Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Change to all our welcome templates

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

---

We recently had a change to our main welcome template....this of course did not fly over well with many old timers but most were willing to live with it as those familiar with the templates simply used others that still contained all the important links , But now we have ever template changed to this users preferred format and their favorite links with ZERO talk. This mass change to our templates had changed the wording all over and has resulted in the removed of links to our five pillars and to simple how to pages like the simplified MOS and links to our article wizard and how to edit a page....while at the same time highlighting their favorite links to be more dominate then the links related to the templates purpose. Really think we need a wider talk on the matter before a mass change to drop our main links that we have had for over a decade. The editor in question has been reverted a few time but do we really want to mass revert and cause more problems till we have a solution? As a NEW template editor who knows this may be contentious they should be following the rules outlined at Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes.--Moxy 🍁 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious blunder here, I'm confused as to what possible benefit granting sdkb TPE has for the project...this right should be yanked until they explain this mess and you know...the need. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, good shout, I have done this. It was probationary anyway - I think we can consider this as evidence that the user is not ready for this right. Courtesy ping Primefac, who granted the right. This is a WP:AGF thing I think: an excess of enthusiasm on Sdkb's part but nonetheless incompatible with the initial temporary grant of template editor rights. Guy (help!) 14:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that Guy. As you say, this was largely an AGF thing - I had actually written out a rather large post at their initial application detailing why I felt they should not receive the right, but I felt that my personal opinions were getting too much in the way of a good faith request, so in self-reflection I opted to grant it temporarily to (if anything) prove myself wrong. I should have listened to my gut, I guess. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I think you did right, because the problem doesn't appear to have been that hard to fix. Guy (help!) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, so revert it and discuss at an appropriate venue. Guy (help!) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I would revert all...but since I have had the same conflict with them over the main template and a few others ....think its best a third party do all the reverts. I got an email this morning asking WTF is going on by someone who cant revert because of the protection level involved.--Moxy 🍁 13:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, OK, done then. Guy (help!) 14:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree; significant changes to templates should be vetted, or at the very least proposed first before being mass-implemented. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree here too! -- Alexf^(talk) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

 Comment from Sdkb Hello all — this was obviously rather unpleasant to wake up to. There seems to be a large misunderstanding here that I was making edits with "ZERO talk" or consensus. That is not true. Some context: At the widely-attended Village Pump discussion on the standard welcome template that was closed last month, there was strong consensus in favor of the general changes proposed (reducing links, making the template more personal, and better visual design), and a rough consensus in favor of the specific proposed template. It's important to note that, while I respect much of the work Moxy has done, they were the primary dissenter, and have strenuously resisted implementation at several turns since. The main welcome template was subsequently updated, and at Template:Welcome-anon, we established with the closer over Moxy's lone objection that the changes carry to other welcome templates with the same basic structure as Template:Welcome. Prior to this change, I posted at Template talk:Welcome to see if anyone objected to adding the parameters that would be needed for the change, and no one replied (the welcome templates are a notoriously neglected area), so I went ahead and added them.

Regarding the merits of the change to wrappers, there is a clear need for consolidation among the welcome templates to help make them easier to maintain, within the spirit of WP:CONSOLIDATE. Many of them claimed to be e.g. "the same as the standard welcome, just with [variation]", when in fact they had drifted out of alignment not just years but many years ago. Thus, as an implementation of the VPR consensus, I had been updating them to bring them back into alignment and set them up to stay synced to the main welcome via use of a wrapper. I rolled out cautiously, starting with Template:Welcome-autosign a month ago (converting to a module on the 6th) and then Template:Welcome cookie on May 3. I also asked a brief question at the technical pump that didn't hide what I was working on. There were no objections raised, and I did extensive sandbox and testcase testing and confirmed that Twinkle still functioned properly. Given all that, I saw fit to roll out the change to other welcomes that had a very similar format to the standard welcome. It's important to note that most of them are very low use compared to the main welcome; only two or so were template-protected, and most allowed edits by all users. During implementation, I studiously took care not to make any radical changes to the wording (despite plenty of instances where it could really use a refresh—again, this is a neglected area where it's hard to have big discussions), and I preserved formatting at templates like {{Welcome-vandalism-fighter}}. I did not wrapperify templates that differed substantially from the format of the main welcome (e.g. {{Welcome screen}}, {{W-FAQ}}; my only recent edit at the latter is fixing an unambiguous copy error that has now been reintroduced), as was agreed here.

I am not surprised to see Moxy disgruntled, but I'm disappointed to see that this was already closed so quickly by the single sysop out of any on Wikipedia I'd consider most WP:INVOLVED with me (due to a recent unrelated matter), and that that sysop has subsequently reverted not just the changes I made turning the welcomes into wrappers, but what looks like it may be my entire history of template edits, including many from months or years ago that appear to have zero connection here (e.g. [1]). Given my extensive backlog, I have no clue what sort of errors or downgrades that might be reintroducing, but I'd expect that there will be plenty. There was no need to revert on such a massive scale so hastily given that nothing was broken, and the rollbacks are unquestionably doing more damage than whatever objections there might be to the wrapperification. I hope that it will be possible to fix this all up without too much effort.

Overall, it looks like I did move too quickly on this, and I certainly erred in using only a basic edit summary ("turning into a wrapper template to keep synced with main welcome") that didn't include a link to the discussions. I'm happy to open up a larger discussion on wrapperification, but I think the immediate pressing need here is to undo the damage from the far too blunt rollback (restoring everything prior to this edit apart from the {{Welcome cookie}} test should be sufficient). Apologies that this has ended up here, and my thanks to those of you putting in effort to review everything. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging prior participants and others involved: @L235, Moxy, Praxidicae, Primefac, JzG, Ohnoitsjamie, Alexf, and Naypta: thanks for your attention{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, disclosing that I noticed on my watchlist Pppery undoing some of the individual rollback edits that broke things. I left a message on their talk page about cleaning up the damage from the rollback, and there is some discussion beginning there on that topic. I won't be making any direct edits to live templates while this thread is active. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Without comment as to the merits of granting or revoking the template editor role, I am very disappointed in the conduct of the user filing this ANI thread. Bringing a non-conduct dispute to ANI and, critically, withholding relevant context from the thread is misrepresenting the situation to the community. The filer failed to link to the relevant VPR discussion or to previous discussion at another welcome template talk page or to another one (all of which he vigorously participated in and knew were relevant). I understand that the filer and others feel strongly about this template, but this comes across as a trick designed to make Sdkb look more culpable. I also understand the filer's position that the consensus at VPR only applies to the {{welcome}} template and not to the others, and I think he's partially right about that, but it's really unfair to imply that all of these changes were entirely made without discussion and to neglect to mention Sdkb's likely position that the consensus covered the other templates. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They were fully aware that this would be contentious and have out right lied that I am the only one that contested the changes (very disappointing to see this). What we have is an overzealous new editor that is all over the place trying to make changes and getting into conflicts in many placed over their persistent approach.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• So there's a lot to unwrap here. I'm in no position to be qualified to opine on the template editor role, so much like Kevin I won't even try and get into that. The discussion I had with Sdkb over at Template talk:Welcome-delete may be of interest; I asked in particular about whether consensus had been established, and Sdkb told me All of these templates started out as variations of the standard welcome template (you can find lots of old references to "same as the standard welcome but with..." for templates that are no longer actually the same), but they just drifted out of sync over time, so yeah, I think it can be assumed that the consensus ideal practice is to keep them synced, and converting to a wrapper will help with that in the future (it should have been done when these were created, but either people didn't know how or the functionality didn't exist back then).

  I'll freely admit I'm not the greatest fan of the new welcome template, and I hadn't seen that VPR discussion - but that's on me for not seeing it, not on Sdkb, who did obtain consensus for that change. Whether or not there was consensus to make all the other templates a wrapper, however, I can see is a point of contention. I'm inclined to say that there may well not have been, in fact, but I don't think Sdkb in any way intended for that to be the case, and I'm yet to see any evidence whatsoever that would call into doubt their good faith in all of these matters. They may have been mistaken in their modifications, which were definitely bold even if there was consensus, but I think it's clear from the extensive discussions they'd had on the subject that they were not operating in bad faith.

  I, like L235, am concerned by the way that Moxy went about this all; I think the quote from Template talk:Welcome-anon in response to Kevin politely suggesting that they perhaps ought to revert their good faith edits sums it up: Yes very bad close but it was not about this template. That said its a much bigger problem then just here. Will have to write up a proper RFC to fix all the problems we now have. Will revert to show good faith... will just need a better explanation so others not familiar with how to retain editors can understand. This quote, of course, was from a page that was not disclosed when this report was made to ANI. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Moxy's being deliberately antagonistic or acting in bad faith either; from their point of view, I can see that these changes are extremely frustrating, much more widespread than perhaps had been previously understood to be the case, and done by a relatively new template editor. However, it's possible they're unintentionally biased by their own opinions and experiences; the same reasoning we ask for uninvolved admins applies here IMO.

  I left a message on JzG's talk page talking about his reversion of a particular edit Sdkb had made to a page I was watching, and he quite happily reverted his rollback there, which is good. I hadn't, however, realised that he had been just rolling back all of Sdkb's template modifications, including the ones that they had made prior to being granted template editor and far prior to any of these modifications. Once again, I don't think this is a deliberate abuse, and I don't think it's bad faith, but I do think it was a mistake under the circumstances and not really warranted.

  The final thing I want to address here is the early "closure" of this ANI discussion: I'm really not sure it's appropriate in a case like this to have closed the discussion before the subject of the discussion has even been able to come to ANI and discuss the problem. There was no urgent reason to close that I can see: if participants felt urgent action was needed, they could have taken that action, but left the discussion open such that Sdkb was able to respond to the criticisms that had been levelled against them. Inevitably, such a closure just results in the discussion continuing, making the point of closure rather moot.

  Overall, I don't think there's sufficient evidence at the moment to suggest that this is a case of bad faith on any side - which is sort of what makes it so difficult. A lot of people have made various mistakes here, often by feeling they're really doing the right thing for the encyclopedia as a whole - which is a great feeling, and we ought to make sure we're not discouraging any editors from feeling that. I suggest we collectively take this as a learning opportunity for the future, and it'd be good to get a completely uninvolved administrator to review all of this and suggest some learning points for people (including myself!) where appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup still agree it was a very bad close. As stated in the close no consensus on links to use.... no consensus to use action buttons and definitely no consensus to change every template to the same thing whatever that is. Only consensus was to trim links. Because of this horrible close with little direction we are now here dealing with this over talking about how to retain the thousands of potential editor's that are losing interest about learning how to edit with the new format.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to be making claims like "we might be losing thousands of editors to this". If you look at that same graph over a longer period, the story is quite different. And that's not to mention, of course, the fact that "clicks on this help article in particular" are not the same as "new wiki users coming along and learning". Whilst I do appreciate your genuinely-held concern for ensuring new editors know what they're doing, I'm not sure this is the venue for it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The link your saying shows better stats shows me that it's even worse than I thought.....more the 80 percent give up on the first page....that page has zero data to help add a reference. We should be learing from our past mistakes...not trying them again for the 4th time.Wikipedia:Adventure was once a preferred link til the same type of data came up.--Moxy 🍁 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, my take: the tempalte editor right was granted in good faith, Sdkb acted in good faith, Moxy reported in good faith, several uninvolved editors and admins commented in good faith, and now we have a good faith fight about what to do with the aftermath :-)

I am happy to help fix whatever mess remains, of course. If only I knew what the consensus view is of "mess". Guy (help!) 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia. Never change. The only place where this discussion isn't just a food fight I agree with you, JzG. I'd like to suggest that part of the solution to this is a full and formal RfC process, notwithstanding the previously closed discussion at VPR: I think there's now separate issues which have been raised, which need separate discussion, not just of the main welcome template but also of now all the other ones. In terms of the immediate aftermath - do we know if any welcome templates are currently in an unusable state? They might well have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they're currently usable, it might be best to leave them how they are now until a stronger consensus is obtained. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, an RfC makes perfect sense. Guy (help!) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If Sdkb and Moxy are happy with that, I'm happy to go and write one up in neutral text seeing as I'm only tangentially involved in any of this, probably on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates (unless anyone has any better suggestions for a venue). And no, I didn't just accidentally transclude the entire article for the letter P onto the Incidents page briefly before fixing it, what are you talking about... Facepalm Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I'd be happy with you opening an RfC at that page. Regarding timing, there's a lot of cleanup that needs to be done to reverse the damage caused by the mass rollback. That and addressing the conduct issues raised here is going to preoccupy myself and others in this area for a bit, so I think things may go smoother if we wait for this thread to settle and be closed before launching that, so that we can devote our attention to one thing at a time. But the decision is up to you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.....now that we have raw data and guideline updates about accessibility the outcome should be more definitive in nature. I believe all those involved in one RFC should be notified and the 8 or so editors involved in talks at the individual templates should get a wider say. We currently have an odd problem that people are creating new welcome templates because of how upset they are about the changes.--Moxy 🍁 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I now use User:Johnuniq/Welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note for closer: A previous reclose of this conversation was undone by the closer following discussion here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Following up, despite the agreement on how to handle the wrapperification question, this thread is still unresolved. A large portion of all the template edits I have ever made completely unrelated to welcome templates remain accidentally rolled back (with damage compounding), and the initial close remains in place despite the follow-up which established (from others, not just myself) that it was made lacking vital context left out by the filer. Pinging the uninvolved admins who commented at the top and may not have seen the follow-up @Praxidicae, Ohnoitsjamie, and Alexf: I know that my comment above is long, but please consider reading it and the subsequent discussion that affirms it. If the consensus is no longer what it was, the unsupported actions hastily taken from what it was should be reversed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology sprawling edit war

I am bringing this edit war here because it has erupted across multiple articles and multiple editors are involved; it overwhelms the WP:AN/EW mechanism (as well as me).

The articles (that I know of) are:

• Ufology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• USS Nimitz UFO incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Efforts on my part and others to defuse the Ufology situation failed, some warnings were issued on user and article talk pages (though not systematic, I am afraid), and the article was recently locked for a few days. But within hours of the lock expiring the warring restarted.

Involved editors, on one or more articles, and broadly in order of aggression and deafness, are:

• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also signs themself jps and claims to be a professional WP:EXPERT.
• Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Driverofknowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turns out to be a sock — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are not as one might suppose straight believer vs skeptic but more nuanced PoV stances over things like the precise scope of the article and which aspects of scepticism to emphasise (The situation is not helped by RS which have internal inconsistencies). There is relatively little maliciousness here, just durn stubborn-ness on this particular topic. I'd like to suggest a lengthy topic ban on all ufology-related pages, failing that account blocks. Also a reversion to the last stable version of each article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I object to any lengthy topic bans imposed on me. I have also been of the opinion that there might be a couple of socks in amongst us miscreants listed here. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I feel all parties bare some blame here. So I would agree any sanction must be applied to all of them with out prejudice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add Steven to the group of miscreants, and apply some sanctions without prejudice to him. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What? When was the last time I edited that article? Talk about tit for tat.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact my biggest crime (and I am gonna do it again) is to ask for full page protection and a reset to before this kicked off.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, you haven't been edit warring. Neither have I. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No in the sense of breaching 3RR no, but you have reverted back to a version that is contentious, that does not have consensus despite the fact the page had been locked over it. What did I do?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies I was looking at this [[2]] which was of course before the page was reset, and looks like the current version that has been edit warred back in [[3]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Now what have I done?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean...this reaction by Roxy is a disgrace. Steelpillow has attempted to mediate all the time and (although we have often disagreed) he is the only participant in this mess (besides me, but WP:MRDA) that has consistently attempted to de-escalate, compromise and contribute positively to discussion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Involved comment: Thank you for opening this report Steelpillow. Your attempts at mediation have been very much appreciated. I am afraid this is beyond mediation though so I agree it was time to open a report (just look at the shameful attack by Roxy the dog above...what a disgrace).

I think the situation is untenable and denotes a systemic issue. I have been dedicating substantial time to editing those pages and the process has been extenuating. Never had anything similar in over 10 years of editing various wiki projects. I'm afraid dealing with the incessant warring requires an unjustifiable amount of time and patience. If I wasn't in quarantine those users would just degrade those articles unabated and no other users have the maniacal patience required to deal with them. At this point I'm only occasionally editing and most of the time pushing back against constantly unsourced WP:POVPUSHing with no respect for the WP:5P.

Those users are ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mostly), Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (never edits and just reverts and attacks) and LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (much less aggressive and reasonable than the other two users). With constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting. Almost 90% of my edits is reverted by those users. That's when I start a discussion on the talk page and mayhem ensues. Sometimes a third party arrives and is able to bring the discussion back to reason. But usually the discussion is so sprawling and filled with WP:PA that no-one bothers with it. In the mean time the page remains defaced as I consciously try to avert more warring by waiting for more editors to step in.

Some of those user's ban logs prove they are serially unable to contribute to Wikipedia in a WP:CIVIL way. [Link to off-Wikipedia harassment of opponent removed. Gtoffoletto, have some sense, don't post links like that again. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).]. This must stop.

There have been several recent ANI reports against those users: [4] [5]

I have raised those issues myself once already and asked for admin advice/help on how to handle this. I was blocked for WP:FORUMSHOPping and asked to never ask for help regarding those users again [6]. I've tried collaborating with those users but I believe it is impossible.

Honestly I could go on for hours as this is spectacularly widespread and documented but I think I've made my case. If more is needed just ask and I will provide it.

A couple more pages that show this unstoppable tendency to turn wikipedia into a WP:BATTLE (this list could be much longer):

• Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• To the Stars (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Ufo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a colossal waste of time and effort by multiple editors and is degrading the encyclopedia. The discussions are never regarding sources. This is always just a revert competition with no respect for others and guidelines at all. Some Admin must unfortunately take the time to review in depth this situation. It is the only way to fix this once and for all. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I see one editor was a sockpuppet. I would recommend using whatever tools admins have to verify all users in this discussion. Some of them have been accused of "sockpuppeteering" in the past and their alignment in space-time across wiki is highly suspect to me (just a hunch). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose SPI is not a fishing expedition, and while there may be an element of tag teaming it is only to the degree of users who agree on certain topics will tend to edit the same way (as Ironically me and guy are at the moment on certain topics).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Thank you for the additional page links. Unfortunately, being for the most part reasonable is no excuse for warring behaviour on the articles themselves. My suggestion of a temporary topic ban is so that you can cool down and reflect on that lesson, I have no wish to see you disappear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Nimitz and TR articles are very close to hoaxes. There were no "incidents", just three videos (called "Gimbal", "Go fast", and "FLIR") from airplane radars. The History channel got a hold of them in 2017 and made one of those stupid TV specials with retired pilots saying silly things like "There is no known aircraft that can stay aloft without generating a heat signature" (uhh it's called a helium balloon duh). The videos that purport to show "unexplained" phenomenon have all been very well explained years ago. Now that the Navy has "officially" released the videos in 2020, interest is renewed. This is a topic where we need to be careful to stick to real science sources and avoid pop science and primary sources. As it is now, these articles come dangerously close to perpetuating a hoax. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich and am very tempted to topic ban Gtoffoletto from all UFO-related articles for persistent tendentious editing. AFAICS, jps is defending real science, while Roxy only seems marginally involved in these wars — not sure why he's listed above, unless I've missed something. Also, Gtoffoletto, linking to ANI reports on your opponents, and even to off-Wikipedia attacks on them (!), as you do above, does not show you in a shining light. Are you aware that anybody can open an ANI report? Everybody who edits controversial articles, and everybody who has been here a long time, is likely to have some ANI reports against them. Both the discussions of Roxy that you link to [7][8] were quickly closed without action, one of them with the comment that the report "was an astoundingly bad idea". Please don't poison the well with such stuff. It won't work. Bishonen | tålk 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

• Bishonen, regarding applying a topic ban to Gtoffoletto — I was thinking the same thing. Too much pro-WP:FRINGE promotion, to say the least. El_C 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• I unfortunately must agree with El_C and Bishonen that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO topics, broadly construed, is likely in order. Such a topic ban would prevent both continued disruption on the listed pages and, if this "style" of editing was to continue, harsher sanctions. This editor has consistently displayed a clear pro-fringe WP:CPP, as mentioned elsewhere in this report a lack of WP:AGF, and it has all come with a strong dose of WP:BLUDGEON (for example, here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• A couple of hours ago I thought I'd edited here to agree that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO related topics is a good idea. Unfortunately something happened and all that I left was an edit summary (and I presume a space or it wouldn't have saved at all). Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting possible paranormal or extraterrestrial activity may be at work? Maybe a government coverup? EEng 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's actually governmental activity and an extraterrestrial coverup. Or is that a distinction without a difference?) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just as likely Government censorship abetted by extraterrestrial overlords. Has been occurring since Roswell. :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich and others you are all invited to edit those pages. I understand some of you don't like those topics. But those pages are not my opinions. My opinions are irrelevant as well as yours. We only report sources. And I am very careful in my sourcing given the delicate topic. If you don't like what the sources say that's not my problem. I am not perfect and sometimes the sources I present are disputed. That's how wikipedia works. If the sources I use are not appropriate you are invited to dispute them in a civil way. Saying those pages are "hoaxes" is your opinion and that is also irrelevant to wikipedia. I have personally started and written most of the Theodore Roosevelt page. It has 29 reputable sources. Please tell me which of them are not appropriate for Wikipedia and I will be the one to remove it immediately. I also would like to ask what other editors that have participated in editing those pages think regarding the fact that the "blame" for this should be placed exclusively on me Steelpillow Slatersteven and others? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I never looked before, but now that I look and I see that both these articles have one editor as a primary author, it all makes more sense how we got here. I don't want to argue the content dispute at ANI, but, just as one example, the "GOFAST" video mentioned in USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents shows a helium weather balloon. One can use the information on the video (altitude, airspeed, etc.), and do some basic trigonometry, and determine that the object on the video, despite the name "GOFAST", is actually moving at wind speed (20-40 knots), and the only reason it appears to go fast is because of parallax effect. Yet, in our article, none of this is mentioned. The words "balloon" and "parallax" aren't even in the article. The articles present the controversy without at all presenting the explanation, making it seem like these are UFOs, when they're not.

  Here are some sources explaining these three videos: [9] [10] [11] [12]

  These two articles should be merged into one, because they are not reported in RSes as two separate incidents; rather, RSes cover the three videos as one topic. I have no idea what we should name that one article ("Pentagon UFO videos"?). Then they need to be rewritten to remove all of the primary sources and all of the "so-and-so speculated that..." speculation reported in the popular press. And the debunking content needs to be added in. All of that is content dispute stuff to be discussed elsewhere. I will go tag the articles and start a talk page discussion. I'll leave the conduct issues to others to discuss. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Update: I've tagged both articles {{fringe}} and {{merge}} and started a discussion at Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents#Combine and rewrite to avoid fringe. Also, I find comments like "I understand some of you don't like those topics." and "You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco" un-collegial; we shouldn't speculate on other editor's motivations or knowledge. Focus on edits not editors and all that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither "side" had (to my mind) adhered to policy and both sides have edit warred. I was not aware wP:fringe was a justification for edit warring, but nor is wp:npov (which also does not trump fringe, but then fringe does not trump it). This is a case of too may people thinking their view is the only right view. As to mergers and content discussion, this is not the place for that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that we should not be taking sides in a content dispute. Being right does not justify edit warring. Check out the many edits and associated discussions and you will see that ජපස has been blatantly pushing their own particular skeptical PoV on the grounds that they are an WP:EXPERT, for example writing"Speaking as someone who professionally studies UFOs and is not a ufologist", while simultaneously trying to impose overly-pedantic and faintly tortured content such as qualifying "Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)" with "...by people who believe they are worthy of study" and then trying to stick with it in the face of a clear consensus against, as in this example restoration. So please let's not go demonising or exonerating editors based on their content PoV but judge them all equally on their editorial behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict: @Levivich: You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco. It's a complicated situation that requires careful review of what happened and no gut reactions. I'm sorry but hasty comments like yours without reviewing the material fully are not helpful and may be used to distort this process.

In any case, this is not the place to discuss the article content. I welcome your sources (CNET is not much of a source but it's fine) and would gladly add them to the article. However please do not include your original research but only statements supported by sources. I also think GOFAST could be the first of the three videos to be explained. But that's irrelevant. That's how wikipedia works. Sources. Not original research. I'm glad you want to participate in editing this. I've been trying to "recruit" more editors for months. See you on the article page! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, you won't if you're topic banned, which is what I am weighing right now. Some of your responses above do not inspire confidence that you understand what the problem is — that you even understand that there is a problem. Which is not a good sign. El_C 19:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This comment, I am very aware of Mick West's analysis and am talking with him on Metabunk on the flaws with his explanations. Please join us there if you are interested in the subject!, is concerning. Metabunk is a website where these videos have been analyzed/debunked, and Mick West is one of the leading debunkers, and is interviewed in each of the four sources I posted above. I'm not sure exactly why arguing with our sources' sources concerns me, but it just seems inappropriate for an editor to edit an article while simultaneously trying to influence the RSes that the article is based on. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Done. I have topic banned Gtoffoletto indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to UFOs and ufology, broadly construed, with an invitation to appeal the ban in three months' time. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

This is so profoundly wrong that I won't even appeal it. I'm abandoning Wikipedia indefinitely. I have lost faith in the project. No wonder the number of users is constantly declining. What an utter disappointment. This Kangaroo court is a disgrace. I will wear this ban as a badge of honour. Goodbye. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have edited my page with a full statement and placed this ban as the first item. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Best of luck in your future endeavors. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Bishonen. I'm glad to have missed this but FWIW I endorse that action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So, the consensus here seems to be that we have eliminated the fringe pushing lunatic (me) with an indefinite topic ban, while the other poor victims were "just defending science", are totally absolved and deserve another barnstar. Quite a stark difference from what the users actually participating on those pages (Steelpillow,Slatersteven) have proposed and the original report. I'd like some direct comments confirming this by the admins involved (or others?) if possible: Bishonen, El C, Johnuniq, Doug Weller to have this very clearly on the record. The other users reported are among the most active on Wikipedia in the world (source) while I am just an occasional editor. This makes me irrelevant while their actions have long-term and significant impacts on the entire project. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: this ban is not about consensus. The sanction I placed was my own decision per the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience that you were alerted to in February.[13] You may want to reread the alert, where it is explained that "Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic." They're called discretionary because any administrator may impose them at their sole discretion. That's what I did, impose your topic ban at my discretion, not per consensus here on ANI. (If consensus had been in question, it would have been a "community sanction" instead of an ArbCom discretionary sanction, and I would have waited for a stronger and clearer consensus — for instance, waited for El C to speak more strongly.) I was indeed encouraged to see El C, Doug Weller, JoJo Anthrax, and Johnuniq agreeing with me and adding their own points (that's three admins and an experienced editor). I'm a little surprised to see you imply that I should have paid more heed to editors involved on the UFO pages (Steelpillow and Slatersteven) than to uninvolved admins/editors. Usually, at ANI, uninvolved experienced users who cast a critical eye on the situation are of more help than are the involved editors who continue their original dispute. The purpose of bringing a dispute to ANI would normally be precisely to get the benefit of those uninvolved critical eyes — not so much to see a continuation of article talkpage disagreements.

I'm very sorry the ban has upset and hurt you, Gtoffoletto. Of course I'm not surprised — it's very natural. :-( But I felt I should do it nevertheless, to protect article quality and to protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors. That time and patience is IMO Wikipedia's most precious resource, and I've seen too many editors burn out and leave when it runs out. Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: thank you for clearing up the type of ban and for expressing your sympathy. It gives me hope for your future work on Wikipedia.

In this case my opinion is your suggestion and application of asymmetrical punishment construes a grave injustice and reflects poorly on your judgement as an admin.

While my opinion is easily discredited by the fact that I am the interested party I would point out that the complete lack of discussion regarding the other users' behaviour (despite the report being primarily about them - as evident by the fact that I am but one in a list of users and not the first in order) while not unexpected (quite the opposite given past events) is reason for concern.

Although consensus was not needed you have clearly received it by several other admins and I respect that (consensus is a terrible way of handling justice. Bias is inevitable, this is why effective judicial systems have removed or abolished Jury trial, but I digress). So I would like those Admins that have expressed their opinions to state clearly and for the record that they believe the other users should not be treated equally as me and that their behaviour is above reproach.

Also: your reconstruction of Slatersteven and Steelpillow's involvement in the discussions is incorrect and shows your continued misunderstanding of the facts at hand. Of course they shouldn't be the judges here. But they are primary witnesses in a complicated matter and for the most part have just observed the mayhem unleashed by the users, so they are as neutral an observer as we can expect here. They are also very experienced editors (they also appear on the list of most edits in the history of Wiki).

I believe you didn't take the time to review this case appropriately, as I was afraid would have happened when I asked an admin to take the time to review in depth this situation. This story with me has been going on for months (as you and others know) but those behaviours have been documented for years. Those users are not rookies that make naive and obvious mistakes. They are very prominent and experienced users that know very well how to disguise their edit warring and POV pushing behaviour. I know you are well aware of their ban logs as some of those blocks were made/removed by you. This required a thorough review and a cool headed decision. Not a hasty and partisan judgement by admins that clearly like and support their friends.

Your statement protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors is exactly the issue here and the reason I have now lost faith in the long term prospects of Wikipedia. It goes against Wikipedia's foundational philosophy in such an astonishing way I wonder how an admin could ever say something of the sort. It should exactly be the other way around. WP:NEWBIES should be awarded much more leeway than highly experienced editors and admins who have a responsibility to steer the project responsibly. This bias towards sanctions every time someone dares to raise an issue with an experienced users and their friends is worrisome. As I have reported, several AN/I reports have been made about those users in the last period alone. They have all been quickly dismissed. I am sure dozens would emerge if not hundreds if we reviewed the archives. Those users are damaging the project and their unconditional defence without reviewing the facts by Wikipedia's admins is a disgrace and is causing long term harm. I've never been involved in Wikipedia's conflict resolution before (in over 10 years). I hope this is an isolated case or no wonder the number of editors is declining and the project is dying.

As always: I don't care about myself. My ego is sufficiently huge already so I don't need to be right here. I have been trying to handle the abusive behaviours of those users as best I could. I have certainly made mistakes and accept it (I totally agree with the assessment by a user above that I tend to WP:BLUDGEON the process sometimes and this doesn't help). I make mistakes. Like everyone. I've wasted my time to argue with those users in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I tried everything. I asked for help and was reprimanded and blocked for it. Apparently I still failed. No big deal. But my involvement in Wikipedia is not about me. It is driven by my belief that this project can contribute positively to the world.

Allowing once again such active editors to continue their work unabated and emboldened by their clear support by so many admins will damage this project in the long term. Maybe it is already too late (I believe so unfortunately and hence my stament on my Wiki page). But we will see by the replies by the admins to this thread and their statements for the record regarding the other users. I hope I am wrong. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. on a final note: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.. I remember a time when this pillar of Wikipedia was important. Apparently not so much anymore. Apparently it is fine for those users to just edit articles as they see fit with their insane opinions with no sourcing since they are "defending science". Whatever that means... science is not an opinion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, if I thought it fitting, I would have topic banned you myself for the reasons I outlined above. But at the event, Bishonen used her discretion to do so immediately. I can't say I disagree with that decision, but myself, I would have waited for your reply to my comment — even if the likelihood for the needed introspection on your part seemed low, as it has been absent throughout this discussion. Which again, was not a good sign, I'm sorry to say. El_C 10:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, Gtoffoletto. I've received e-mails pointing out that you are violating your topic ban by continuing to attack opponents here at ANI. They're not wrong, but I have felt, so far, that you're entitled to some venting after what must have been a shock (the topic ban). After your long post above, with further attacks, I think it needs to be enough, though. You are allowed to appeal your ban, and to ask questions about how to do that. Not to vent and go on the attack any more. I strongly advise you to post any requests or questions related to an appeal on your own page, as they don't really belong on ANI. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

I am not appealing the ban. I don't care that I am banned. My quarantine ends tomorrow and I don't have this much time to loose. I am proud of my work and think it is an incorrect assessment. I created one page on en.wiki USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. 70% was written by me [14] and it has resisted rigorous reviews by other users I assure you. I will watch the page and be curious of what changes will be made there in my absence. I will use that to learn how to improve my work but so far users have not edited it and the page has a B assessment. Apparently those contributions are to be avoided and are disruptive: so be it.

But this discussion is now not about any of my work. I am not editing any page regarding the topic ban you have just imposed. I have no idea of who you are personally in contact with via email but that is worrisome (why the secrecy?). Do not attempt to frame my comments as what they are not. I am requesting that this discussion is carried out as an equal investigation of the conduct of ALL USERS involved. Not just a witch hunt against me. The report states clearly that (emphasis mine):

Involved editors, on one or more articles, and broadly in order of aggression and deafness, are:

• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also signs themself jps and claims to be a professional WP:EXPERT.
• Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}}

Since I am now topic banned and the other users have received no attention in this discussion (on the contrary: they were praised as defenders of science) I wish to have a clear statement by the admins involved that the behaviour of the other users is justified and encouraged. This report was not about me. So until that is done this judgement is incomplete and I will follow it closely. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I suggest you step away from ANI and ignore it entirely. If you have no interest in appealing your topic ban, continued interaction here will likely be looked on as tendentious, and could result in a block. Also ANI looks into all participants, not just the ones being accused, so saying the report "wasn't about [you]" is irrelevant. Just walk away and leave it be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

These must be some frustrating articles to work on, due in no small part to shoddy and sensationalist reporting, Times and Post in particular. Nimitz was listed on the fringe noticeboard four or five times, but it's really just a topic that WP is not going to be able to cover well. Something to keep in mind if handing out sanctions. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology proposal

As this is 6 of one half a dozen of the other I suggest setting the page back to this [[15]] (and resetting back to pre-edit war days on the other affected articles), No edits without consensus (on all the affected pages), and a firm warning to all users to play nice in the topic area. I am not sure I would want to see anything more right now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was tried and Ufology locked for a period. It failed. Why would it work better this time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say locked I said No edits without consensus. It of course would also have to be enforced. No lock just a strict DS which means if you do not get consensus you get a sanction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It was reverted by the locking admin. See also clear warnings such as this. Nothing like that works on these guys, they just sneak back to whatever they convince themselves they can get away with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Gtoffoletto, do not try to cast aspersions by linking to off-Wikipedia harassment of editors, such as you did here. I have removed it. If you do something like that again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen I apologise I wasn't aware it was not appropriate to link to outside resources. Is there a relevant guideline regarding this? It didn't seem "harassment" to me and I found it curious that such a source existed regarding a user. In any case I am not casting any aspersions. I am directly stating that those editors are not constructive editors as I have stated above. I think their block logs and frequent AN/I reports are sufficient proof of long term disruption. But I am not the one that should judge this in a fair way. This is just my personal opinion from personally interacting with them for months. If this is what wikipedia is and the level of civility you accept then so be it. I disagree, but I will continue my work patiently and interface with them in accordance with my more stringent interpretation of the five pillars of wikipedia. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, Gtoffoletto, you've been here twelve years, IMO you should know better all by yourself. But if you need a special guideline for not bringing outside harassment into Wikipedia, you can read Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. I'm going to charitably assume that when you call a blog devoted to attacking jps a "resource" [sic], it's because you were writing in a hurry and not weighing your words. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen:: the blog isn't "devoted to attacking jps". It's devoted to cold fusion http://coldfusioncommunity.net/about/ That's one article about him and I think it makes valid points and proves this user has been disruptive for a while. I didn't see any egregious attack or harassment but if you think otherwise the case is closed for me and I apologise. It was not my intention to publish harassment in any way. I will also read the guidelines you linked to educate myself better. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: If you think that blog by Abd ulRahman Lomax is in any way trustworthy for documenting anything that might or might not have happened on or relating to Wikipedia, then your judgment is very very faulty. It's not really devoted to cold fusion at all, it's devoted to Lomax, and Lomax's claims should never be taken as trustworthy reliable, about anything. Oh, and the "Infusion Institute, Inc" is essentially just Lomax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I'm sorry, I misspoke. It's only the page you linked to that's devoted to attacking jps. Do you have any comment on having referred to it as a "resource" (and a "source", to boot)? Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

The actual reason for the blog post was failure to promote fringe theories on Wikipedia, jps having been one of the editors in the way. This is unfortunately similar to the complaint posted on Gtoffoletto's user page about Wikipedia and its reputation. The policies are more to blame than the editors and that's not a bad thing: it's what permits Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information (which has often been praised, so not a threat to its reputation)... It is true that Wikipedia had a previous explosion, in users and articles and that more attention eventually shifted to quality when coverage existed in many areas. The bar is higher than in 2005 in relation to reliable sources and verifiability and coverage of biographies, politics and pseudoscience. In this case, from a WP:WIKIPROPHET POV, an eventual topic ban unfortunately seemed unevitable to me (a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude was obvious since the first WP:FTN noticeboard discussion and this persisted). Leaving Wikipedia for good in the face of the ban is your choice, but only asserts a disinterest in the encyclopedia in general (fine, but a topic ban at least preserves editing privileges to allow other opportunities; I've seen some edits in relation to the Covid crisis for instance). —PaleoNeonate – 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thank you for your interest. I am extremely interested in seeing Wikipedia succeed. Or I wouldn't be participating in it and dedicating time and effort to it. However I don't think what I have witnessed here and in the last few months will lead to the long term success of this project. It will die off and only obsessive users like the ones reported above will contribute to the project with their unsourced opinions. It won't be an encyclopaedia for many by the many. And I am not interested in that. I won't be associated with whitewashed garbage and with a community that treats people without respect. I have observed admins do this and joke about it with their friends. And once that happens: the project is lost. You realise how many people have access to wikipedia and the internet nowadays compared to 2005? Global Internet usage. The fact user counts are stagnating is an obvious sign of failure and decline. I'm a management engineer and entrepreneur. I work with online services and startups. I read this data all day. This project is dying. I always wondered, but now I know why. I had never seen such a dark side of Wikipedia in over 10 years.

My edits are always thoroughly researched and sourced. I have NEVER in my Wikipedia history posted a single sentence that was unsupported by sources. I challenge anyone to dispute that. That is because I believe strongly in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sometimes those sources are disputed which is fine and the content is removed. Sometimes my summary of what the source says is disputed which is also fine and it is corrected. This is what wikipedia should be about. Not personal opinions or bullshit crusades by some users to promote their personal ideals whatever they may be and however widespread they may be. The introduction of special rules regarding WP:FRINGE is totally understandable. There is no official Wikipedia policy I am in disaccord with and that I don't strive to comply with. Or I would have proposed to change it. But the SAME STANDARDS must be applied to all. Sources are still needed and not opinions. Calling out FRINGE has become a trump card in all discussions to silence the other side and to justify any behaviour. This is madness and what the admins above are allowing with their actions.

Some users and admins are falsely depicting my editing style and beliefs in an attempt to protect their friends. This is also unacceptable to me. There is a lot of talk and little WP:DIFFing in this witch-hunt against me. I have consciously done all in my powers to prevent edit warring in the face of chronically disruptive and bullying editors. I started almost all the discussions on those pages as anyone can see. I don't believe sufficient proof has been presented that I should be topic banned apart from this confirmation bias by several users. But I don't care. I won't appeal. If my contributions are not valued and discounted so easily. If nobody defends my contributions. Then they have no value. I don't expect anyone to rush in my defence. But I would have preferred a fair trial. I don't think I got that. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been topic banned from all pages and discussions related to UFOs. This discussion is related to UFOs. Please do not post here again. You will need to find another website to express your thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat regarding libel at the BLP noticeboard

An ip address apparently representing Piers Robinson, a UK academic posted a complaint at the BLP noticeboard that the Wikipedia article about him was libellous, and stated that "Unless action is taken to resolve these defamatory claims, I will be forced to consult legal advice." Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NLT: Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. I was recently criticized by several admins because of my tendency to apply uw-nlt to some legal threats, even blatant ones, rather than immediately block. And this is a blatant legal threat. The user can still address and query their talk page, if they so wish. El_C 20:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no criticism of El_C's block. But on the wider subject, and not in reply to El_C, instead of reaching for the block and telling people to send an email to a volunteer mailing list, it can sometimes be fruitful to look at the article. They have made their complaint, quite clearly and specifically. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, zzuuzz, I see now that I have misread the indent. El_C 20:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, good block. Guy (help!) 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per DOLT, has the issue actually been reviewed (obviously the block itself is fine)? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion

Piers has decided to re-activate his old account Piersgregoryrobinson to involve himself in the discussion on his talk page without retracting his legal threat he made as an IP user, can someone remind him that in order to participate he must first retract the legal threat? Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat has been retracted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard for personal attacks.

Over at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Piers_Robinson, an article subject has posted concerns regarding the page about him. Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) has used this as an excuse to criticize the BLP subject for having advocated (off-wiki, and not for wikipedia purposes) for a reference source that Wikipedia has decided is not fully up to its standards. This criticism is not relevant to the issue at hand. When he has had this pointed out to him by myself and by Zaereth that this is inappropriate and a BLP problem in itself, he has repeatedly restated the same attack. Not only would this ridiculous attempt to paint the subject badly be inappropriate anywhere here (Wikipedia standards apply to Wikipedia, and are not intended to be used to judge the world), but it is particularly heinous to stage a pointless attack on someone who was seeking our help and was already feeling damaged by Wikipedia.

I ask that the editor's comments be stricken (and am fine with the striking of my responses with them), and that at the very least they be warned about future such action. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The user was not "seeking our help" they threatened legal action, which is a clear violation of the WP:No legal threats policy for which they were promptly blocked, so NatGertler's characterisation is disingenuous. I asked Nat Gertler to WP:drop the stick, and said in retrospect that I would not write the sentence again. I agreed with both Piers Robinsons issues with his article over at Talk:Piers Robinson, which I will quote: (For his occupation in the infobox being described as a consipracy theorist) "Even Alex Jones occupation is not described as a conspiracy theorist [in the article infobox], so it's probably not appropriate." "I don't think it's wise to make that leap [that he was fired for promoting conspiracy theories] . While he left the university after that controversy, theres no explicit evidence that this is the direct cause, which is crucial for BLP, even if inference suggests this is likely the case." In retrospect I might change "is likely" to "might be" if I had written the sentence again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, asking for inappropriate material to be removed from one's page is seeking help, even if one includes threats of legal action if it is not done. You told me that I should WP:drop the stick because I was the only one who chimed in.... but when someone else chimed in to support my concerns, you didn't drop any stick yourself, but repeated your attack (at the same time that you were saying that you would not do it again.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware of your point of view that it was inappropriate. The reason I asked you to drop the stick is that I didn't think there was anything more productive to be said between us, you had made your opinion clear and I had mine, and it was necessary for other contributors to share their opinions. I responded to the other user because I felt that the person deserved an answer, which I had already given you. Piers Robinson isn't exactly some falsely accused angel either, he has suggested that COVID-19 is a biological weapon, which is described by The Times as a conspiracy theory so this claim is backed up by reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so now you're using ANI to irrelevantly attack him as well. Got it. (Could we have some admin input please?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that no administrator has chimed in is because this isn't a serious incident, no defamatory statement was made. The administrators noticeboard is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.", which this is not. Ultimately I stated that I wouldn't have made the comment again and that should've been the end of it. I had cordial interactions with you editing the Alan J. Cooper page with BLP concerns, and it disappoints me that you are behaving like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

here's some of adminstrator JzG (Guy)'s input.

to be fair, he has been pushing conspiracy theories

the range of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist is pretty remarkable: it includes HuffPo, the Daily Mail, The Times, the Jewish Chronicle and more - a remarkably broad spectrum. Dissent from this can be found at the Daily Stormer and Sputnik. He wrote the cover blurb for David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Truther book, and defends it: "My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect."

the most likely explanation is that he's looking for a job or backers, and blames Wikipedia for the fact that the internet is... unflattering to his cherished beliefs. He's a regular on Sputnik and an outspoken pro-Russia / Assad pundit, so maybe he's in the same position as George Galloway, who is not seen as an honest broker when discussing these subjects. A good number of sources describe him as pro-Assad and pro-Russia. These are not fashionable positions right now.

Would you like to comment on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That has naught to do with your bizarre and inappropriate BPN discussion which was the issue that was brought here. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Of course it does, those comments are also arguably BLP violating, but go way further than mine did. But you'll hold your tongue because Guy's an admin. I think I am owed an apology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

So you think that because someone else did something you think is worse than what you did, that makes what you did okay? Wow. If you wish to make a case against Guy, feel free, I shall not stop you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I have added the BLP discretionary sanction to the article, which allows any admins to impose sanctions at their discretion. El_C 10:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

time for a break?

Some editors are struggling to edit properly on this article. In the section above, Nat Gertler highlights some actions by Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) that need attention. I'd like to add the following edit for consideration: [16], wherein I am considered a "dumbass". I've been called worse, no big deal, except that I think it might be time for Hemiauchenia to take an enforced break. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this has been on the noticeboard for nearly a week with no significant response shows that this isn't a serious issue. If you read my comments on the talk page you'll find my views on the topic to be more nuanced than simply removing the source. My response was for you telling me to "oh do knock it off -- you're not making any contribution to the talk page about this, and there's obviously no problem with WP:RS or WP:V" [17], which made no sense as I had not removed the passage previously and had extensively discussed the issue on the talk page, in fact I had earlier reinserted the statement after it was removed (In retrospect I think re-instating the passage was uncivil and a violation of BRD and ONUS). The edit summary arguing for me to knock it off was apparently confusing me with Kashmiri. I was annoyed with being confused with somebody else and said something which I am not proud of, and retract the "dumbass" remark, no hard feelings. Issues with the article are better discussed on the talk page, Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: If you were given complete and full editorial control of the article with no one else to respond to, what would you add or remove? It's not clear from your actions right now and I think it would help everyone if you made your opinions clear. jps (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Long term behaviour

Hi! This user Sangitha rani111 have been warned for violating Wikipedia's terms in the past for numerous times including level 3 warning and recently by this [[18]] but the user deleted the discussion and not responded to the problem properly. There have been multiple issues addressed in the warning message and the user never responded to the issues. This user occasionally uses Wikipedia and there seems to be less motive of building Wikipedia. There is some strong case to show that this user has some conflict of interest in South Asian social groups. The last warning message was sent by me so I request the general community to take decision in this matter whether to block or ban the user. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User [User:Universalrahu|Universalrahu]] (talk) has been engaging in POV and he has been blocked sometime as well. Please go through all my edits. I make edits based on valid university resources , academic books. I have made lengthy discussion in talk pages. Please do review everything. User Universalrahu does not want to engage in discussion and is false accusing of me, and has involved in vandalism some time ago. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111 Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sangitha rani111 The current discussion is about your long term behavior. You have been warned for violating the following policies and guidelines of Wikipedia 1.Vandalism, 2.Disruptive editing, 3.Verifiability, 4.Copyrights, 5.No original research, 6.Neutral point of view, 7.Conflict of interest. Your not responding properly how you have not violated these policies with clear explanation, instead accusing others. Bear in mind that every user have past history even Administrator's here have past history of block and other issues. Everyone is accountable in Wikipedia if the problem is about your behavior you must explain about your edits and not others.

For the note of Administrator's. This user is so immature to edit on Wikipedia. This user have no clear idea of what Wikipedia is for and how to edit. The user is not engaged in building Wikipedia, occasionally this user edits Wikipedia to illustrate some point on some specific topics which the user have strong conflict of interest. Whenever this uses resumes editing after long gap the user edits on same specific topics and get warned or blocked for editing on such topics. This is evident from this user's past history. It's high time to take some action on this user.--Universalrahu (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

User [User:Universalrahu|Universalrahu]] (talk) please be respectful and do not call names like immature. Also your edits show that you have been engaged in vandalizing, edit wareing, POV, original research, false caste glorification , etc,, I do my best and when I have doubts I get the help of senior editors who guide me. Also as you can see my edits are based on books from well known academic, university , etc,,. I kindly request you to be respectfull and verify the books I have provided for all discussions. Also I get concensus from senior editors in case there are too many points then only add them in article. I once again request you to go through the lengthy discussion I have made in talk pages. To me it appears you are violating every wiki policy. Please correct yourself. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

I agree withUniversalrahu. Some people should not edit Wikipedia. @Sangitha rani111 is so immature. Calling names is good in situation. The Admistratiors must ban. Ahuja Wiki Kashmir (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI here. Ahuja Wiki Kashmir (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck irrelevant sock interlude. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I kindly request to be respectfull and also please verify the books I have provided for all discussions. I have also made lengthy discussion in talk pages based on academic resources. I also take guidenances from senior editors Sangitha rani111 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

The discussion is about your edits on Wikipedia not about yourself. Your edits are so immature that everyone can easily infer from your edit history. Since the inception of this report you are not coming out with clear explanation rather that your only one answer "referring books" and nothing else. You have been warned for violating many Wikipedia policy and guidelines and at high your conflict of interest issue in South Asian Social Groups.. Please refer all allegations and reply properly. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

[User:Universalrahu|Universalrahu]] (talk) you have been blocked in the past, has been involved in vandalism , your edits are based on POV, original research and in-correct info. I kindly request you to go through the talk pages , books I have provided. I edit based on university academic resources, Please check the books. I post discussion as well. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

User Manifestation

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

---

Ok, for weeks now Manifestation has been arguing that several websites of Verywell should be removed from the spam blacklist because they were added for the wrong reason. They brought it first to the blacklist, were sent to RSN. I argued, with others, that we were not too sure it was spammed, maybe yes/maybe no, but do argue that it was likely not passing MEDRS. Manifestation agreed there that it was marginally reliable. Nonetheless, they returned to the blacklist here arguing that it should be delisted because it was wrongly blacklisted.

I argued again, that maybe it was not spammed, maybe it was, and since it is marginally reliable that I’d prefer that it goes through whitelisting to see it’s general use before we delist it completely (if it turns out of general use, noting that of the 2 previous requests 1 was (self-)granted and 1 declined as unreliable; and I am not sure if the granted one is exactly how we want to use the site).

Manifestation found it there necessary to throw ‘he is obviously lying’ in my direction, noting that he had enough and did not get their way. Time for some independent review. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Verywell is a family of four websites, three of which are unjustly banned. I tried to get them removed from the blacklist, but no one listens to me. Short summary:

• 5 April: I create a thread about it here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Verywell. One user replies that Verywell has been blacklisted "[d]ue to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS", citing WP:RSPSOURCES. However, no proof is given for this statement (that bit has since been changed). I forgot about it afterwards.
• 28 April: Deciding to give it another shot, I made a thread at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Verywell. The thread is no success.
• 4 May: I was sent back to the spam-blacklist, so I made a third thread, here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Verywell, 2. Again, the sites were not removed.

• I should note that I have never been involved with Wikipedia's spamlist, and only in this thread, I realised how LinkReports work. Turned out there are four of them:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywell.com (domain now redirects to verywellhealth.com)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywellhealth.com
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywellmind.com
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywellfamily.com

• The above LinkReports provide no evidence of spamming.

For the past few weeks, it feels like I've been talking to a brick wall, especially when it comes to User:Beetstra. Beetstra cherry picks the facts that support his opinion, stonewalls the debates, and twists around evidence to have it say something it doesn't say. He insists that Verywell has been spammed, but provides no evidence of it, planting huge walls of texts to drone the discussion out. It has been exhausting to deal with him, and I suspect this is exactly what he wants: wearing me out and even reporting me to ANI, hoping that I would drop the case. I think he *knows* that the sites were never spammed, but he says they were as an excuse to keep them banned, simply because he doesn't like these particular kind of popular press sources (e.g. Psychology Today, ScienceDaily, Men's Health, Woman's Day, etc).
The Verywell sites offer articles on a wide variety of topics, written in simple, plain English, aimed at a wide audience. It is obvious that Verywell will never be the best source ever, but the sites have many visitors, and the LinkReports show that many users (me included) have tried to use them as a source, but couldn't. The Verywell sites have review teams featuring board-certified physicians, and have been certified by the Health On the Net Foundation (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). As a source, Verywell should never be used primarily, but it could be used as an ancillary reference. I have yet to be presented with a Verywell article that demonstrably contains lies. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, please stop misinterpreting my comments, and we are here for your blatant personal attack, not to rehash your hammering of the same comments over and over. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, it is *you* who have been hammering your point, and I have certainly not misinterpreted anything. - Manifestation (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, can you give me a diff where I insist that the site was spammed, and can you show that I am the only one with that opinion? Can you show me a diff where I express that I do not like these sites? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, when I first brought this to the RS Noticeboard, you literally told me "this was blacklisted because it was spammed". You also cited copyvios (copy-paste jobs), incorrectly stating this a reason to blacklist a site. As the situation unfolded, you gradually loosened up your position, and you later stated: "maybe there wasn’t any spamming, maybe there was". Admittedly, you never directly said that you do not like Verywell, but it is obvious from your completely unhelpful attitude that you don't. Sure, Verywell will never be on the same level as The New York Times or something, but it may still harbor useful information for Wikipedia. Who are you to decide that such websites should be banished from all use? - Manifestation (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I indeed changed the comment regarding direct spamming from my first one, but I am still not sure whether the edits by Sri Lankan users and/or Ethiopian IPs are NOT spamming per sé (it is not a glomarization, it is just that we can not always convey the intention of other editors through the edits they perform, it is more a assessment based on years long experience in seeing spammers on Wikipedia). That is in line with comments by User:JzG and User:Praxidicae. However, persistent abuse like in cases of sock puppetry with copyvio concerns (and again, which may be spamming) is a reason to blacklist to stop said abuse (those are techniques also used by spammers on a regular basis). It is not necessarily a first choice, but we have done this regularly. The possibility of spamming does not make me comfortable to remove it, especially since this is, also in your own words, a marginally reliable site. You also here say 'it may harbor useful information. My suggestion, hence, has been consistently been to go through some whitelisting of this site to see if it is of general use. Score is now 1 decline and 1 (self-)grant for whitelisting. But now we re-hash the same discussion as on WT:SBL, and that was not why we came here.

So, where did I tell a blatant lie? Or is that a similar slip of the tongue as the (now withdrawn) remark regarding the Ethiopian editor? And how am I stonewalling if you just blatantly dismissed the remark from Praxidicae when he was supporting my evaluation and suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You know Beetstra, if you wouldn't have idiotically brought this to ANI, you would have 'won', because I actually would have dropped this, as it is emotionally exhausting to deal with your bullshit. Then again, I hope other people will take a good look at this, and that they see through the games you are playing. This may be important, because you and JzG play big roles in the RS Noticeboard and at the Spam-blacklist, so users who go there have no other choice than to deal with you. I cannot imagine this is the first time your behavior has antagonized people. I wish I could scrutinize your past, but I won't, since I can imagine we both have better things to do than butting heads.
As for the Verywell sites... I could file an RfC, but right now, I am too tired of this drama to do so. - Manifestation (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, and so you reply with yet another insult. And you keep personalizing this, as if I am the only person who has concerns, just completely dismissing User:JzG and User:Praxidicae. And no, this is not about winning. Thanks. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, and you did not tell me where I told a blatant lie, nor did you withdraw it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, calm down, my friend. Manifestation is frustrated, and he's taking it out on you a bit. That's not a good look. Let's think about the underlying problem and how we might resolve it for this and similar cases? Guy (help!) 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, well, that is how we generally do this. If we have a case of possible abuse on the blacklist, and we have concerns regarding reliability/appropriateness, we send it to the whitelist for some time. That has, for long, been an accepted solution to that. Or we have a discussion on another board where there is overwhelming support for general use, and we delist it. The latter we don't have (that is not how I read the thread at RSN at least), so we go with what has been suggested over and over: lets see some whitelisting and discussion on individual appropriateness. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, you know that, I know that. Manifestation seems in danger of climbing the Reichstag. Which would be a shame. Guy (help!) 12:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I do feel that I tried to explain early on that that was our common practice of things. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, I have an idea: try assuming good faith. You need to bear in mind that we see a lot of link abuse, and a lot of people demanding that such-and-such a site is WP:USEFUL so should be removed from the blacklist.

For me, I'd like some concrete examples of where you think these sites would be usable as sources, and the content they'd support. Show me what the change you advocate would actually look like in practice. Is that such a big ask?

I'm familiar with your arguments, but they are generic and not specific. I have seen a batshit insane homeopath get a HON code, so that's not compelling to me. Input from MEDRS regulars might be, but better still, some examples of Wikipedia articles and additional content you think would be valid uses of these sites. Maybe you already did that and I missed it. Guy (help!) 12:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Manifestation wants to enable links to a pop-medical site,. Beetstra wants to see what that might look like because of past issues, but Manifestation doesn't seem to want to do that. I would like to see specifics of where the site would be used (I am skeptical that we should use it as it doesn't seem to be a MEDRS, but whatever). I don't see the rush. I do see the frustration, in that there's no obvious single venue where we can address the trifecta of abuse, reliability, and appropriateness for given content. Guy (help!) 10:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

People who tried to use Verywell, but couldn't, because it is banlisted

"For me, I'd like some concrete examples of where you think these sites would be usable as sources, and the content they'd support. Show me what the change you advocate would actually look like in practice. Is that such a big ask?" - (diff)

JzG, you are an extremely experienced Wikipedian. You are very active in combating spam and evaluating sources on reliability. I cannot imagine you don't understand how LinkReports work.

For those who don't know: LinkReports are created by COIBot, which not only logs every addition of a specific url, but also every attempt to add a blacklisted url. There are four Verywell link reports: (1) verywell.com (obsolete, domain now redirects to verywellhealth.com), (2) verywellhealth.com, (3) verywellmind.com, and (4) verywellfamily.com. They have been last updated on 5 May, so they're pretty recent. The one on verywellhealth.com shows many attempted additions to a variety of articles, on multiple wikis. Below are the last 20 attempts on this wiki (en.wp), duplicates removed, newest to oldest:

Last 20 attempts, duplicates removed.

1. 2020-05-04 19:10:52 (UTC): User:PurplePanda2021 (t - c; 279) to Jersey Finger (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/jersey-finger-2549403 (R/X/L)
2. 2020-04-28 22:39:02 (UTC): User:Wbm1058 (t - c; 19382) to Health care provider (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-a-provider-1738759 (R/X/L)
3. 2020-04-21 15:57:41 (UTC): User:Ameer hakim (t - c; 85) to User:Ameer hakim/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/bacterial-skin-infections-1069439 (R/X/L) (NB: this user has been indefblocked.)
4. 2020-04-08 13:19:30 (UTC): User:Johnsad (t - c; 8) to User:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/hyperinsulinemia-is-associated-with-type-2-diabetes-1087717 (R/X/L)
5. 2020-04-05 16:26:33 (UTC): User:Azurhellen (t - c; 18) to User:Azurhellen/The Iliac Crest (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/iliac-crest-definition-3120351 (R/X/L)
6. 2020-03-31 15:23:31 (UTC): User:Webmz (t - c; 2174) to Maia Majumder (logitem top) - Link: verywellhealth.com/women-shaking-up-health-care-4588098 (R/X/L)
7. 2020-03-28 02:02:43 (UTC): User:Omurphy5 (t - c; 23) to User:Omurphy5/Gunshot wound (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-treat-a-gunshot-wound-1298915 (R/X/L)
8. 2020-03-27 05:39:22 (UTC): User:SignTribe (t - c; 33) to User:SignTribe/sandbox/World History of Deaf Institutions (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/samuel-heinicke-oral-education-1046549 (R/X/L)
9. 2020-03-23 11:01:01 (UTC): User:Magicmike5 (t - c; 5) to User:Magicmike5/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-prevent-cavities-1059134 (R/X/L)
10. 2020-03-22 18:27:47 (UTC): User:Mguirguiss (t - c; 9) to User:Mguirguiss (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/allergy-translation-cards-1324304 (R/X/L)
11. 2020-03-21 17:03:19 (UTC): User:Jade Phoenix Pence (t - c; 14) to Spanish flu (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/outdated-disease-names-2615295 (R/X/L)
12. 2020-03-19 21:41:56 (UTC): User:Feinoa (t - c; 289) to 2009 flu pandemic (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-h1n1-swine-flu-770496 (R/X/L)
13. 2020-03-15 00:07:48 (UTC): User:SignTribe (t - c; 33) to User:SignTribe/sandbox/World History of Deaf Institutions (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/samuel-heinicke-oral-education-1046549 (R/X/L)
14. 2020-03-14 16:45:02 (UTC): User:Angham Ragab (t - c; 38) to User:Angham Ragab/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/tips-to-prevent-infections-1958877&ved=2ahUKEwjyncHIrZroAhXEzIUKHd3aAaEQFjAIegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3HRxZcYvIP09A4G-KXDqQ8 (R/X/L)
15. 2020-03-12 01:00:07 (UTC): User:WuTang94 (t - c; 2115) to User talk:Eagles247 (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/traumatic-brain-injury-prevention-and-rehabilitation-1739215 (R/X/L)
16. 2020-03-05 19:50:09 (UTC): User:Nmalq001 (t - c; 51) to User:Nmalq001/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-dtap-vaccine-4156747 (R/X/L)
17. 2020-02-27 03:07:28 (UTC): User:24.223.73.225 (t - c; 1) to Llama (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-are-cancer-cells-2248795 (R/X/L)
18. 2020-02-25 23:12:30 (UTC): User:SandyGeorgia (t - c; 5963) to Tourette syndrome (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/types-of-doctors-residents-interns-and-fellows-3157293 (R/X/L)
19. 2020-02-25 11:14:19 (UTC): User:ShirLey GOo (t - c; 326) to HealthPlanOne (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-a-health-insurance-exchange-1738734 (R/X/L)
20. 2020-02-19 02:52:30 (UTC): User:Angela432 (t - c; 95) to User:Angela432/Choose an Article (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/sex-reassignment-surgery-srs-3157235 (R/X/L)

As you can see on the LinkReport page, many different users tried to cite Verywell Health, including some very experienced editors, such as User:Diannaa, User:SandyGeorgia, User:ERcheck, and User:MER-C.

Again, I know Verywell is not your best option when looking for a ref, but as a tertiary source, it can be cited as a summary of info. It can also be used to 'patch gaps': to confirm specific facts on a small subject which Verywell happens to have an article about. View count is everything for these sites, so they try to offer many articles on a wide variety of subjects. I do not believe Verywell should be blacklisted. - Manifestation (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting what I, as well as Diannaa did. Both were copyvio removals where we pasted the link into the edit summary. MER-C 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: Ok, thanks for clarifying, but how am I supposed to know that? The diffs are revdeleted, and I am not an administrator, meaning that I would have had to manually look up in the history if a link is in an edit summary (here and here). - Manifestation (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would have taken you less than thirty seconds - click on "500 edits", then use your browser's find functionality to look for my username. The edit summaries used made it clear that both edits were copyvio removals. MER-C 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not clear on what mess I've walked in to here, but I remember clearly what I was trying to do with that link last February; it was the best information I could find explaining the difference between a resident and an intern, which I was looking for in terms of Georges Gilles de la Tourette as Charcot's <something> for Tourette syndrome. When I couldn't use that link, I had to go to a French-language source, and solved the problem that way. I have not read this whole discussion so do not know if this helps or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, just out of curiosity: did you consider to get it whitelisted? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:, on technical stuff, I'm dumber than I look :) I actually went on to find information that was more relevant to the precise situation of Charcot and Tourette in France vis-a-vis resident or intern (Tourette was both Charcot's resident and intern, it turns out), so I didn't give that site a second thought. If I did need to try to get something whitelisted, I am not sure I would know how or where. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks. Just for next time: it is linked from the message you get when you hit the blacklist. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would be grateful if someone would whitelist the usage at Health care provider and remove that page from Category:Pages with URL errors, or cite a respected academic journal article written by a PhD that answers that complex technical question, LOL. I sympathize with Manifestation's point as I from personal experience, found the blacklisting/whitelisting process one of the most unpleasant areas of Wikipedia to work in. I feel that the handful of editors who own that part of the project just generally form a local consensus. I don't know much about the Verywell site, but it seems pretty harmless to me. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wbm1058: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/825.125 ... —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Wbm1058: While requesting a whitelisting doesn't have to be unpleasant, I wouldn't prefer it, because if the MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext pops up on someone's screen, users may believe that something is wrong with the Verywell websites as a whole. I agree with the rest of your comment. - Manifestation (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So Dirk replaced my "pop culture site" reference with a link to a legal definition of the term in United States law. That is a primary source, which isn't ideal either.

  • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  • Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Perhaps keeping both the "pop culture site" reference and the primary source is the best solution for now, until a better secondary source interpreting the law is found? wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wbm1058, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources, it totally depends on their use. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018#verywellmind.com that this site was reported by Jytdog, an indefinitely banned editor per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog, and less than 24 hours later JzG added the site to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That strikes me as a too-speedy addition based on a two-editor local consensus. Given that one of those two has since been banned, it seems reasonable to just remove it from the blacklist and see whether the spamming issue comes back again or not. We don't indefinitely protect articles after short-term vandalism, why should we indefinitely blacklist sites after short-term spamming? – wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wbm1058, the case was copyvio, we indeed blacklist fast then. Administrators don’t need first to get a broad consensus to block or protect, those are often a report->action, like here, report->blacklist And yes, we do indef block editors. The comparison with page protection is not a fair one, page protection avoids all editing, a block disables all editing by a person.

  Then there is e.g. the case of the Ethiopian IP hammering, doing that later through a French proxy. Then the case of what user:MER-C reverted, yet another case of copyvio from verywell. Coincidence? Or continuous attempts to spam? Your guess is as good as mine. My experience makes me bit worried. I’d play it safe, also because this is not a site that is an important reliable source, rather it is a site of ‘marginal reliability’ (quoting editors in the last RSN thread). And to me, the link I presented to you sounds much more authoritative than Verywell.

  So no, this blacklisting does not have to be forever, but my suggestion first is to see whether we need to take the risk. I just blacklisted a link that was the subject of 5 years of spam. If it is spammed, it will not stop, popularity pays bills. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wbm1058, come and join the blacklist posse. We need more admins. Speed is not unusual (spam usually needs to be controlled quickly). Guy (help!) 20:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The above statement by Beetstra is exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about. Misleading statements, twisting around the evidence, and making up excuses. The nasty thing about this is that Beetstra's statement *appears* to be very reasonable at face value. It is only when you investigate his claims further that his statement falls apart. But not everyone feels like spending time doing that, and they know Beetstra is a highly experienced guy, so they'll simply assume he must be right. I can only hope enough people lay bare his behavior, and that they see Beetstra for who he really is. - Manifestation (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, what is misleading? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, May I lend you some binoculars, so you can see the ground fromrup there on your high horse?

Those logs do not show the content. What I asked was: what content would be sourced to these sites. Guy (help!) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: What do you want from me?! To get a migraine attack?! I did exactly what you asked. You want to know on what occasions people try to use Verywell, well, there you go. I felt extremely annoyed even posting those 20 attempts, because if I can look at COIBot's LinkReports, so can you. In these situations, the logs by the COIBot provide the core evidence. You commented a number of times on my second thread about Verywell, but you never even seemed interested in the LinkReports. Now you're blaming the drama on me, because you're covering up for Beetstra. And you know what the craziest thing about this whole ordeal is? Beetstra created the COIBot! He runs it! Dare I say it, few Wikipedians know more of spam than he does. But now he suddenly pretends not to know how to read the LinkReports which his own bot produces. And he pretends to think blacklisting a website will stop copyvios. How stupid does he think I am? - Manifestation (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, I read those reports. Failed attempts are often there. You can see people trying to use it but you don’t know why. I don't know why. Sometimes you can dig through other edits at that time to see what happened. You will need to get individual discussions. That is why I ask for more. JzG asked the same, individual use. Examples of people trying it is not enough, you get the whole spectrum: people pointing to copyvio to genuine use to cases which may not be the best in the first place to spam.

Manifestation, I wrote COIBot, I have it making these reports for years. I know what the data in them means. And I very much agree that this may be a case to remove, but I see, with others, the risks and I am, with others, concerned over its real use. Get a clear endorsement through RSN/MEDRS/RfC, or we discuss some cases at the whitelist.

I don’t think you are stupid, your edits speak for you. Blacklisting may not always prevent copyvio, the reporting editor, the executioner, and now me clearly think that it helps (or at least deters). But I am not sure whether we only talk about copyvio. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: You can see when and where people used it or attempted to use it when you open the LinkReports and scroll down (verywell.com, verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com, verywellfamily.com). After 2 December 2018, the uses become attempted uses, because JzG added the sites to the banlist. You of course know this, yet you confusingly ask for more examples and for "individual discussions". This is why I suspect that you intentionally are making no sense, to stonewall the discussion. Especially the last two sentences of your comment are difficult to make sense of.
Yes, I could try to file an RfC, or ask at WT:MED, but right now, I am too tired to do so. I really want to drop this. - Manifestation (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Oh, and by the way: your bot has a bug. Sometimes it forgets to print "User:". For example, "w:en:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B" should be w:en:User:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, nobody's stopping you from dropping it any time you like. Just saying. Guy (help!) 10:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I was going to drop it, but then Beetstra reported me to this board, so I decided to hang around a little longer, hoping that someone in this forum would step in to help me. But I'm afraid that is not the case. - Manifestation (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, thanks, yes, that is indeed something that needs fixing. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, no, I have, consistently asked for discussions, not for random attempts where we do not know the intention of the edit. Yes, they want to use the link, but for what / what reason? That needs individual discussion to assert that. E.g. at the whitelist to discuss individual cases, or in general at RSN, MEDRS or an RfC. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, no, what I want is really extremely simple. Some examples of articles and content you think might be appropriately sourced to these websites. You assert, at enormous length, that they are valuable sources of information, but you have yet to provide any concrete examples of what that might look like in practice. Guy (help!) 10:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Enormous length? This entire thread would not have happened in the first place if you and Beetstra would have listened to me on WP:RSN and WT:SBL. Don't forget that you originally banned Verywell, meaning that the burden of evidence lies upon you, not me. If you want to see concrete examples of Verywell's use or attempted use, you can look at the LinkReports. They show many edits, both good and poor, to multiple wikis, on a variety of subjects. Verywell is a pop med source and certainly not the best reference ever, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. - Manifestation (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, yes, enormous length. "We would not be here if you just gave me what I want" has never been any kind of justification for walls of text (see m:MPOV).

Now, back to the topic: what articles and content do you think might be reasonably based on these sites, please? What would the change you advocate, look like in practice? Guy (help!) 10:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop striking the deceased equine

At this point, it seems rather clear we are at an impasse. Manifestation is unwilling to provide specific articles as examples, and believes the attempted access logs are sufficient. Others do not agree. This is just going in circles so per WP:DEADHORSE I suggest the matter be closed as maintaining the status quo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Aargh, not you too! Do you actually understand what this is about? "Manifestation is unwilling to provide specific articles as examples". What do you want me to do? Post the entire LinkReport? It shows various articles on which Verywell was (attempted to be) cited. I have myself tried to cite Verywell, and I previously wrote about this. But regardless of its quality and usefullness, Verywell is currently listed on the *Spam*-blacklist. As the name suggests, this is to prevent *spamming*. Let me be as clear as I can be: Verywell has not been spammed. It wasn't spammed, it isn't spammed, and it most likely will not be spammed when unbanned. Why would Dotdash, the owner of the Verywell brand, be so stupid to start a spam campaign on Wikipedia and risk PR damage?
This is THE LAST COMMENT I will make on this. Feel free to close this discussion. You are right, HandThatFeeds, this is a dead pony. But it is not me who killed it. - Manifestation (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what this is about. The problem is that you seem to have fixated on a single method for supporting your argument and, when other people have stated they do not find it convincing, you... repeat the same method of argument. That is not going to get you anywhere. Focusing on "this many people have tried to add links to the site" is not an effective argument. That just tells us multiple people are trying to use the source, but not that it's an appropriate source. Your argument is an appeal to popularity, not quality, and that's why you're getting pushback for relying on it.

Why would Dotdash, the owner of the Verywell brand, be so stupid to start a spam campaign on Wikipedia and risk PR damage?

This clarifies one of your issues that I think was unclear before. "Spam" does not have to originate from the source. In Wikipedia's view, if any number of people are inappropriately linking to a site whose value is questionable, it is treated as spamming. It doesn't have to be self-promotion to qualify as spam. If many people are linking to a questionable source, especially if the target articles don't support the claimed statements, sites go on the spam blacklist because it appears people are trying to promote the site regardless of its merit.

So, that's where we're at. The site might have some value, but users are reluctant to take it off the blacklist without some specific examples of appropriate citations, due to the large number of apparently inappropriate ones being added before. Some editors asked you for better examples. Since they didn't get any, right now, that leaves us at the status quo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, just one comment: every self respecting organisation uses SEO to optimize incoming traffic. That is a very respectable business and I have no doubt that Wikipedia itself does that. Sometimes, the companies hired to do so, eager employees of the company itself, or ’fans’ do so, and sometimes Wikipedia gets ‘used’ for that. So no, Dotdash is not stupid if they perform SEO. You would be surprised how many companies are ‘so stupid’ to use Wikipedia to spam. Wikipedia is high on the search engine rankings, you will be visible if you are mentioned or used on Wikipedia (even with nofollow). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra I agree, that can happen. I was just pointing out it's not necessary to fit Wikipedia's definition of spam links. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Mr. Samerkov

User:Mr. Samerkov is currently engaged in edit warring. He keeps reverting every one of my edits on Dewan Rakyat, the article about the Malaysian parliament. Even after I have provided a source to back up my edits, he just reverts it without providing any source. In fact, all of the edits he made are unsourced. He also calls me a supporter of a particular political party, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for users to talk about their political beliefs. He evens accuses me of "always trying to provoke" when I never made any provocative statements. His behaviour is clearly unacceptable on Wikipedia. ChioBu (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Dewan Rakyat, or Malaysian Parliament, is currently in a period of flux, and this seems to be drawing some controversy to the article. Both ChioBu and Mr. Samerkov have been edit warring on Dewan Rakyat for a few days. I warned both a couple of days ago when 3RR was violated. Both editors seem relatively new, and other editors and IPs have also been involved. However, the edit warring has restarted since my warning, and there has been no attempt by any party to use the article talkpage. CMD (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have notified Mr. Samerkov of this discussion, as this had not yet been done. CMD (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't blame me for this. I just help the other editors what's the right. Sir Don't get tricked by User Chio Bu. I wanted to do right thing and revent the User Chio Bu did. He's a RBA who keep making Faking Propaganda against current goverment. Some MPs has Lost Trust on Previous PM and Mazlee Malik dosen't support mahathir side. Since you have revent. I would rather not to bother dewan rakyat's Article.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Almost Forgot, Im not good in english but User Chio Bu is Unaccaptable to agree with my previous Edits. He also Trying to Revent The Kedah State Assamblely since The PH Goverment Has Collepes. Please stop Accucing me.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As it's obvious from above, Mr Samerkov continues to make baseless accusations towards me, yet he claims that I am accusing him. He has failed to provide any source to backup any of the statements he made. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ChioBu (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, I would better know about this if i would. User Sisusiva and User Quidtul itself remove what you did. All i know is you have a simillar account like 2001:D08:1284:81E3:F42C:DF48:40AF:A6C7 if i was right. You also clearly WP:NOTTHERE Too. You keep accusing me from the start. I had enough revent on dewan rakyat and you still repeating the same thing. Still You Look like a RBA to me and Don't lie on me because you still trying to revent again like kedah state assambley and Perikatan nasional. Can we End talk Dicussion ?.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That IP address does NOT belong to me. No, I didn't accuse you at all. Everything I said about you on this page are the truth and I have the proof. Now, you are the one who is accusing me. You claimed that I am a RBA, what proof do you have for that? Besides, Wikipedia is NOT a place to talk about our political beliefs. You, for whatever reasons, have been busy reverting me and a few other users' edits on those pages, and you have never provided any reliable source or proper explanation for those reverts. This clearly shows that you are WP:NOTHERE. ChioBu (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That was also You are keep accusing me that You keep Repeting the same thing. Come on dude i know everyone style. Firstly You Keep Revent on Kedah State Assamblely. Then you revent on Dewan Rakyat that You think GPS is a Allies Parties on Perikatan Nasional. I just Trying to follow and Fixed the error, Revent something wrong on Article like what Other Real Malaysian Wikis did. Until you did revent just like others. Like i Said before, i will not touch Dewan Rakyat's Article since you involve me here. I don't know what's Wrong with you. You keep revent and Revent the SAME Thing i make a good statement. It is better we end this. This also shows you are really WP:NOTHERE and Lier. I saw that Article about Mazlee but He Still didn't Support mahathir but rather Support Muhyddin Side. If you keep blaming me on this. It was Your Fault who remove my statement. This ends right here, Right now. Please !.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep claiming that Maszlee Malik supports Muhyiddin. Let me ask you again, where's your source for that? Here, I have a few sources which clearly state that Maszlee does NOT support Muhyiddin's government. Next, with regards to the Kedah State Legislative Assembly, it is a fact that only the Sultan of Kedah can decide who gets to be the Chief Minister. Since the Sultan of Kedah hasn't made any announcement now, Mukhriz Mahathir is legally still the Chief Minister and Pakatan Harapan is still the government of Kedah. Both you and User:Qaidul are wrong in this matter. I see that you continue to edit war with another user on the Mukhriz Mahathir article over this issue as well. Please stop that. ChioBu (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me add that Gabungan Parti Sarawak is NOT actually part of Perikatan Nasional, it is just supporting Perikatan Nasional. Therefore, Gabungan Parti Sarawak's status in the Dewan Rakyat is Confidence & Supply, not Government. ChioBu (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I knew you keep repeat and repeat again. Just stop ok. Your Sources Cannot be Trust anymore. Just Chill out eh ?. I feel had Enough Talking to you or revent everything.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring has continued (involving more than just the above two editors), so I have requested full protection for Dewan Rakyat. CMD (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Users User:Hamish Gary and User:Bargyman

I first noticed these users on the article Sir Creek, where they removed multiple reliable sources with the reason "Grammar review". Looking at Bargyman's and Hamish Gary's contribution list, they have made multiple other "grammar reviews" in which they, in addition to fixing grammar, also removed multiple sources. I am suspicious that these two people might be the same, or at least partners in this source-removing endeavor. Can someone please take a look at this? Thank you. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 07:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, this is the wrong section sam1370 (talk / contribs) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As a WP:GOCE member, I've been concerned about Hamish Gary's edits; "grammar fixes" have removed chunks of content. I've notified them. Miniapolis 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thanks. I went through all their edits recently and I think I’ve reverted the problematic ones. Some went unnoticed for a month or two. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit at Joe Orton described as "Mandatory grammar changes", seems to be nothing of the sort, and replaced Brits Eng spelling with Amer Eng. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rechtsstreitigkeiten disruptive editing

• User: Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Jesselyn Radack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Rechtsstreitigkeiten is a WP:Single purpose account created four days ago. Earlier today, he was warned on his talk page over edit warring at Jesselyn Radack, but has continued edit warring in that article space. Moreover, his (now hidden) edit summary violated WP:BLP with grossly insulting, degrading, and offensive material. It is clear that Rechtsstreitigkeiten (which means "legal disputes" in German) is here to disrupt, not to help us build an encyclopedia. Please block or at least topic ban him from Jesselyn Radack. NedFausa (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely untrue and unfair. I'll start with one point. I don't dare edit this case in my real name and I'd be a fool to do it: journalists and others have been threatened over this case. So yes, this is a SPA (special purpose account) but it's that for my own protection. The Radack case has a protection order for witnesses in the case, because both Radack and her friends on twitter ( group of people) have threatened anyone who write about the case. Fitzgibbon has been threatened with having his jaw broken (I can't publish it on this page which doesn't take twitter links - but it's on twitter) by Radack's twitter supporters . That's just one example of a threat of violence (that person was reported to the Police). For this reason, Fitzgibbon requested a protection-order from the judge for the witness in the trial (the trial is in July). The protection order came in about two weeks ago, here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376.79.0.pdf

Radack (who is very famous and able to communicate widely) has been vociferous in abusing anyone who writes any aspects of the facts of the case. She's done everything from random accusations to threats. She continued this kind of behavior in 2018-2019 and was cited for contempt of court for doing so by the judge, at the time of the settlement in April. She only got fined 500 dollars, but she could have gone to jail. One journalist who wrote about the case 2019 was told that some personal information about her was going to be published online ("doxxed"), if she wrote another article, and this was enough to silence her. Some of her twitter supporters have threatened violence, threatened hacking, threatened doxxing. So it's a very ugly situation. And it's why I'm using a SPA. And I have not at all been abusive in the slightest here. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Noted that progressive journalists are avoidant of the case because of the threats (to reputations, even of bodily harm) for writing the facts of the case. The actual settlement did not get press, because journalists who had been covering it, had been threatened. That's just a comment. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What I'm in-trouble for here, is writing the facts of the original case, which was for malicious prosecution. I'm really sorry if they were too salacious for an edit summary, but they happened, and there is a text-message history to follow-up on it. Basically someone organized an "assignation" (look up the word if you don't know it) with a long paper-trail, including plans for what would happen, and where, etc. Then after the "assignation" made statements positive about said-assignation (some of them lurid and graphic). Then one month later, the person went to the D.C. Prosecutor and claimed they had been the object of first-degree sexual assault (rape). Prosecutors refused to press-charges, after they saw the message-trail. A civil suit was opened, not for defamation, but for malicious prosecutoin and defamation, during which time the media printed that the rape happened. It took sixteen months, and a pending jury trial for malicious prosecution (with evidence of perfidy) for her to withdraw the accusation and pay-out 110,000 dollars compensation, with a promise to no longer make the accusation. That was the settlement.

I am deeply sorry that this offends people, but it's the facts of the first case. They are in the court record. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265.10.0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That revdeleted edit summary is so beyond the pale, I have partially blocked the user from both Jesselyn Radack and Talk:Jesselyn Radack until such time that they can convincingly explain why they should still be allowed to edit that article. El_C 20:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's just a link to the complaint. El_C 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear ANI-committee, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. I apologize I haven't done so earlier. I had things to do with work.

In the time since you partially blocked me NedFausa reviewed some of the documents I hung-up above, and he did an amazing job of re-editing the case, in a manner more compehensive than I had ever done. He went back and reviewed all the material, and re-drafted the paragraph in a concise manner. So in fact, you can leave my login blocked if you want, because I don't have anything more to add. You can also unblock me. Whatever you want. I truly apologize if I made an error, or was inappropriate in providing information in the edit summary. It's a weird set of information, to be sure. So thank you for your review, and you can do as you wish. Have a nice day. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

ps: On second thought, I'd appreciate being unblocked. I probably won't edit for a while, but you never know. For the moment, NedFausa did all the work, so nothing is needed. Thank you again. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who filed this ANI reporting the single purpose account Rechtsstreitigkeiten for disruptive editing, I oppose unblocking him at this time. The blocking administrator made clear at the user's talk page that he is not blocked sitewide but rather only partially blocked from two pages. Yet in the four days following his block, the user made no edits apart from his own talk page and this ANI. I suggest we wait and see whether or not he is capable of, or even interested in, helping us build an encyclopedia with contributions to pages that do not involve the single purpose to which he has thus far been disruptively committed. NedFausa (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWN by Freeknowledgecreator

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 [19] 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, [20], [21], [22] despite unambiguous consensus on Talk that this was appropriate and necessary for NPOV, but left it in after I added one minor formatting change [23]. The RfC that produced consensus for inclusion was started, it appears, because you kept reverting Markworthen e.g. [24], [25], 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 [26], 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 [27] 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 [28] without any edit summary. And as I said above, he didnt let anyone put "orginial research" tag to that section [29]. 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 [30][31][32][33][34] and reverting any attempt to remove the original research? [35][36][37][38]. This is just a dispute? Im not the only one who noted your WP:OWN issue. There is also Netoholic [39].--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

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)

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)

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." [[40]]. They used the term "petty manchild" again against an administrator User:JzG [[41]]. I asked Drassow to explain or apologise but they blanker their talk page with the words "Still don't care dude" [[42]] 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)

IP-hopping WP:SPA at Nathan Coulter-Nile

Multiple IPs (one and the same person, seeing the edits) which geolocate to Australia have been repeatedly adding incorrect information on the infobox of Nathan Coulter-Nile (the given source, generally a solid reference for cricket statistics and such information, says "bowler"...). This has lead to the page being put on pending changes, and then despite this they continued so the page was temporarily semi-protected (on top of the pending changes), but this protection expired 3 days ago and this is continuing. The original protecting admin is currently offline; and a request I posted there was also removed by the IP in violation of WP:TPG. Some additional semi-protection seems in order; but given the backlog at RFPP and the potential for a rangeblock I'm posting here. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what happens when the media starts throwing the word "all-rounder" left and right... M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cricket Australia describes him as an all-rounder. Would it solve the issue if I just added that as a source for the IP's claim? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, a batting average of under 20 in all formats of the game isn't exactly stellar (that's my opinion, disregard if you so like); and cricinfo still has him as a bowler, but that could work (it's such a minor detail I certainly wouldn't fuss too much about it). In any case, I still stand by my assessment that the IP is not particularly constructive in their editing... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can understand the IP's frustration and even Adil Rashid is considered an all-rounder by some. I've tried to make a compromise with my latest edit, but it's subject to WP:BRD, obviously. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, at least his first-class average appears respectable for an England player (considering their sometimes less than stellar performances in the recent past)... Anyway, had a decent laugh. Case solved for now. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 04:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue began when he made a single score of 92 in an ODI at the World Cup in June 2019. That score, apparently, instantly made him an all-rounder in people's eyes. And a slew of edits began - often focussed around times Australia were playing Test matches it seems. These involved blanking the article talk page on a number of occasions, on this article as well as two or three others (Ryan Harris (cricketer) certainly and another the name of which escapes me) - Lugnuts has pointed out that a similar pattern has occurred at Mark Steketee (here over a nickname, but also featuring adding an OLINK to Australia multiple times and talk page blanking). I've tried engaging on talk pages and it hasn't worked and clearly dynamic IP addresses are being used. Pending changes has had a somewhat positive effect, although if those accepting changes had read the talk page it might have helped matters.

The initial edits to Coulter-Nile were certainly original research. If Cricket Australia consider him an international all-rounder then, well, I suppose we have a source for that at least. Personally I think they're having a laugh based on that 92 - his only international half-century - but there you go: we have one source at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if a range-block can be done without any collateral damage, but in the short term the related articles have protection. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The range appears to be 1.128.0.0/11, but apparently that's too large of a range for us to be able to inspect the contributions for potential collateral damage. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, should anyone have missed it, that this section was blanked by what appears to be the same user operating, this time, from 1.144.107.119. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Moderator Tarl N. abusing powers and reverting legitimate changes due to political bias

Moderator "Tarl N." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarl_N. has been deleting an extremely simple addition to the page of Bill Ayers, a founder of Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization that he started at my alma mater, the University of Michigan. Bill Ayers' page was lacking in information about how awful this organization was. Numerous bombings and arsons throughout the 70's. Given that the wikipedia page for Weather Underground contains the fact that is was classfied as a domestic terrorist organization, I added this fact to Bill's page along with the exact reference that the Weather Underground wikipedia page uses. An extremely simple edit that added "domestic terrorist organization" before the name "Weather Underground." No editorializing whatsoever. After he inexplicably reverted the edit without explanation, I added it again, noting that I used a source from FBI.gov that called it a domestic terrorism group. I received an extremely threatening message from Tarl N. threatening to ban me for using a "unreferenced or poorly referenced edit" despite the fact that I literally used the same refernce, from *FBI.gov* no less, that the Weather Underground page uses. This is a blatant atempt to revise history and make this organization look better than it actually was and as an Ann Arbor resident for over 50 years who was actually here while they were active it is beyond disgusting to me that a moderator is trying to downplay what they did. Not only this, but he didn't even remove the source that I used and was allegedly "too poor to reference." He just left it there despite it not even referncing anything anymore. Absolutely inexcusable behavior from a moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bswastek (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weather_Underground_Organization/Terrorism_RfC#Discussion_of_Noroton's_proposal_#2 MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) It's "User:Tarl N." with a period at the end;

(2) Tarl N. is not an admin;

(3) The big orange box at the top of the page says you're supposed to notify an editor when you start a thread about them on AN/I;

(4) I haven't read your comments on Tarl N.'s talk page in full, but I did note "Who do you think you are" and "You are a lunatic".

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've notified Tarl N. I've struck the "Who do you think you are" remark from my comment above, because it was posted by an IP and not you -- unless, perhaps, that IP is you?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand why Tarl N. removed "domestic terrorist organization" when the source (the FBI) says exactly that, and it's hard for anyone -- even those who might agree with their ultimate goals -- who lived through that era to argue with the fact that bombing things is an act of domestic terrorism, whether it's done by a far-left group or a far-right group. I'd like to see Tarl N.'s justification for the removal, but you (Bswastek) failed to take the issue to the talk page, as you should have, so we don't know what the reasoning is. While you were there, you could have read the previous discussion on whether the WU should be called a terrorist group or not. That discussion took place iin 2016, and since WP:Consensus can change, I see no reason why a new discussion -- perhaps in the form of an RfC -- couldn't be held to see if people's ideas have changed since then. Those are better ideas than opening this report, which is just going to be closed as a content dispute, which it is, and which are not dealt with on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The personal attacks in this and this edit summary are out of line. The OP might want to read WP:BOOMERANG. There is no discussion on the talk page for the article. FWIW the attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP this has been removed. MarnetteD|Talk 05:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this calls for a potential WP:BOOMERANG block. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The "You are a lunatic" comment is pretty close to being a PA as well "You are incompetent at this and have zero business having any say in anything. I am looking into a way to report this disgusting, manipulative BS." Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I think the IP and Bswastek are different people. At least, different pages being edited, albeit somewhat similar talk page styles. I think our talk pages can do most of our talking. I removed the "domestic terrorist organization" edit because it was an obvious end-run around not being able to label Ayers "terrorist". Tarl N. (discuss) 05:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see that argument, but I'm not sure I agree - it would depend on Ayer's relationship with the WU. In any case, that discussion is for the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Responding to the original filer's report: This issue of labeling Ayers a terrorist has been dealt with many times in the past, I pointed Bswastek at the RFC I knew of. As to my extremely threatening message, I'll note it was 1st and 2nd level BLP templates that he regarded as so threatening. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just reiterate, the "lunatic" edit summary is incredibly inappropriate. @Bswastek: I think it best if your read WP:NPA and tell us that you will not repeat such in the future. Please also read WP:BRD and explain how one is expected to deal with the inevitable content dispute. On the bright side, they have posted to WP:BLPN Oh. Oh, dear.--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I notice that the lead current mentions the FBI describing the organization as domestic terrorists. Should that remain or should it be removed until there is a consensus to incluse.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As Beyond My Ken commented, that's a content dispute, which doesn't belong on ANI. Go over the RFCs pointed to here, and take it to the talk page. (sorry for the late response. We had a bit of wind, resulting in absence of power and internet since Friday). Tarl N. (discuss) 06:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon and page moves

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been brought to AN/I for making undiscussed controversial page moves multiple times:

• in 2015, where There is a very clear consensus for some kind of restriction imposed on Dicklyon with respect to moving pages. which resulted in a 6-month ban on undiscussed moves. (Shortly after this he was indefinitely blocked for using sockpuppets to move-war, and unblocked under the standard offer in 2016 with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions,
• in 2016,
• in 2017, when Dicklyon is therefore strongly cautioned to abide by the strictures of WP:RM, and to initiate a discussion to seek consensus for any page move to which an objection may be raised, irrespective of whether it is believed that the proposed move conforms with the MOS or other policies, and
• in 2019, two weeks after a block for edit warring. (The page move ban was lifted later in 2019, with some opposition.)

He was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. Today - three days after arguing with myself and two other editors of the capitalization of railway infrastructure in Boston - he made five undiscussed moves changing the capitalization of railway infrastructure in Boston. One of those moves, of Highland Branch, was to an article brought to GA by myself and Mackensen; both Mackensen and I have repeatedly disagreed with moves that Dicklyon has made changing capitalization of railway infrastructure. It is unfathomable that Dicklyon that thought these moves would be uncontroversial, or that he is unaware that WP:RM#CM requires a move discussion if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested.

It is clear that Dicklyon is unwilling to abide by this policy, and is determined to make moves regardless of disagreement. (His attitude during RMs is also objectionable, and he has engaged in canvassing at least once.) Something needs to be done to stop this aggressive and disruptive behavior, which has been consistent throughout his entire period of editing.

Pinging @Bbb23, Dreadstar, DoRD, NawlinWiki, Prodego, and Magog the Ogre: as blocking/unblocking admins since 2015 and @Spartaz, Drmies, NinjaRobotPirate, and Bd2412: as closers of the linked discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dreadstar is a deceased Wikipedian. Dr. K. 19:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: could you please add diffs for the recent behavior you find inappropriate? Dicklyon has made hundreds of moves in the past week. Mysticdan (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Relevant moves were at Green Line "A" Branch, Green Line "C" Branch, Green Line "D" Branch, Green Line "E" Branch, and Highland Branch. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a discussion somewhere that would have caused Dicklyon to believe those moves might be contested? Mysticdan (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There's another discussion on Pi's talk page, User_talk:Pi.1415926535#What_sources_are_you_looking_at?, about contested railway line moves in the Boston area involving Dicklyon. The last post was three days ago. Dicklyon knew, or should have known, that this would be a controversial move. Moving these articles without a formal discussion feels provocative at best. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The last post is 3 days ago there, as you note, because he decided to stop contesting those edits (which were not page moves). He just shows how sore he is that the consensus was against him there; it's not relevant to the "branch" downcasing moves. The more relevant discussion is at User_talk:Pi.1415926535#Highland branch which I started after he reverted one of my moves. Rather than reply, he came to AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon is very active page mover. Even taking reasonable care (as all editors should) to avoid controversial edits, there are going to be some with which other editors disagree. For this, we have talk pages and the dispute resolution process.

• Has a wider discussion been engaged in for these moves?
• Has Dicklyon (and the other involved editors) been willing to engage in those discussions in good faith?

Prodego ^talk 16:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Transit/transport-related page names are a frequent RM topic. It's been my experience that DickLyon proceeds to a full RM, instead of manual moving or speedy WP:RM/TR, at the first sign of grumbling about a page title or set of related titles. When he got in some trouble back-when for controversial manual mass moves, he was instructed to use full RM process in the face of any controversy, so he does. Since then, various parties (often from the transport sector) have attempted to pillory him at ANI again – for using full RM process and for doing manual moves that aren't controversial. Thus this ANI. Cf. Mackensen doing this below again ("Dicklyon has now filed a move request at Medford Branch (Boston and Maine Railroad) ... clearly in retaliation for this ANI report"), and again here. These bogus ANIs – for not breaking the rules – always close without action, so why is this one still open? It's time that the users abusing noticeboards, RM, and other processes to personalize style disputes were enjoined from doing so again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So far in 2020 I've moved about 650 pages, most for station name conventions, river name conventions, and capitalization per WP:NCCAPS. The only number that have been reverted or seriously challenged were a group of 40 North Korea station downcasings; a Talk:Pyongyang_station#Requested_move_5_May_2020 subsequent multi-RM discussion found unanimous support for lowercase, so those were subsequently downcased again (and I presume that makes the rest noncontroversial, so I'll work on them in the future). Now one lowercasing move at Highland branch has been reverted by Pi. Jumping from that to AN/I rather than respond to the discussion I started at his talk page is not a sensible process for resolving this disagreement. His complaints mention "sources" but he doesn't respond about what sources. I got another book (that's not online) recently on the Boston subway system history, to see what entities it treats as proper name, and found more support for lowercase "subway" and "branch" in almost all cases. I am operating from sources, and provided a detailed listing of sources I was looking at back when we decided to downcase subway in Tremont Street subway and Boylston Street subway, and can do the same for Highland branch when we get to the RM; for now, I'm reverted on that one and trying to discuss, not war or complain. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Highland Branch is a good article at a stable title; you knew that it would be a controversial move in the sense that multiple would be likely to object. Why you went ahead and moved it anyway without a discussion, given your past history of such moves, is why we're here (again). Is "Highland branch" the correct location for said article? Maybe, but in the absence of an actual naming convention on railway infrastructure (long overdue) there needs to be a discussion. Moving the article with the bland message "case norm; reserve caps for proper names" without a discussion is disingenuous at best under the circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  I had no particular reason to expect pushback on that one, relative to the many other over-capped articles I've fixed. Now that we have an objection, we can discuss, looking at sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  That is blatantly untrue, given that every move you have made or proposed about US (and particularly Boston-area) railway infrastructure has been contested by multiple editors. Dicklyon has now filed a move request at Medford Branch (Boston and Maine Railroad) (which I created this week), clearly in retaliation for this ANI report. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  That's a bizarre interpretation of my intent. And please don't call me a liar. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• "I had no particular reason to expect pushback on that one" - Anyone who has been here as long as Dicklyon knows perfectly well that any significant change to a good article is likely to face pushback, even if its unwarranted. Let alone moving the article to a different title. This statement would only be credible from a newbie who; isnt familiar with the good articles process, controversies surrounding page moves, and hasnt had multiple sanctions related to them before. Coming from Dicklyon? It is not a believeable statement, lacking anything approaching credibility. Even for articles that have not gone through the good article process, experienced editors know that page moves/title changes are almost guaranteed to face pushback unless no one is looking at the articles at all. Ignorance is an excuse that can be used for people who dont know better. Dicklyon does know better, and this has been well documented given the previous sanctions. But this complaint was opened at 05:18, 16 May 2020. At 21:07, after replying on this discussion, Dicklyon has opened a request to move a page created last week by the filer of the complaint. The chances that this isnt a deliberate retaliation and/or attempt to inflame Pi.1415926535 further are very slim. When someone complains about something you are doing on a noticeboard, you dont subsequently a)continue to do it, b)deliberately target a fresh article created two days ago by the person who complained about you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  So you're saying no pages can be moved. I'm not ignorant of the fact that sometimes someone will object. I had not noticed the Good Article status of Highland Branch until Mackensen mentioned; so I checked the GA review, and there was no indication that the article had been looked at for style such as caps; this is a common problem, the likes of which I fix all the time without pushback. Only about 1% of my moves get any pushback, typically (the big block of North Korea moves being an exception, but that got fixed OK); I don't think it's because the articles are unwatched. Also please note that I have not continued to do what he complained about. I have attempted to raise appropriate discussions, and now you complain about that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  "I had not noticed the Good Article status". I do not believe an editor of your experience would fail to notice both the good article symbol on the article, nor the singularly large GAR section on the talkpage. Unless you havnt looked at the talkpage whatsoever before attempting to move the article. Again, your statements just lack any credibility. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  O, it might surprise you, but I've never paid any attention to GA, FA, etc., and didn't know about that GA symbol until you mentioned it and I went and checked. And yes I admit I might have failed to look at the talk page, or if I did I just looked to see if there was a previous RM discussion (which there was not). Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  This entire subthread is a silly distraction. GAs and FAs are not magically immune to guidelines, policies, and processes, nor are they WP:OWNed by WP:VESTED editors. A GA icon (which can be entirely hidden by user CSS/JS) has nothing to do with page naming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, we expect GAs and FAs to adhere strongly to our policies. They represent Wikipedia's best work. WP:OWN aside, I think there is also a community expectation that editors tread carefully around such articles, recognizing that they are the product of considerable labor by whoever supports them, be they one editor, several, or a whole project. It's not unreasonable to expect that someone moving an article take the time to establish the basic fact of whether it had been at a particular title for a long time, or was a GA or FA, or if the title had been the subject of previous discussions. This would require a glance at the talk page, which among other things would establish that it was a GA. It's difficult to believe much consideration was given to the correct title of the article when Dicklyon didn't even know it was a GA. Admittedly, two of the most important sources for the article's title are offline but available to me. I consulted them when I wrote the article in the first place, and I gave considerable thought, at the time, to whether "branch" ought to be capitalized or not. I would have been happy to explain all that, but I wasn't asked. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  An RM is open, and you've done so (and curiously argued more in support of lower-case consistency despite labeling it an oppose !vote). So, there is no ANI-level issue to raise. Maybe you just don't deal with page moves very much? I do, and I don't treat GAs or FAs as especially different when it comes to these matters; there isn't a policy or guideline requiring that, so again there's nothing for ANI to care about here. This is all mountain-out-of-a-molehill stuff. Any manual or speedy move can be auto-reverted by request at WP:RM/TR, and DL in particular has a long history of doing full RM without any grumbling about it. Only one side of this extended dispute has been overreacting, only one side is breaking policies (the civility-related ones); it's not Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  You wouldn't find anything curious about my position if you weren't, in my view, blinded by something of a battleground approach to the subject. I've warmly supported NCCAPS for years for stations (including most recently over the Phillippines and North Korea), and in my more recent work on Swiss articles have rendered "line" as lowercase in all article text (the actual article naming is a horrible business and I'm not dealing with it right now). However, here I find myself accused here of things I haven't said and positions I haven't taken. I would happily support lower-case consistency as a way to end all these arguments, but Dicklyon opposes that position for reasons which aren't at all clear to me. If I'm supposed to endorse the orthodox view, or else, frankly I'm not sure which side I'm supposed to be on. If we're doing this one-by-one, I'm obliged to point out that the academic sources don't back a lowercased name. I'm glad we agree that this is a minor matter, but I'm not sure I believe you, given the amount of invective you've hurled at railfans in the course of this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Already addressed most of that below. What I found curious at that RM was that you put in an oppose while arguing more in favor of support points. You didn't open this ANI. I haven't "accused" you in particular of anything. I did point out where you personally attacked Dicklyon by alleging bad faith, simply because he used RM after apparent controversy, which is what he's supposed to do. Diffs and quoting you isn't an "accusation", it's evidence. That you're not personally in the "capitalize all the train stuff or else" camp doesn't make groundless bad-faith allegations okay. Two forms of poison in the same cup don't make the drink safe to imbibe, as it were.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Mackensen wrote I would happily support lower-case consistency as a way to end all these arguments, but Dicklyon opposes that position for reasons which aren't at all clear to me. I do support lower-case consistency and ending these arguments, because there's a history in discussion of a broad consensus to do as MOS:CAPS says. But I'm against making a new rail-specific guideline, because the current guidelines serve well. So, yes, it would be nice to have a bigger/sharper hammer to "end all these arguments", but if we can just make it clear to people like Pi that following well established guidance is not an attack on him or his newly created articles, we should be able to work things out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Close without action (except possibly a boomerang). There is no problem here. For years, we have consistently been moving transport/transit-related articles to use "line", "branch", "station", etc. in lowercase, following WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and the majority of independent source usage (aside from specialized sources favored by trainspotters/railfans, and Official Government Signage Hyper-Capitalization Just Because Bureaucrats Love Big Letters). DickLyon got in a spot of ANI trouble several years ago for doing mass-scale moves that were clearly controversial. This is not controversial (WP:Consensus does not require unanimity, just a consistent community result); it's standard practice. Any time someone raises the same tedious, rejected arguments again, DickLyon takes the matter to a full RM anyway. And then the RM goes lower-case anyway, as we would expect.

  This ANI is just someone who doesn't like DickLyon and who doesn't like the consensus direction of dozens (at least) of transit-related RMs, and who is seeking to muzzle an opponent in WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion by hoping that ANI watchers will be unfamiliar with the background and will give a different answer than RM has been giving for years (see WP:OTHERPARENT). In short, there's a tiny handful of railfans who resist every single railway-related NCCAPS move, never get what they want, yet keep trying over and over again to drive any wedge in anywhere they can so they can WP:WIN. This is the very definition of WP:Tendentious editing. It would be one thing if it had been going on for a month, but it's been several years of this crap by now. It needs to stop. If you are losing your shit over style trivia and personalizing debates about it in an attacky fashion, then you need to stay away from style matters (mandatorily if necessary). If you think an RM was decided incorrectly, use WP:MR. If the argument you make doesn't work at RM after RM, then stop making it, and either accept that consensus is against you, or present a new argument. Don't foment misleading WP:DRAMA like ANI reports in hopes of somehow, someday righting the WP:GREATWRONG of you not getting to capitalize everything in sight just because trains are involved. Special topical interests do not get to make up their own linguistic rules and impose them on everyone else, against site-wide guidelines (WP:CONLEVEL).
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It's always good to feel appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Your personal attack against DickLyon here is the sort of thing that makes me believe you need to be excluded from this topic area, or at least from any WP:ARBATC (style-and-naming) discussions involving it. Some of the anti-DickLyon attacks posted at various transport-related wikiproject talk pages have been even worse, and they go back several years. Frankly, I'm getting sick of a tiny handful of people manufacturing overly personalized drama against DickLyon; I see this crap every other time I bother to log in, and it helps make this an increasingly unpleasant e-environment. Attacky, battlegrounding "style warrior" crap like this is one of the reasons I edit WP less and less as time goes on. At bare minimum, I would like an admin to drop off a {{Ds/alert|at}} at your talk page, so that if you continue engaging in character-assassination against other editors over trivial style matters it can be swiftly addressed at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
      • You've definitely got me confused with someone else, someone who hasn't been a major figure in getting lower-cased "station" naming conventions adopted on a wide scale, particularly for North American articles, enduring a great deal of abuse from "railfans" in the process. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

        I'm not confusing you with someone else. I'm including you in the small class of users making WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS-transgressive posts against Dicklyon over style and naming matters, most often pertaining to transport/transit. I diffed one of these already, and there's another one (about the same thing) from you right here in the middle of this ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OP has stated about me that "every move you have made or proposed about US (and particularly Boston-area) railway infrastructure has been contested by multiple editors". He links 5 moves; 1 of those was reverted by him, and the other 4 still have neither been reverted nor even mentioned by anyone here or elsewhere. I have made many other moves of US rail stuff, mostly without any reaction. I don't claim to be perfect, but if there are problems, I'd like to hear about them and discuss on the relevant talk page, not here at AN/I. So can we close this now? Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lame edit war at List of prime ministers of Australia by age

Yes, I've been participating, and I asked for the article to be protected a day ago or so, and it was, for a day. The other party is an IP hopper out of Australia, and I don't know what their intention is, except to revert what I've done there. My attempts to politely communicate on the talk page have also been removed, so I dunno what else to do, but tell on myself and ask for assistance. Thank you and I apologize. Dawnseeker2000 12:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You can probably just ask for longer protection. Perhaps a partial range block would also work but I imagine RFPP could deal with that if they feel it's a better solution. It's good that you're seeking help rather than continuing to just revert. The only real fault I see with your editing is that especially since (I believe) the trailing zeroes do nothing other than slightly increase the page clutter, it would have been better to stop reverting the IP when this first started and wait for them to join the discussion. Once all they did was remove your talk page comments, it became clear that was fruitless so simply reverting them and asking for protection if they tried again was reasonable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Added a month of protection to the article.--v/r - TP 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have a question: Why do we have stupid trivia lists like List of prime ministers of Australia by age? Can someone falsify the thesis that 95% of lists could be deleted without anyone caring beyond those who create and tinker with them? EEng 23:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It has a surprising 2200+ pageviews over the last month, so apparently it's of some interest. To whom, I can't imagine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Justice007 socking with IP and poisoning the well

User:Justice007 aka Ehsan Sehgal is currently attempting to rescue the article about himself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (4th nomination) by evading scrutiny with his IP address and alleging editors including me of engaging in WP:MEAT.[43] He has been canvassing as well.[44] While the SPI had been already opened nearly 2 weeks ago,[45] it seems that nothing is happening there. Orientls (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we cna just ignore the edits on the AFD for now. It's going to be deleted and I'll watchlist the page and salt it afterwards.--v/r - TP 17:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: Don't you think his main account Justice007 should be indeffed too? He has been warned about socking before as well.[46] Orientls (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Vala keep repeat

As per the topic of a specific user someone has brought up but no one replied. It would be nice if someone can please participate in this discussion. I am kind of having enough of this user already. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vala keep Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous complaint was at this ANI archive. I have left a note for the user. If Vala keep continues to leave repeated message for other users demanding they take some action it might be viewed as harassment. In the previous ANI you mentioned 'adding incorrect information to articles'. I assume this is a question of unsourced changes. You might clearly identify this if you notice that it continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Saurabhgurgaon being disruptive

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

User:Saurabhgurgaon is engaging in behavior that is infringing on WP:DISRUPTIVE. In their short time with Wikipedia they have claimed (and were warned here) user rights they do not have, engaged in removing AfD templates from articles despite warnings (warnings here), and in one instance retaliated against an editor who nominated their article for deletion by placing a template implying the nominator was a sockpuppet (though they later self reverted). I became involved with this editor when I noticed they were falsely claiming to be an admin on their userpage (see my warning here). They have once again added a template implying admin-ship to their userpage despite an explicit warning not to do so. Requesting an admin take a look. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Since creating their account in March, this user has added the claim to be an administrator to their user page three times. They have also removed AfD templates and added a sock template to another account. So there isn't a question of someone making newbie mistakes. They also seem rather fluent with templates. This suggests they could be a returning user. I have blocked indef. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that User:Saurabhgurgaon will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Senor Freebie won't follow WP:BRD and consensus and is making false accusations

By this edit:[47] User:Senor Freebie inserted a controversial statement into the lede of Phoenix Program. I reverted the change [48] saying that it needed to be discussed on the Talk Page. Several days later Senor Freebie reverted me again [49] telling me my undo was "absurd" and then adding refs into the lede: [50] and saying "do not revert". The next day I undid these changes: [51] stating in my edit summary "don't put refs in the lede; US war crimes is debatable and should be addressed in the body of the page; don't revert this, follow WP:BRD and discuss on talk Page" Senor Freebie then reverted me [52] with this edit summary: "You are being pretty blatant here. Stop it. Go to the talk page if you have problems with well referenced statements about the widespread use of war crimes as a part of the Phoenix program, or expect this to go to arbitration quickly." and this "It looks like from your listed contributions that you take it as a personal mission to delete content about US war crimes from Wikipedia. Stop it. If you have a problem with well sourced content, discuss it." and then this [53] on my Talk Page. I responded with [54] and then opened the discussion on the article Talk Page here: [55]. Apparently this overlapped with Senor Freebie posting this: [56] under the heading "WP:BRD does not apply in this instance and it is an abuse of that policy to refer to it.". I responded to Senor Freebie giving a detailed analysis of their sources and advising that BRD always applies: [57]. Senor Freebie did not self-revert pending resolution of the issues, but did engage in the discussion: [58] and I responded: [59].

An uninvolved User User:TheTimesAreAChanging then joined the discussion and agreed with my views: [60] and reverted Senor Freebie: [61]. Senor Freebie then reverted them: [62] with this edit summary: "They have not raised reasonable objections and the fact that you claim that they have makes your contribution VERY questionable". Senor Freebie then made this change: [63] on TheTimesAreAChanging's Talk Page claiming to have opened an SPI against me (no such investigation was actually opened and I wasn't notified of anything). I then reverted Senor Freebie: [64] with this edit summary: "you must follow WP:BRD and discuss on Talk Page, not edit war this". Senor Freebie then reverted me: [65] with this edit summary "BRD does not apply in this case. You have had this explained to you and are now clearly acting in bad faith." TheTimesAreAChanging then reverted this: [66] with this edit summary: "Keep it up and you're headed for a block." Senor Freebie reverted once again: [67] with this edit summary: "I find it rather disconcerting that you have made no substantive contribution to the discussion and are threatening me with a block. I do not think this is in the spirit of good faith editing." Senor Freebie has just made further edits to the Talk Page of Phoenix Program here: [68] and once again made accusations of Sockpupperty with these comments: "I suggest that any other editors Google the two usernames above. They frequently edit the same articles and agree with each other on what I posit are subjective positions. I think that if they are not sockpuppets of each other, they are at the very least allies, and while the user; timesareachanging isn't presenting any new arguments or evidence they should be disregarded."

Senor Freebie continues to insist that WP:BRD doesn't apply and is acting disruptively by not accepting consensus on the Talk Page, edit-warring and making false accusations of sockpuppetry. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've skimmed the first paragraph of this and Mztourist has left out some crucial details of how this discussion played out. From my perspective they are attempting to maintain some kind of version of the article this dispute has arisen from, that does not address the seriousness of the subject matter, in a way that they feel is critical of US military actions. This appears to be a pattern for them, with much of their editing dedicated to deleting references to war crimes during the Vietnam War, something the other user has also engaged in alongside them over what appears to be a number of years. Each time I have attempted to address their concerns in good faith, they have made more difficult demands and written lengthy comments, often with multiple inaccuracies, that when corrected they don't return to or attempt to remedy. I'm finding this behaviour to be quite a challenge to deal with, considering that I made a small edit, backed it up with a large number of sources on request, and I feel that this might indicate a pattern of behaviour that is intentionally designed to allow this user to maintain ownership of certain narratives in certain articles.

A clear example of this is that when I pointed out that the My Lai massacre occurred within the context of the Phoenix Program, and that I'd provided references which pointed to this fact, which mztourist deleted from the article, they pointed me instead to the article on the My Lai massacre, stating that "You can look at My Lai Massacre and Operation Muscatine and their underlying sources, none of them will support the statement that My Lai was part of the Phoenix Program." They also appear to be a rather prolific editor of that article. So for all I know, they've also deleted references to the Phoenix Program from that article.

My very last interaction with them, before they made this complaint consisted of me pointing out that I'd provided them with a source linking the topics, and that their insistence that a Wiki article that they contribute to is more pertinent is concerning. And yet here we are.

No doubt, I will have to spend a great deal more time going through their comment above in detail to address the multiple issues with it, before I can even get back to editing Wikipedia in my normal, civil and occasional fashion. But frankly, this behaviour that I've encountered on this article is of concern to me. And I find it even more concerning that I have been reported to administrators for attempting to get to the bottom of why this editor thinks that it's appropriate to push a very strong, and problematic POV on Wikipedia. So ... I'm going to ask that I'm given a substantial amount of time to address this. The user mztourist has previously expressed unreasonable expectations on me to reply to his comments and they've sought, I think deliberately, to make this matter far more complicated than it has to be, possibly to discourage me from continuing to edit on this topic.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Senor Freebie inserting some of your comments within my comments doesn't help readibility and I would argue shows your continued disruptive editing. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted Senor Freebie's WP:BLUDGEONing, which seems designed to make this thread unreadable. Senor Freebie, please do not respond to other editor's comments with line-by-line rebuttals, as you have been doing both here and at Talk:Phoenix Program.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mztourist, Mztourist, Mztourist ... Why do I know that name? EEng 04:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I think that might shed some light on it. Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it might have been something else:[69]Lurking shadow (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

EEng and Lurking shadow if you're not going to address the issues raised then what exactly are you doing here? Mztourist (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks to me like Senor Freebie, a relatively new editor, is edit warring and I'd be prepared to impose a temporary block if he can't control this tendency. Deb (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Deb Senor Freebie has been on WP for over 11 years.Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • With only just over 1000 edits all told. I should have said "inexperienced" rather than "new". Deb (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Action taken

I've restored the article as it was on 14 April, the last edit before you two started warring being this one by User:WereSpielChequers. Mztourist, Senor Freebie, if either of you changes it again without first building consensus on the Talk page, you'll be blocked. If the other one "retaliates", they will also be blocked. Deb (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Deb that really smacks of "you're both to blame" which I don't think is the case. What do you intend to do about Senor Freebie's refusal to follow BRD and false socking allegations? Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What I've just done. If you don't like it, I'm afraid you'll have to find another outlet for your complaints. Deb (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please advise what that would be as I regard this as inadequate. Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment if you like.Deb (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I mean questioning your action. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. Deb (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've undone your edit on the relevant article because you appear to have made an erroneous edit summary. I'm also going to have to ask for more time to discuss this topic. The extent of the claims made by Mztourist, the lack of civility, and the fact that they have refused to be constructive makes this a very time consuming dispute to resolve, over a well sourced, and uncontroversial statement. As someone who has had close personal connections to refugees, and victims of serious war crimes, of the kind discussed in the article, it takes a large amount of emotional effort to deal with people who seem intent on not only burying commentary about war crimes, but attacking those who attempt to include well sourced material on the subject, and as such, I need to find a decent amount of clear space and time to even reply to this user.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've undone your edit on the relevant article because you appear to have made an erroneous edit summary

And I've undone that because the edit summary did exactly what it said. If you're so hot to keep you changes -- "time-consuming" or not -- go use the talk page. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Senor Freebie is now blocked for 1 week. He can either attempt compromise on the article Talk page then or I'll just close this discussion. Deb (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

• Kolkatacine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rubel Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Surya Rubel Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. User:Kolkatacine has been disruptively moving pages and making a mess. See their contribs. Admin help is required to clean up, e.g., Wikipedia:Surya (I have no clue where that's from...). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I've cleared up the moves, unless a further histmerge is needed. This is related to Rubel Das vs. Surya Rubel Das. Which one should it be? Someone else will have to decide. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Zzuuzz! I don't know what the title should be, but it totally belongs in Template Talk --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note: Kolkatacine (whose user talk page has numerous notices about suspected COI editing, whether justified or not) created Rubel Das (a BLP of an Indian actor) as an uncredited copy-paste of Surya Rubel Das, blanked the original article to an ad hoc redirect (URL of the article they had created), then reverted to that version. They also uploaded a photo of the subject, which I found online credited to Instagram. The preponderance of refs do not use "Surya", but some do, and the subject appears to have official Facebook accounts under both names. So I made Surya Rubel Das a functioning redirect and added the alternate name to the lead of Rubel Das, giving credit in both edit summaries. (Anthony Appleyard has now merged the articles at the request of Dl2000, so what I did is kind of floating in the history of the short-title article.) I also discovered the subject had an earlier career as a dancer, and added that to the article while I was at it. Kolkatacine has tried to efface the "Surya" name again. I'm going to drop a note on their user talk, but I'm not impressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Picklespitlizyr

User:Picklespitlizyr. Disruptive behaviour and incivility. [70][71][72] Warned in his/her talk page [73]. Another user points out at similar issues--Asqueladd (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For next time, WP:3RRN is a better place to report edit warring. Picklespitlizyr, please do not file obviously retaliatory reports, and please follow WP:BRD next time you find yourself in an edit war. Note that if you continue to edit-war in the future you may be blocked. Asqueladd, it probably would've been better to find some way to integrate the image into the article instead of removing it; see WP:PRESERVE. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Sure. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk - "Any of you proud saboteurs see a problem..."?

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

---

User:InedibleHulk came to User_talk:BetsyRMadison and responded to a discussion that involved BetsyRMadison, My very best wishes, and me with:

Any of you proud saboteurs see a problem with openly discussing your political agenda here while simultaneously making up stories of bias and personal attack about more legitimately neutral editors there? It's not a conspiracy, because you're highly visible. But it's still a flagrantly organized crime against the spirit of one of this site's core content policies.[74]

I see a problem with this comment, which I interpret as a fairly blatant personal attack. As a result, I am asking for them to be stopped from interacting with any of us. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "them" and I'd gladly replace the trigger phrase with a descriptor of you three's choosing. I'm not apologizing for attempting to dissuade you from slinging your opinions as facts, though. I appreciate how you'd want me to go away, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct: I do not want you coming to my talk page, or hers, with your insults. This is part of a larger pattern and I'm out of patience. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this larger pattern involve you and I? Because I honestly thought we just met on this topic (I've seen MVBW around). Sorry if I forgot about last time. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the better question is: What is your previous account? Cause the content of your edits indicates prior knowledge of Wikipedia's processes not acquired by a brand new editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless you can provide evidence of this "larger pattern" FTS you need to strike that part of your statement. MarnetteD|Talk 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation for what I perceive as a pattern of tendentious haranguing by InedibleHulk. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, the "Good Source" section. [75]. As far as I remember, this is my first encounter with InedibleHulk and it did not leave a good impression upon me. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I perceive the opposite, maybe a mirror. Anyway, you're almost five days old. Have more patience, please! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My willingness to be patient is tied directly to your willingness to stop insulting me. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Just tell me a prouder term for your work than sabotage, I'm flexible and fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just call my work "sabotage" again? Right in the middle of a discussion about how inappropriate it was for you to do so in the first place? FollowTheSources (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, honest typo. Now I'm asking what you prefer. Proud "worker"? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My preference is that you avoid insulting me, or any other editors. If that's too difficult, then I have another preference involving you. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult if you don't suggest a less-insulting term, I'm not a mind reader. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not Bugs Bunny. I'm not Elmer Fudd. This is not a joke.

If you simply retract the insults and agree not to continue them, we can drop this and get on with our lives. If you won't, then I have to ask for sanctions. Decide. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I take it "Prince Charming" is another one, do you see more? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Decide. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I chose those two. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then let's put this on the back burner.

Shut it down for now, but if I see any more insults coming out of you, either at me or others, I'll be back here and I will request a block, not an interaction ban. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@FollowTheSources and InedibleHulk: this is the silliest of arguments. Hulk, as I have learned, has a tendency to express his opinion in an... artful (?) manner. I have been active on the talk page in question as well and can assure you both that this bickering will have no effect on the content of the article unless you both take a breather. I honestly believe that you are both acting in good faith, and implore you to assume as much in one another and move on. --WMSR (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Weird promotional COI?

This isn't about any editors in particular. But, I noticed how spammy / promotional the descriptions for the two photographs on Confluence Park are, and wanted to bring it to administrators' attention.

Read the information at File:World Water Monitoring Day (4049999633).jpg, and at File:Keynote Speaker at World Water Monitoring Day (4050743364).jpg. Also note the latter's caption on the Confluence Park article itself.

Someone with close ties is trying to push the EPA World Water Monitoring Day and it's very strange. What do admins think should be done about this? Merely delete the spammy wording on both its metadata as well as the article, or delete the photos entirely? 71.56.244.35 (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The images are hosted on Commons, not here on English Wikipedia. Moreover, a quick glance at the files' histories indicate that they were transferred from Flickr, so there's nothing weird about the descriptions being on the promo-y side. The caption of the image at the Confluence Park article is perfectly neutral, so nothing seems out of the ordinary here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge1777 reported by Waddie96

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Waddie96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jorge1777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Unhelpful edits despite being warned and informed. WP:3RR at Maram Susli. comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You do realise that they will check edits right, Waddie? Theyre not going to fall for your dirty tricks.Jorge1777 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge1777 had subsequently used profanity in a personal discussion on my talk page here. Violation of WP:CIVIL. comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Waddie96, please be more specific. If you would like to report an edit war, see WP:ANEW. If you would like to report a user's general behavior, please provide diff links (that worked nicely for the profanity report, so please provide similar diffs for the actual reported behavior) and be more specific than "Unhelpful edits". Jorge1777, profanity doesn't help your case; perhaps you could just <s>strikethrough</s> the message Waddie96 has later complained about. Both of you, please consider other means of disupte resolution (see WP:DR), including disengaging from the conflict and asking for a third opinion, before asking for administrative intervention, and instead of edit warring. And yes, it takes two people to edit war, and edit warring is disruptive even if you are "right". When in doubt, both participants can be blocked to prevent further disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure Jorge1777 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jorge1777. Regarding discretionary sanctions, as mentioned by DIYeditor below, I have now informed both parties about the strict rules in the dispute areas covered by Template:Ds/alert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge1777 reverted my revert citing "repeated harassment" and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. (here, here, and [76].) Per BOLD, revert, discussion cycle I tried to discuss this on the talk page after reverting but my revert was still reverted. WP:3RR violation here. Revert of my revert despite later revert by another editor here. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Jorge1777: Can you explain this reversion? Looks like that was just out of spite? On a 1RR/DS American Politics article? Not looking good. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  It seems it's not looking good overall, review my diffs above. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well going to another article and reverting out of spite (with no summary) seems particularly unacceptable, especially after complaining about WIKIHOUNDING. Obviously Jorge1777 already understood the concept and from appearances decided to do it himself just to make a WP:POINT or something. If no explanation is forthcoming I personally think that should be a block. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Hi,User:DIYeditor that revert was actually a revert of his revert, not a revert made out of spite. Waddie96 had stalked me over to that article, not the other way around as you have suggested.Jorge1777 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Please use edit summaries for every edit to article space. Many or most of yours don't have any. If there is an automatic summary for a reversion please include an explanation as well. The only exception would be clear cases of vandalism. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Jorge1777: I would like to partly apologize, as I did not notice Waddie96's reversion of you just prior. However that brings up another issue, that the article is on a 24-hour WP:BRD cycle which means you need to go to the talk page when reverted rather than revert back. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Trolling?

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

---

Make me Feel Alright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have created a hoax at Draft:Make Me Feel Alright and copied my user page – not necessarily concerning by itself, but a possible additional sign of a trolling-only account or sockpuppet (LTA 963?). As far as I know, I have not interacted with the user in any way. Perhaps someone could keep an eye on this. Interestingly, the hoax was accepted via AfC for a moment. Ping Sulfurboy, who has notified me about the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a clever troll. They tricked me for the briefest of moments, blame lack of coffee this morning. The draft was moved back though and nominated for CSD. The userpage has been edited to no longer be a rip of ToBeFree, but as they pointed out, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wrt G3. Looks to be a blatant hoax. Google turns up nothing about a movie with this name: if you have to google it, it's not blatant. serial ^# 14:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  My stupidity shouldn't be confused with ambiguity, but I get what you mean. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I spot checked some of their content contributions, and none of them look particularly problematic, and appear to be in good faith. Other than the draft and the copied user page, both of which could be explained as test edits or playing around with the interface, what problems are there? --Jayron32 18:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Confirmed to several other blocked accounts, including Pauline Malette, who was blocked by ToBeFree. I imagine this is the connection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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

IP editor constantly reposting NOTAFORUM material

A German IP editor using multiple IPs continues to post and repost incomprehensible NOTAFORUM comments to Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust. [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87] The material has been removed by multiple editors (Kierzek, Obenritter, Jpgordon, myself), and I've explained why their comments are being removed on the talk pages of all the IPs involved, [88], [89], [90], [91] but they continue.

Is a range block possible? The IPs used so far are:

• 89.15.239.157
• 89.15.238.80
• 89.15.237.116
• 89.15.236.236

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

All IP numbers notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, easily done via a partial block. I did a week long range block, which will hopefully get the point across. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Kierzek (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:Lutz Fehling doesn't exist. I can see why. Narky Blert (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Before this gets closed, I want to note that the IP has now gone directly to the article to add the unsourced claim "All German Jews were psychiatrically diagnosed "Whiteheadsches Syndrom", an artefact, which was stamped into the identification-card." [92]. I've removed it, but I'm going to assume the probability that they'll re-add it again and again, just as they did their comment on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• My search wasn't exhaustive, but I can find no information on a psychiatric condition called "Whiteheadsches Syndrom" or what I guess would be the English equivaent, "Whitehead's Syndrome". I can find "Whiteheadsches Hämorrhoidenoperation", or "Whitehead's Hemorrhoid Surgery", but that's it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I too could find nothing about "Whitehead's Syndrome". The nearest I could get was "Dinno Shearer Weisskopf Syndrome", from what looks like a distinctly non-RS and non-MEDRS source. Link. Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @NinjaRobotPirate: I placed a comment on the IPs latest talk page about why I reverted their unsourced addition to the article [93], and they almost immediately restored it using the new IP 89.15.237.48 [94] (another editor, user:RandomCanadian, deleted it again). They then posted on their talk page that their source is "All Quiet on the Western Front", a work of fiction, and said that we were on the verge of Holocaust denial by deleting their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• NinjaRobotPirate, et al.: I remember this guy from last year[95]. He was blocked at dewiki and will clearly never contribute anything useful. Please consider whatever is necessary to protect the project (and others?) from his toxic drivel. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• I extended the partial block to include the mainspace article, too. Partial blocks can block someone from up to 10 pages, so we can pile on quite a few more pages before it gets untenable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, I hope that ends the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Violation of discretionary sanctions on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

Recently, Tara Reade was merged[96] into Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, as she was not notable in her own right. This led to the expected back-and-forth about how to trim it down and remove duplication, including some active discussions on the talk page.

In the middle of this, User:Cjhard deleted[97] all but the first couple of sentences from this section, entirely against any consensus. As the article is under discretionary sanctions, I believe this counts as vandalism, based on: "Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism." There was a clearly-established consensus to merge, and no consensus to delete.

Even though I believe this is vandalism, I did not revert them, but I did make requests on the article talk page and on their talk page for them to self-revert. They deleted my request and dared me to report them, so here I am.

I believe their behavior is unacceptable, not only for deleting so much against consensus, but for their disregard for my attempts to remedy the error. I ask that the deletion be reverted and Cjhard warned against doing this sort of thing. I have no opinion on whether a topic ban or block or whatever is also warranted. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Has the Christine Blasey Ford article 'likewise' been merged in a similar article on Brett Kavanaugh? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, probably because Ford has more notability in her own right. But if it were merged, I'm sure we'd actually want to merge it, not just delete it.

I was not involved in the decision to merge Tara Reade, although I happen to agree with it. The issue here is that Cjhard is trying to turn the merge into a delete, and that appears to violate sanctions. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Christine Blasey Ford has an extensive and successful academic career, and Tara Reade doesn't have any known claim to notability outside of her allegations against Biden. So, the cases are not comparable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Here was the consensus to merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tara_Reade FollowTheSources (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeeze, I know you are a new editor so again I recommend you familiarize yourself with our policies, but you are misstating the result of that discussion. The RESULT was move merge. There wasn't consensus for that result, it was essentially a no-consensus close. There was consensus against keeping it as a separate article, but "no consensus" for completely deleting it thus merge (not consensus for merge).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This turns out not to be the case. Here is the actual result:

The result was merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Once one discards the obvious one-edit SPAs, the comments that do not reference any policy at all, and the large number of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comments, mostly about Christine Blasey Ford, there is a consensus that this should not exist as a stand alone article, but there is not consensus to delete it. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a merge, not a delete. End of story. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Not end of story. There is a important difference between "not consensus to delete it" (ie. absence of consensus) and affirmative consensus to do anything else. The distinction is important. I have been trying to explain that difference to you on the talk page for sometime now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It says what it says. And the discussion on the article talk page is focused on what to do with specific section of the merged material. There is nothing approaching a consensus to delete the whole thing. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting your statement about the result. Will point out, once again, that merging is not the same as deleting. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• The result "merge" doesn't mean there is consensus to include all content of the article. What's irrelevant is irrelevant and should not be included and what's relevant is relevant and should be included. And you should focus on consensus building instead of wasting your and our time in drama boards.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• A merge does not require all material at the original to be retained at merge target, and in fact, it is expected that only relevant material be kept as appropriate for the merge target. Since this was a merge and not a delete, no contributions are lost through the redirect (outside probably a handful of revdels due to the situation, but those we don't worry about). While there's clearly agreement to merge, it should be understood that that merge comes with the implicit understanding that stuff needs to be pruned from it; in fact, I can tell from AzureCitizen's contributes they already cut more than half the information from the Reade article before adding, which obvious they did not seek any consensus for what parts to be kept. Cjhard was bold to further trim stuff down and in fact pointed to a prior consensus on that talk page [98] from prior to the merge close that judged to keep her bio only to facts relevant to the accusations. In other words, Cjbold did not come in blindly to trim down, they came in armed with past discussion to make that choice. No one has edit warred since, and so this feels like a 100% appropriate action, as if you are going to take action at Cjbold, then you have to take action at AzureCitizen too (which I dont think is being suggested). There's definitely previous support to trim down to the basics here, and consensus should develop if more should be added back, but you have all the past contributions without needing an admin to get at. --Masem (t) 23:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The outcome clearly IS a merge, as stated; no arguing against that, and I don't know why Darryl Kerrigan tries to. Especially since there's no need to argue from that end; what they have been doing is within the boundaries of a merge. Merging doesn't mean that the entirety of the material has to be ported over. How much is integrated into the target article is up to further discussion - the only unavailable option being "nothing". So I'd suggest that editors keep discussing on the talk page about the extent of what is kept or removed, and don't try to turn it into lawyering about the close. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I never claimed we should keep every word from the merged article. In fact, I deleted the infobox.[99]

Having said that, there is absolutely no consensus for deleting everything but the first two sentences. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Elmidae, I am not arguing the result wasn't a merge, simply that there wasn't an affirmative consensus to merge, and certainly not to include all of the content that happened to be in the Tara Reade article prior to the close. Thank you for your comments, I agree that we need to continue discussion of what should be included in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article (ie what is relevant and due in the circumstances).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

By any measure, there is no consensus to delete all of the biographical material. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Read WP:ONUS and WP:BLP, those who want to include should seek consensus for inclusion, not those who delete. There is no consensus to include that material. The "merge" is not consensus to include all of the article content. And in my opinion some of the stuff about political opinions of the accuser is indeed not needed since it is irrelevant to the topic of the article and there is no evidence it is relevant and implying that it is relevant is a BLP violation. We don't poison the well here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no BLP violations in the rescued material, but if there were, then that would be an argument for removing them, not everything. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Even you think there is no BLP violation, WP:ONUS is pretty clear about that, whether the content is BLP violation or not,

“ The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. ”

I should also add that I do believe that the content is a BLP violation but regardless, you should seek consensus anyway.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any such violation. That onus is on you. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained. Tara's political opinion, past events and comments are not proven to be relevant to Joe Biden sexual assault allegations. They might be relevant in an article about the biography of Tara but they are not confirmed to be relevant in the article about her sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden. Don't tell me maybe they are relevant, no, unless they are confirmed to be relevant to the sexual assault allegation, they will not be included. This is not an article about Tara's biography. The onus to achieve consensus is on you because you want to include. I can easily turn this to a WP:boomerang discussion if you still think the content should be there until there is a consensus to delete it based onWP:NOTGETTINGIT.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus at an AfD for article X doesn't override consensus among editors at merge target article Y. The AfD is about what to do with that article; what, if anything, is included in the target article is based on discussions between editors on the target article's talk page. Given that the extent of this seems to be a misunderstanding of this combined with a rush to ANI, followed by standard false balance/otherstuff fare, this should just be closed as a content dispute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete the entire bio and this is not a content dispute. It is a sanctions violation issue. There is an established consensus that some non-trivial portion of the bio should be retained. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to assume good faith, so maybe this is all a misunderstanding. If so, then @Cjhard: could correct my misunderstanding of their motives. If they don't, then I can only continue to hold my conclusion that they knowingly violated sanctions. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've explained before, look at the edit summary of the diff that you included of Cjhard's "removal", where if you look back at the talk page several days prior to the closure of the merge, there was general agreement to trim back any part of Reade's bio that would potentially be included on the allegation page to the parts relevant to the allegation. In combination with the general expectation that a merge is going to required trimming out material from the original to make it fit, this is all reasonable and within line. That's Cjhard's motivations, it's pretty clear. It is a content dispute. Trying to frame it as a sanctions violation, and not discussing the fact that AzureCitizen cut material when they brought it into the article is disingenuous - or basically that this is clearly not a sanctions violation but the first pass by two editors to complete the actions of the merge, and now the discussion should be on how to proceed, that is, a standard content dispute that has no place at ANI. --Masem (t) 05:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is full of discussions about the removal of small sections of the biography, and even those did not have any clear consensus to remove. Given this, removing everything but the first couple of sentences is radically different to what was discussed, to the point that Cjhard went against consensus on an article that was put under sanctions precisely to prevent actions like this.

At this point, I don't think it's productive for us to continue discussing Cjhard's motives and try to insert our own interpretations of what they were thinking when they did this. Let them speak for themselves. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith. This report does not warrant any further response from me unless someone decides to propose a boomerang against this 5-day-old SPA. Cjhard (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, but your response has not been collegial. In fact, you didn't respond except with hostility. I don't believe I've seen any explanation from you for why you think it's appropriate to delete the entire merged article. Perhaps if you'd communicated clearly and with civility from the start, we wouldn't be here.

In fact, I'm still waiting for that explanation, especially the part where you share why you feel you have some consensus behind you for this radical change. Instead, you've cleared your own talk page and avoided all discussion on the article's; full radio silence. This doesn't seem conducive to building a better article.

Now that you're here, you have the perfect opportunity to clear the air, but instead you're trying to offer more reasons to ignore me. That's disappointing.

Given that the article is under sanctions, I would think that unilateral decisions like this are counterproductive. What do you think?

Looks like you actually said something on the article talk page! I'm glad you're using your words. You still haven't explained anything, but hey, baby steps, right? FollowTheSources (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:FollowTheSources should sign in under their original account. This is not a new user. serial ^# 08:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I remember you. Aren't you the one who reverted my good-faith removal of the infobox without any stated reason? [100]. My edit comment ended collegially, with "if you disagree, please revert and explain", but you just reverted and never explained. You still haven't. And here you are, defending the removal of the entire biography, as opposed to fighting to keep the infobox.

You haven't participated in the discussion on the talk page, but you're happy to come here and say weird things about me. That's interesting. Maybe you could form a club with Cjhard for editors who like to revert but hate to discuss their reasons. FollowTheSources (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Complete with a telltale RGW username. Grandpallama (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have undone FollowTheSources's attempt to close this discussion, given that they are one of the parties whose behavior is under scrutiny, and the inappropriateness of their decision to close the discussion. The closure was doubly inappropriate, considering that they first posted a couple of snarky rejoinders [101][102] and then immediately closed the discussion four minutes later [103]. A few editors have expressed concerns about FollowTheSources's behavior and unusual familiarity with WP policies and procedures (to which we can now add "how to close discussions"), so it's not clear that this discussion was in any way over. And if it is, it should be closed by an admin or uninvolved party. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies User Issue

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

---

Hi there, I've been working on pages for a band and artist that I listen to. There's not a conflict of interest; they're artists I like but don't personally know (King Youngblood and Cameron Lavi Jones).

A user Drmies has been editing the page but also leaving me rather rude comments. I'm including them before. These are my first articles and I've been doing my best to abide by all guidelines and citations, and they have been very unkind. I spent hours finding secondary sources and adding a source list that they then deleted. These are my first two articles (King Youngblood and the singer Cameron Lavi-Jones) and this communication has really been upsetting.

• Hi thank you! There's not a conflict of interest here :) I'll make some edits to make it sound less personal. I'm still relatively new here! Thanks! 23:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)KaylynBuckley (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Kaylyn

• It sure reads like you have one. Listen, you can edit all you want, but if you keep inserting primary sources (links to the band's website, his own website, whatever) and spammy links to Spotify, and unacceptable links to Soundcloud, you will be reverted every time. And calling him a "philanthropist" in the lead for that one thing he did, which isn't even verified by proper secondary sources, is not acceptable either. Someone isn't a philanthropist on Wikipedia unless reliable sources make it so. You're new? That's fine--but see WP:RS for sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't mean to be a bother but can you help me understand what still isn't a good source? I added 10 new sources to verify info that you deleted and so I'm just a little confused. I got rid of the Spotify and Soundcloud links (I was using another artist's page that I like, the band Like Monroe, as a reference and they have a couple of external links to Youtube.) But what's wrong with the news articles I've cited? And, isn't there a friendlier way to discuss this? KaylynBuckley (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but from my perspective you walk into an encyclopedia and write promotional language full of spam links on a subject that you seem to care so much about that you can't write neutrally, so I don't know how friendly you want me to be. I indicated that Spotify was not an acceptable source, that links to the subject's website were not a good source, and you put them right back in, and that doesn't seem too friendly to me. And then you reverted me again, and after removing a few of those links you still left a couple. I linked to WP:RS, and you leave this in the article? A link to the agent's website? No, that's enough. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2020

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KaylynBuckley (talk • contribs)

Well, instead of bringing this to ANI, I highly suggest that you read WP:RS, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and other WP policies. And just for next time, put {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on Drmies' talk page. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

KaylynBuckley, it looks like you are accusing Drmies of trying to protect the high standards of this encyclopedia. That is what he is supposed to do. My recommendation is to stop adding promotional content, to stop adding spam links, to stop adding external links in the body of encyclopedia articles, and add only neutrally written content. If you follow my advice, that should bring any disagreement with Drmies to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

KaylynBuckley, a couple of points:

{1) There was nothing objectionable about what Drmies wrote to you. They merely tried to make you see that your editing looked promotional.

(2) Drmies has been an editor here for a very long time, and they are very well versed in the rules and policies of the encyclopedia. You'd be advised to pay attention to wht they;re telling you, instead of jumping to tattle on them.

(3) Drmies is also an administrator here, which means they're an editor trusted by the community.

(4) Please take the advice of Drmies, MiasmaEternal and Cullen (another admin) to heart and learn some of the policies here before you start making accusations against another editor.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Can some editor who's cleverer than me maybe reformat KaylynBuckley's comment so that it's clear that most of these things (after "upsetting") were said on their talk page? Thanks. Also, I find all this quite upsetting, being attacked and dragged to ANI, when I was trying to give the editor some good advice--it's downright rude. For more of their obvious COI work, see that other article, King Youngblood. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• The creation of King Youngblood and Cameron Lavi-Jones fully formed with wiki-markup and references from a brand new editor is a hallmark of paid editing. I would investigate further, but the oven just chimed to inform me that dinner is ready.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think I may just PROD them both. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the band is notable or not, Lavi-Jones definitely isn't (there's not a single source in his article that's about him rather than the band), and so I've redirected that article to the band one. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu (talk Hi! I'd really appreciate as I've mentioned in this thread that we could have a conversation so I can learn what's wrong with the article at this point - after the edits have been made by other editors and new sources have been added. Could you help me at this point get a handle on why this would warrant deletion? I'm a recent college grad and have been in lockdown in NYC for a couple of months now. I was bored and wanted to learn how to write articles, and chose an indie band I like that wasn't on wikipedia to try my hand at writing. I'm not sure if I'll attempt another article (I've been quite surprised by how people really are resistant to assuming good faith) but I would like to grasp what, after a lot of rounds of edits, is still problematic. Thanks for your help :)

@Drmies I apologize if this was out of line. I googled "how to address an unkind editor on Wikipedia" and was led here. I appreciate and respect your work and advice. I've been really surprised by how unfriendly editors have been on here, and how much it's bled into cyberbullying. I'm very open to learning but don't quite understand how anyone is supposed to get a handle on Wikipedia editing when no one assumes good faith and when the comments and words left on talk pages are just downright mean and not constructive. I'm really disappointed that when I asked if we could have a friendly dialogue on my talk page you refuted that. KaylynBuckley (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies (talk) I think that this - that I've found in researching the Wikipedia policies today - might be relevant here, from the Assume Good Faith wikipedia page. I apologize again if I violated some typical Wikipedian culture!

"A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them."

KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Again though, I apologize if I offended. Not my intention. I just am trying to make a page for a band I like. Thank you for redirecting Cameron Lavi-Jones's article to King Youngblood. I didn't know you could do that instead. KaylynBuckley (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know if this is an undisclosed paid editor or not, but I do notice that the new account made 10 edits in four days and thereby became autoconfirmed, and then posted a fully formed promotional article as edit #11. That looks a lot like gaming the system to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸ Not trying to game the system. I edited articles to try and get the hang of Wikipedia and how editing and formatting pages/inserting sources work. It's just something I wanted to learn while I've been bored in quarantine. Like I mentioned, I'm a fan of the band King Youngblood and wanted to try my hand at making a page myself, not trying to game the system. It'll probably be the last page I do because of the backlash for just giving it a try. I spent most of today getting secondary sources to try and follow the source guidelines other users sent me but I'm hoping people will dialogue about that in good faith versus continuing to just leave accusatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaylynBuckley (talk • contribs) 01:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This explanation strains credibility. Ten edits to "get the hang of it" followed by an eleventh edit creating a fully formed and formatted article in mainspace, without seeking help or input from anyplace within the project? Also, having enough knowledge to make such an article and yet not enough to know which sources are permissible? I think the WP:BOOMERANG has come full circle, and a WP:DUCK block is justified. BD2412 T 01:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen I'm still just asking that we can discuss in a more friendly way? I'm not sure what you mean by some of this. I've been quarantined for two months and wanted to try learning something new. I just wanted to be able to add Wikipedia article writing to my toolbox and give it a try. I edited articles to learn and then made a page - isn't that Wikipedia protocol? And what do you mean about seeking help from within the project - do you mean someone from Wikipedia? Are you supposed to request help from someone within Wikipedia before publishing. I am relatively computer savvy so formatting the page wasn't an issue for me, if that's what you mean by it being suspicious that it's fully formed and formatted? I'd really like to have a conversation, again versus hurling accusations and being unkind. That's why I started this thread in the first place: I was overwhelmed by the negativity. I really respect your experience in Wikipedia articles and again, would like to talk more, with a good faith assumption and knowing that I'm a recent college grad who is really bored while in lockdown in NYC. KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BD2412 T and Cullen³²⁸ I am certain you don't need this cited as well but I've spent a lot of today trying to better understand the different policies and procedures and also just wanted to throw this one in here too - I'm new on Wikipedia and trying to learn, and have been met with a lot of negativity . I'm sorry for starting this thread; I was trying to figure out a way to get constructive criticism versus personal attacks and was led to this page. Citing this paragraph from the Wikipedia "Assume Good Faith" page:

It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.

A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them.

I'm sorry that I've been misunderstanding and would really appreciate some kindness here as I'm trying to understand the Wikipedian culture and how to write an article. KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the evidence overall, I'm not buying what's being sold here. Such innocence, such convenient discovery of WP:AGF at just the moment it's needed, such shaming of "unfriendly" editors. I agree that its very likely that KB has been gaming the system, and is probably an undeclared paid editor. WP:DUCK sounds good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken why do you say that? It's not feigning innocence. And people have been sending me WP pages all day about different policies. It's not a convenient discovery; I've been referred to different links literally all day.

How did you get started on Wikipedia and can you help answer a couple of my other questions that I've mentioned in here? I tried my hand at writing an article because I've been bored in lockdown and because I wrote one I've been attacked for most of the day. I'm 22 and brand new here and just want to have a kinder dialogue about how to improve my editing and writing in the future - though given the content and communication of the other editors I've come across today, think this might be my last Wikipedia attempt. It really just feels like cyberbullying.KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

So again with the shaming. We're all cyberbullies and we're driving you away from Wikipedia. It's not going over, you've lost your audience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we do this, then. We'll go ahead and delete King Youngblood, and you can work on other areas of the project for a couple months and develop a few thousand edits worth of experience, and then we can revisit having an article on the band. BD2412 T 02:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely what I came here to say! I've AfD'd the article as non-notable, but don't let that stop anyone from speedying it if they think it qualifies. Then 2 or 3 months of productive editing -- without creating any articles -- should go to show whether KB is what we think she is or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am reminded here of the colloquial definition of chutzpah: killing your parents and then pleading for mercy because you are an orphan. This editor does not strike me as forthcoming. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best if all further new page creations go through WP:AFC, to iron out aany problems with sourcing and tone. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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. [104] Adding the etymology as provided by the describing author.
2. [105] Replaced incorrect etymology of Balanophora by using different source.
3. [106] Replaced etymology that does not mention any words, by etymology that mentions the Greek origins.
4. [107] 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. [108] 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)

@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)

References

Eurocentric view in Wikipedia

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

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)

• Also support, given their seeming determination to push their pov (including a tendency to use WP:OR for the purpose) and refusal or inability to WP:LISTEN or understand what is (sometimes repeatedly) explained to them (combined with 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)

vandalism and someone who is not neutral

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

---

((the problem is not the source - why did you just focus on the person's answer))

Semsûrî should not be Wikipedia. I see this user taking sides and doing Kurdish nationalism. The Kurdish nationalist is trying to emphasize his views on Zazas, Zaza-Gorani languages, Zaza language,Gorani language pages. I see that you are deleting other comments for invalid reasons. Goodnight

Can you see if someone will say stop? [[109]] Pages should be reinstated. Does Semsûrî know everything and why are you protecting it? Do you think it is natural that it creates the perception of kurdish. Why are the people who take sides still stand on wikipedia? You don't see vandalism either. see discussion pages. he complains that he has the opposite view, cannot explain on the discussion page.

you lock the pages as he wants instead of undo. I wonder why ????

Pages should be in the style of creating Kurdish perception created by her.

Please take a look. He creates a reason and erases most of the data on the pages.

Examine this person extensively. Apart from the ski, which he could not find reliable, he also wipes. It's not objective. Kurdish is trying to convey nationalist views to pages. I hope someone will examine it 5.24.147.56 (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated, 'Minahan' is not a reliable source so I removed it. See[110]. What I've seen from you and your friends is the belief that any source can be used on Wikipedia which is not the case. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z (James Minahan, Peter T. Wendel) why not reliable ? Let's say the source is not reliable. Why did you delete this resource? (Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to . Victoria R. Williams) 188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

[[111]] is this friend also a puppet of Semsûrî — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

you report such a reason and delete too much data. You only delete the data on the pages. You are doing Kurdish nationalism. You add Kurdish nationalist views and you can also have puppets and assistants.188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle and Semsûrî they can be puppets 188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We waited a long time for Benahol to become a valid editor in the Zaza area, but Benahol just didn't want to follow even very basic rules. We have been making a clean up now, and really many edits were simply copy pasted. For the moment, recalling the discussions I had with the now blocked Benahol, I don't feel comfortable with IP edits interfering in the clean up of the Zaza articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

KyleJoan reported by ToeFungii

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

KyleJoan regularly makes reversions with no edit summary to edits that were not vandalism/disruptive and contrary to WP:REVEXP. The examples below are all reverts with no edit summary AND where the user being reverted has no warnings and were/have not been blocked. All were done with Twinkle which states it "should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." at WP:TWINKLEABUSE. These are just the examples since May 1. There are many more including at least two other edit wars and 3RR violations. They are too stale, but they do indicate a user issue of working with other editor's collaboratively and a willingness to allow changes to articles by other editors.

1. Diff01
2. Diff02
3. Diff03
4. Diff04
5. Diff05
6. Diff06
7. Diff07
8. Diff08
9. Diff09
10. Diff10
11. Diff11
12. Diff12
13. Diff13
14. Diff14
15. Diff15
16. Diff16
17. Diff17
18. Diff18
19. Diff19
20. Diff20
21. Diff21
22. Diff22
23. Diff23
24. Diff24
25. Diff25
26. Diff26
27. Diff27-ip warned by another user, but unclear if same user as there was an editing break
28. Diff28-ip warned by another user, but there was a two week gap in editing so likely different user

KyleJoan engaged in an edit war and 3RR reverting another user with no edit summary for edits that were not vandalism.

1. Diff29-15:18, 11 May 2020
2. Diff30-15:21, 11 May 2020
3. Diff31-15:25, 11 May 2020

Although these are not reverts, they are additional edits with no edit summary.

1. Diff32
2. Diff33
3. Diff34
4. Diff35
5. Diff36

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeFungii (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Previous discussion WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#User:KyleJoan and User:Davefelmer which might have some bearing on this, also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer‎. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Should we dissect each diff you provided and see how guilty I am of what you're accusing, ToeFungii? I'll start. The first diff saw an IP user remove a BLP article's nationality without any explanation. Do tell me how that qualifies as a "good faith" change. KyleJoan^talk 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I haven't been through all the diffs, and am not chiming in to criticise you KyleJoan, but I would have AGFed on that one and used an edit summary. It's possible the IP editor didn't realise he had adopted Japanese nationality? The lead doesn't touch on that. The edit summary doesn't need to be lengthy, just something like - 'Rv - he's got Japanese nationality' would have sufficed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  KyleJoan, I've looked through quite a few of those diffs, and while I'm not seeing any reverts I disagree with, I think you are being a bit heavy with the red Twinkle rollback. Please use an edit summary to revert edits except in cases of obvious vandalism - quite a few of them look to me like they might have been good faith. As for the 'edit war' example, you didn't go over 3RR, but you came close - again, an edit summary, and an invitation to discuss the changes on the article's talk page, wouldn't have been a bad thing there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  ToeFungii - have you attempted to discuss these observations with KyleJoan anywhere? I'm not seeing anything on their talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am being inappropriately threatened with general sanctions for COVID-19

Please refer to my talk page. This is not collaborative editing, this is disruptive administrator behaviour. --Almaty (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, on your talk page, I see an admin approaching you in what appears to be quite a polite manner, and you then taking umbrage and messing about with their posts to the page. If there is some history to this that puts that approach into a different context, would you mind presenting diffs? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The admin warned me without any mainspace conflict, simply for opposing their proposal to add further sanctions, for not following WP:MEDRS which other people oppose. Its unwelcoming to newcomers which we need I have had a hard time being able to keep up with keeping Wikipedia making sense on the issue as per the sources it quotes which change constantly, and I seem to be the only person doing it. Then I'm just warned for no apparent reason, nothing. Thats inappropriate administrator behaviour. --Almaty (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also can you please let the administrator know that hes not allowed to topic ban me for not following MEDRS guideline to the letter? I do my utmost to uphold that guideline where possible, I just disagree with him just banning people for not following MEDRS guideline. Thats why we have a WP:BRD cycle, so that we can be welcoming to newcomers and not leave the whole tranmsision section up to me. --Almaty (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I note that Almaty didn't bother to notify of this report as required.

The following are the edits by Almaty on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 that caused me concern. The context is that I'm attempting to remove unreliable medical sources (preprints, primary sources used to support biomedical claims) that breach WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, but I'm getting pushback from a handful of editors who think that it's okay to breach sourcing policy and guidelines because otherwise the article wouldn't keep up with breaking news.

• 05:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC) - criticising the removal of a primary source
• 05:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC) - challenging the community's imposition of general sanction on the topic area
• 05:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC) - criticising the semi-protection on the article, properly imposed by an uninvolved administrator
• 00:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) - a snide comment aimed at me for warning editors about improper sourcing

I am aware that last month Almaty was topic-banned from COVID-19 and only had the topic ban lifted because they gave assurances that they would not repeat the behaviour. I came to their talk page to try to persuade them to desist from challenging our agreed sourcing standards, and remind them of what they said in asking for the topic ban to be lifted. I was met by defiance, a rejection of MEDRS, and personal attacks on my contributions as an uninvolved administrator. I would hope that everyone agree that the state of the sourcing in the article is sub-standard and that it is important to uphold the general sanctions as well as our sourcing requirements. You have only to read either the article or its talk page to see the difficulties administrators are facing.

I suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is the appropriate response here. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that this has been a ridiculous escalation caused by RexxS wikilawyering me. I didnt reinsert anything that was removed, I asked. I oppose that they shouldn't put general sanctions for MEDRS, thats our most odious guideline to follow, regular contributors dont always follow it to the letter. I was the main one attempting to help with sourcing. This adminsitrator is warning me for helping him. Its the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. I am allowed to voice an opinion on removing sanctions because I am stressed because I dont have any newcomers helping me with the transmission section which is always out of date. Because people are terrified to edit the article becuase of the sanctions. --Almaty (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is the best thing about Wikipedia at the moment. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think it would be OK to add biomedical information to an article that important if it isn't compliant with MEDRS, or that the general sanctions that have been agreed on wouldn't cover that. RexxS isn't wikilawyering, he's stating the obvious. You don't need to be terrified to edit, just stick to MEDRS sourcing - it's not like RexxS was threatening you with a ban or anything. You say above that you're stressed - maybe you need to step back for a few hours and reflect, this seems to have been blown out of proportion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm stressed because I'm the only person who actually seems to read the QnAs on transmission and update them, based on the sources that we cite which are updated constantly. I was hoping to leave it to newcomers and others now. But because of the sanctions, many people who could don't edit. Thats my opinion on that. --Almaty (talk)

RexxS, how do you consider yourself uninvolved at Coronavirus disease 2019 given your contributions to the article and discussions on the talk page there? PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: WP:INVOLVED:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

I'd be grateful if you could point to which of those 41 edits of mine you think fall outside of "an administrative role" and "minor or obvious edits which do not show bias". I honestly do not believe that edits adding a "See also" entry, or removing small text from infoboxes, or adding a {{convert}} template, or adding the abbreviation "PFR", or marking/removing non-MEDRS sources, make me an "involved " administrator. Where's my conflict of interest that INVOLVED describes? Does upholding MEDRS or WP:ACCESS count as CoI in your opinion? --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For the article itself stuff like removing the protest section[112] and disagreements on a WHO report[113]. On the talk page voting on RFCs[114] and discussions about sourcing and content[115][116][117] PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought that removing content about protests against measures against this in three out of 50 states in one out of about 200 countries relevant to this article is pretty obviously a minor or obvious edit per WP:WEIGHT. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: you think that voting in an RfC about which image to use for flattening the curve, or supplying a list of secondary sources (having been asked for them) makes me an involved administrator? What do you think is the point of WP:INVOLVED? --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. I do not care the content specifically you are involved with there. You are active on the page discussing, building, and disputing content is all that matters. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you should be able to state the conflict of interest that I appear to have. I don't think you can do that. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave sources for your extensive involvement at the article and the article talk page. You even had a content dispute with Almaty it looks like. That all meets the bar for involved in that subject. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Rexx you don't need to have a WP:COI to be INVOLVED. Participation on the content side of things has normally been read by the community to make a sysop INVOLVED and thus an editor with no special powers or abilities, including the ability, in this case, to level general sanctions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yes, you do need to have a CoI to be INVOLVED because that's what INVOLVED says, as PackMecEng quotes above. I simply restored properly-sourced content that had been removed inappropriately. That's not a content dispute. INVOLVED is about administrators being involved in disputes as you can see from reading it, and editing content through "minor or obvious edits which do not show bias" has never been a reason to label an editor as involved. I ask again: What's my bias? What's my CoI? Nobody has been able to answer that. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

At this point four different people have said you are involved. I think you are misunderstanding what involved means. You should take on board the advice given you here. PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I agree with RexxS on the substance of these issues, I have to agree with Barkeep49 and PackMecEng that the content dispute participation and removal of content based on WP:WEIGHT (the linked diff for the Protests section) constitute some involvement here. An outside editor could view the past removal, for instance, as bias for the status quo and bias against introducing certain content (regardless of whether that bias is grounded in a solid application of WP policy). — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: That's a coincidence, because I think you are misunderstanding what involved means. I have no bias; I have no CoI. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I take your point about that edit that depends on WP:WEIGHT. But contributors here seem to be confusing editing content with "conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to", which is what INVOLVED says. I don't agree that removing UNDUE content displays a bias toward the status quo. I do agree that I have a bias against adding biomedical content that is sourced only to primary sources. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have things the wrong way round. It is precisely because there are many reports of preliminary findings, sometimes contradicting each other, that we have to be even more careful about following the exacting standards of WP:MEDRS in articles about COVID-19. Very many researchers are working on aspects of this disease, and on reviews and meta-studies, so it won't be long before we get proper WP:MEDRS-compliant information about any plausible claims made in primary studies. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I in general support MEDRS as the guideline to follow. I do not support it being used as a bludgeon or a threat of sanctions if someone doesn't follow it, mainly newcomers, because otherwise the most important parts of the article wont be edited as per the WP:BRD cycle here. --Almaty (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It is better that an article, in particular its most important parts and especially one about a health condition, is not edited at all rather than have potentially inaccurate information added. Again you seem to be arguing for the relaxation of WP:MEDRS in the precise article where it is most important. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just mainly so suprised that one of MEDRS most strident supporters is being warned for not following MEDRS, by an involved administrator. It shoudl not be used as a bludgeon, and having sanctions for MEDRS is it being used as a bludgeon. We can simply follow WP:BRD for sourcing issues. And I'm surprised that we have so few editors checking the WHO, ECDC and CDC sources and updating them when appropriate. --Almaty (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

And it is not better for it not to be edited at all, when the sources have been updated and wikipedia shows inaccurate information as per the sources quoted. It is better to encourage editing rather than sanction people or threaten sanctions which may be unnecessary at this point. --Almaty (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not a news service and there is no timeframe by which articles should be updated. If a piece of information depends on a non-MEDRS compiant source, then it simply doesn't get added. This is not a difficult concept, surely. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I dont add them in general, havent since february or early march at the latest, when there was arguable reason and always discussed, never reinserted without discussion. I replace non medrs with medrs. However the MEDRS compliant sources are being updated constantly, and wiipedia is often completely inaccurate in its assertions, from the sources quoted. Using MEDRS as a bludgeon, and sanctions, and warning inappropriately to one of very few editors that appears to be reading and updating wiki on IMO the most important documents in the world on the issue, detracts from this article, and removes the ability of other experts, other newcomers and other editors to help. --Almaty (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But you're not a strident supporter of MEDRS, are you? "One can cite a pre print if it isn’t to make a medical claim for instance, I have inserted several, such as that Wuhans lockdown was arguably successful which stood for at least a week." Those preprints carries the warning "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information. You've been using sources that aren't even fit for a newspaper in the article, and want the licence to carry on running roughshod over any sourcing standards. The community instituted general sanctions because of edits like yours, and your calls for just BRD to apply means admins would only take action if you re-insert the content often enough for WP:EW to apply. That sort of attempting to game the system is inappropriate for articles under GS. --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Where's the disruption here? I see some disagreement on the talk page, and some reverts via the article history, but nothing that seems to be edit warring for the user who brought this subject to WP:ANI. Disruption warranting a topic ban should be clear and concise. The diffs cited by Rexxs appear to just be normal talk page disagreements, which are normal and part of the process for gaining an eventual WP:CONSENSUS. Barring any additional diffs of disruption, I don't see the topic ban as being warranted. Also, given the content dispute between Rexxs, and Almaty, I do see Rexxs as being an WP:INVOLVED administrator, and should not have been the one to apply the topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I haven't topic-banned anyone, and I simply don't agree that I am involved. But to avoid this sort of pre-emptive complaining, I'll make sure that I bring any requests for sanctions to AE or ANI if I feel Almaty needs to be sanctioned. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am, I just support consensus and discussion, and particularly the contributions of other editors who may not understand technical lanuage. @FriendlyRiverOtter:'s contributions with non medrs compliant content back in march in the transmission section for instance, led to a rewrite by myself and Doc James, because no one knew the difference between "airborne" the technical term and being "borne by air". We then cited WHO's tweet as opposed to WHO's QnA. The WHO then rewrote their QnA to reflect their tweet. That is consensus and wikipedia working at its finest. --Almaty (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If we were talking about a disagreement about whether particular content was WP:DUE, for example, there would be a consensus to be sought. But when a editor deliberately undermines MEDRS, the consensus is already established, and warning them about the need to meet sourcing standards isn't a debate. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Youre an involved administrator, and you shouldn't warn me without a content dispute, actual disruption or an edit war. I disagree with your proposal to topic ban people for not following your interpretation of MEDRS. That's well within my rights. And this is a storm in a teacup, I would say that your actions demonstrate inappropriate ownership of the article. If you wish to contribute now that you are involved, please contribute. Thankyou --Almaty (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Macuto Bay raid move proposal

On 8 May, a move proposal was started in the Macuto Bay raid article by ZiaLater . Yesterday, on 18 May, more users from another move discussion were pinged by the same user.

As I commented in the talk page, around 76% of these users showed support for a specific outcome and there were others move discussions where participants could have been invited. Because of this, there have been concerns that this constitutes WP:CANVASSING and/or WP:VOTESTACK.

I only wish to notify an uninvolved administrator about the situation and to consider how this can affect the closure of the discussion. The neutral point of view noticeboard related thread can also be consulted for reference.

Many thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Meineliebe97

Addition of copyright violations and such despite warnings. Seemingly WP:NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I don't think this rises to NOTHERE. They've posted a copyvio and a couple of poorly-written drafts, but that isn't enough to block. creffett (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)