. There is no requirement to have an RfC, a formal closure, or an entry on the perennial sources list before removing a disputed source from an article. The recent noticeboard discussion on CGTN took place earlier this month, and Horse Eye Jack's removals are in accordance with WP:BURDEN ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"). I recommend starting a new discussion or RfC about CGTN on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Newslinger except in this case. Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go. I think an admin warning would go a long way in helping to get this editor back on track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

An admin warning would help, but would it come? Following an earlier discussion around this user, I was advised to open an discussion around his work on Wikipedia on the Administration's noticeboard. After four days of lengthy discussions, no administrator came around to make any sort of judgement, and all the discussion lead to was the archive. Why would that be different this time?Jeff5102 (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be meaningful if the user Horse Eye Jack actually focused on the material (he does not, so it is not in accordance), but the edits is focused on mass removal of certain sources (regardless of the content, even the most noncontroversial, or factors such as the presence other RS). See [337][338][339][340][341] for a few examples. --Cold Season (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

At least for the last one, I think it's reasonable to at least consider CGTN to be a WP:BIASED source when it comes to WeChat given the controversies surrounding it and the Chinese government, which would make it better to avoid citing it without an inline citation. --Aquillion (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21, Atsme, Jeff5102, and Cold Season: HEJ is back to it after acknowledging a suggestion by MarkH21 to use {{better source}}. Enough is enough, at this rate they are well on their way to at least an indefinite topic ban on this matter: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We agreed that the infrastructure numbers are political, did we not? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also those diffs you linked are to BLPs... In general we can only use WP:RS on BLPs, I’m sorry if you didn’t know that. Its actually the obligation of every editor to remove information on BLP pages sourced to unreliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources which have been described by multiple users to produce quality content in non-political contexts are not "unreliable" simply by your dictat. You ought to stop and move to other areas of the project that do not garner the ire of others. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As the admin has already told you the current consensus is that CGTN is generally unreliable. Please do not misrepresent consensus, its a rather serious infraction. If you wish to continue your line of thought do as they suggested and open an RfC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger made no such interpretation of CGTN being "generally unreliable". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How else are you gonna interpret "There is no requirement to have an RfC, a formal closure, or an entry on the perennial sources list before removing a disputed source from an article. The recent noticeboard discussion on CGTN took place earlier this month, and Horse Eye Jack's removals are in accordance with WP:BURDEN”? The consensus of that noticeboard discussion is generally unreliable, as you can also see you were incorrect before when you said that a discussion had to be formally closed for there to be a consensus. Also smooth pinging everyone but Newslinger even when you name them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, since WP:RSNRFC was closed, a reasonable reading of the consensus is that an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard is needed to authorize large-scale removals of a source if those removals are disputed. I believe your best course of action is to stop removing citations to CGTN, and to start an RfC for CGTN like you did for Sina.com. Whenever an action is disputed, it never hurts to start a discussion to clarify whether there is consensus for the action. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

General comment: but not even deprecated sources are subject to blanket bans, per WP:DEPRECATE#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources.

Commenting again on this case: I would still at most use {{better source}} for infrastructure numbers, since statements on what the Chinese government publicly projects / announces reported by CGTN are no less reliable than direct government announcements would be under WP:SPS / WP:PRIMARY. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think out problem with one of the infrastructure numbers is that its not just a statement of when a line opened or that a certain station exists but of how many people rode the line in a given period of time, I still don’t feel that CGTN is a reliable source for that statement of fact. I also have been attributing and tagging where I think appropriate like [342]. First glance removal is only for BLPs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Thanks for asking my input. At the moment, I am a bit disillusioned on the policies of Wikipedia.
In the past, I enjoyed creating articles with the help of a British Newspaper Archive- and Newspapers.com-subscription I got from the Wiki-library. With those, I could browse obscure newspapers like the Cheltenham Chronicle, the Walsall Advertiser; or the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette to find interesting content for the articles.
Under current circumstances, it would be impossible to do so. According to Horse Eye Jack, on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable, and that before using a source, you have to show that it complies with the standards set out at WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability (see Talk:Gerald_Fredrick_Töben#MEMRI). And as others has stated above, when Horse Eye Jack is not convinced that the source complies with those standards, he blindly deletes them.
I am short of arguments why, for example, the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette of March 1903 could pass any standards; I am unaware of any fact-checking department, and, following HEJ's logic, if "there is no "conclusive answer whether it is reliable or not” then we can't use it." I cannot work that way.
That is why I asked: "is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method?" on the administrator's noticeboard last February. Back then, no answer was given by an administrator. I hope this time will be different.
Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We have different standards of reliability for use on WP:BLP pages and non-BLP pages, you appear to still not realize that. Also no you should not be using obscure old newspapers as reliable sources unless they meet Wikipedia’s reliability requirements, I doubt you will run into any BLP issues using hundred year old sources though. PS, its “they” not “he” and we’ve discussed that before. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears you are contradicting yourself. According to you there are different standards for WP:BLP pages and non-BLP pages, but I am not allowed to use the hundred year old sources Wikipedia handed me personally to use here for dead persons? Moreover, some of your discussed edits are concerning the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, the Turkish Armed Forces, Cinema of Saudi Arabia World Heritage Sites by country, Qatar Airway, Lapis Lazuli corridor, Sheep Without a Shepherd, List of high-speed railway lines in China, Line_1 (Lanzhou Metro), Beijing Music Festival and WeChat. Could you please per article make a case why the WP:BLP-rules apply there?Jeff5102 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP policy in general applies to all pages and all spaces of wiki including talk pages however there are specific restrictions which apply to BLP pages, read this from the notice about sources which is at the top of the page every time you edit a BLP page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.” That removal requirement is unique to BLP issues, there is no removal requirement for non-BLP issues but per WP:BURDEN anyone can remove poorly or unsourced text at any time. Can you perhaps clarify what you think is the contradiction? I’ve never claimed that BLP rules apply in non-BLP circumstances, if you think I have present the diff. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any difference between removing contentious material per BLP-rules and removing contentious material per Wikipedia-rules; the result is the same, making the difference rather minimal. How you then come up with a slight personal attack as We have different standards of reliability for use on WP:BLP pages and non-BLP pages, you appear to still not realize that. is beyond me. Why pointing out the different standards if the result is the same? And could you point out where in WP:BLP I can find the phrases on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable, and that before using a source, you have to show that it complies with the standards set out at WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability? Moreover, I still would like to hear you why I cannot use the more obscure newspapers from the British Newspaper Archive, if Wikipedia gave me access to them to use them, and the issue never came up at Wikipedia_talk:BNA. Why is it then that you make a problem out of it? Or can you direct me to the discussion, where consensus was built on this issue?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That quote is about WP:BURDEN not BLP, per BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” You can use those newspapers if that meet wikipedia’s reliability requirements, which are much less stringent for non-BLP things like you would be using old papers for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The part you quoted from WP:BURDEN is about content, not about sources. Please show me the quote about sources. Jeff5102 (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"And it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source" is not the same as on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable. Please show me the quote about sources.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources British Newspapers are of varying quality, from the very highest to the very lowest. Facilitating access to an archive which contains almost all British and Irish newspapers is very different from endorsing the general reliability of almost all British and Irish newspapers. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, not a policy. Back in January , you considered that as a very relevant distinction, discarding arguments coming from "essays" and "guidelines". But now it suits your case, "explanatory supplements" are suddenly good enough for you. This behavior does not benefit for a good cooperation. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP is a collection of consensuses, all of those individual consensuses are consensuses and as such you should respect them as consensuses. Wild how that works isn't it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not the point. The point is that you dismiss appeals to WP:RS for it being a guideline (without further arguments needed), yet now I have to take you serious when you appeal to an explanatory supplement to the same Wikipedia:RS guideline? Sorry, but that doesn't work. That said, for the sake of the argument: WP:RSP does not mention the British Newspaper Archive at all. Thus, I do not understand why you brought up this collection of consensuses, all of those individual consensuses are consensuses and as such you should respect them as consensuses at all. @Newslinger: Is there anything you can do about this? It appears to me that HEJ is more discussing for the sake of discussing, while doing damage to the encyclopedia by mass deleting fine sources. I have no idea how his presence is beneficial for this encyclopedia. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, it is generally not in any editor's best interest to turn a content dispute into a conduct dispute. This noticeboard is a venue for examining conduct disputes, and continuing the discussion here is not going to benefit you in any way. As I mentioned in my past two comments, I strongly recommend settling this via RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard instead of debating other editors here. — Newslinger talk 07:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the issue Jeff5102 has is separate from the issue I have with CA and I don’t think there currently is a content dispute between myself and CA... As far as I can tell we’ve addressed each conflict in context and have arrived at a suitable consensus/compromise. If it comes up again I will certainly open a RfC at RSN but at the moment I don’t think I can because there is no active content dispute. The argument between myself and Jeff5102 was never over China related sources, they wanted to use MEMRI as a source on a BLP... As far as I can tell they *still* do. I will however desist though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, HEJ has been doing this kind of mass removal since 20/05/2020 (check here), while there is no consensus of CGTN's reliability on WP:RSN and even the discussion is not closed. Wo.luren (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How did you find this page? You seem to have never commented on a noticeboard ever and all but four of your edits since 24 March have been COVID-19 related. Of those four edits one is at Fang Fang, one is on the RFC I started on Sina.com (not related to COVID=19) [343], and the other two are here. So can I politely ask you why 75% of your non-COVID-19 related edits over the last few months are directly related to me? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is another attempt at baiting / derailing this discussion and not at all a sincere question given your own assessment of Wo.luren's 2020 edits as being COVID-19 related and...this inappropriate removal at a COVID-19 page, which does not take much digging of page history (160 intermediate edits) to discover. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@HEJ I do not have time getting into your argument. So please stop putting your nonsense on me like you did to other editors here. Wo.luren (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:LeoRussoLeo

LeoRussoLeo (talk · contribs) has been involved in a (until now) very civil content dispute at Cavoodle, but on not being happy with the discussion has resorted to vandalising a number of pages I have written:

• Poitevin hound – diff
• Perdigueiro Galego – diff
• Hunting the clean boot – diff
• Leyland Beaver-Eel – diff

I request that an administrator intervene. Cavalryman (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).

Moved from Ongoing Vandalism Cavalryman

I would like to request assistance with ongoing vandalism to the 'Cavoodle' page by Cavalryman. I have asked the user to stop multiple times and they are yet to do so.

They claim to be fixing things but remove most of the page because it doesn't meet their requirements . They go on to put information from their own sources which I feel hold less weight than what was there.

On the 27th of May, the user removed the page completely by placing a redirect on it.

I understand that this user thinks they are doing a service but those from the Cavoodle community are upset that the Cavoodle page is being ruined.

LeoRussoLeo (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@LeoRussoLeo: I suggest you read through Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. After that, you can engage in dispute resolution to resolve whatever content-related issues are bothering you. If the "Cavoodle community" doesn't like how English Wikipedia works, they can use some other website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SpaceRoverX

Can someone have a look at this "newbie"? They're on a crusade, removing lots of info with misleading edit-summaries. Especially this edit is striking; but also edits like this, removing info on steppe ancestry in China (also typical that a newbie knows what a TOC is), and this edit, removing info on R1a in the Xiongnu, ancestors of the Mongols/Turks. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Joshua's accusation is misleading as he ignores my positive contributions, how I have added links and sources, as well as corrected spelling and punctuation. And as a sidenote, the Xiongnu are not the ancestors of the Mongols. The Xianbei are. It is debated whether the Xiongnu are ancestors of the Turks too. If Joshua mixes up basic facts, then I am not sure how qualified he is to criticize others on these topics. Also it seems haplogroup R's father originally came from East Asia and is very closely related to the haplogroup O of Han Chinese (both descend from K). That seems to make R a descendant of Han Chinese males, which is quite ironic.SpaceRoverX (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Floyd-related pages

Some are new and have few watchers. Pending revisions might be a good idea in some cases if problems continue.

• Derek_Chauvin_(police_officer)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Derek_Chauvin_(police_officer)
• 8′46″
• Killing of George Floyd
• George Floyd protests
• List of George Floyd protests
• Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests (bet you didn't see that one coming!)

Or take your pick from [344] EEng 07:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More related articles are listed at Template:George Floyd. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Antifa as well - there's something fishy going on ... can't fully put my finger on it. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• You know that an identitarian alt-right group, Identity Evropa, was operating a false antifa Twitter account which fomented violence, and that such groups have been caught on video provoking violence and looting under cover of the Floyd protests? Could this be related? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Youngscar

Almost all Youngscar's edits[345] are inappropriate genre changes in articles about music. They persist in genrewarring[346][347][348] even after a level4-warning[349]. Blueberry72 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blueberry72: This is clearly a WP:NOTHERE account. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:John Kamar

John Kamar has been constantly adding unsourced and propagandic information to articles relating to Pakistan and its military. They have been warned many times, yet they continue to add content that contradicts the sources present, and sometimes even removes sources altogether in the process. I have CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder in my watchlist, and I've seen them add possibly fictitious variants of the aircraft, inflate the number of confirmed aircraft, add to the list of weaponry options, among other things. Doing some digging into their edit history shows that they obviously are here to promote Pakistan's military and disrupt articles related to rival countries' military, especially India (they even went so far as to blank large sections of the HAL Tejas article). This user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 21:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:777 persona 777 and Talk:Christopher Langan#Intelligent design

Can I get some additional eyes on this user and their talk page section please? 777 persona 777 appears to be yet another SPA drawn to that page. In addition to the insults on the page, they have continued to email me despite me repeatedly asking them to keep the discussion to the article talk page. In their latest email they included the following threat: "You are allowing this source against him and justifying it. I've checked your twitter. Full of leftism. You have an agenda. You see yourself as fighting a war against the man with the highest IQ simply because he disagrees with you. I suggest ego checking yourself otherwise it won't end up good for you. This is a warning" GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, and 777 persona 777 has opened a DR case. here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"[O]therwise it won't end up good for you. This is a warning" is one of those crafty non-threat threats. Reading it, it certainly sounds threatening, and appears to be aimed at creating a chilling effect, but the person making it can always say "Oh, no, it wasn't a threat, it really was just a warning." I tend not to believe that, and to fall on the "chilling effect" side of the equation. I would urge admins to consider whether a sanction for User:777 persona 777 against editing Christoper Langan and communicating with GorillaWarfare might be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so they have. Nice of them to let me know... GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Their (and Langan's) argument seems to be that The Baffler shouldn't be considered RS since it's a non-expert criticism of a work they feel requires expertise to critique. They want to treat CTMU as a legitimate scientific/philosophical investigation. I'd generally agree that non-specialist interpretations of specialist academic works should not be included whatsoever; on the other hand, this idea reads more like an amateur continental philosophy blog post than a well-developed academic proposal. It also hasn't gained any traction in actual math/physics/philosophy/linguistics beyond mention as a curiosity. I think Justin Ward's assessment is naïve and reductive, but it's also telling that we have so little engagement by real scholars that we have to cite lay media at all. JoelleJay (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG:

"When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."

That's how the opinion is presented in the article:

"Journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler also wrote that it "isn't particularly scientific—or original", saying it was rather a repackaging of intelligent design."

This meets the requirements of NEWSORG precisely. It also meets the sourcing requirements of WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that GorillaWarfare's purpose in starting this thread was to point out the implicit threat in the e-mail from 777 persona 777. That's an issue for this board. The question of whether The Baffler is a reliable source, or whether Justin Ward has the necessary credentials to criticize Langan's CTMU is better resolved on the article talk page, or at WP:RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I just thought summarizing the sock's complaint (and reasons why it hasn't been considered valid) might give context to the dispute. It highlights how petty the user is to cry libel over a single negative opinion being cited appropriately. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, I mean, yes, but The Baffler is not a RS for this stuff. We have an article on a man who claims to have exceeded Hawking's understanding of the universe, and the sources are men's magazines and cultural commentary. OK, I feel; proprietary towards Hawking, having attended the same school, but even so. Guy (help!) 00:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you Guy, that we don't go to sources like The Baffler for our scientific insights, but in this case it may well be that Langan's theory is off-the-wall enough that it doesn't take a Hawking, or even a degree in physics or one in evolutionary biology, to see it for what it is. In any case, the opinion isn't -- as is claimed on the article talk page -- "libelous" or "defamatory" or "slanderous", the reasons given why it should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, I seem to have fractured the conversation yet again by posting User talk:JzG#Christopher Langan. Happy to continue that discussion here if that's easier. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, actually we should just roll the whole thing up to the articler's Talk page. The user issue is fixed now I think (though the trickle of SPAs on that article will no doubt continue). Guy (help!) 08:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• GW: I see what you mean by the article attracting fans of Langan. Not only 777 persona 777, but now User:Crdvyniu is casting aspersions and making near-personal attacks on the talk page. [350] Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

inserting 'negative opinions' on an article that is suppose to be objective is improper. i know you fools will respond with your bias and ego but bias and ego should be removed from wikipedia. this is not a tabloid site. would you edit a wikipedia article regarding buddhism or other teachings and place high school tier remarks as a source? 'repackaging of intelligent design' on an article that says he's alex jones with a thesaurus is unproffessional. you all have more power than me so its your dictatorship but if you wish this unproffesionalism to remain then its more so an ego problem on your behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest email from User:777 persona 777, after I did not reply to their threatening email, reads: You should add 'evil' next to 'queer and femininst'. It would fit you nicely! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And another: Incel and Satantic Bible...You are clearly a negative being who abuses their power to defame people who disagree with you. I don't care about 'wikipedia rules' because people like you are the ones in control. evil people always seek power. that's why you are posting these emails. it's just another weapon for you to get power over me. i suggest you read the ctmu... it would actually help you with your power issues. maybe you will stop being a pathetic negative being after a read or two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had been thinking about proposing a partial block for User:777 person 777 from Christopher Langan and Talk:Christopher Langan (where they've actually been the most disruptive), but now I think that a NOTHERE indef would be a better course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at those emails you are getting GorillaWarfare surely this constitutes WP:NPA? Glen 04:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC) - scratch that they're blocked. Beat me to it. Glen 04:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• With 777 persona 777 blocked, I suppose this thread can be closed. One interesting thing I just noticed is the number of editors of Christopher Langan who've been indeffed: 777 persona 777, EarlWhitehall, Snoogal, Mrs Smart Persons 421, NunsMuns12345, Drl, and some incidentals and IPs. Not all blocked because of their editing on the article, but the subject does seem to attract a rather disruptive crowd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well a big problem is that, recently anyway, most of the interest in the article has been SPAs both those supportive of the subject and those opposed. Last time this came to AN there was a proposal to topic ban a bunch of editors Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318#Christopher Langan which was never formally closed even though it probably had consensus. However it wouldn't have made any difference since most of those editors have already disappeared some from being blocked but quite a few not (or not directly), indeed the steady stream of new editors is a problem I noted. It seems like most of the anti Langan SPAs may have no disappeared leaving only the supportive ones. One earlier proposal was for community sanctions for the article but as noted at the time, the article is covered by BLP and a lot of the stuff pseudoscience DS so there was no real point. I guess long term ECP or requiring 500/30 for editing the article may help. But short of that, maybe just continue to give DS alerts so the DS process can be used if a new problem editor pops up that does't do something requiring a simple block. IIRC, I did notice Crdvyniu back in March but couldn't be bothered giving an alert. I've given one now but it perhaps illustrates why it's better to give alerts earlier. There is a slight chance SPI would pick up something, I don't think one was ever opened. But I sort of figures with the large number of SPAs and the AN thread, someone had already run a check if it was justified. So I suspect we're probably mostly dealing with meat puppets. From the discussion last time this came up, I think it's possible that discussion outside Wikipedia, maybe on a Facebook group or something, is attracting the SPA attention. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that seems likely. I think that giving early DS alerts is a good idea, which I'll keep in mind for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:The Cat 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Cat 2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor submitted a draft Draft:Avyar to Articles for Creation. The draft was declined three times, for sourcing and stylistic reasons. The editor has chosen to insult the reviewers rather than either to discuss how to improve the draft or to copy the draft directly into article space (their right as an auto-confirmed user). The reviewers have discussed how to try to reason with this editor, but requesting administrative action seems like the only reasonable alternative at this point.

Insults Sulfurboy: diff

Insults LittlePuppers: diff and diff

Insults LittlePuppers again: diff and diff

Posts an interesting diatribe at AFC HD: diff I had said that the subject probably is notable, but that the draft does not establish notability. I meant to write a draft that establishes notability by focusing on notability criteria, with reliable sources, but the editor apparently thinks that this has some coded meaning.

Insults me (Robert McClenon): diff

Insults Theroadislong: diff

Insults ThatMontrealIP: diff

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

notified all users. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Snippy new editors is an unfortunately common occurence in AfC. However, railing on multiple different editors in such quick fashion is a fairly unique kind of awful. Looks like what time they haven't spent on the draft has been spent spamming external links to random Russian videos on established articles. Whatever they're here to do, it's quite clear they're WP:NOTHERE to contribute or at least try to get a handle of our rules. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I will reply to the Robert McClenon false allegations in order to clear my name. It is true that my article was rejected on several occasions but no real reason was stated. On several occasions, my article was called "an essay" which can be taken for a direct insult considering my level of expertise and the material featured in the article. I properly attributed all the sources but one user started an argument over this even though he knew that I was right. All of these facts can be easily proven simply by looking at article's history. I used many well known sources written by Godfrey Higgins and Frederic Shoberl. I used Sir William Jones' "Asiatic Researches" as well as many other highly respected authorities. This, however, didn't prevent several users from stating that, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources", which is a false and misleading statement. I can go on forever listing the false statements made against either me or the material in the article. User Robert McClenon wrote that, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." This statement is factually incorrect and false which I proved on several occasions as well as in my reply to the same user. The same user wrote an article Bile (Irish legend) which is in reality a very poorly sourced and I raised this point. He referenced Encyclopedia Britannica without providing a link to the material so anyone can verify that information. Moreover he listed the same link twice in a list of references which is unacceptable. Then he listed two modern books with several sentences about the person named Bile (Irish legend). You can compare his article and my article that he had rejected with the false reason stated. When you compare theese two articles you would clearly see which one is well-sourced and which on is poorly sourced, which one is notable and which one isn't. The most important thing is what happened after I posted my reply to that user. Another user named Moonythedwarf wrote to me the following, "I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed." So my properly addressed message was simply censored by deletion. I raised the point right away and told both editors that censorship on Wikipedia is not acceptable.The same applies to false allegation and misleading statements that are preventing an informative article from being published. Everyone has the right to raise the opposition against any false allegation and/or misleading statements made in his address. That's a natural and normal reaction. I raised the point again and was threatened by the user Theroadislong who wrote, "Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Robert McClenon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing." Another false allegation was made since I never attacked anyone and was simply expressing my concerns and opinions in return to the false allegations made against me.

The user Robert McClenon is telling you that I insulted several people on 5-6 occasions which a complete lie. You can see this for yourself simply by reading my replies to the massages received. I told you that I can't accept false allegations and factually incorrect statements made against me, my work or the article itself. I raised those concerns patiently, politely and professionally. I asked to focus on my article rather than on attacking me or continue to argue with me. I met with censorship since my message on a talk page was simply deleted with a bogus explanation. Than I was threatened that I can be blocked from editing. Multiple false statements against me were accumulating and each one of them was recorded. I can prove each my word with clear facts that don't lie. You should always look at the whole picture and you must weight the information and facts coming from all sides. If you do that then you would see that the truth is on my side. Thank you very much for allowing me to express my side of the story and my experience on Wikipedia. I certainly believe that the censorship should not be exercised for the opinions one may not like or for critical comments made. We all can benefit from telling the truth on each and every occasion. That's my way of thinking. Wikipedia shouldn't allow biased opinions toward certain topics and material and a group of several people should not be doing all they could in order to prevent a professionally written, properly attributed and sourced article from being published. They should not sensor. They should not make false allegations and misleading statement. They should not threaten people with the blocking. It's highly unprofessional and childish. They should not use the word "insult" when there is no insult, etc. and etc.

Please kindly let me know if you need any additional facts from me. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, Please kindly refrain from making any misleading statement here. You are here to talk about a particular issue. Please tell us whether you are fluent in Russian or not? If not, then how you can make any statement about "spamming external links to random Russian videos on established articles". Maybe there are spammers on Wikipedia but that doesn't apply to me. If you want to make an allegation against me in particular then please start listing facts. Otherwise it is an empty talk. I listed all the sources and my draft for Avyar lists sources where the full texts are featured in both English and Russian. This can be verified by anyone knowing the Russian language. The English version you had a chance to verify personally. Please do not make misleading statements about spamming. That doesn't apply to me in any way whatsoever. I listed all the facts and the facts outnumbered the empty talk about spamming. Thank you for understanding and I wish we could have a more professional conversation in the future. On my side, I can reiterate that I have been always professional and very polite with you. I wish you could return a favor to me. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we can analyse this article at hand:

1. Amkgp initially declined your draft for not having enough sources. When you first submitted this version of the draft, it just had 2 sources. WP:BASIC, the notability criteria to be applied, asks for multiple reliable sources, which generally means at least 3. Besides, in the beginning large chunks of text were not supported by reliable sources. So the very first decline stands.
2. For the second decline by Sulfurboy, the decline was not particularly justified, considering that the source was in the public domain. This is why MER-C removed the {{Copypaste}} template. People often make mistakes and sometimes, you have to assume good faith and discuss the mistake seriously and civilly. Your comment on Sulfurboy's talk page didn't quite follow this guideline through the use of words such as "bogus" and "you need to educate yourself...". These can be seen as personal attacks.
3. The third decline by LittlePuppers said that it was not written neutrally and it read like an essay.
   • it was not neutral because of the use of terms like "Avyar (aka Ayvar) was a great Tamil Female Philosopher", "...the celebrated Avyar...", "Avyar's or Ayvar's writings contain good general ideas which are primarily based in the science of morality" etc. These terms seem to praise the subject, which is not what Wikipedia is for. After all, we didn't say that the COVID-19 pandemic was a "beast that destroys everything".
   • it still reads like an essay through the use of sentences like "Avyar's lineage and birth, as well as the exact epoch in which she flourished, are lost in myths. We can even have a well-grounded opinion about the mythological nature of her life". You can improve it in line with the given guidelines or ask a question about this, instead of saying "it would be great if you would take a minute and read the article first and then write your well-grounded opinion on the matter. It was clearly not the case with my article".

I shall continue my analysis below. The Cat 2020, please read this carefully. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article is never easy, especially for writers without much experience with writing encyclopedia entries. But if you have difficulties, it is a better choice for you to reach out to the decliner(s) instead of making insults. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• 100% a mistake on my part, which I would have happily corrected if it wasn't for the affront and statement of "you need to educate yourself". I'd rather spend my time helping editors who have an interest in being constructive and building something here, not causing dram. We also shouldn't fall into this rabbit hole of discussing the merits of the article. There's more appropriate venues for that. Ultimately, this is a conduct, not a content discussion. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at the draft and it is definitely lacking an encyclopedic tone, and its format needs quite a bit of work. This is not unusual in draft articles written by newbies. Once these formatting, sourcing issues and notability are addressed (conduct issues notwithstanding) I'm sure a request to GOCE can help get it up to scratch. On the conduct side @The Cat 2020:, as a neutral observer I would say that your talk page communications come across as highly aggressive. A lot of good faith is given to you as you are a very new user, but that good faith runs out very quickly in the face of continued aggression. Blackmane (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eumat114, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have rewritten two sentences to which you have pointed my attention. I will now add them to the draft. As I understand, from your perspective there are no other issues with the article after the previous corrections. Am I right? Please kindly review my corrections and I am open to hear your other propositions if you have them.

In terms of the "insults", I can't accept this characterization of my well-grounded replies and I insist that everyone must see the whole picture and also read the initial comments made by other users to me. The last user Robert McClenon wrote that, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I can't agree with this misleading and factually incorrect statement. The references have proved the notability level of this topic. I could have easily listed at least 10 more references but that was not required in accordance to the rules. Because of the factually incorrect marking about notability I am not allowed to resubmit my article even though I have corrected all the information you have mentioned. That's part of the problem which needs to be addressed by someone. The Cat 2020 (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, the report here is not about your article, it's about your behavior. I've reviewed all of the comments back and forth between you and the other editors and I agree with Robert McClenon that you have made unnecessarily aggressive and personal comments as evidenced by the diffs he posted. As an experienced writer, you are more than capable of speaking to disagreements about the content without personalizing it or characterizing other editors' motivations and qualifications. Please agree to do so in the future. Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have two more comments. First, as to content, there were originally two issues with the draft, tone issues and duplication issues. The draft was primarily declined for tone reasons. But there were also duplication reasons. The draft is about Draft:Avyar, but we already have an article on Avvaiyar, and those names are close enough that they may be two transliterations of the same Tamil name. Some of the editors tried to mention this, but it is not easy for reviewers to maintain focus on two issues when the submitter is being contentious about both of them. If the draft had not had tone issues, I would have tagged the draft to be merged into the article. Second, another editor removed one of the editor's hostile posts from my talk page, and the editor then accused me of censorship, citing the policy Wikipedia is not censored. That policy is more often misinterpreted than applied correctly. (I have written an essay, Yelling Censorship, about the misuse of the policy.) The removal of inappropriate material from talk pages is mentioned in the talk page guidelines as sometimes being appropriate, and is not censorship. If you don't understand a policy, you don't need to quote it incorrectly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Original issues with the draft were addressed in a timely manner and you have to discuss the current situation. There are no so-called "tone issues" in the current draft. The other reviewer pointed me into rewriting two sentences which I gladly did today. He didn't see any other issues being present and you must as well take into account his opinion on the matter. You are again misstating the facts and call my informative reply to you as the "hostile post". This is factually incorrect statement which can be proven by reading the post itself and facts listed there. I understand that you might have seen an inconvenient truth there but the comment should have never been censored by deletion. You are once again making false and factually incorrect statements by saying that, "the editor then accused me of censorship". My comment was addressed to Moonythedwarf who informed that he removed my legitimate comment. In that comment I stated that, "The comment was written in a polite and respectful manner which can be proven by looking at the comment itself. In the future please refrain from censoring my comments and the information you might not like. Censorship should not be exercised on Wikipedia, especially on a talk page. Censorship is a poor friend in a fight with facts. Please remember that as well as my polite reply to you." You can read this on my talk page. So I have yet again caught you in a process of making false and factually incorrect statements towards me which suggest of a particular trend being established. I suggest that you should focus more on my draft rather than on making false and factually incorrect statements. Notability has been established and no other issues are seen by another editor who expressed his weighted opinion on the matter. There is absolutely nothing which prevents you or anybody else from green lighting the article that I wrote. Let's focus on the article. I keep asking you to do that but you keep on making factually incorrect statements which is unacceptable. I came here not to argue but to publish some important material which has been overlooked. Looking forward for a productive discussion with you regarding the notability of my article. The Cat 2020 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• If the draft that is up currently is the final product, then I agree it still has numerous issues with tone, grammar, inline citations, and wikivoice. To me, Eumat114's commentary does not at all suggest their only objections were the sentences they quoted: it still reads like an essay through the use of sentences like "Avyar's lineage and birth, as well as the exact epoch in which she flourished, are lost in myths. We can even have a well-grounded opinion about the mythological nature of her life" and it was not neutral because of the use of terms like "Avyar (aka Ayvar) was a great Tamil Female Philosopher", "...the celebrated Avyar...", "Avyar's or Ayvar's writings contain good general ideas which are primarily based in the science of morality" etc. I bolded the words that indicate the quoted lines are just examples of the problems in the draft, not a comprehensive list of them. Regarding conduct, I am also getting a strong WP:IDHT vibe alongside the aggressive, repetitive bludgeoning others have mentioned. Your intent might not be to insult, but it is clear everyone else is interpreting your comments as verging on PA. Unless you can express yourself in a way that does not accuse others of spreading falsehoods or being uneducated, people will continue to feel harassed and be disinclined to engage with you. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

eh, none of those will get fixed until the sourcing is. Surely its possible to get an academic reference that is under what... 180 years old? or at least not from the colonial era? Curdle (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Cat 2020: There is a long standing practice on Wikipedia of comment on the content not the contributor. Each reviewer has clearly done so and yet every one of your replies diffed by Robert McClenon are confrontational and directed at the contributor. You may be have experience in writing outside of Wikipedia, but you have little experience on Wikipedia and would do well to seek out the advice of those with more experience here than yourself. Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Blackmane, I clearly listed the facts pertaining to the misleading and factually incorrect statements made towards me by the user Robert McClenon. Please see above. You might want to write a word or two to Robert and ask him not to exercise such a practice in the future. You can not receive an honest advice from the person who has established a trend of making misleading and factually incorrect statements. I, on the other hand, was happy to read the message from Eumat114 who was the only person who discussed my draft in a respective and truthful manner. I am glad he did it. If you have something to tell me then I would gladly take that into account.The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Curdle, One can clearly see from such a comment where the problem really is. You can not tell me that I can't use sources that are 180 years old or even older because these sources are highly informative, professional and academic. You have to show at least some respect to Sir William Jones, Godfrey Higgins and others who made an enormous academic contribution to our science and history. Colonial era? What that has to do with the information featured in my article? I followed the rules and my article is fully eligible for publication. If you wish to set your own rules regarding the use of only modern sources then you are welcome to put this proposition for a discussion but not here. Until your proposition is not accepted, we will continue to follow the rules which are currently in place. The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just to chime in here as a completely neutral voice: The draft article -- which I have just read -- is not in any way, shape or form ready for the encyclopedia. It is undersourced, badly written, is unencyclopedic in tone, and is non-neutral. In fact, the whole thing has the feel of advocacy about it. The quotations sections should be removed entirely. It's just an incredible mess and would require hours of editorial work to whip it into shape if it was moved into mainspace, work that should be done by its creator, not by other Wikipedians.
  Further, The Cat 2020's June 2nd comment (just before the article itself) comparing phrasing in their article to writing in The Bible about Methuselah shows a profound ignorance of the purpose of Wikipedia, and, not incidentally, the purpose of The Bible as well. I'm afraid that the draft will never be ready for mainspace unless The Cat 2020 learns that lesson and starts to understand why Wikipedia exists and how it should be presented to our readers. The Cat 2020 is not reading an essay to their friends, they're engaged in a semi-academic piece of research and writing for a popular encyclopedia. Certainly The Cat 2020 is in no position to be throwing brickbats at the people who are, after all, only trying to help them bring their article into line with our standards, and should stop doing so and show a bit of humility.
  I'll be blunt, so there's no misunderstanding: The Cat 20220 -What you've written is bad. Take the advice given to you and fix it if you can, and stop blaming your failure to write an acceptable article on other people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Are we on a one-way street where my opinion is not even considered? Please read the Robert McClenon's comments above and my reply. There are two parts of each story. I have clearly proved in my reply that Robert was continuing to make factually incorrect and misleading statements about certain issues. You can verify this information in my reply. I have clearly pointed out that Robert has established a trend in making those factually incorrect statements. The facts don't lie. Please also have a look at my article personally. All the issues were addressed but some people kept discussing things that were fixed a while ago. By the way, on Robert's talk page I left a comment in which I gave a link and the description for the additional information for his article. I thought that's how the things are supposed to work here on Wikipedia. Some people could have spent months trying to find the information for the article. I knew that information and I helped Robert to improve his article. I keep asking people to discuss the material rather than focusing on insults which never happened since I never insulted anyone on Wikipedia. This can also be verified by accessing the full-range of my comments. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot moderate your aggressiveness and bad attitude, then, yes, it will soon be a one-way street. And, no, you have proved nothing. I've already read your article and given my evaluation above. It is, as I said before, bad. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Bit late in my response, but as I said before every editor that you have engaged with has sought to discuss your draft. However, your responses invariably drift off into WP:OSE territory or attack the competence of the reviewer. You claim you have not attacked anyone, so let's sum up

[351] - You have provided a bogus excuse... Accusing Sulfurboy of lying.

[352] - It is outrageous that you voice your own groundless opinion by claimimg that this submission "reads more like an essay" which is simply not true Accusing LittlePupper of lying.

[353] - ...you will not make any false decisions in the future. And again

[354] - General WP:BATTLE combatativeness

[355] - More combatativeness and aggression.

I could continue, but the pattern is plain to see. I will echo what BMK says above, the draft is not well written and is formatted poorly. The reviwers were all correct in rejecting the article. Yes, other articles maybe in worse shape or are unsourced, but that is a WP:OSE argument that is not entertained on Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Blackmane, I appreciate that you have started to site me but unfortunately your statements do not provide any evidence of wrongdoing on my side. I thought that I could express my humble opinion in return to the comments and occasional accusations made in my address. I didn't know that I am not allowed to do that here on Wikipedia. You should have stated that earlier in your comments. 1. "A bogus excuse" became in your vivid imagination equivalent to "accusing of lying". 2. I expressed a reasonable and well-grounded opinion that factually incorrect statement was made by saying that my article "reads more like an essay". In your vivid imagination you once again made my whole sentence equal to "accusing of lying" All other so called examples are not backed by any evidence. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Who gets to decide if I am entitled for my own opinion on the matter or not? You didn't look at the comments that were aimed at me. You didn't pay any attention to the words in those comments. Any unprejudiced person will always look at both sides. Any reasonable person will not try to allow his or her imagination to interpret the real meaning of the phrase or sentence. I am stating the facts so please refrain from any groundless accusations in my address. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The Cat 2020, just for a few things in just the first few sentences of the article: Avyar (aka Ayvar) was a Tamil Female Philosopher. ("female Tamil philosopher", Don't Capitalize Random Words.) The reverend Dr. John (and who on Earth is that?), Avyar's or Ayvar's writings contain good general ideas ("good" according to whom?), and the rest of that paragraph is relatively incomprehensible. To start the next: The exact year in which Avyar was born is unknown to us. Since the epoch in which she flourished is lost in myths, we (Wikipedia articles should be written in the third person, no "us" or "we"). To be clear, those are not the only things that would need to be corrected, those are a few examples of how the entire draft is written in a totally unencyclopedic tone. The rejections were correct, and your attitude toward those trying to help you is absolutely unacceptable. If you're not here to build an encyclopedia, in the tone and style expected of one and in collaboration with other editors without the personal attacks you've been engaging in, this is not the right place for you to be. So either mellow out and accept the help and advice of the multiple experienced editors who have offered it to you, or else you may either choose or be helped to leave. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I would like to thank you for your phrase, "or else you may either choose or be helped to leave". You have just threatened me with blocking. Do you consider this as an example of an acceptable behavior here on Wikipedia? Threats can be freely made against me but I can't even express my opinion in return. Very nice indeed! The Cat 2020 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, a warning is not a threat. And I, too, am warning you that if you don't start comporting yourself with greater moderation, you will be sanctioned. At some point, patience with your passive-aggressive and tendentious tone is going to be exhausted. Please do better. El_C 02:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, The phrase "or be helped to leave" from a person who on his home page calls himself "a deletionist" is considered a direct threat. You can no threaten a person with blocking for expressing his opinion in return to the accusations made. It was not a warning. My tone is no where to be aggressive which can be verified with the independent experts if the situation requires it. On the other hand, the tone of several commenters here was rather aggressive, on two occasions threatening and I am clearly told to either accept the factually incorrect statements towards my tone and material or "be helped to leave" the Wikipedia. One individual even censored me by deleting my legitimate and highly informative comment on the talk page without providing any good reason for the action taken. Censorship and troll-like behavior are unacceptable here on Free Wikipedia. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, regarding your mention of troll-like behavior: this will be my final warning to you. Tone it down, or you will be sanctioned without further warning. If you have evidence to submit, about talk page comment removal for example, you may do so using diffs. El_C 03:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, You have requested the evidence and I am providing it to you. Here is the link for the diffs - [356] The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have removed it necessarily, but your note was aggressive and uncalled for. You cannot interact with editors on Wikipedia in this manner. El_C 03:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the draft is very poorly written, is nowhere near encyclopedic in tone, relies on two century old sources by notable but speculative writers, and is formatted poorly. Those are all content matters, and not really a matter for this noticeboard. The real problem is the stubborn, pushy and confrontational attitude of this editor, and their extreme reluctance to take on board the good advice they are receiving from far more experienced editors. I have no solution to suggest at this time, but this is a genuine problem worthy of discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, AN/I, behavior, not content, but the behavior appears to be connected to The Cat 2020's response to the criticism of the article, so the one rises from the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Topic Ban
• 2. Deny
• 3. Move on with our lives

—AdamF in MO (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A topic ban from what? Writing drafts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They are auto-confirmed. It seems AFC is not the best method for this person to interact with the project. —AdamF in MO (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Following up on @Robert McClenon:'s comment above regarding an article on this topic already existing at Avvaiyar, I looked into the sources and believe this is the same topic (although the draft is more of a hagiography than an objective article). I believe the draft author would agree with this assessment based on their edits here [357].

As for the sources used in the draft, all I will add to the above is WP:AGE MATTERS would seem to advise caution. An article on the Roman Empire would be poorly sourced if it was written entirely based on Edward Gibbon and contemporaries. Other points/issues have been addressed by others and I won't repeat them, except to say the conduct of Cat 2000 towards others should be unacceptable.

I understand ANI is for conduct issues, not content, but I thought given the above discussion this would be the best place to post. If an admin feels my comment should be moved to a more appropriate place, please do so. I hope this finds all well.   // Timothy :: talk  03:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, I am quite shocked to see such a comment about Edward Gibbon whose works are timeless and there are tons of highly valuable information in them. People wrote research papers on his works and many other historians wrote their theses and became PhDs. You mentioned that the age matters. Please allow me to remind you that we are talking about mythology and you study mythology by going as far back in history as you can to the point when mythology becomes indeed history. You can't ask for a modern sources for the Bible, right? Similarly, you can't ask for a requirement for the modern sources for articles that are written about mythology, mythological persons, Gods and antient history. Any contemporary is a much better source than a person who lives 500-1000 or 10000 years later. It's a common sense. Please find some leisure time and read the moral sentences and other works of Avyar that I have listed. They are beneficial for anyone regardless of the time we are living in. The Cat 2020 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

First, I note you did not bother to address the first point I made above about this topic already existing at Avvaiyar.

re: Edward Gibbon - you're ignoring the substance of what I wrote. An article written entirely' based on Gibbon would be poorly sourced.

re: "You can't ask for a modern sources for the Bible, right?" - yes we can ask for modern sources and the article on the Bible is filled with modern sources.

re: "Similarly, you can't ask for a requirement for the modern sources for articles that are written about mythology..." - Yes we can and articles on these topics are filled with modern sources.

re: " read the moral sentences and other works of Avyar" irrelevant to the discussion here.

  // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, Let me remind you your own words, "An article on the Roman Empire would be poorly sourced if it was written entirely based on Edward Gibbon and contemporaries." Right now you dropped the contemporaries from your initial phrase. The article based on Edward Gibbon's and his contemporaries' sources is perfectly in line with all the rules. If you have rules in place requiring only modern sources, then I would like to see them. You can't ask for a requirement for ONLY the modern sources for articles that are written about mythology since there are no such rules in place on Wikipedia. I certainly hope that you would follow my humble recommendation and find some leisure time in your busy schedule which will allow you to read the moral sentences and other works by Avyar. Finally, if you would require only modern sources for the article about the Bible then you would have to forget what was written in the past which is unacceptable since history has to me remembered. The same applies to other topics. Something tells me that you perfectly understand the reasoning and common sense behind the issues that I have raised in my two replies to you. The Cat 2020 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Cat 2020's only contributions to Wikipedia so far, aside from the voluminous posts here, the draft mentioned above and many complaints about draft on many talk pages, have been three other edits that sought to add external links for a Russian-language video blog. There's this edit to Aleksey PushKov, this edit to Godfrey Higgins and finally the addition of this listing of videos to Geoffrey Higgins, from what is presumably the master blog from whence all the blogs come. Given the time of other editors that s being consumed here, the quality of the contributions (in particular the very crummy draft), the reluctance to take advice and the unwillingness to become less combative, they seem like a net negative to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A small suggestion. It seems like the logical thing to do, since the draft has been rejected with the "STOP' template (and there is therefore nothing left for them to complain about) might be to close this thread with a warning that civility is expected in future, and that if they're back here soon, something in the line of a stronger brew might be expected. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Please kindly refrain from using such a strong word as "combative", especially when you are trying to use it as a synonym for a "reasonable reply". I have posted reasonable and well-grounded replies on many of the messages addressed to me. At the end, you keep using the word combative without listing any facts whatsoever supporting such a strong accusation. In terms of the Russian-language news site that you have mentioned, I can just repeat that all the posts and/or additions were made in a strict accordance to the rules of Wikipedia. All the references you mentioned are relevant to the topic to which they were added. There were also English based posts on the same source that you forgot to mention. They feature 3 complete works of Avyar. The author did a great job and translated the same works to the Russian language for the first time in history which is highly notable. The same applies to Godfrey Higgins and his major work. Now it's available in Russian from the same source. Also for the first time in history. The Cat 2020 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment about me here [358] “you made a pathetic comment which is highly unprofessional and unreasonable.” certainly seems combative! Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Since The Cat 2020 has three times declined to comment about this topic already existing at Avvaiyar, along with the quality issues raised by Beyond My Ken and others and the draft author's replies to other concerns meeting WP:IDHT with no sign of relenting, I believe someone from NPP should consider tagging the draft with CSD:A10 along with a reference to this discussion and ending the content part of this discussion. Then admins may focus on the conduct issues as they see appropriate. (pinging users involved in content discussion: @Robert McClenon, Eumat114, Sulfurboy, Theroadislong, LittlePuppers, Blackmane, JoelleJay, Curdle, Beyond My Ken, Seraphimblade, Cullen, and ThatMontrealIP:   // Timothy :: talk  21:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - This shouldn't have even gone down the content rabbit hole in the first place. ANI isn't a review board for AfC decisions, there's much better venues for that. This will hopefully clear the air and allow for a focused discussion on conduct. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this is a major time waster. User does not show any interest or abitlity to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Done. Guy (help!) 22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong, My previous comment was addressed to ThatMontrealIP who used the word "combative" which doesn't apply to the tone and language of my messages and therefore he made another groundless accusation. You can read the definition for the word "pathetic" and then start discussing my comment. You are using the phrase "certainly seems" and trying to educate me about my tone? Funny! The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Guys, you have shown a great team work in removing my legitimate, well-written and highly informative article. I faced false accusations, threats of blocking me for expressing my opinion on the matter and on one occasion I was even censored - [359] . I get the picture. You will never allow me to write or publish any constructive, informative and historically important material on this "Free Wikipedia". The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was the OP, and I am satisfied with the disposition. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FREESPEECH. Blackmane (talk)

Guy's action takes the draft off the table, which means that The Cat 2020's behavior can be dealt with if it becomes an issue again. I suggest this be closed as unlikely to lead to anything else worthwhile at the moment. Another AN/I report can be filed should it become necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.   // Timothy :: talk  02:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, that would be a legitimate point if the draft had been legitimate, well-written and not a duplicate of a topic we already have. Something that was pointed out several times, and to which you responded with personal attacks. Guy (help!) 08:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, At least you are not hiding the fact that my draft and legitimate article were removed because of my "behavior". My so called "behavior" is a simple method of expressing a well-grounded opinion which is solely based on facts and truthful statements. Some people prefer truth while others prefer to make factually incorrect and misleading statements. I really enjoyed watching the show: one person proposed to remove the draft, two others agreed and the fourth person simply removed without stating any reason or proposing any explanation. You have successfully showed to me how the things really work here. On my article's talk page which is now removed one person wrote that I would not be allowed to publish my article. Thank God we are not living in Middle Ages. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said that it was deleted because of your behavior. I said that now that it has been deleted, we could move on the behavioral issues. I was assuming that you would have no reason to bad mouth AfC reviewers now that there wasn't a draaft article; obviously, I was wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Nobody is putting anything in your mouth. I am simply stating the facts as they are. You used a phrase "bad mouth" towards me which is yet another insult going unnoticed by other people involved in the discussion. The Cat 2020 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to perceive insult easily. Such a personality rarely succeeds here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Let me remind you that this thread was started by Robert McClenon who accused me of insulting others. Why don't you tell what you just told me directly to Robert McClenon who didn't provide a single convincing evidence of "insults" that were allegedly made by me? That's what you should really do. Insults towards me are going unnoticed here on this thread while I am accused of insulting others but no evidence is provided. I provided a fact which directly proves that you insulted me. Did someone here put you on notice for doing that? Why not? The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:The Cat 2020 - See Law of holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020: You're really big on "reminding people" about stuff. Perhaps you should assume the the folks participating here are actually following the discussion and don't really need to be "reminded" so often. You can use the energy you put into reminding people to actually pay attention to the advice you're being given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Do you think it's productive to fly away from the point made in my previous reply to you? A good editor can not ignore facts stated. By changing the narrative of any productive conversation, the party initiating the change, always shows the weakness and inability to be a part of a reasonable conversation based on the rules of common sense and logic. Was my last sentence "poorly written"? I am asking because I have noticed that the better the sentence is constructed, the worse its chances are to be recognized as being properly written. By the way, several people keep addressing me as "they" but I can't even question the fact that the salutation is being "poorly written". I asked that question and got another "they" in return, so I assumed it has become a part of a new proper English. I can't even question these things here because I will become "combative" with a "bad mouth" who is recommended to be blocked indefinitely for the future events which might never happen in reality. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (The Cat 2020)

This is based on the communication seen here and on what talk pages are publicly available. The Cat 2020 is reminded that per WP:5P4, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:BRD all editors are supposed to edit collegiality. Their conduct and tone has been seen by multiple editors as less than ideal. Further edits in the same conduct/tone could be cause for sanctions to address disruptive editing up to and including indefinite blocks and community bans.

Ping for editors concerned 1 (Robert McClenon—Sulfurboy—The Cat 2020—Eumat114—Blackmane—JoelleJay—Blackmane—Beyond My Ken—Seraphimblade—El C)2 (Cullen328—TimothyBlue—ThatMontrealIP—JzG)Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer especially in light of continued discourteous behavior after the draft being addressed still indicates that action needs to be taken to protect Wikipedia from further disruption. Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to the Proposal 2: Firstly, I was wrongfully accused of "insulting others". No facts were provided.

Secondly, my draft was simply erased from Wikipedia even though previous request for its speedy deletion was successfully denied. One person "proposed", two others "agreed" and the fourth person "removed" my legitimate draft. It's like the USSR troika tribunals.

Thirdly, some people started to discuss so called "behavioral issues". Only a professional doctor can use such a strong term against other people. These comments and terms are abusive and insulting and they are addressed to me.

Fourthly, "proposal 2" was made which seems to be the real reason for the whole process here since the Hasteur is looking into the future possible "sanctions" and then states that,"action needs to be taken to protect Wikipedia from further disruption." Basically this user is proposing to block me indefinitely for possible future actions which I "could" commit. I am putting such comments and "proposals" on notice and you can not simply continue such a witch-hunt. Hasteur thinks that he has the right to propose an action in advance, even before my "further edits" which I am not even making at the moment. Where is your common sense? What else can be proposed against me for the actions I never committed? The Cat 2020 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Cat 2020: I'm trying to indicate as strongly as possible that you're on your absolute last chance before you're going to be blocked indefinitely. Rebuttal to your first: Your behavior in this thread would normally and your behavior is being tolerated (in part) because you only created the account on 15:21, 17 May 2020. Rebuttal to second point: Your draft was removed because there's already an existing page that is much better developed that appears to cover the topic. We're trying to funnel your efforts to editing and improving the already existing page rather than fighting with editors about one specific copy that you're arguing about in draftspace. Rebuttal to third point: You're right, Wikipedians can't diagnose or treat mental illness, but we can demand that you obey the generally held conventions here at Wikipedia or you can be denied the privilege of being able to edit. Rebuttal to Fourth point: I don't know if they have the concept in your locale but the proposal is akin to Three-strikes law where you've already burned through a great amount of other editors good faith by being so caustic and abrasive. We're attempting to warn you every possible way that the next time you significantly fail to adhere to the principles of Wikipedia, you may be denied the ability to edit until we have reasonable belief that you won't disrupt the collective editing environment again. TLDR: We're trying to craft a "This is your final chance to change your behavior" warning/reminder. I strongly recommend you read the Wikipedia Policy/Rules that I included in the warning otherwise I see little chance in you moving forward in your editing career. Hasteur (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm leaning more toward a short vacation for disruptive editing. The Cat 2020 clearly does not work or play well with others, and may need a time out to readjust their thinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block - due to WP:IDHT, WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:CIVIL and probably a heap of others. Seems to be more interested in defending their honour than improving an encyclopedia... so I guess that WP:NOTHERE also belongs on the list. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the admonition above, but noting that The Cat 2020 appears to be ready to ignore the admonition. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I will observe that a major part of the issue is that The Cat 2020 obviously does not understand that what is well-written for one purpose is not the same as what is well-written for another purpose. They keep insisting that their draft was well-written, and I am willing to agree that it satisfied some standards, which is one of the reasons why the community was initially willing to work with The Cat 2020 to improve their draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - It is true that their draft was deleted from Wikipedia without a formal consensus. That is why speedy deletion is called speedy. After some discussion, it became clear that the subject poet and philosopher already has an article. A different transliteration of her name is still her name. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Let me remind you that on my draft's page you can find the information about the request for speedy deletion. The user simply requested speedy deletion and his request was denied. I created a discussion on draft's talk page and within short period of time somebody proposed here to delete my article. Two persons agreed and the fourth person deleted my article.

By the way, on your talk page I wrote about the Sun-God named Bel/Bil which is the same as Bile. Just read my message and you will understand the complicated part about mythology-history connection.

Also please read what the user named Hasteur wrote above. Do you find the "proposition" to block me permanently for POSSIBLE future "behavior" an acceptable one? It's like firing a person in 2020 for a possible misconduct in 2022 which is ridiculous. When I stated my facts he threatened me again" "This is your final chance to change your behavior" warning/reminder. I am just waiting to see the third proposition because users seem to be very determined on this thread. I expected that after my draft was deleted, the discussion would be closed but it seems that Hasteur was patiently waiting to post his "proposition" in order to block me for a possible future conduct or "behavior". I am just replying to the messages I am receiving in order to state the facts. The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hasteur, You wrote, "Their conduct and tone has been seen by multiple editors as less than ideal." Who are "they"? What are you talking about". The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, You wrote that you "support the admonition above but noting that" I "appear to be ready to ignore the admonition". If Hasteur proposed to block me indefinitely for a supposed conduct which could happen in the future then how I can "appear to ignore the admonition" he is cheering for? I am plainly stating my opposition to such a dangerous practice for blocking person indefinitely for the conduct that they might done in the future. That's plain censorship and you should read President Trump's Executive order on preventing online censorship which can be found here [360] The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you consult Law of holes, unless your purpose is to get blocked from editing, in which case, carry on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block - both guidance and warnings (including a daylong [upd: now indef for EL spam] block on ru.wp) have shown themselves to be ineffective in improving behavior. Disruptive editing, getting awfully close to fringing on legal threats with the executive order comment above, continue to occur; per IDHT and NOTHERE, The Cat 2020 staying around is not likely to be conducive to building an encyclopedia (our purpose), and as such I see only one inevitable conclusion, which we might as well not draw out too much longer than necessary. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, Friendly advice to read President Trump's Executive order on preventing online censorship is now assumed by you as "getting awfully close to fringing on legal threats? WOW, that's something surreal. My comment is perfectly in line with the course of discussion here and relevant to the fact already stated: I was censored here [361]. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block As Xtools shows, the user has not made any consequential contributions to the encyclopedia. Reasonable requests, comments or questions are met with combative responses. Intransigent might be another way of describing their interactions here. The user is very strongly a net negative to the work we are doing here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block Per IDHT and WP:PACT - The Cat 2020 has not shown that they understand the concerns above, and keeps claiming that they can't see what's wrong with telling others that they made "childish comments" or the like and instead they keep writing repeated walls of texts professing their ignorance of the issue (grounds for CIR too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Let me show an example of double standards. You are marking my informative replies and comments as "combative responses" which is solely you own opinion not supported by the evidence of the alleged wrongdoing. If I were to say exactly the same thing in regards to your comments aimed at me, which I never did, you would have raised an issue about "insults", "bad behavior" or "bad tone". That's a clear example of double standards. I refuse to accept the factually incorrect marking of my highly professional and informative replies as "combative responses". I put you on notice for doing that, i.e. for making factually incorrect markings of my comments and/or statements. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Block From this discussion and the discussion on the (now) deleted draft, Cat 2020 shows no signs of being willing to listen and work with other editors WP:IDHT, they have a combative and insulting attitude towards others which shows no sign of being moderated and is causing disruption WP:DE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL, has repeatedly refused to WP:AGF towards others, and has not shown any sign that they have or are willing read and be guided by any of the editing policies and guidelines that have been pointed out many times by over a dozen editors. They have been warned by uninvolved admins and others about these problems, but this has had no effect.   // Timothy :: talk  03:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question for @The Cat 2020: it would be helpful to know if at this point you are willing to stop, listen, change and abide by the guidance provided to you by other editors in this discussion and on the draft, or is it your intention to continue in the same manner with this discussion and your future editing?   // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, I was always reasonable. That's number one. You once again made a strong accusation towards me by saying, "they have a combative and insulting attitude" By the way, you are the third editor who is calling me "they". Who are "they"?

You asked, "it would be helpful to know if at this point you are willing to stop, listen, change ...". My answer to you: when you will show the willingness to stop making factually incorrect accusations towards me. You are asking for my blocking. You are making accusations without providing any supportive evidence. The "proposition 2" is asking to block me for the future misconducts which I never even committed. Do you think it would have been nice to put a stop to that "proposition 2"? It should have been scrapped from the very beginning because it's asking for a block for a future "behavior" or conduct. Not for the past or present, but for the FUTURE. You should ask the question you asked me to Hasteur who initiated the "proposal 2". I am replying only because I have the right to reply to the "proposition 2" made and I have the right to defend myself from any factually incorrect statement and/or accusations. I didn't start this thread so you shouldn't ask me. Ask others. I am only responding to messages to which my response in necessary. When the unfounded accusations will stop, then I will stop responding. That's just the common sense and logical outcome. I would have rather discussed my draft and/or new proposition for Wikipedia but you refuse to let me go by claiming that, "they have a combative and insulting attitude". Your last sentence is equally applicable to you and this is not the place for double standards. I think everyone should agree on that. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate answer. I was hoping to find a way to deescalate this situation and find a way to help you learn to contribute productively. I see that is not possible.

re: The use of "they". Since no one here knows your gender identity, it is appropriate to use the neutral pronoun "they". If you have a preference, you can set this in your preferences and state it on your userpage.

re: "The "proposition 2" is asking to block me for the future misconducts which I never even committed." Blocking is prevenative WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE not punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. So yes it is appropriate to block you to prevent future misconduct.

  // Timothy :: talk  05:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block. WP:CIR above all, but as others mentioned, WP:IDHT. The pace at which this editor is continuing to WP:WIKILAWYER even during this RfC is incredible. Instead of trying to assess why so many have problems with their behavior, they'd rather talk about their "right to reply". They clearly need a break to figure out whether they're here or not here. The exhausting wikilawyering to everyone who replies to this thread does nothing to build the encyclopedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block per NOTHERE, CIR, IDHT, Disruptive editing and tendentious editing. Doesn't need to be indef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block Per NOTHERE. This user's response are stretching AGF to it's breaking point. All of this user's responses have been non-collegael, and hostile. A short block may turn this user around. --AdamF in MO (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.