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

FloridaArmy and AfC woes

The first thing that should be said here is that there is no doubt that FloridaArmy is an net positive for the wiki. No one is questioning that. However, his drafts in the AfC process (which he was previously sanctioned to run all articles through) has become overwhemingly burdensome. There is consensus from the discussion at the AfC project page that something needs to be done (found here). Kylietastic summed it up best in the OP:

For those unaware the reason FloridaArmy spams AfC is due to this ANI issue — offloading the strain on AfD and other areas onto AfC. However their ongoing behaviour does not seem fair to the other submitters or on the reviewers. According to Template:AFC yistics/pending they currently have 68 open submissions (4.6% of all submission), also they just resubmit with little or no changes causing much more load. I just noticed they recently submitted multiple articles with only 1 source such as Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush which they clearly know is not good enough. Yesterday I rejected Draft:Koninklijke Militaire School with no independent sources, just the single schools own link. In the past they have added non references such just a film name as a ref for the same film and other such things that they clearly know are not valid. They clearly do understand how things work and the guidelines, but persist of submitting the junk with the good and have a more combative than collaborative attitude to editing. They appear to be getting worse (from what I've seen), maybe due to virus lockdown.... is it not time to take some action? They continue to expect others to do work for them, never submitting properly (just with {{submit}} so AFCH does not work until fixed up), rarely formatting references, first submits that have no chance of acceptance without others improving first etc. Their behaviour was not considered good enough for AfD, why should it be OK to continue in AfC? Should this go back to ANI? Should they be restricted to the number of current open submissions, and not allowed to just resubmit? I'm sure if they focused on fewer articles at once, and worked more collaboratively they would be an big positive to the project, but they way they choose to work is not fair on others (submitters and/or reviewers).

TL:DR version, the editor is submitting a myriad of problematic drafts and is not responding or adapting to the countless attempts by reviewers to get them to improve. They expect other's to do their work, which is an unfair burden to put on reviewers, especially if they editor knows how to do it themselves. WP:BUILDER.

The rough consensus seems to be to limit FlordiaArmy's total pending AfC submissions at one time or to limit the rate at which they can submit them. The AfC community desperately needs relief from this situation. I am pinging the AfC reviewers who in the above mentioned discussion showed concern about FlordiaArmy's drafts, most of whom have also said some sort of action needs to be taken. KylieTastic, Chris troutman, Robert McClenon, Nosebagbear, CaptainEek and myself. RoySmith and Scope creep also expressed concern, but did not explicitly state yet whether they believe action should be taken. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• At AfC I suggested a limit to individual submissions to prevent WP:GAMING. I proposed a three strikes system, where each draft of Florida's gets two declines, and is automatically rejected the third time. Drafts which are not improved between submissions should also be auto-rejected. Florida has been at this for years and should know better. Though let me say, I very much want Florida to stick around, they are a valuable contributor, and in no way do I think we should block them. Just...provide some sanctions that will guide them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I will clarify what I said, and I think this is consistent with what User:CaptainEek has said. I do not think that the community needs to take any further action beyond the action already taken of sending their submissions through AFC. I think that the reviewers, as a subcommunity, can enforce some common-sense rules such as are being mentioned. If the purpose of this thread has been to solicit community discussion of those rules, we welcome that input. (If the purpose is to impose any further community restrictions, I do not think that is necessary.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mind extending someone 50 strikes as long as they put in good faith efforts on each submission. This is why I think a limit on the amount of pending submissions might be better as it would actively encourage the editor to spend the time to improve each submission. And yes, I echo the sentiment, that bringing this to ANI should in no way be interpreted as an effort to get the user banned in anyway.

  Instead, I think some sort of formal regulation is needed. I don't share in the optimism of Robert that we (as reviewers) can enforce common-sense rules without the support of ANI, because we've tried that and so far it hasn't worked. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have accepted and rejected several of FloridaArmy's drafts at AfC. Some were decent articles and were acceptable immediately, some were marginally notable but got over the line after I found a couple other sources (some of which weren't easily accessible) and I don't remember any being "not notable," but I do remember a few not being ready for draft space. AfC is perfect for this type of thing. Our goal is to improve the encyclopaedia, and the articles FloridaArmy creates are generally notable. I do echo the concern, but I don't see any need to take action - if anything, a restriction that requires an AfC to be submitted with at least two sources would be the most beneficial to the encyclopaedia. I also think the three-strike rule could be problematic if the topic is indeed notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, can I respectfully explore what the actual problem is here? AfC reviewing is voluntary, and you can choose which drafts from the queue to review, and which to pass over. If a reviewer doesn't like reviewing FloridaArmy's drafts because they require so much work, they're free to pass over them on move onto a submission from someone else. Is there a major problem in having a large, but not ridiculous, number of old drafts from a single editor hanging around for long periods of time in the AfC system - does that break anything? Perhaps the long wait times might encourage FA to put a bit more work into their drafts, in the hopes of getting them reviewed quicker? I'll add that I agree with SportingFlyer that the three-strike-reject option doesn't seem ideal - perhaps a better approach would be to limit the number of AfC submissions that FA could make - either time-dependent (e.g. no more than one submission per week) or backlog-dependent (e.g. can submit no new drafts if they have >10 in the current queue). GirthSummit _(blether) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  The problem isn't so much that there's a large number of drafts. The problem is the continual re-submission with little to no improvements. Sources are regularly improperly formatted. Constant use of unreliable sources. Constant spelling/grammar mistakes. Constant addition of irrelevant statements. I generally don't have a problem with this if the user is inexperienced/new and I in fact love helping to fix up an article by a new user. However this editor isn't new. They know better. They've been asked a countless amount of times by reviewers to do just a basic bit of cleanup. They've also been asked to properly source articles. They are completely non-response to this, and it seems to be just getting worse.

  Yes AfC is voluntary, so is all of Wikipedia. AfD is voluntary and FA's burden on that was dealt with, not sure why the same can't be done here. Eventually someone has to review these drafts. I don't like filtering what I review, I just go down the list. Asking reviewers to cherry pick what they review to skirt the problem instead of just addressing it seems inefficient. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pace the obviously triggering effect of backlogs anywhere for us obsessives, I think that creating a couple of badly undersourced drafts every day and having most of them languish indefinitely while a few are fixed up and promoted, is probably a better outcome than creating badly undersourced articles and then bludgeoning AfD, which was what happened previously. This seems to me to be pretty much what Draft space is for. Fromt he popint of view of the admin cabal, the problem at AfD was hectoring. That is a problem wherever it happens - the AfC discussion implies this but is there evidence? Also the number of G13'd drafts that are then REFUNDed and resubmitted with insufficient improvement is a bit of an issue, e.g. Draft:Mbanga soup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Guy (help!) 12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• (Coming from ping due to WTAFC involvement) - I do not believe in this three strikes bit. It risks various issues, and also goes against the basis on which "rejection" was bought in as an option. I would, however, suggest a rate limit. I don't mind too much if it's per week (1 or 2) or in total (5-10), but something needs to be done. @Girth Summit:, I can't be 100% sure on other reviewers position, but my reasoning on why it impacts us and the queue (rather than just being ignored), is that we can't just ignore tough calls. Unless it's mention in article comments or declines, an FA non-clear draft looks the same as any other editor's, so I can't just ignore his. We can't just ignore non-clear drafts in general that we'd rather not do because that places more and more work on the few willing to tackle them, risking driving them off. FA's large spike clutters up more than is reasonable, whereas a few would be okay. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, hi - can I just ask you to unpack that a bit for me - I don't quite understand what you mean by 'non-clear drafts', or why it's not possible to selectively ignore them. (I'm not sure how other people approach the AfC queue, maybe that makes a difference - I use the New Pages Feed, which present you with the person who created the draft beneath the title.) GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit:, a "non-clear" draft is my phrasing for a draft where it's not clear whether an "accept" or a "decline/reject" would be suitable, necessitating more and deeper consideration. I find the NPF a little jittery for me (I think it doesn't play well with some of my scripts), but you're right, that would allow avoiding a specific submitter's drafts - I've usually used this list (with its various filters) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, I suggest simply declining as having insufficient sources to establish notability. Most of them are directory entries, after all. Guy (help!) 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Commenting only: this may be connected to this thread (permalink) on Jimbo's page, raised in questioning racism in AFC process in the wake of the death of George Floyd. --Masem (t) 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being implied here. AfCs concerns with FA extend back well before this thread. Also, I along with many other reviewers (I think) agree that coverage is lacking on African Americans and are sympathetic to that problem. There is not as much a problem with the subjects as there is the incredibly poor quality of the articles and the habitual re-submission without improvement. The race card is regularly pulled instead of doing just basic cleanup. Accusations of prejudice from page creators in AfC happens a lot. I've personally been accused of being prejudiced towards basically everything (including but not limited to black people, white people, asians, men, women, bagpipe bands and just recently New Zealand). However, this almost exclusively comes from new users that want to cry foul instead of doing even minimal fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs)

I only brought up that convo as the timing of that discussion with this ANI may suggest a possible issue related to POINT, but I don't have enough insight on past behavior with that editor to know. Was just bringing it up with in case it was relevant. --Masem (t) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So you don't have insight on past behavior, yet you felt the need to imply reviewers are bringing this up as a point of retribution? No matter how implicit the implication, this could broadly be construed as a personal attack. AfC reviewers deal with enough abuse from UPEs, SPAs and other angsty new editors. They don't need to also be leveled without merit by experienced editors. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll summarize what I already wrote at WT:AFC: FloridaArmy creates a high volume of low quality drafts about interesting and encyclopedic subjects, and stubbornly resists all efforts to help him improve. That's unfortunate, but it's better than most of the crap we see on AfC, which is unabashed spam: people promoting their own (or their paid clients') companies, bands, projects, or selves. That's where we need to be tightening up the rules, Not bashing editors who are clearly and unequivocally WP:HERE, even if they are borderline WP:CIR cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) GirthSummit makes a valid point about the volunteer nature of AfC but those same volunteers are just working a backlog without filtering FloridaArmy's entries from view. I agree with CaptainEek's suggestion about three strikes but I believe AfC can impose that without needing wider community consensus. I commented on an earlier thread that this issue needs to come to ANI because FloridaArmy's skirting notability to turn out two-sentence drafts violates WP:GAME, in my opinion. I suggest that FloridaArmy needs to be disallowed from creating new drafts, entirely. We have good editors that could build meaningful articles but FloridaArmy undercuts the incentives by robbing our other editors of four awards by persisting in this way. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Chris troutman, We're WP:HERE to write articles, not collect awards. To use my previous example from WT:AFC, Wikipedia existed for 17 years before FloridaArmy started Oberlin Academy. The idea that they somehow robbed somebody of an award by getting there first is hogwash. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree that to argue that any negative effects FA is having are due to robbing editors of specific awards, or even of being able to be the first to write on their article, is without merit. I also firmly disagree with FA (a GF actor) from being completely blocked from drafts, especially as it's indicated in the messages here and on the AFC talk page that there are drafts that have gone through AfC without issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I see FA as a net positive for the project. Many of the articles they create may be marginal in notability but the overall effect is definitely one of a more complete encyclopedia. On the other hand, the process they use does have its drawbacks. Creating a draft that contains one line and one source transfers the onus of figuring out notability on the AfC reviewer, which does make life harder for them. Perhaps something like banning FA from resubmitting rejected articles may work? If FA believes that the article is notable enough, they would need to involve someone else in the process who can work on and then resubmit it. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, how about a restriction based on the criteria necessary to reach DYK? 1,500 characters is scarcely War And Peace, I think. Guy (help!) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  My only concern is that that would stop FA from contributing entirely. I don't see them as writing anything more than a few lines in an article. But, AfC is designed for evaluating reasonably coherent articles and not for one or two liners so I'm willing to support if it comes to that. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this topic up Sulfurboy. This is a frustration that I have felt throughout the time I have been volunteering at AfC. Since Wikipedia is not WP:SRSBSNS, I have tried to address my own frustrations by avoiding FA's low-effort drafts, as Chris troutman has mentioned. Unfortunately, this only continues the backlog of articles at AfC. I think that RoySmith makes an important point. Despite my fustrations, FA is adding entries about notable topics (especially around state-level politicians), but two sentences does not an article make, and the sourcing can be very lacking (that is not solely a FA issue). Additionally, as RoySmith mentioned, after these proto-stubs make it to mainspace, they languish there with no additional work or changes. Should the onus be on AfC to keep these drafts in "development hell" until they are ready for mainspace, on AfD to be more particular about these articles passing the muster, or the original editor to further develop the articles that have already been accepted? Bkissin (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Lobbing (baseless) charges of racism is a personal attack on many of our hard working editors but FA's inability or unwillingness to understand sourcing requirements and doubling down on such personal attacks makes me question their competence here. There's an argument to be made that certain subjects, especially about people of color lack the coverage we require but that is not the responsibility of reviewers to fix. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think we need to have a broader discussion about FA's problematic and incendiary behavior. Comments like this, YOU ARE RACISTS., are absolutely uncalled for and a blatant personal attack. Perhaps focusing only on his AFC editing isn't the solution here...a clear restriction on commenting on other editors would go far since it seems to be FA's default when things don't go their way. Praxidicae (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. That type of behavior is not acceptable on a collaborative project. Blanket aspersion casting of that nature should be met with a block. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, A lot of this is getting lost in what's turned into a wall of chaos. It might need a separate header or separate ANI all together. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's two distinct issues here, although it may be difficult to completely disentangle them. One is the quality of FloridaArmy's drafts. I include in this disruptive behavior such as tendentious resubmissions, and their unwillingness to accept any constructive feedback. I've already covered my stance on that adequately.

  The accusations of racism is another thing entirely. It's fine to make statements such as, discriminating against African American subjects and history is wrong (from Jimbo's talk page). I don't think anybody would argue with that. Digging a little deeper, there's an implication that wikipedia does indeed practice such discrimination. I don't have any issue with that either. I'm not sure it's true, but I certainly have no problem with the accusation as a general statement of project-wide bias.

  Statements such as,"YOU ARE RACISTS" cross the line into inappropriate. That's especially true if it's being used as a excuse for why so many of their drafts get declined. Certainly by the time you get to calling specific people liars and/or racists, you're well into WP:NPA territory. If ANI were to censure FloridaArmy in some way for those personal attacks, I'd have no problem with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• As the OP who kicked this off at AfC I wish I had done more due-diligence prior. Yesterday I worked on a FA submission William Beverly Nash to acceptance and FloridaArmy's reply this was friendly, appreciative and encouraging, a side I had previously not noticed and had been overshadowed by the submissions that have generated the friction. Today I did a qualitative check (not 100% accurate as not all reviewers post the notices, or use AFCH) but this shows why from AfC point of view we all know FA... They have had more reviews than most by a factor or two, but still with a positive acceptance rate. So clearly as I think has universally been expressed FloridaArmy is a definite net positive to the project. From looking at everything said I get the feeling the problem is caused by different POVs. FloridaArmy appears to aim to create notable stubs, in the cases causing issues pushing the line of notability, which I guess is the same behaviour that caused the original issues at AfD. From the AfC side we struggle with the daily influx and the backlog that IMHO is still way too long and a disincentive to new editors. From this you can see over the same month we had 166 reviewers to the 6,313 reviews but heavily weighted to a subset of reviewers. Saying that I do still think having 68 open submissions (currently 54) and resubmission with little change or discussion because they disagree is problematic and is not good for either FloridaArmy or reviewers. I actually believe that the issues need to be addressed globally not just against FA. I don't think having so many open submissions is acceptable with the current number of active AfC reviewers; I don't think re-submitting with little change or discussion is acceptable, and certainly not when more than one reviewer has declined; I personally don't think that a single source is ever enough. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think we're here because regular AfC reviewers have a very different conception of what they should be doing than what the community has asked them to do. I don't blame AfC reviewers (exactly) for this. But I think these differing conceptions, especially with the reason FA was restricted to AfC, are where the problems creep in. The community has asked AfC to screen for articles that are, more likely than not, able to survive AfD and to screen against UPE and other forms of COI editing. AfC see itself as screening for articles that meet a certain basic quality standard and against UPE and other forms of COI editing (COI/UPE is clearly not the case with FA so I will be ignoring that for the remainder of my comments). But AfD participants, on the whole, don't care about malformed citations, bad categories, one sentence stubs and the like that bother some AfC reviewers. And it is clear that like AfD participants, FA doesn't care about those things either.
  In my experience, FA does, on the whole, create encyclopedic value. Let me repeat that in another way because I think it's an important point: English Wikipedia is made better by FA's attempts to cover topics that not been previously written about and which are, in quite a few cases, examples of systemic underrepresentation. I would love if FA were to take more care in their references. And their categories. And the other things that they do which (fairly) aggravate many gnomes and reviewers. I would have hoped after the restriction being in place this long we'd in a place where FA could have shown competency in a way that would be letting us remove or ease it rather than add to it or discuss even more drastic sanctions. But one way for FA to cause less trouble at AfC is for AfC reviewers to not expand the scope of what they screen for and instead to do what the community has asked judge whether an article more likely than not able to survive AfD. If the answer is yes approve the article. If the answer is no reject it. If the answer is yes accept it. I will probably be supporting Guy's proposal below because FA does need to step up their game, but I also felt the need, like Roy, to speak in FA's defense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, if you are suggesting that AfC reviewers act as a rubber-stamp for drafts that aren't blatant COI/UPE and let AfD and Mainspace deal with the rest, then I will gladly be WP:BOLD and take that on to reduce the ongoing backlog. Just don't template me when issues arise. Bkissin (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bkissin, no I am suggesting if it is likely to survive AfD it be accepted. I intentionally used that phrase because that's what WP:AFCPURPOSE says. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just curious...why can't we just create a program for AfC that automatically rejects submissions that are less than (pick a number) in prose size and/or have no citations? That would send the work back to the article creator where it belongs and eliminate quite a bit of the backlog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, feel free to propose this. I think the issue will be lack of consensus on the size. Regardless, FA's drafts do have citations. Just not generally good enough ones. Guy (help!) 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thx, Guy - I'll start a discussion at NPP and see what happens. In the past, we've managed to get WMF to accommodate some of our needs but not without a good dose of persistence (which is right up my alley 😊). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, Ping me if you want help with any of this. I'd likely be on board and help collaborate with any applicable write-ups. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I've seen (and accepted) plenty of legitimately short and unreferenced drafts. Users create WP:DAB pages as drafts. I recently accepted 1710 in India, which, as a navigation tool, would have been just fine without any references at all. I've even see redirects created as drafts (current example: Draft:Monosuit, which I would have just WP:IAR accepted instead of bothering to kick it back with a template). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  RoySmith keep up the good work! What I'm proposing would not have any effect on non-article pages, such as dabs, lists, categories, templates, TP, redirects, etc. - only articles such as Ōizumi Observatory which was created in 2005, and never expanded beyond 69 words. See what I proposed at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Potential proposal for AfC which involves a bit of coding that tells the editor at the point of submission (save) what more is needed before it can be saved. Of course, that is what we're working on now, and how best to approach it but the goal is to design instructional coding that will inspire the stubee creator to actually submit a better stub. We don't need thousands of ideas coming at us in the form of 50 word unsourced stubs when we've got huge backlogs in AfC and NPP. The submission modification can be something as simple as an error message like you get when filling out a form and you forget to include your address or phone number, or you entered an invalid email address, etc. I'm simplifying here but it's along those lines - maybe a JS or Lua script can handle it. I'm not a programmer, but I have summoned a few to review my proposal. We did manage to get curation tools from WMF, so hopefully, we can inspire them to work with us again to help reduce our backlogs so we can actually focus on expanding and improving the thousands of articles that are calling to us for CE and updates. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I don't reply to every proposal below, because there is far too much in this thread to know the best place for this comment. It boils down to AfC reviewers exceeding their authority and declining articles that would almost certainly be kept at AfD. This is all part of a larger problem where people who spend all their time marking other people's work rather than doing any themselves seem to be listened to more on our drama pages than the people who actually create the content that is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger if you believe this is because "AfC reviewers exceeding their authority" you are in a position to solve this whole issue and make everyone happy! Just sign up at WT:AFCP and then go to Template:AFC statistics/pending order by User and accept all of FAs articles, as apparently not doing so is "exceeding their authority". You will make FA very happy, and the AFC reviewers very happy. And BTW we don't "spend all their time marking other people's work" most of us spend a lot of time researching and improving drafts so we can accept them, and also work outside AfC. Many of us have spent many hours improving FAs articles before accepting them. New users are forced to use AfC so we need reviewers to accept these articles that "actually create the content that is the lifeblood". Although I would disagree that just creating new content is "the lifeblood of Wikipedia", now we have 6+Million articles, stopping spam, promotion, dross, unsourced content, vandalism is as equally important as new content. But in all seriousness to you and any other of similar minded editor please please join AfC and accept as much as you can. We desperately need as many good editors as possible to accept as much as possible, and the less the backlog gets the more time we all get to work on submissions. KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

KylieTastic - Further to this, I've noticed that some of FA's accepted drafts only got through after others had done a lot of work on the draft to bring it up to standard. I also wonder if we should analyse the accepted versus the rejected drafts and check what proportion of them are actually biographies of African Americans. I'm not sure quite where to start with this. Deb (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

FloridaArmy is advised that new articles submitted via AfC should aim to meet the minimum length criteria at WP:DYK, i.e. 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.), and should contain sufficient reliable independent sources to establish notability per the general notability guideline. FloridaArmy is encouraged to work on drafts in his sandbox until they are ready for submission.

• Support as proposer. In short, they should establish the answer to the simple question: why should we care? Guy (help!) 15:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support great idea. I'm all for inclusion but I'm an immediatist, first. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions at this juncture, as there is clearly more to this than meets the eye: FloridaArmy's claim that Draft:Lee Myxter was erroneously rejected caught my eye, and, indeed, it was wholly inappropriate for User:Ahecht to decline the submission as not meeting WP:NPOL (Draft:Lee Myxter), when that guideline explicitly states that politicians...who have held...state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are deemed notable. Now, AfC reviewing is a hard, and probably occasionally thankless task, but it literally is not helping itself by refusing notable topics: not only does it foment bad feeling, but it adds to the work of the next reviewer. In short, although clearly FA's articles aren't always 100% up to scratch—whose are at the beginning?—they are not, I suspect, all as poor as it is being suggested. And until we see some pretty black and white data, I feel sanctions would be inappropriate. ——Serial ^# 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  In fact, in the spirit of data mining, the history of FA's talk page is revealing: since 10 February this year (the last 1000 edits to the page), they have had 223 articles accepted through AfC and 231 declined. ——Serial ^# 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  With respect @Serial Number 54129: you looked at the details, however the top of WP:NPOL clearly indicates A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. something which this stub did not meet when you Promoted it to mainspace. I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space for additional work. Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  The article clearly meets NPOL. And, Serial is autopatrolled, anyone who disagrees should try AFD, instead of asking for redraftification. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  So in a completely non-POINTy way, the article is now up for deletion :D ——Serial ^# 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe I should've have cited WP:NPOL, but a quick search for significant non-routine coverage showed that this person completely failed to meet WP:BASIC, and per the top of the section that includes NPOL: meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If we want a general sitewide restriction on articles not meeting these parameters, let's have one, but we should not require one editor to provide more than is required of others for a draft to be moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Completely reasonable asks that hits all the marks of concern. Neutral, see second proposal. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral As written this is a higher bar than we set for other AFC submissions. The ruberic has always been (at least as far as I know) "Excluding policy reasons why, a draft must have at least a 50% chance of surviving a AFD discussion". Hold FA to that standard. in WP:AFC we have an informal practice of "If the same draft is submitted 3 times without correcting the defects, it may be taken to MFD for failure to support the purpose of Draft Space/AFC while pointing out contributing reasons for why this page wouldn't survive if it were in mainspace". Our standards and practices work, we just have to enforce them. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hasteur, where does that 50% thing come from? I've never heard that. I've never promoted an article that wasn't bulletproof at AfD, never have and never will. AfD is being used as a remedial tool for FA, because a tool to teach how to write an article is what it is. Why have it if its standard isn't as high or higher than AfD? Another thing many of you seem to be missing. AfC isn't AfD. An article is promoted or not on its own merit. The notability of the subject is irrelevant. If the article won't certainly pass AfD, why promote it? John from Idegon (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Core purpose: "Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted." and "Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted.". If your reviewing standards have been inappropriate, I am relieved it has been through lack of awareness. Other reviewers are knowingly abusing the AFC process. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The only purpose given to AFC is to make sure the artic4le demonstrates why it is notable and deserves to be on mainspace before it gets to be included. This is helpful for inexperienced users who might be writing about a notable topic but fail to explicitly establish exactly why the topic is Wikipedia notable such as is convention here. For editors familiar with SNGs and AFDs, the AFC minimum should be no more than one sentence stub establishinng which SNG is met, and one source verifying the claim. Draftspace articles aren't automatically submitted by virtue of residing in that namespace, so the point about the sandbox makes no sense. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are no minimum length criteria requirements for any editor to create any content, so imposing an arbitrary length for one editor is overkill. There are plenty of worse articles being saved into the main article space every single hour. Examples include this and this. The latter being created by an editor who has been here for 15 years! Topic ban from AfC might be an option, but a better one would be for someone to mentor FA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral as I think such a requirement is really only fair if applied to all, and clearly many articles are created in main-space that do not meet this reasonable condition. Make this a requirement for all and I 100% support KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this would be significantly more onerous than required. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any reviewer who doesn't want to deal with these sub-stubs can decline them or ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - someone starting articles is a good thing, perhaps we should suggest that they request articles? I'm sure WiR would welcome any list of suggested articles of women. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).
  
• Support - Since I was involved in the original problems that obliged FA to go through AfC for everything, I sympathise with those who have had to give attention to his sloppy submissions. It may seem like "starting articles is a good thing", but I don't think Rich can have had much to do with this user before if he feels it's good to encourage him to carry on in this vein. I feel like something needs to be done, and if it's not making him submit stubs of a reasonable standard (God knows he's had enough practice by now), then it's limiting the number of times he can submit and the number of AfCs he can open simultaneously. Any of these would help. Deb (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Given the circumstances, these are not onerous conditions to impose on FloridaArmy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of lengthy articles. Nearly all articles in traditional print encyclopedias are shorter than 1500 characters, so why should Wikipedia be any different? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Because we don't use printing on paper bound between cardboard covers, and are therefore not bound by physical limitations, except the amount of data our servers can hold, which is, for all practical purposes, infinite. Why would you want to be held back by a physical limitation which no longer applies to this format? I do note that a number of the articles you created came in over 1500 characters (one is over twice as large, and another more than 3 times 1500 characters), [1] so if you need help in reducing them to the ideal 1500 character limit, let me know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• That is a reason why articles can be longer, not why they must be longer. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Arbitrary word-count minima are bad because they encourage padding and prolixity which is contrary to our summary style. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, in some cases a short stub is better than nothing at all.--Hippeus (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

Here's a small sampling of articles created by User:Lugnuts today.

• Werner von Foerster
• Horacio Monti
• Lars Lundström
• François Chapot
• Martin Sharp (sailor)
• Frank Murdoch
• Franklin Woodroffe

Contrast these with the articles I'm having rejected:

• Draft:Frank Opperman (actor)
• Draft:Fred Hornby
• Draft:Jana Lund
• Draft:Lee Myxter, erroneously rejected today for not meeting Politician inclusion criteria.

There is a problem. Notable artice subjects I start are being blocked by editors not respecting our inclusion criteria in an improper amd abusive fashion.

All of these would survive as Snow Keeps at AfD. The solution is to remove the requirement I use AfC and to restore my ability to participate at AfD. The entries I create are better sourced and more notable than the vast majority of what's being added to Wikipedia. I comply with all of our editing rules. And the abusive obstruction, harassment, and interference with my good editing work needs to stop.

Every single entry discussed in this convo is notable and belongs in mainspace. It's a travesty that several editors want to obstuct the inclusion of additions on underrepresented subjects such as a traditional dish of Cameroonian cuisine or the military school that the long serving president of Suriname went to in the Netherlands, but improperly and unevenly applied rules should no longer be used to create problems for me or the AfC reviewers who should be able to return their focus to the spam and advertising that proliferate in their area of wikispace. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Some people seem to think that Wikipedia is a directory of Olympians and that competing in the Olympics confers automatic notability. They have chosen not to change WP:NOT to support this but that's what they think. Guy (help!) 16:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"but that's what they think" - Sounds very much like a threat/personal attack. Maybe you'd care to elaborate? Please be WP:CIVIL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How does that sound like a threat? A mild personal attack maybe, but there's no threat there at all. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to reiterate my comment on the AFC page applauding FloridaArmy's good work on pages on our long list of drafts for missing state supreme court justices. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• @FloridaArmy: Please refer to "What about...." and WP:NOTTHEM. Your actions and behavior are at discussion here. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Although, of course, pointing out inconsistency of application is perfectly accepatble. ——Serial ^# 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Purely as an example, I can't see much wrong with the decision to turn down the draft at Frank Opperman (actor). This was a straightforward WP:GNG issue as articles have to be properly sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As is noted right at the top of that entry he clearly meets criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NACTOR. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If I looked just at the article, how would I know that? NACTOR #1 - significant roles in multiple notable films. The second part, that's covered but the second part? It's not. If he was a co-star on any of those film, adding a text blurb would EASILY have helped demonstrate that. A list of films and roles doesn't help with that first part, a blurb that mentions those significant roles would make that check easy. NACTOR #3 is unique, prolific or innovative contributions - I'm guessing you're saying the length of his career covers prolific. Probably, but without any context on the roles they played, if they had lots of bit parts / background roles, I'd really question if that meets #3. Ravensfire (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You would know because the article states per Motography that he "had a 29 year career on stage and a 7 year film career" as of 1916, lists 54 films he was in including his credited roles in most of them, and links to the existing Wikipedia articles for the vast majority of the films. FloridaArmy (talk)`

You do realize uncredited roles don't count toward notability, right? As an example, more than half of the films you claim make him notable are uncredited. The Unchanging Sea uncredited, The Hero of Little Italy uncredited, Fatty's New Role uncredited, The House of Darknessuncredited and the list goes on. Unless there is some special N criteria for actors pre-1950, I fail to see how this fulfills at least "significant roles" Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I said "including his credited roles". So yes, I understand that credited roles matter. Of coutse we don't yet have article for most early silent films, so having credited roles in at least a couple dozen and uncredited roles in dozens more stil qualifies per our notability guidelines. The article would be a slam dunk keep at AFD. If you disagree try taking it there and prove me wrong. Good luck. You'll need it. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Good luck. You'll need it. incendiary comments like this are unnecessary. Might I suggest you start actually reflecting on criticism instead of just being combative? Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Frank Opperman looks like he would be suitable for an IMDb entry or similar, but the bar is set higher for biographies on Wikipedia. We don't get to know much about him beyond listing the films that he appeared in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wanted a preview of the hostility that AfC reviewers are regularly met with by FlordiaArmy here you go. This is actually pretty tame compared to some instances. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"incendiary", "combative", "hostility"? Sorry, I'm not seeing it in the words that are there on the screen. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, according to FloridaArmy, those who do not accept his drafts are "bigots" and those who describe them as less than blindingly obviously notable are "liars". Guy (help!) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Limit the number of pending drafts by FA in AfC to 20.

Looks like there's some kickback from the suggestion of length requirements which I will be switching my vote to neutral to in light of this alternate proposal I'm going to suggest. To me, the simplest solution is to limit the amount of pending drafts FA can have in the AfC process. Pending defined as actively waiting for review, this would not include declined drafts that haven't been resubmitted.

The purpose is two fold: 1) To help lessen the strain on AfC reviewers. 2) To encourage FA to put additional work into the currently pending drafts. As a note, while the backlog says 5+ weeks, the vast majority of articles are reviewed in a matter of days, so it's not as if those 20 would languish for weeks. The ones that make it to the back are typically ones that would require insight from an SME or native language speaker, neither of which would apply to any FA articles that I've seen.

1. Support As proposer. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   While this might help them from overwhelming the queue it won't solve any underlying issues with FA's articles that causes them to get declined in the first place. I am sympathetic to the idea of not overwhelming AfC but I would much rather try to nudge FA towards having a higher success rater than just limiting them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   I would absolutely endorse that approach. I would hope that persuading FlordiaArmy to move in the direction of writing longer, more detailed articles with more comprehensive sourcing would genuinely be positive for them and for us all. FloridaArmy would certainly see their article rejection rate decline dramatically and I would suspect they would also find their articles would be reviewed more quickly and with more enthusiasm by the AFC volunteers. We need to look after not only our content creators like FloridaArmy, but equally, we need to look after our AFC reviewers and frequent AfC users like FloridaArmy have an important role to play in that. Nick (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks Nick for saying we need to look after our AFC reviewers and frequent AfC users like FloridaArmy have an important role to play in that. That is absolutely true and not a sentiment I adequately have expressed in this thread yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

2. Weak Oppose - The reviewers can deal with a backlog by ignoring it. Too many drafts do not do any harm if ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   Sorry Robert McClenon I think there is harm - letting the backlog grow and ignoring issues means new editors can have acceptable articles not get reviewed till they hit the end of the queue in weeks or months. Yes we catch most in the first couple of days, but if missed you wait and it's a huge discouragement too those editors. KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

3. I think this just moves the queue. Each time a draft is rejected or accepted, FA will simply move the next in. Now there's 20 articles in AFC and another 40 or 50 or whatever waiting to be in AFC. It also seems like it would be difficult to track, so you would need to get buyin from FA. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   That's the point Izno is every time a slot gets freed up and they have 40 waiting a submitter will pick the most likely to be accepted, not just resubmit one that's been declined with not much change. KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   That doesn't follow. I expect the user won't care. If he does, it will simply end up the case that he cycles through his whole queue on his side until all he's got in the AFC queue are the "bad" ones. Then AFC still has 20 "bad" articles to deal with. It you want to make this rule and have it be effective, you limit him to one draft in AFC at any time. I'm still skeptical as to the utility. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Support but only if it applies to all submitters. It stops overwhelming AfC; It encourages submitters to put their best article through first; It encourages submitters to try to improve (better sources; clearer indication of the content that supports notability) before resubmitting a declined article. KylieTastic (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support as general restriction only. Everything more is just disruptive spam.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Clearly, FloridaArmy can write decent articles; let him decide to focus his efforts on the twenty that might get accepted. There's no reason AfC's queue should be burdened. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Support, but I'd prefer a lower limit - say 5-10. Deb (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support in conjunction with Proposal #1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose Even with this AfC restriction it appears as though half his drafts are making it through AfC. And the numbers are large. AfC reviewers that don't want to review his work can, well, just not. Yes, a lot of his drafts could be better. And they probably should be, but I don't see what this limit gains anyone. I do see how it hurts Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Support I was about to suggest 5-10, but 20 is also fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Support If just because every time FloridaArmy has a draft rejected he posts about it on several WikiProject pages imploring someone fix it for him, and it would cut down on that junk, too. We like to help, and I have, but at this point it's pure spam. Kingsif (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Oppose The bottleneck seems to be the reviewers who are imposing standards of their own. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Support Whilst this is not necessarily an ideal solution, it would provide some for of respite to AfC reviewers. The main problem is the sheer volume of poorly drafted and referenced articles being submitted by FloridaArmy. After being on the receiving end of some of his harassment when I have refused to accept these AfCs I would support any efforts to focus his attention on the quality of his AfCs rather than the quantity. Dan arndt (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Support. If this is burdersome on the creator, then convince us you can just skip AfC and submit normally. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Support w/caveat - I'm of the mind that if FA is firmly held to creating only acceptable stubs rather than half-assed dictionary entries that are going to be deleted anyway, it will naturally limit his submissions because he will be putting more work into each stub instead of throwing stuff together hoping it will be accepted. If during the course of a month, FA makes than 3 submissions that go to AfD, a t-ban should be imposed for spamming WP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
16. Strong support Even though I am not an AFC reviewer, I do think that it lessens the strain of AFC reviewers, reducing the number of articles they have to review. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
17. Support. Twenty is a reasonable number. I do think there should be a way forward so that FloridaArmy is allowed at some point, if enough of his articles consistently pass AfC, to create articles directly without AfC. But as long as FloridaArmy is restricted to creation via AfC, FloridaArmy should not flood the queue.--Hippeus (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Accept that FloridaArmy is what he is and move on.

1. Support as proposer. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2. oppose ,m because it's pissing people off. Wikipedia is not therapy, and obsessives doing the right thing in the wrong way cause drama. Guy (help!) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose because blanket accusations of racism are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose FloridaArmy needs to accept two things here. Firstly, some of the articles for creation were turned down because of good faith WP:GNG decisions. They just weren't sourced properly and did not establish the subject's notability, which is a key requirement of GNG. Secondly, repeated accusations of racism amount to a failure to assume good faith. The users doing the articles for creation reviews are trying their best, and should not be accused of acting in bad faith without very clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support I would rather have FloridaArmy contributing stubs than not contributing stubs. They are a net positive even if annoying. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support They did have a draft incorrectly declined immediately before this occurred, so I'm willing to WP:AGF. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose because the current way of running is clearly causing FA as much stress/negativity as it is to the AfC reviewers. KylieTastic (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support as he is a net positive, but needs to avoid casting aspersions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support Agree he is a net positive. I would also remove his AFC restriction because the problems with his articles aren't usually ones that AFC is well suited to deal with. (Bad formatting etc. should not be an AFC concern, and nuanced notability issues are better suited for AFD rather than a single AFC reviewer.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose per KylieTastic. I don't think AfC volunteers have to let FloridaArmy be a pain in the ass. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I don't agree that he's a net positive. Deb (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Oppose There's enough of a issue here that closing our eyes and walking away is not useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Eh We should all try to improve ourselves and that includes communication on Wikipedia. FA needs to not throw around accusations of bias. That is something that really can't be put up with in the long term. And it would be nice if the shorter articles were better sourced. But it does feel like folks are a lot more upset about the AfC submissions than seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Support FA is not the problem. It is AfC which is dysfunctional. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Oppose this is a significant ongoing issue and to allow it continue without some sort of action would effectively support his behaviour. The likelihood being that AfC reviewers would give up reviewing articles. If it wasn't an issue for AfC reviewers then it wouldn't have been reported here in the first place.Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
16. Oppose - absolutely not - in essence, the stubs that go to AfD are no different from spam and should be treated that way, and so should the editor submitting the spam. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #4

Recognize that User:FloridaArmy presents two overlapping issues that should be dealt with separately. The first is the submission of low-quality stubs, a content issue. The second is civility violations and failures to assume good faith by reviewers, a conduct issue. Accept that sanctions will not deal with the content issue and move on. Issue a formal warning that conduct will require escalating blocks, 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 1 week.

1. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Request Please provide examples of these supposed low quality stubs. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is flawed. Guy has repeatedly lied about my conduct and comments, and I see he recently did so again. I do not create single sentence stubs and I absolutely continue improving LOTS of articles that are in mainspace, mine and others. Lying about my work is a civility violation and he's done so repeatedly. [User:JzG]]'s conduct should result in his being blocked.
• That there is bigotry on Wikipedia is obvious from the resistance to including subjects on African Americans, the African diaspora, and African American history. These are the EXACT article subjects identified as problematic. user:sulfurboy hates these subjects so much is so opposed to including these subjects he dragged one of them to AfD after another editor approved it. Oberlin Seminary was also high drama. What do all these subjects have in common? They involve African Americans. I know it's upsetting to have Wikipedia's bigotry and editor bias pointed out, but we must do better. Sanctioning those trying to address the situation is a step in the wrong direction and only proves to illustrate Wikipedia's hateful intolerance that excludes these subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  @FloridaArmy: This would be a shame, but I'm going to short circuit this discussion by blocking you indefinitely if you say something along the lines of "user:sulfurboy hates these subjects so much he dragged one of them to AfD after another editor approved it. Oberlin Seminary was also high drama. What do all these subjects have in common? They involve Africam Americans" again. If you're making general comments that Wikipedia has a bigotry and institutional racism problem, I'd probably use different words, but would generally agree. If you're repeatedly singling out specific editors as racists with insufficient evidence (hint: no one is agreeing with you that they are racists) then you're going to be removed from the site. That would be a crazy result, but it's in your hands not mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right User:Floquenbeam, no one acknowledges racism. They just can't stand including subjects related to African Americans, the African American disapora, and Africa. I am clearly at fault for daring to create articles on these notable subjects and then objecting when they are excluded. I should just go along with excluding anything to do with Black people. My life would be so much easier on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth, and this kind of passive aggressive statement is not going to be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, Again? How many times do we have to be openly accused of racism and bigotry without a single shred of evidence? Everyone seems to be so hesitant about doing something that would discourage FA from editing further that direct personal attacks in an ANI are just getting a stern warning?

  If this was a new user they would have been immediately banned and this comment would have been removed. I shouldn't have my reputation dragged through the mud for zero reason.

  I challenge any person to show any instance that I've ever, in 60k some odd edits, ever, EVER showed even an inkling of prejudice or racism.

  I challenge you to find another editor that even remotely feels this way about me. I completely and 100% open myself up to WP:BOOMERANG, because I'm 100% positive you won't find anyone that agrees with Florida army that I'm a bigot or racist.

  Why does no one seem to be worried about the chilling effect this will have on the AfC process and how much it might turn off people from wanting to participate in it? I shouldn't have to worry about wanton personal attacks at every turn. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  While you may think that a final warning is too lenient, I don't understand why you think a final warning shows I'm not worried about this. If they've been given a final warning previously, talk to the admin who gave it and ask them to act. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, You're right, and I apologize for letting my frustration get the best of me. My intent wasn't to attack your decision process. Just understand that it's incredibly frustrating to have my reputation sullied without merit. I think I'm just going to take a backseat to this whole thing since it's got me pretty clearly riled up. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  and you are 2% short of 60K edits. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I suggest that an uninvolved administrator give User:FloridaArmy a one-week block so that other editors can address serious content and conduct issues without being distracted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would oppose such a block. It would play into the narrative of persecution, and I think we can get where we need to go without it. BD2412 T 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also oppose such a block, along with this proposal. SportingFlyer T·C 07:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Support. I don't see why FA should be treated with kid gloves and allowed to get away with making personal attacks on other editors. Deb (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think a cooling off block will be effective in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• (non Admin comment) Florida Army needs to stop treating themselves like a martyr for some holy cause. I've created dozens of articles on African subjects and a small handful on African American ones. I've never faced the issues they are experiencing, because I actually bother to source my contributions and can at least manage to spell things correctly. FA, stop chalking this up to people being racist. I'd much rather see you banned for such ill-advised comments than put up with that so we can get a few more African/African diaspora articles out of you. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The tension and cross words seem to be arising because FA has been forced to submit to AfC but they don't get on. This sanction should be lifted so that FA submits his work to mainspace and the mercies of the NPP instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support w/caveat - if my other suggestions are ignored. Something has to be done. I doubt the editors who work AfD would like it if NPP started sending an overabundance of submissions their way. We already have numerous backlogs throughout WP that it is downright depressing. We certainly don't have an overbundance of reviewers, not to mention admins handling backlogged RfC closure requests. I'm of the mind that our PAGs are far too lenient as they apply to article submissions. It worked well when the pedia was just getting started but bad articles create bad press which eventually equates into a bad reputation for the pedia. We should at least try to avoid some of that or it will only get worse. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A Policy Issue

There is a policy issue that needs to be discussed, possibly at the Village Pump, having to do with people who pass a test for ipso facto notability, but about whom there is not enough information for a good stub. Most of the special notability guidelines for people are weasel-worded to say that people meeting the test are presumed notable. Both the political notability guidelines and the lengthy sports notability guidelines are worded in such a fashion. This ambiguity is sometimes hashed out twice for association football players, once at AFD and then again at Deletion Review. The stubs submitted by User:FloridaArmy are about people who are presumed notable. Some editors, including myself, prefer almost always to have the clarity of saying that a person who passes the threshold is notable. Other editors say that the presumption of notability only means that one should try to find the sources.

So there definitely is a policy reason for declining the stubs in question, some of which are corner cases. The fact that there is a policy issue is yet another reason why it is irresponsible to cast aspersions about racism.

Perhaps there should be a discussion at VPP. That would certainly be more useful than just yelling racism. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, There's another issue. For somebody alive today, especially somebody with a paid PR agent, there's going to be tons of information available about them. Most of it will be crap, but there will usually be enough to get you past some silly SNG. Somebody who was, say, a struggling two-bit silent actor getting uncredited movie roles, isn't going to have the same collection of blog posts, on-line movie reviews, web sites, and all the other gigbytes of google-indexed ephemera they would have today. So, holding the two of them to the same standard is just absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:RoySmith. I have more thoughts on the policy issue, but this is a conduct forum. (Meaning we can discuss at VPP or a WT page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There need to be fresh guidelines in this area, although the existing ones are already clear. The guidelines should make clear that sometimes African Americans or important academics may not have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but that does not means that they are non-notable or that Wikipedia does not care about them. The mainstream media has also repeated this myth. Also, anyone who takes part in the AfC process should be told that if a request is turned down, WP:ASPERSIONS are unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ianmacm, RoySmith, and Robert McClenon: I have started a discussion at VPP related to the comments in this section. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no admin issue here

Nobody is asking for a block. This is about how the AfC community wants to deal with a burdensome but valued editor. Why is it not being discussed there instead of at AN/I? Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is an admin issue, it's a million characters ↑ thataway. I've lost track but it's more about stubs/article creation. I opened a discussion suggesting a potential workaround at Wikipedia_talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Potential proposal for AfC if anyone is interested. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another idea

FloridaArmy, you are advised and directed as follows.

Your behavior has been determined to be problematic, and you are directed as follows. An editor who has developed to the point of creating or submitting large amounts of articles should have learned certain things more than newbies on their first article. For newbies, other folks (such as those at AFC, NPP or AFD) don't mind doing some of their work for them such as seeing if the required coverage in sources exists. They also generally don't mind doing this if they see that the creator has invested substantial work in the article. Prior to creating or submitting any more articles, you are directed to read and learn wp:notability, understand that fulfilling wp:notability is a requirement for existence of a separate article, and also read and learn any listed special notability guideline that applies to an article that you are submitting or creating. As an editor who has reached the point of starting or submitting larger amounts of articles, you are directed to, prior to submitting or creating an article, establish for yourself which specific provision of the notability guidelines your article passes and the details of how it does so, and at least briefly describe this rationale in the talk page of the article. In general this will be either establishing that it has the required type and amount of coverage specified in wp:GNG or that it meets specific criteria in an applicable special notability guideline. If your article is rejected, held or challenged on wp:notability grounds and you wish to argue for passing or keeping it, the very first part of your argument is to specify which wp:notability provision you determined passed your article, and provide details which led you to that conclusion. Your argument for the existence of the article should NOT include making accusations against other editors or groups of editors such as being racists, having racial bias etc. Any other provisions remain in place.

North8000 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If this were a perfect world...I see the intentions here and they are excellent from a potential results viewpoint. But how does this get executed? Someone above suggested a mentor. Essentially that's also what you are suggesting here, simply because if FA were inclined to be that organized, he'd already be that organized. In order for that organization to occur, someone would have to monitor him. Can't see this very good faith proposal going anywhere. John from Idegon (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest this if no other measure passes, in which case add in a "better than doing nothing" argument. But, it puts a finger on the actual problem and what it would take for FA to resolve it. By saying that debates about wp:notability on an article are to be based on wp:notability criteria, that could either influence FA toward debating along the proper lines, or give the other editors recourse there by pointing to FA having violated the direction given here. It says that trying to use accusations of racism as a tactic in debating wp:notability on a particular article is not allowed. It refutes any claim that restrictions on new articles are a double standard by clarifying that this is a standard / expectation for a prolific experienced editor. It points out why this case is an abuse of AFC folks, compared to accepting / handling it on the first 1-2 articles from a newbie. Finally, having been given firm guidance, it gives them a good chance to improve, and if they ignore it / blow it, sets the stage for another trip to ANI and a stronger action at that time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is on the right path. The issue is that while FA does some pretty good work, we do expect someone who has been around as long as FA to get articles better on the first pass. The newbies are still learning, so teaching them seem like a good use of time. But it seems like a less good use of time to work with someone who seems set on not improving in a few dimensions. I say this as someone who thinks FA is a clear net positive to the project. We'd just like you to get your initial articles in better shape. They don't need to be amazing, but they should have sources that meet either the GNG or the article should otherwise meet the SNG. This isn't always clear cut, but it should be most of the time. Just continue to try to improve and take some people's comments on board that there is room for improvement. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• In few words, FloridaArmy needs a mentor. (IMHO, FA is acting in good faith but just needs help writing articles that will get accepted.) Is any experienced editor available & willing to take on this duty? My own personal life prohibits me from reliabily filling this role. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• The problem is they keep churning out shit like this. Some weird template thing, inappropriate bold print, a bare GBooks URL, and not a shred of a claim to notability. (It's funny/sad that the only claim to fame is they were prosperous...) Someone will slap that with A7, then someone will click on the link, then someone will do the actual work, and then at some point FloridaArmy, now all of a sudden interested in article improvement, will appear on the talk page to start complaining on what all is not in the article and what all is wrong with it (I nominated Joseph Crew for DYK and gave them co-credit for it; I regret doing that now). They've been here almost four years--and I'm avoiding them and their articles like the plague, which is a shame cause that Reconstruction era is wildly underdeveloped on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that's a fair representation. You posted this comment ten minutes after that article was created. I looked at their last six page creations, and they all start with a diff like the one you linked to, and then get expanded, and then approved at AFC. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The article you linked to seems to have followed the same pattern [8], albeit still pending at AFC. And there are editors who are autoconfirmed, and admin, who put out less-developed article than that -- one sentence ("So-and-so played for such-and-such a team") linked to a sports statistics database -- by the hundreds, and they don't go through AFC, and they don't get into any trouble for it. I don't get why FA is different. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• And it'll linger there a bit more unless FA indicates why some property owner would be notable in the first place, which is one of the first things we do when we write articles. How is that not incompetent? Whataboutism doesn't change that fact. I don't give a damn about those semi-automated articles with info pulled from databases, but at least you know they're on notable topics. What's interesting about this man, of course, is that he was a Black man who owned considerable property (and owned fourteen slaves...) at a time when that was worth noting--before the Civil War. And the DYK hook could be that he didn't just complain about being "subject to discrimination", but that he said his daughter might become the victim of police harassment. And if one puts that in the article, one doesn't just stave off A7, but also generates 10k hits on the main page ("DYK that Black American merchant Richard Edward Dereef said that harassment by white police against his daughter was a real threat--in 1860?"). But what we have now is an article on someone who's been mentioned in a newspaper--that's A7 territory, that's incompetence. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that FA does things differently than I do. But generally the articles they create are notable, even if they start out with few refs. One of the problems here is systemic: Levivich notes correctly that editors are forever creating one-liners about a notable person. Why do they do that? Because other editors aggressively remove notables from lists that clearly meet notability guidelines, but don't have an article. That aside, I occasionally look through FAs drafts for articles of interest and add to them. That's not "mentorship", but I wish more of us would try "help mode" rather than "exterminate" mode. Jacona (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If ANI would come to a decision something like the beginning of this subsection plus saying that they must have a mentor, (so that there is a framework to work from, not just he beginnings of a new debate) then I would be OK with mentoring them. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've been noticing improvement lately. I also like to edit a sentence or two at a time, so I have a certain sympathy. It's leaving them that way for longperiods that has been the problem, but draft does specifically allow for 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Block review of AManWithNoPlan

Following the addition of a new identifier to the 'cite' templates, some editors have used Citation bot to make multiple rapid edits that remove the link to the article from the title in the citation. Examples are:

• Trimix (breathing gas)
• Ethosuximide

There is a very clear general support for the position that titles in citations should link to the relevant article, as can be seen in this well-supported RfC Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs held at Village pump (proposals).

I made AManWithNoPlan aware of the problem. This was removed with the edit summary Technically not my edit. Will discuss on bot page. We have had the same problem in March where AManWithNoPlan refused to accept that when they initiate a bot run, they remain responsible for the consequences of its edits: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033 #AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot.

I then warned AManWithNoPlan that they are expected to discuss concerns about their editing on their talk page. That was dismissed with the edit summary the was not the conclusion reacje.

I had earlier raised my concerns at User talk:Citation bot #Removing links from title without result. AManWithNoPlan then commented "I personally do not see a the consensus that you claim to exist based upon the discussion ... Lastly, I do not have time at this point to make changes to the bot to implement a new consensus. I took this as a clear indication that he intended to continue removing links from titles, and I have now blocked him until he no longer poses a further threat of disruption.

I am bringing the block for review to this board, and I appreciate other thoughts on how best to proceed. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It kind of seems you warned him, justifiably, but blocked him before he actually made any actions against your warning. ie: a pre-emptive block, which is not something we normally do. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. We normally don't block until an action is repeated after the final warning is given, regardless of their expressed intentions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is an epically bad block. If the bot is malfunctioning (which it wasn't, that RFC supports autolinking from free identifiers, there's still consensus to use identifier parameters to put identifier in instead of |url=), block the bot, not the user per WP:BOTISSUE. Especially the user who maintains the bot and can fix the problematic behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to remove the links from titles in citations. Quite the opposite as demonstrated in the RfC. It is also well established that a user who initiates a bot run is responsible for the edits performed. I've yet to see any sign of anyone offering to clean up by relinking all of the titles that have been unlinked. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Whatever 'damage' there is can easily be 'repaired' with OA bot running on pages with |s2cid= set and a template update to CS1/CS2 templates autolink when |s2cid-access=free is set. User:Nemo bis can offer some insight here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The damage is the removal of links from citation titles; it is real and there's no need for scare quotes. Or do I have to ask all of the other editors who are against removal of those links to explain their objections to you again? If the damage is that easy to fix, then why hasn't it been done already? --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You have to know there's an issue before you can fix the issue. For templates updates, go to Help talk:CS1 and try to make things budge out of Trappist the monk's schedule, you're an admin, you've got the ability to edit the templates. For OAbot, go to User:OAbot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Either way, the block to AManWithNoPlan is bad and should be undone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) @Headbomb: I alerted you to the problem quite clearly at 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and yet you still used Citation bot to remove a link from a title at 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) as part of a huge bot run which undoubtedly has unlinked more titles. You seem to believe that you can edit in any way you choose, regardless of the damage you do. I have now blocked Citation bot to prevent further damage. You need to carefully consider your position and start looking for ways to clean up the mess you've caused. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• If the bot was not functioning correctly wouldn't the first thing to do be blocking that bot? Why was that not done first? I see you started a discussion on the bot page which is good, but that did not seem to completely agree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • RexxS Do you plan on addressing my concerns or anyone else that brought up the same points? PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• So you blocked someone for using a permissible bot and then for not respecting your authority, when you could have just blocked the bot? You also supported the underlying RFC so I am not sure how uninvolved you are. Bad blockAlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Many of the links point to copyright violating PDF copies that S2 scraped, which is one reason why converting URLs to S2 ID's was strongly encouraged (similar to citeceerx conversion, which the bot has been doing for over a decade). IDs largely avoid the direct copyright violation, that the links have. Although, this discussion should probably be had on the bot page or on the copyright pages. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• RexxS, this was a bad block that served no purpose. The block should have been on the bot first with you following up with a discussion with the bot owner and those using the bot. I don't see any attempts by you to reach out to Smith609 or the other editors who were using the bot. Additionally, your comments here towards Headbomb are concerning, as you are claiming that he is openly defying your "orders" when it is possible that they submitted the bot job prior to your comments and claiming that he "damaged" articles like they are physical property. He has advised you how this could be corrected and you respond with threats? I just see a lot of missed opportunities for deescalation by you. Nihlus 01:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • When I raised my concerns with Headbomb, he had the opportunity to address them by stopping the bot run as he knew it would be continuing and I didn't. Why should it be my job to fix the problems he caused when he knows the extent of it and I don't? --RexxS (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not sure it is advisable to blame someone for not knowing about your lack of knowledge about a bot. Nihlus 01:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Why should I be expected to know how many edits the bot run was going to make? Which of us has that information? --RexxS (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    You would ascertain that information by monitoring the bot. Nihlus 03:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    No you wouldn't. Monitoring the bot tells you what edits it has already made and gives no warning that it's due to make another thousand or however many. The only person with that information is the editor who initiated the bot run. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    RexxS, yes, you would. You would see that it is continuing to edit. A reasonable person would simply ask more questions if they were unfamiliar with how the bot works or simply block it until things were cleared up. At this point, though, I am more concerned with your lack of owning up to the mistakes you have made. Nihlus 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The only mistake I can see is that I didn't realise the bot was still running so didn't check its contributions. What else are you seeing? --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Your block of AManWithNoPlan that served no purpose, your potential involvement in this situation, and your barrage of incendiary comments towards Headbomb in this thread. Nihlus 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The block of AManWithNoPlan prevented him from running the bot again. I have no involvement as my actions were confined to warnings and blocks for behavioural issues. Every comment I have made concerning Headbomb has concerned his behaviour and your assertion is baseless. Got anything constructive? --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, but you just continue to ignore my comments as well as everyone else's in this section. Nihlus 17:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    On the contrary, I've read and digested every comment. I know the mistake I made in not checking the bot's contributions sooner, and I'll make sure that I won't repeat that mistake again. For the rest, I simply disagree with those like yourself who are intent on making editors who run a bot immune from the effects of the consequent bot edits. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The bot policy is clear (see WP:BOTBLOCK), if a bot is malfunctioning, you block the bot, not anyone else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    I've neither said nor implied that, so please refrain from casting aspersions. Nihlus 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Headbomb: The bot policy is clear and it doesn't say what you claim: "Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should soft-block indefinitely." BOTBLOCK doesn't provide immunity for you to ignore valid concerns and blame it on the bot. --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    At no point was AManWithNoPlan running a bot on their account. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    That's not what the policy says either. There's no distinction about whose account the bot is running on. There is no doubt that you and AManWithNoPlan each initiated a bot run, and you can't wriggle out of responsibility by pretending somebody else should be accountable for the edits made. Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action (diff would be useful)? --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    That's exactly what the policy says. If someone is running/is suspected of an unauthorized bot on an account, block the account as a malfunctioning bot. AManWithNoPlan never ran a bot on his account, so there was never any grounds to block them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The policy says "Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should soft-block indefinitely." The account is what is being blocked. You're not seriously suggesting that if you initiate a bot running on some other account, you are somehow magically absolved of any problems it causes? So, I'll ask again: Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action? --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The account suspected of operating an unapproved bot. At no point was an unauthorized or unappoved bot running on the User:AManWithNoPlan account. The bot policy is there to deal with malfunctioning bots. With your contorted reading of the bot policy, you'd have to block every one that made used of Citation bot because Citation bot was alledgedly malfunctioning, but let Citation bot be unblocked. Both allowing it to continue with its malfunction, and having to block the next editor that makes use of it. That is a completely nonsensical way of reading the bot policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    The bot doesn't need to be running on an editor's account for them to operate it. You're playing semantic word games with the word "operate". It's absolutely clear to anyone using plain English that the editor who sets up and initiates the bot run is operating it, and they need to take responsibility when someone tells them their bot run is causing problems. Both you and AManWithNoPlan did just that and both of you took no action when the concerns were raised with you. You didn't even bother to tell me that the bot was still processing your run, which would at least have saved a few hundred more citation titles from being unlinked. Nobody who responds to concerns in a collegial and open way is going to get blocked, so you can ditch that canard. Now, as you've failed to answer the questions I asked, were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action? --RexxS (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Then propose an RFC to change the bot policy, because the bot policy is about malfunctioning bots. AManWithNoPlan was not a malfunctioning bot, nor was he running any bot on his account. If there's an issue with a bot, you block the bot. That you can't understand this after you've been repeatedly told so by multiple users means you are unfit for the bit, or at the very least unfit to take admin actions in the area of bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• • Unless I am missing something (or if other cases are different than all the cases on all of "my" articles), the title unlinking here as it turns out was probably correct. In all of the articles I follow, check and corrected, the title unlinking was either because the free full text no longer existed (presumably Semanticscholar took down some copyvio links?) or the free full text link when to a copyright violation, which we should be delinking. I think. Repair in my case meant checking each link, and in some cases finding new free full text links, but no semanticscholar link that was removed was removed without good reason. Sorry if this is off-topic or over my head ... but that's just my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bad block - as per AlmostFrancis. Also, the section below about Headbomb seems to be vindictive retaliation. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have no authority to judge whether this was a bad block or not, but what I will say is that this is a gross abuse of power by RexxS. Clearly just blocking and harassing people they don’t like and who speak out again them, when they could’ve just blocked the bot or not blocked people preemptively. This behavior is totally unfit for an admin and I think RexxS should have his/her admin status reviewed. Smith0124 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block. It is pretty standard that when a bot is making bad edits (or you think it is) that you first block the bot, which is a less aggressive action than blocking the person. There seems to be a legitimate question as to what the bot should and shouldn't be doing, which is what talk pages and RFCs are for. Also, WP:AN could have been used (before or after the bot block) to get input. I'm not sure how WP:involved you are, but you have some interest in it, demonstrated by your participation in the previous RFC, which (justifiably) raises some eyebrows but doesn't automatically disqualify you. RexxS, I'm basically saying this could have been handled better. What still bothers me, and you haven't addressed even though I was the first to respond, is the fact that you warned him, then blocked him preemptively. This isn't something we normally do and I would expect a detailed rationale explaining why this was necessary to protect the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, Dennis Brown, I'm happy to explain my reasoning. When I saw the bot editing two articles on my watchlist, I looked at the popup diffs and was concerned that it was likely removing links from the titles in citations; when I checked i found that was the case. We went through a large RfC at Village Pump not long ago that expressly supported the principle of having those links, and I was concerned that the bot had removed them. As the bot edits were done some time before I saw them, I didn't think they would be still be running. I therefore went to the Talk: Citation bot to complain that the bot had been removing the links. I was met with requests for me to fix the CS1 code (as if it were the fault of the citations themselves) and then a denial that there was any consensus in the RfC for the principle of linking titles. So I then posted on Headbomb's talk page and AManWithNoPlan's talk page asking them not to repeat the action that led to the titles being unlinked. Just as he had done [[in March, AManWithNoPlan denied responsibility (in his edit summary). I then warned him that he was responsible for the edits made by a bot that he initiates, which he disagreed with (in his edit summary). At that point I was unaware that the bot was still running, but it was clear that AManWithNoPlan saw no problem with the edits he had initiated, and I sincerely believed he was quite willing to initiate another run. When a bot alters dozens, sometimes hundreds of pages at high speed, it can cause damage that is very hard to unwind and I believed that it was best to block AManWithNoPlan to prevent him initiating another run. Neither he nor Headbomb had suggested that the bot was still running, removing even more links from titles. I posted here immediately afterwards for review and to seek broader input on what steps would be needed to undo the damage done by the bot runs. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • On many of the basic principles here, including accountability, I agree with you. What I don't agree is how you used the tools. Since the purpose of the block button is to prevent disruption, you should have blocked the bot, then either continued discussing, or preferably taken the issue to WP:AN. Your participation in the RFC means you have a bias in the outcome, so it would have been the preferable thing to do in this case, even if it isn't an obvious WP:involved issue. The actual "damage" was caused by the bot, and your block did nothing to stop it, which is odd. There is also a lack of clarity of the finer points of the RFC, which is what the discussion at WP:AN could have addressed. What you did instead was cause drama and for 2 hours and 27 minutes after blocking AManWithNoPlan, the bot continued unblocked. I know you didn't mean to do this, but you can either argue about it, or step back and see why it was a mistake. I've devoted a fair amount of time on this, and NONE of it has been regarding AManWithNoPlan. Not because he didn't make mistakes (he did), but because first I feel I need to address the admin who made the mistake in handling it. Mistakes happen, but until you recognize it, I can't help but be focused on it. I'm not the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • You can choose to believe me, or not, when I say I was under the impression that the bot run had finished, when I asked AManWithNoPlan not to do another run. If you don't believe me, then we've nothing more to discuss as you would be basing your assumptions on a false premise. If you can see that I wanted to prevent another bot run by asking the initiators not to start the bot again, then I don't see how you can characterise the block as anything more than preventive, given AManWithNoPlan's responses. I have already stated quite clearly on this very page that I understand I made a mistake in not checking the bot's contributions until much later, and that I would be sure not to make the same mistake again. I'm disappointed that you choose to continue to focus on that and not the disruption caused by AManWithNoPlan's and Headbomb's use of the bot. That's your privilege, but please don't pretend that you're being even-handed here, particularly in your incredible stretch of INVOLVED; Headbomb himself !voted in favour of the RfC, so I really don't see how I could be accused of "a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to" because there's no dispute about that RfC, which was even closed early because the support was so overwhelming. --RexxS (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wut? Emergency shut off button is a thing. If that doesn't work, block those fighting over the button, or worst case the bot itself. The immediate bot block plus the botop plus threats to headbomb is overreach and this looks like a long-term involved thing. And seeing good arguments for the bot's behavior, it is not black and white. Maybe RexxS should instead try the shut off button, and if that doesn't work seek help from an outside uninvolved admin. -- GreenC 13:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Where is the WP:BRFA approval for these edits (Special:Diff/961260133, Special:Diff/961352757)? I'm not seeing it at User:Citation bot. If a botop or asst botop programmed the bot to do something without BRFA approval and refused to reverse/stop it when asked, then it's a good block of the op and the bot. If BAG approved these edits, then it seems like it would be a bad block of both. But it should have been a short conversation: "Are these edits approved?" "Yes, here: [link to approval]". I'm not sure how it is that didn't happen. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot has approval for converting hard-coded URLs to their specific parameters (see Citation Bot 8 for example) and do general maintenance inline with template documentation (which states to use specific parameters instead of hard url). The recent RFC says that when identifier are free, the title should be autolinked, but the CS1/2 templates don't support that just yet and need to be updated by someone who knows LUA and who is an admin. Other bots have that approval too, e.g. CitationCleanerBot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot approval for Citation Bot 8 is for "Convert bare URLs to "Cite Journal" or "Citation" templates". Converting bare urls is not in question here. These are the three examples I already quoted of the bot unlinking the title in an existing templated citation: unlinked first and third titles, unlinked title, unlinked title. Where is the bot approval for those edits? and how does it square with the principle of linking titles expressed at Village Pump? --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I believe the citations are still linked. The link is moved from the title to the DOI or similar parameter location.

Your responses and comments haven't indicated that awareness.

Am I wrong about the link? Are you aware if I am correct? —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philoserf: You seem to be unaware of the RfC I suggested you look at. There is overwhelming support for the principle of linking the title of a citation. Removing existing links from the title should not be happening. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb: I read all nine approvals linked at User:Citation bot#Bot approval, I don't see anything about removing |url= in favor of |s2cid= under any circumstance in any of the approvals. What am I missing? When was Citation bot programmed to remove |url=, and by whom, and why? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on sc2id specifically, but it's approved for other similar conversions. DOI link --> |doi=, PMID link --> |pmid=, PMCID link --> |PMC=, etc... It's being doing this for years. Now that we have an |s2cid= parameter, it's doing it for S2CID links too. These recent runs are mostly cleaning up after itself, as prior to April 2020 or so, the bot added a lot of hardcoded S2CID links because there was no S2CID parameters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to the approval for removing links from titles, because I can't find it. It seems to remove links to jstor from the title as well. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation Bot 8 covers that I believe. CitationCleanerBot 1 also covers that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Then I think you need to read the approval again. The bot approval for Citation Bot 8 is for "Convert bare URLs to "Cite Journal" or "Citation" templates". How does that cover the unlinking of titles from existing templates?

Although this is a red herring, as we're discussing the use of Citation bot, not CitationCleanerBot, I'll refute your argument for that as well. I can't find the approval for CitationCleanerBot 1, can you point me to it? The Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 5 gives approval for the WP:GENFIXES that AutoWikiBrowser uses, but the section Citation templates (FixCitationTemplates) doesn't show approval for removing links from titles. The best you can argue is that it "Removes duplicated fields", but when the url field links the title and the identifiers don't, you can't really claim that it duplicates the function, can you?

Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot would be it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The block and justification for it strike me as unnecessarily heavy-handed and authoritarian. Just block the bot if it's malfunctioning, don't issue punitive blocks. Reyk _YO! 21:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I should add that blocking me did not stop the bot. I could not stop the bot. I told other people to take it to the bot page where it could be dealt with. People have suggested I 'stop the bot" as if I am somehow the bots operator. Blocking me just made it so I could not take part in the discussions. The bot run in question had been running for over a day, and I was busy and unable to assist so sending people to the bot talk page was helpful. Their failure to listen to and the decision to block me made the "damage" worse. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Blocking you was done in order to stop you initiating another bot run – a legitimate concern and you know it. You started a bot run knowing that it would unlink titles from citations, and when my concerns about your actions were raised with you, your replies (in edit summaries!) were: Technically not my edit. Will discuss on bot page and the was not the conclusion reacje. This is the second time in three months that you've refused to take responsibility for your actions and once again you're trying to put the blame on the bot, but bots don't act without being told to. Sending people to the bot page was not helpful as you knew the extent of the bot run, not the editors watching there. You told me nothing on that bot page other than a denial that a problem existed and a statement that you were too busy to fix the bot. How did blocking you then make the damage worse? Where was the "the bot is still running, so you ought to stop it"? which would at least have been constructive. --RexxS (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Blocking AManWithNoPlan was a bad fucking block, goes against policy, and did not stop the bot from running, nor did it stop the bot from making any edits, nor did it stop the bot from being activated by others. That you refuse to understand this is beyond me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
        • This is starting to become a pattern. Flipping out, going full schoolmaster mode, and imposing overkill "solutions" that don't actually solve the alleged problems. It's not so long ago that he got upset about User:BrownHairedGirl allegedly indenting her posts wrong. Instead of, I dunno, just editing the colons and asterisks to his preference (which nobody including BHG would have objected to) he just deleted her posts wholesale and then accused her of deliberately persecuting the vision impaired. It's one of the most vicious and cruel things I've seen in my time here. And a completely over the top overreaction, just like this. Reyk _YO! 15:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the ping, Reyk. Yes, RexxS's OTT reaction here is very similar to the rage he got into over colons and asterisks.
            And it's sad to see again that even when brought to ANI, there is zero sign of RexxS taking a chill pill. It's all double-down and demand complete-compliance. Very much the same mindset as the police brutality videos which the internet has been awash with for the last twelve days, with the same demands for absolute submission. Thank goodness RexxS has no power to mete out physical punishments, or we'd be seeing lots of editors gassed, rubber-bulleted, tased, and beaten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
            • Please, BrownHairedGirl, as gently as I can say this, that last sentence is inappropriate. It is a personal attack ("this person supports brutality") and it cheapens the suffering experienced by many in real life. I understand this is raw for you, but I think you're better than this. FWIW, I also think this was a bad block as per Dennis and others. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
              • We will have to disagree on that. I see the same mindset of aggressively demanding compliance and aggressively using all avaiable means to enforce compliance. Feel free to take a different view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
                • I think I have to agree with 78 here; that's going a bit too far. Reyk _YO! 06:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb

Despite being warned of the problems caused by Citation bot removing links from titles, Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has continued to run the bot, making around 100 edits per hour, many of which remove links. I would like to see Headbomb held responsible for the damage done and required to restore those links which were removed. Failure to do so should result in sanctions. It is unacceptable for editors to initiate bot runs that make sometimes thousands of edits without any sensitivity to other editors' concerns. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Get off your high horse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the authorization to make this run? Where is the consensus to remove the links? No consensus, no authorization, please block the editor until they clean up their mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot was operating, so I asked the bot to edit articles (I asked the bot to make its run prior to seeing RexxS's message for what it's worth). The bot misbehaved, so now it's blocked until the bot code gets updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

He ran a permissible bot which was unblocked at the time. If you have blocked the bot originally as opposed to going after the user this would not have been and issue. What sanction do you even want.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I should note that blocking individual users did not stop existing bot runs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Editors need to take responsibility for bot edits that they initiate. When a concern was raised and you knew that the bot would continue to edit, why didn't you follow the instructions at "Emergency shutoff" or just ask an admin to block the bot? Why are others always expected to fix the problems you and Headbomb caused? --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You argue for linking of titles since people cannot figure out the blue links after references then you argue that i should have a list of of admins on speed dial. Please be more consistent about your expectations of others. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Triply dumb when RexxS is himself an admin. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: The support for the principle of linking titles is plainly demonstrated at the RfC linked in my original post and drawn to your attention at User talk:Citation bot #Removing links from title, so there's little point in you trying to refute it. The "Emergency shutoff" instructions are clear that you can use WP:ANI to request a bot shutdown and the noticeboard is well watched by admins. My expectations of you remain that you take responsibility for edits that you initiate, and that you take responsibility for fixing problems that you cause. --RexxS (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So if you knew running the bot was permissable and knew how to stop it what is your excuse for blocking the user, other than personal pique. You knew that blocking the user wouldn't stop the run but blocking the bot would. I don't see a goal other than excerting control over someone who did not obey you. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is any consensus for the bot or anyone else to unlink titles in citations. As I was unaware that the bot was still running, I don't see what point there would have been in blocking it. As AManWithNoPlan was denying that there was any problem with the edits he initiated, what conclusion should I draw other than he intended to run the bot again? There has been a repeated refusal by editors who perform bot runs to accept responsibility for the edits made, and your attempts to give them a free pass to continue causing damage are unhelpful. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot has a valid BRFA, was unblocked and was therefore permissible to run. The point of blocking the bot is that per Wikipedias policy it is the proper way to handle a malfunctioning bot. Your refusal to follow policy, which judging by your most recent comments are based on personal dislike, is what is not helpful.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying the bot has a valid BRFA, but where does it say that the bot can remove links from the citation title? The bot users were causing edits to be made against the wishes of the community, and no amount of wikilawyering about it being the bot's fault will cut any ice. If you think that editors who start a bot run should be granted immunity for any problems caused by the bot run, try starting an RfC at VPP to get that into policy, but until that happens, those editors need to recognise their responsibilities. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you agreed to no longer administer around the users and bot so I don't think arguing with you really serves a purpose. You will either take on the input that your block was bad or you won't, and will either start blocking only within policy or not.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Citation bot and its operators)

• Imho the block was unavoidable, after all previous discussions, in some of which I was involved too. The block, however, does not resolve anything in itself: it is an emergency brake, bringing a train to a standstill, but does not repair the train, nor resolve irresponsible behaviour by its conductors. The train, i.e. citation bot in this comparison, is an excellent tool, so, just inactivating it is not in itself a solution. Either its conductors, i.e. AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb, get more responsive when issues are raised, or they should be removed as operators of the bot (i.e., they should no further operate the bot). Then there's no other solution than keeping the bot in standstill (i.e. blocked) until other operators are found, that is operators who are sensitive w.r.t. potential issues & responsive when issues are raised. I don't want to run ahead, and think AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb still can commit to a behaviour change by stating so explicitly here (& explaining which modifications to the bot code have been undertaken), which, when approved by the community, may lead to the bot being unblocked with them as operators. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• For the record, I do not understand this conversation. It seems like a lot of noise with too little context. The Citation bot is to useful to sit idle. What can I do to A) help get a constructive conversation going and B) get the bot back on the job. Also, I am appalled at the personal attacks I see in comments by some editors in the conversations above. Do they not violate a policy? Can we quench the fire and have a fact based discussion? —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Philoserf: a concise summary, as neutrally as I can: citation bot is currently programmed to remove bare urls pointing to Semantic Scholar, and replace them with a a parameter named "s2cid" that links to the same place. (Example: [9]) Apparently the semantic scholar people asked for this to be done. The argument is whether this kind of edit falls within current consensus. Citing the recent discussion where many users expressed support for the need to link titles, User:RexxS says there is no justification for removing urls, and has blocked User:AManWithNoPlan for being the one invoking the citation bot to make the edits. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Smith609 is the bot operator, not me, nor AManWithNoPlan. AManWithNoPlan codes the bot, but does not run it. Likewise, I have no involvement with the bot other than making a lot of bug reports and asking the bot to run on certain articles. Neither AManWithNoPlan nor I have special status here, anyone can do this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Blocking this account is causing disruption. User:RexxS can you please unblock it?" is a quote I found on User talk:Citation bot. I believe that views is predominant. Can we get this resolved quickly? How about a speedy unblock? —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that the bot should be unblocked because when you try to run it, it goes about half way through an article then stops. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  The C of E, I thought so too. What I see is actually happening is that it does all the analysis, prepares the edit, then is stopped. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Perhaps because of this half-run behavior, the Citation expander gadget appears to still work. This can be a workaround to edit individual pages while the bot cannot be run. —Ost (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Can this be fixed just by editing the template to render an inline link when s2cid is specified? I'm assuming the request is something to do with them wanting to be able to change the url syntax at some point, that bit seems fine. Guy (help!) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • When |s2cid-access=free is set. I believe there are some changes in the sandbox for that although I don't know if they covered this one specifically. Not all SemanticScholar links are free/copyright checked or whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • This discusion is happening on at least four pages. RexxS has accidentally mischaracterized me and has made statements that only someone could read my mind could make. I have always been willing to discuss the bots actions on the bot pages. Discussing them all over the place has historically lead to editors being harassed and even threatened on multiple occasions. That is why inso not like to discuss the bots actions on my personal talk page. It also fractures the discussion. I could easily see different pages come to different conclusions and people being left out completely. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Please accept my apologies for mischaracterising you. However, you need to be willing to discuss concerns about your actions (such as initiating a problematic bot run) on your user talk page, the same as any other editor, and I'm not sure who I would be leaving out in that dialogue. The talk page for the bot is an echo chamber for a particular point of view, which is not shared by the community at large, and has historically led to insulating editors from the edits that they cause to be made. The alternative to discussing your actions at your talk page is to discuss them here at ANI. I am always happy to discuss your use of a bot to edit for you at your talk page in a collegial manner without any harassment or threats if you're prepared to engage in the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• This feels remarkably like the last time this issue was discussed at a noticeboard. Editors asked Citation bot to stop doing something and AManWithNoPlan decided that those with the technical ability to push the changes through didn't need to heed the concerns of other editors. AManWithNoPlan actually ended up blocked during that debacle for repeatedly accusing editors who were raising concerns in good faith of lying. Before this peters out again and Citation bot is unblocked (as it inevitably will be, sooner or later) to carry on regardless (as it inevitably will, because its maintainers believe they are the sole arbiters of citation formatting, consensus be damned, and therefore refuse to address the problem), we should look at a longer-term solution. I would suggest starting by banning AManWithNoPlan from triggering the bot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I know nothing about bots. I do know that citation bot makes mistakes and ignores editor CITEVAR preferences. But when non-technical editors ask technical editors for help, we're regularly snubbed in language we don't understand. RexxS often helps us by acting as a content-editor whisperer. A solution to the bot problem would be appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• PRECISELY! Citations get messed up by the bot, but the real frustration is trying to get answers in English about what the problem is. (Start here and read the rest of the page for a true exercise in frustration.) There is a communication problem here, and we need a better solution than being sent to the talk page of a bot, where we get even more language that doesn't answer the questions or address the issues for a person who doesn't speak bot. For more than a decade, I maintained a manual citation style in the Featured articles I nominated, so I would not have to deal with this. Recently, I converted to citation templates, and since then, it has been one long problem. We need a way for bot people to speak to non-bot people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what's confusing or frustrating about the "Me again" conversation. It's probably also a discussion that should have taken place at User talk:Citation bot, and not at AManWithNoPlan's talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, you have perfectly illustrated the problem in that you don't see what is frustrating there. I understood almost nothing of the earlier interaction with AMWNP at the Me again section, but kept asking and asking, and the second thread has led to all kinds of contradiction, until I pinged in someone I trust (Diannaa) on this. And going to the talk page of the citation bot has always yielded even worse results, as covered by SarahSV above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) There you have it, Headbomb. An editor tells you that they don't understand what's being said, and your response is "I understand it, I don't know why you don't."

You need to accept it on good faith that the editors who tell you that you folks are not communicating effectively are telling it to you straight, from their PoV, and make some effort to talk to them in standard English, not technicalese. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I can entirely appreciate that someone can't understand technical terms, but I fail to see what's particular technical or unclear about that discussion, or what's particularly frustrating about it. It's also why having the discussion at User talk:Citation bot instead of User talk:AManWithNoPlan would be a good idea, since others who don't watch AManWithNoPlan's talk page can help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You think the following is a clear response? "S2 actually has asked for the parameter to be added and for the urls to be converted. The comments should block to url to ID conversion." SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

S2 is SemanticScholar. The second part should be "The comments should block the URL to ID conversions". Or, in other words, if you put a comment in |url=, such as |url=https://semanticscholar... <!-- -->, it should stop the conversion. This is should work in general for any parameter you don't want the bot to touch. See User:Citation bot/use#... the bot made a mistake?, first bullet. Also why, if you go to User talk:Citation bot, you can get help from the whole community, and not just AManWithNoPlan. Which is also why they ask you pretty clearly at the top of their talk page to ask Citation bot-related questions on the Citation bot talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact you have to explain who S2 is and in other words illustrates the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite. The fact that you don't realise that 99.a lot% of English speakers wouldn't know who or what "S2" is demonstrates that you have a communication problem. I'm actually quite flabbergasted by this discussion, because my experience has been that Headbomb is one of the good guys, but here he is defending the indefensible. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not defending the defensible, I didn't understand the source of frustration, it was pointed out, and I explained what things meant. I'm also not responsible for how others communicate. Which is also why you should ask questions about Citation bot at User talk:Citation bot, so people who can explain things more clearly can explain things more clearly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN and 1-way IBAN of RexxS

Don't feed the trolls Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. RexxS actions are out line and have disrupted the proper functioning of this encyclopedia. RexxS has been hostile towards Headbomb, AManWithNoPlan, and bot operators generally. To avoid further disruption, I propose RexxS be topic banned from bots and prohibited from interacting with Headbomb and AManWithNoPlan. Товарищ конрад (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Support as proposer. Товарищ конрад (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose Unwarranted and way out of proportion to any errors made. Also ignores the real problem, that of info being stripped out of citations against consensus, using a bot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose as ridiculous, but admins might want to take a closer look at the proposer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Does anybody know who this sock is?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Strong oppose - I'm not gonna pretend to know the full context behind this incident (though I have been reading this incident as it went) but a TBAN of this nature over a bad block and a few hostile comments sounds too preemptive to me, and, should I say, rather punitive, which is not the purpose of blocks in this website, let alone TBANs and IBANs. Should the admin's actions be scrutinized? Absolutely yes. But does it warrant a TBAN? No. Come back with this proposal in about 3-6 months time if things fail to get any better by then. --letcreate123 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Observations: RexxS’s actions and behavior are unprofessional and disruptive. His failure to engage w/o accusations and personal attack are unbecoming. His hyperbole hide the actual issues. He also does not appear to understand the blocks relationship to the tool, citation bot. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Additionally I am uncertain that the consensus he claims actually exists. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC) If you don't think that the community is firmly behind the principle that citation titles should link to a free text source where possible, then I suggest you read the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs and see the number of supports based on the principle of linking the title. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose. This is something that I come across regularly on Wikipedia - a refusal by "techies" to acknowledge that everyone is responsible for their edits, whether performed manually or by a bot. The only time I have ever been threatened with a block (by a since defrocked admin) was over this very issue. If edits are disruptive and against consensus then action needs to be taken to prevent them continuing. Maybe RexxS could have prevented them in a better way, but the important thing was to take quick action. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose FWIW. Only note that the proposer has about a dozen edits, ever, so this seems fishy. ValarianB (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose obviously ridiculous proposal (by 16-edit contributor who just happens to know about IBANs). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose And someone needs to check the laundry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Trivia: It seems Rexx made a new friend, whose username translates to "Comrade Conrad", which is the name of a Bill Evans song from his album, "We Will Meet Again". Clever sock. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal (Citation bot and RexxS)

I propose the following:

1. No further bot runs for this purpose until the citation template is fixed to render an inline link, thus leaving the articles cosmetically and functionally similar.
2. RexxS to recuse from future admin actions in respect of citation bot and its operators.

Opinions

1. as proposer Guy (help!) 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support as I'd dearly love not to have the same arguments a third time. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am strongly opposed to autolinking semanticscholar ids to paper titles, if that's what's being proposed here (it's very unclear, but that seems to be the implication). We should only autolink versions of papers that are both free and the version of record (and I'm not especially happy with doing it even then). When the version of record itself is unfree but a semanticscholar version is free, it often means that they have scraped a pirated version and we should not link them at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  David Eppstein, fair point. Guy (help!) 11:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now. I'm not against RexxS participating, he has the experience to bridge some gaps, but I think in this case, he was heavy handed with the block button (and it seems a consensus above agrees). I've been asking him a lot of questions because I've been trying to get him to understand his mistake here. It isn't the end of the world, but it was a mistake. I don't want him to avoid monitoring and participating, but maybe it's best he didn't use the tools in this one area, at least for a while. And yes, the bot has issues that need addressing, which is equally important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: Just to be clear, the proposal also calls for the bot ceasing to remove redundant links for the indefinite future (until a template not maintained by the bot operators is changed in a way unlikely to achieve consensus). Do you also support that aspect of the proposal? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I thought I stated as much. It seems obvious an RFC is needed and some tweaking based on that RFC, as there is some confusing on what it should and shouldn't be doing. It isn't the end of the world if the bot is down a couple of weeks. There is no deadline for building the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I do not believe that this will help. Citation bot is needed for some pages. And agree with David Eppstein. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1; oppose 2 (restricting RexxS). What would be helpful is a solution to small numbers of editors making decisions, on pages no one checks, that affect all articles that use citation templates. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• The bot should not be running until we figure out a way to solve not only this problem, but the overarching problem of how to deal with the communication issues. When non-technical editors go to the bot talk page with concerns, they are usually overwhelmed by bot editors or technical types who don't answer appropriately or don't resolve the concerns. We need to find a way forward; I hope not to have to put a deny bots on everything I edit. Separately, I understand that AMWNP was blocked the first time because of personal attacks, but the second time was different, and I hope we also figure out a better way to decide when to block a bot and when to block a person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether the title links to the full text article is a function of the template. The bot is only converting links to identifiers. The short term harm of having the link on the identifier as opposed to on the title is minimal. --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I share some of the copyright concerns brought up by David Eppstein for Semantic Scholar in particular, but these concerns do not extend to all sources. For example, arXiv rarely has copyright issues, and there's a strong case for auto-linking the title to the free versions of papers with expired copyright when the original publishers still have those articles behind a paywall. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 17:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

This seems to me to fix the actual problem. Guy (help!) 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What about fixing the citations which have already been changed? Is that not the responsibility of the editors who set up the previous run(s) of the bot? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: If the plan is to change the citation template to mimic the behaviour it has with |url=, that will consequentially fix all of the citations which have been changed, without manual effort. Not opining on whether that's a good or bad solution, merely an observation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: When will this happen, specifically to the citations which have aready been changed against consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: A very reasonable question. The relevant template is entirely controlled by the module at Module:Citation/CS1 and its submodule, Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers - both of which are (very understandably) fully protected. I see that Trappist the monk has edited them a lot in the recent past - they may be able to give some more specifics on how trivial or non-trivial a task it would be to make that change. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, when the template is fixed. Which needs someone with strong enough template-fu. Guy (help!) 23:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Then, in the meantime, I believe I would be in favor of blocking the editors who created this mess until they clean it up, a standard procedure with problems of this kind. Then, moving ahead into the futre, the changes can be made that will prevent this from happening again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn, per below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes total sense, blocking someone until they clean something up, preventing them from cleaning it up in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you're going a bit Chicken Little there. The fix can be coded by anyone who has the relevant skills (I don't, that template is complex). As long as there aren't any more bot runs there is no need for blocking, that just looks vindictive at this point. Guy (help!) 23:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote below, I think I'm misunderstanding the situation, and will withdraw from the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Making changes to the template code will not restore the templates to their pre-bot-edited states. Templates cannot modify articles. Changes have been made to the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to support the RfC. The RfC is not my doing nor is the code that supports it. Editor Pintoch proposed the change and wrote some code to support the RfC. It appears that the coding process is stalled. See the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Auto-linking titles with free DOIs. As currently written, and were it to be implemented today, the change at cs1|2 would, I think, be disappointing to those who are imagining that changes to cs1|2 will be a magic bullet that restores the templates edited by the bot. These are the changes that the bot made to the example articles that Editor RexxS mentioned at the start of this discussion:

• Trimix (breathing gas)
  • one change: these link to two different places; the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation
    • deleted |url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3725/b3dc951df73c4d31b0c645cd9f5b2fe2e178.pdf
    • added |s2cid=56164217 → https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:56164217
• Ethosuximide
  • change 1 of 3: these link to the same location; the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation
    • deleted |url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/ecc5761973b41a6df07c73ef1d02fc91317a0fa5
    • added |s2cid=20670160 → https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:20670160
  • change 2 of 3: these link to the same location; as the template in the article is currently written, the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation (missing |doi-access=free)
    • deleted |url=http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/18/13/4842
    • preexisting |doi=10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-13-04842.1998 → https://doi.org/10.1523%2FJNEUROSCI.18-13-04842.1998
  • change 3 of 3: these link to the same location; the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation
    • deleted |url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/af444a3294b241f2f71c87a9bb00bfaaa3f4ca8f
    • added |s2cid=7098669 → https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7098669

There is no magic bullet at cs1|2. If you want the templates restored to their pre-bot-edited states, the bot edits must be reverted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a fine mess, because I already fixed all "my" articles, as some of the bot edits were good, and some URLs could be replaced by other sources. So now, if all the bot edits are reverted, I have to re-do the work again. And yet, if I add bots deny on articles, someone always complains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The CS1/2 update is the first step, the second would be OABot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually use the pages the deny the bot as debug pages to figure out why we were blocked. Fixed lots of bugs that way. I wish all people that bock the bot would report the problem, like you did. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, AMWNP! And, I can't decipher what Headbomb's response means or how it relates to my post it was responding to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The first step is having the CS1/2 templates (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{citation}}, etc...) support automatic linking when |doi-access=free and similar (like |s2cid-access=free) are set. The second step is having OA-bot run through pages with S2CIDs and set |s2cid-access=free when the SemanticScholar links contain free full versions of record. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm concerned about your #2, given SarahSV's comment above "RexxS often helps us by acting as a content-editor whisperer." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) NM, he can still act as a "content-editor whisperer" without taking admin actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, yes, exactly. I'd have added AMWNP to advocate the template fix as well, but that is a bit pointless as the need for the fix is already established. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Citation bot and RexxS) - WITHDRAWN

Withdrawn. I believe I'm misunderstanding something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Headbomb and AManWithNoPlan are blocked until the citations from which URLs were stripped have the URLs restored. Survey Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose as disproportionate. The fix requires one edit to one template, and the holdup is largely around the complexity and need for QA. In the mean time all citations remain usable: courtesy links are nice, but not essential. Guy (help!) 23:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Fucking ludicrous Do you want to block everyone that asked CitationBot to make edits since April? Because that list is fucking long. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose - seemingly bad faith proposal. Just snow close this proposal. Cjhard (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Not at all in bad faith, please retract that. I will withdraw the proposal though, as I'm obviously misunderstanding something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose as excessive, not unlike the original block on AManWithNoPlan. I am not sure why a few users and an admin are demanding retribution and demanding that someone answers for the "damage" done to the wiki. WP:NOJUSTICE/WP:PREVENTISHMENT are good reads for those involved. Nihlus 23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Discussion

RexxS’s behavior

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

---

I am appalled by this editor’s initial behavior and judgement as an Administrator. I am also troubled by the nature of this editor’s continued conversation on the topic in the threads above and at User talk:Citation bot. I am too new to grok what can or should be done to sanction the initial behavior and rein in the continuing behavior on this topic. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

A wider bot problem

This is another instance of an already existing bot making changes that are not in its original approval. The point of bot-approval is that large amounts of automated edits are not done without a) independant editors vetting them to make sure it wont cause issues and b)making sure there is community consensus to do so. What can we do to prevent this in the future? Make sure BOTPOL spells out that editors who use a bot to perform bot-edits that are not approved by community consensus will get significant bans from bot-editing (deterrance)? Mandate bots may *only* be operated by their creator/maintainer or those who have been determined to have the technical knowledge to answer and fix queries about it? Or we could split out the bot-approval process into technical (will it break stuff) and approval (does community consensus exist) - a lot of editors do not wish to get involved in the bot-process due to the over emphasis on the technical aspects, when almost all problems that hit noticeboards that involve bots are to do with if it should be doing a task at all, or someone using it inappropriately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I hate to sound like a such a hard-ass, but we can do what RexxS did here, which is to block bots and bot operators for operating bots outside consensus. Although I don't think the core issue here is bots, I think it's citation templates. I don't think ordinary editors care much about what bots do, but I think they care a lot about citation templates, and any changes to those templates that are wide-reaching (like for example, removing the url link from the title, or create a new red error), regardless of whether those changes are done by a bot, by changes to the template code, or otherwise. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot problem is that many articles can be changed by a bot before anyone notices, and when they do they tend to get met with the attitude "it was done by a bot so it must be right". I haven't looked at any bot approvals for a long time but I share User:Only in death's concern that they (or at least used to) look far more about whether a bot does what it does technically accurately rather than whether anyone should actually be doing it in the first place. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This isnt really about citation bot specifically, there have been other bots (as any board watcher can recall) which have been used for tasks not their specific purpose. The main cause is that once a bot and its task are approved, there is no ongoing audit process (much like many other sections of ENWP's back office tasks) to check its still doing what it was originally meant to be doing. The first time anyone notices is either when it stops suddenly, or it does something someone disagrees with - and thats the point where people starts looking at what it has actually been doing. RE Phil, the approvals does to some extent look at if its ok to do it, but its not exactly pro-active and the people reviewing it are a small pool. WP:BRFA very much leaves the work of seeing and demonstrating if a bot has approval (should it be doing the task) on the back of the person submitting it. There are related ongoing issues with bots being approved previously, but are currently used by many people who dont actually control the bot or its code. A recent issue involved a bot-operator who isnt even active on ENWP and doesnt communicate well (if at all). Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So as an example InternetArchiveBot's BRFA: Function overview: Replace existing tagged links as dead with a viable copy of an archived page. What it is currently doing (amongst other things). Current noticeboard discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Battleground beheavior by bender235

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

---

Greetings. There was recently a contentious AfD for Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, which I closed early per WP:SNOW. I then immediately went to the main administrators noticeboard for a review of that close, which was sustained. That thread was also closed relatively early.

One common thread in those two discussions was persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by bender235, who badgered participants relentlessly, spinning out several long sub-threads and repeatedly making the same points over and over even after it became clear that the people they were talking to understood the point bender was trying to make and weren't going to change their minds.

In my close of the AfD, the first line of the rationale was "Consensus is clear and there is little benefit to keeping the discussion open, considering the amount of disruption and interpersonal sniping that has already taken place." (blue mine). That line was specifically in regards to the disruption being caused by bender (though not entirely him). In the close for the AN discussion, the closer's rationale was "Speedy close at AfD endorsed. Closing a bit early as heat to light ratio is rapidly increasing" (blue mine). I suspect John from Idegon was also referring to the disruption by bender.

bender235 is now taking the same issues that he raised at the AfD and the AN and bringing them into the did you know nomination for Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman. If he could be excused for vociferously arguing his points at the AfD and AN, there's still no reason to bring them up again at the DYK nomination.

I am asking an uninvolved administrator to tell bender235 that he needs to drop this issue, and if necessary, impose a topic ban around any content related to Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A topic ban would definitely be overstepping here. Continuing to raise concerns about the article at the DYK nominated by the AfD closer isn’t the same as WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct; I don’t see incivility nor a “need to win” type of behavior.

At most, this just a concern about bludgeoning that could’ve been raised at their user talk page before opening an ANI thread. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The canvassing incident surrounding the article/AfD The Squirrel Conspiracy is referring to is still being discussed at WP:VPP#Is it time to place greater restrictions on AfD?. All I did was bring that to the attention of the Wikipedians discussing the DYK nomination. I wasn't bludgeoning The Squirrel Conspiracy or anybody else involved, so I don't quite understand what is the purpose of this report. Besides, I don't understand the "badgering" allegation raised by The Squirrel Conspiracy above: in the AfD I responded to exactly three people's comments (besides the questions relating to my own !vote), including one that I know now was never going to be answered because it was one of the 22 meat and spa votes that sabotaged the AfD and led to the speedy close. --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Your concerns at the AfD were valid, especially when it came to the flood of new participants, and I tried to specifically address the issue of new editors coming in solely to participate in the AfD in my close. It's also clear that you have very strong opinions on how social media-based figures fit into our inclusion criteria, and they're worth discussing, but an AfD is not the place to argue whether the inclusion criteria need to be adjusted.

The problem is not that you made those points, it's that that you kept arguing, and arguing, and arguing, well past the point where you were adding anything new to the discussion, have now done that in two related discussions, and had started down that path in a third. After you've made your point, continuing to hammer it over and over again in the same thread becomes disruptive.

I recommend that you spend some time putting together an RfC to see if there's community consensus for changing the way that we define notability for social media-related topics/people, and then once it's ready, post it and take a step back and let the rest of the community hash it out. Then, either you'll get the changes you want or the community will agree that the status quo is fine, or something in-between those two options. That would be a better way to channel your passion for those issues than what you were doing in the AfD and AN threads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: you must've misunderstood my point, because I was never arguing to have our notability criteria modified. My point in my original !vote was that we should apply WP:ACADEMIC to a person that defines herself as an economist. Quite frankly I don't know what our notability thresholds for social media personalities are, so maybe Opoku-Agyeman meets those. As I can see, her article has by now been modified to reflect the fact that she's notable as an activist, not academic.

By the way, my concern that this type of large-scale Twitter canvassing, that had its test-run in AfD/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, would be the "new normal", is becoming a reality sooner than I imagined, see AfD/Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. --bender235 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bender235, the crowd there is likely because of the Fast company article on the AfD. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. But apart from that case, the same tactic was also just tried by MethanoJen at CfD/Black geoscientists. This is becoming a cancer on our community and its decision processes. --bender235 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• No action needed - behaviour is not at a level requiring any actions IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reviewing the discussions, I completely disagree with the OPs characterizations and I think it was inappropriate for them to include such an aggressive characterization in a formal reading of consensus. It seems fairly clear that it's incorrect to call Bender's conduct "disruptive", or "battlegrounding" in either discussion. Battlegrounding is, essentially, malicious, personally-motivated argumentation. Bludgeoning is employing the tactic of excessive and overwhelming commentary to disrupt and derail the consensus-building process. Neither concept suggests that someone who is involved or invested in a discussion cannot counterargue or ask questions, simply because they're in the minority. Bender did repeatedly comment in the discussion, but not remotely to the extent where any of the exchanges became unreasonable or excessive to the level of being disruptive. With the exception of one brief exchange that got slightly heated, it's clear that Bender was simply asking questions and offering counterpoints concisely, civilly, and in good faith. In fact, if you actually read the behavioral guidance at WP:BATTLE, Bender was perfectly in line with it. Nothing here rises to the level of any action, much less a formal or informal TBAN. I think the best thing is probably for the OP to divest themselves from worrying about Bender before their aggressive condemnations get any closer to simply being personal attacks. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• I was involved and completely disagreed with Bender in the AFD, and in particular am concerned about their black and white interpretations of our guidelines, without reading the room. However they remained civil and never crossed a line. I don't see a concern here worthy of discussion at ANI. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, Aspersions and Canvassing by IZAK

IZAK has recently been edit warring against the scholarly interpretation of The Exodus, [10], [11], [12].

Additionally, they have cast WP:ASPERSIONS by implying that editors that oppose their changes are antisemitic [13].

They have also attempted to engage in WP:CANVASSING of multiple editors not involved in the article to influence its outcome [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

All of this is compounded by an apparent lack of understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies regarding in particular WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:PRIMARY, despite having been on Wikipedia since 2002, see [[20]] for the discussion at Talk:The Exodus#Myth yet again as well as User talk:Ermenrich#WP:NPOV.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: (1) I have not been "edit warring" I made edits in good faith. At no time did I violate the WP:3RR, (2) and at no time did I call anyone an "antisemite". (3) User:Ermenrich displays an attitude of WP:OWN at The Exodus article,and my point was to introduce some Jewish studies content into the lead of the article, which he seems allergic to. (4) At no time have I violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. (5) User:Ermenrich has an evident hostility to Rabbinic Judaism and marginalizes the Orthodox Judaism perspective.IZAK (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

When you say I "marginalize the Orthodox Jewish perspective" you mean I oppose your efforts to denude the article of its serious scholarly engagement with the topic because it violates your religious beliefs or to label a rival Jewish group a heresy. Both of those things are the very definitions of violating NPOV. You introduced, as far as I can see, no new content to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: The Jewish religious approach about a Jewish religious text is justified in such an article as The Exodus, you do not WP:OWN the topic or the article. I was only editing a few words in the lead and moved one paragraph. I am not denuding anything, that is what you are doing, denuding the views of Judaism and Christianity to their own texts by inserting latter-day commentaries. You did not give me enough time and you ignore WP:Common knowledge of the Jewish and Christian views on this subject. Modern scholarship has to be put in proportion and chronologically correct order. Don't put the cart before the horse. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

For such a highly experienced editor as IZAK, this blatant canvassing is quite amazing. Zero^talk 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I was asking for help in editing an article which is permitted. It was not a AfD or CfD. It is not a violation of WP:CANVAS to ask other editors for their scholarly help. IZAK (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• [21] edit summary: It's not a myth, millions of Jews and a billion of Christians believe it to be true - believing something into existence is apparently possible. This doesn't bode well for their editing. WP:Competence is required? starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My advice to IZAK is to do the same I do: since I cannot kowtow to WP:RS/AC at abortion and health effects of salt, I generally avoid those articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Those edits are wildly inappropriate, especially for an experienced user. IZAK needs to commit to making edits consistent with scholarly consensus, or needs to avoid those articles. If they are unable to do so, they likely need to be removed from the topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment : I feel this discussion, which immediately preceding the action at The Exodus, where Izak tried to add the category Heresy in Judaism to the article Sadducees ([22], [23]) is probably also relevant to this discussion. It speaks to bias and a lack of understanding of policy.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wildly inappropriate is exactly right, per Vanamonde. I've blocked IZAK from The Exodus and its talkpage for a month. If the disruption should move elsewhere, there could obviously be further sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC).
• Izak is a very experienced editor. In 2005 ArbCom banned him for 10 days for personal attacks.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK He's been blocked for a month from the article and talk page, but this attack: "I have noticed that a number of editors such as User:Ermenrich have been acting in a WP:OWN in articles relating to Judaism and go all out to deny what classical Jewish commentators and scholarship has to say. Very nice that you can quote SECULAR anti-religious profs xyz, but they know beans about Jewish theology and just have an ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish. That's the story for now" is unacceptable, as is his canvassing. I think either may warrant a block for someone who clearly should know better, the two together certainly do. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I won't stand in the way if Doug's proposal of a sitewide block is supported here, and I certainly agree the disruption was serious. It may be worth mentioning, though, that it's been 14 years since IZAK was last blocked, so I would think even just a partial block will make an impression. Bishonen | tålk 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that IZAK was way out of line, and that this misconduct should not be repeated. But I think that, for now, Bishonen's sanction should stand, if in the interests of administrative consistency and nothing else. So, I'm against adding further sanctions at this time. Note that I've protected the page 4 times this year alone — always about disruption relating to the word "myth," without exception. El_C 16:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• @El C: my problem is that he still denies canvassing or that saying that someone has "ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish" suggests that they are anti-semitic. Or am I alone in seeing this? Doug Weller talk 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• With the utmost respect, Doug, I disagree with your proposal. To dredge up an incident from 15 years ago, especially in light of arbcom considering an incident from a year ago to be stale, is concerning to me, especially considering how young WP was at the time. It is longer ago than some of our young editors are old. Granted, there is some strong opposition to IZAK's edits and POV, and with that in mind, it is clear that he needs to cite some high quality scholarly sources for any controversial material he intends to add to an article, but for us to even consider site blocking a 17 yr. veteran editor over this case - a case that is influenced by 10 and 15 year old incidents - is simply not conceivable to me, nor is it proportionate to the behavior. I'm not going to discuss content, which I consider to be the basis for this case, but there is no doubt that there is a POV controversy involving one side with high quality scholarly sources supporting their POV vs IZAK's POV and lack of quality citations - or at least that is my understanding. I don't agree that he canvassed per our guideline, and I don't agree that he edit warred at 3 reverts per the evidence. I also don't agree that we should consider stale incidents as a basis to predetermine future behavior because then we are debatably deploying prejudice-based prevention which opens the door to POV creep. I support Bishonen's action and good judgment in this case, and have assumed the position of let's see what happens. If in a month or so, IZAK decides to revisit that article, he knows full-well he had better have high quality RS to support whatever material he wants to add, and that includes any argument he wishes to participate in on the TP. With the latter in mind, he should probably seek expert advice beforehand to avoid potential misunderstandings and backlash. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know about ArbCom cases. And IZAK's behaviour since. But this is all moot as I am now supporting a topic ban and think that would be a better option. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• This diff suggests that IZAK may now be editing while WP:LOGGEDOUT. Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Narky Blert: I only edit using my user name. It was not me in any case. I abide by the decision. IZAK (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I believe IZAK. Their English is a lot better than the IP's, for one thing. Bishonen | tålk 15:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC).

• Tons of IPs edit the Exodus like that, so it's probably just a coincidence. The page gets protected occasionally because of the constant fights over the word "myth".--Ermenrich (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bishonen:, given that he's been banned from the article, what's the appropriateness of IZAK continuing to argue for the changes he wants in this thread at ANI?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a topic ban I've given IZAK (you can propose one of those in this thread if you like, Ermenrich — a community ban) — but merely a partial block. He can argue in other places than the two pages I specified. Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC).

• • @Ermenrich: The answer is simple. I was NOT given a chance to respond before the block was imposed. I noticed this discussion AFTER the decision was made. So I am speaking in my own self-defence now ex post facto. I am not editing The Exodus article for the near future in any case.IZAK (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    • You had plenty of time to discuss the article content at Talk:The Exodus before this block was imposed. The only reason that this discussion is still open is to allow people to discuss whether you should just be blocked from editing this article or the block should be wider, not to give you some sort of rights in a court of law. Nobody on Wikipedia has the power to fine you or imprison you or sentence you to death or do anything more than tell you can't edit one particular web site, so such rights are not needed here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban for heresy in Judaism

Since I filed this report, this long string of edits has come to my attention where IZAK has added the category Heresy in Judaism or Heresy in Orthodox Judaism to dozens of articles such as Reform Judaism, Jewish secularism, etc, even other religions such as Samaritanism: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Most of these additions are highly offensive and serve to mark Jewish movements as somehow not truly Jewish.

As seen when confronted with views outside of those held by Orthodox Judaism, (see User Talk:Ermenrich#WP:NPOV, Talk:Sadducees#Sadducees are Heretics according to Judaism), IZAK is not capable of perceiving the fact that they have an obvious POV problem on Jewish topics. Therefore, in addition to their one month block from The Exodus, I propose a topic ban from the topic of heresy in Judaism, broadly construed.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: You are avoiding the obvious: All the edits are valid, they reflect what Heresy in Orthodox Judaism (NOTE, I did NOT write the article!) asserts, not "me". According to you, there is no "heresy" in anything, but in Judaism there is, simply Heresy in Judaism (NOTE, I did NOT write the article!) just as there is an article about Heresy in all its forms on WP, see Category:Heresy with detailed sub-categories in Category:Heresy in Buddhism, Category:Heresy in Christianity, and Category:People convicted of heresy, Bidʻah (Heresy in Islam), likewise I created Category:Heresy in Judaism and Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism years ago, and no one ever had any problems with it til you came along, and the purpose of WP is to educate about the subjects it deals with. You can't run around attacking people for stating what exists in the real world. IZAK (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a category "Heresy in Orthodox Judaism" or "Heresy in Judaism" to Reform Judaism or Samaritanism is a pretty obvious way to attack those movements, one of which is not even really Jewish. As I've stated elsewhere, adding language somewhere to the effect that "this-and-that is viewed as heretical by Orthodox Judaism" isn't a problem, provided its within the bounds wp:DUE. But this category is being used as a covert attack category. As to other "heresies in" categories, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument, and you'll notice no major Christian denomination is included in "Heresy in Christianity," nor is "secularism" or, I don't know, the War on Christmas.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: You are engaging in classical don't kill the messenger responses. Again, it is not "my" view, it is the view of Orthodox Judaism, that is not my fault. You fail to understand how religions functions and you have no clue about the inner workings of the differences between the different streams of Judaism and how they judge each other. That is what I am reporting on WP, not attacking anyone to say that Orthodoxy views Reform as heretical. It is a verifiable statement of fact. And please stop denying when I cite examples of heresy as discussed on WP as "other stuff"" etc that is just a cop out. IZAK (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

How would you feel if I created a category “false religions in Christianity” and added Orthodox Judaism to it? It’s not my fault, it’s what Christianity teaches! Do you see how that’s not a particularly convincing argument?—Ermenrich (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Please don't create a red herring! Christianity regards Judaism as its mother (and father) religion, so how can what you say even make sense! Please do not venture into WP:NOTMADEUP. I do not know of any serious Christian scholarship that regards Judaism as a "heresy"! No one is talking about "false" religions, the subject is religious terminology in Judaism such as apikores and kofer (again I did not make this up), and it is not my fault you can't grasp the concepts and the terminology in loco. IZAK (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

And it’s not my fault you seem incapable of seeing your own biases and how they might cause others offense.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: You make me laugh! It is most certainly not a "bias" to accurately describe and explain a complex phenomenon and set of notions and beliefs, such as Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Modern Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, in a WP:NPOV which I have always striven to do on WP. IZAK (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s nothing complex or NPOV about adding a category that another version of a religion is wrong. The fact that you can’t see that is precisely why you shouldn’t be editing anything to do with this topic.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I am not adding my personal views. What don't you get? It is the position of Orthodox Judaism and its scholars. Sorry that you can't handle the heat.IZAK (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from heresy in Judaism and heresy in Orthodox Judaism, broadly construed. When Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism are officially categorized as heretical with Wikipedia's implicit stamp of approval, that is highly problematical. It is profoundly inappropriate to categorize denominations that account for a large majority of synangogue affiliations as heretical in this way. That's POV pushing. Consider poor Shulem Deen, a living person categorized as a "heretic" because he broke with one of the dozens of ingrown Hasidic Jewish sects. I do not think we should have any categories of people and organizations called heretical by fringe sects and extremist, dogmatic religious leaders. IZAK has proven himself unable to edit in accordance with the neutral point of view regarding heresy and Judaism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • See the Heresy in Orthodox Judaism article for what it states, same as the category. In 17 years I have abided by WP:NPOV, withdraw the accusation. IZAK (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Cullen328, is Messianic Judaism not heretical according to even Reform Judaism? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Almost every religious sect under the sun is 'heretical' to every other religious sect. That is the nature of religion, for if not, everyone would have no problem believing in the same thing. So what do you propose we do, add the category 'Heresy in X', 'Heresy in Y', and 'Heresy in Z' to Religion A, B and C? StonyBrook (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

StonyBrook, so why topic ban someone for categorizing that? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Classifying a religious group by what another religious group believes (rather than independent assessments such as academia) is basically endorsing the latter religion's views in Wikipedia's voice. Orthodox Judaism may consider other branches of Judaism heretical, but that does not mean we should be following their lead and marking our articles as such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: So the solution is a WP:AFD and WP:CFD according to you. Or just simply revert, since this is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE but there is no point to a topic ban. Academia agrees that Orthodox Judaism and its laws and concepts exist in all their glory, that all can be presented in a WP:NPOV as well. That should be obvious. IZAK (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not put words into my mouth. And your comment completely ignores my point: Orthodox Judaism's concepts WP:EXIST, but does not mean we apply the "heretic" label to other sects of Judaism based on what Orthodox Judaism believes. They are free to believe they're the one true faith as much as they want, but we do not apply that label to other sects' articles here & effectively endorse their belief. Maintaining NPOV means not applying the category to other sects. Prior to now, I had not weighed in on the subject of whether or not you should be topic-banned. But, if you can't understand that it is not neutral to categorize one sect as "heretical" based on another sects beliefs, then a topic ban is the correct way forward. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not putting anything into your mouth. Just re-read what I wrote, it answers the problem. So all you are saying is censor the facts when they don't suite you. That is just another example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are then going to have the same problem with other categories in WP such as Category:Heresy in Christianity, Category:Heresy in Buddhism, Category:People convicted of heresy, Category:Free Zone (Scientology), Bidʻah for Heresy in Islam (redirect) somehow, we don't have a Category:Heresy in Islam quite yet. Category:Heresy exists and you are not going to wish it away. IZAK (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So the solution is a WP:AFD and WP:CFD according to you. is explicitly putting words in my mouth.

So all you are saying is censor the facts when they don't suite you. as is this. So, please stop imagining what I'm saying and just listen. The category itself is not the problem. It's your decision to place it on rival sects pages. That's it. The fact you won't listen to anyone else is why I am finally supporting this topic ban. I'm done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Cullen328—"heretical" is equal to the "does not equal" sign in math, which is "≠". Why would anyone get their knickers in a twist about the "does not equal" sign? Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Cullen328. I will say that it is wildly inappropriate to tag categories of heresy if the tagged articles themselves do not even mention the heresy (e.g. Cultural Judaism). starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So just do a simple revert, No need for a topic ban. IZAK (talk)
• oppose topic ban To achieve neutral wording in ledes is difficult, and I have always thought it best to avoid all judgmental terms of any sort whatsoever in leads, rather than argue about which ones are justified. We can not assume the majority is the determining factor. I think we should try to write ledes without adjectives at all. They are meant just as introductions. It takes the fuller space of an article to approach some degree of accuracy and neutral meaning. Saying someone should have a topic ban from heresy in.... means that they should have a topic ban because I personally disagree with them. I always would vote against a topic ban for someone whose views in that topic I disagree with. Supporting a topic ban for someone whose views in the topic one disagrees with is something that is inherently liable to make one at least appear non-neutral. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  DGG - this topic ban isn't about changing things in leads, but is related to adding categories of Heresy in Judaism (some of these article bodies do not mention heresy). starship.paint (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support, largely per Cullen328. I've been examining IZAK's recent behaviour as part of reviewing an unblock request. And I'm seeing someone who appears to only see one viewpoint as neutral and honest, that aligned with his own religious beliefs. IAZK appears to me to have been editing Wikipedia through and to reflect those beliefs. I'm sure it's unintentional, but many religious believers who are unshakeably convinced that they have the truth genuinely can't see their NPOV violations. We do have many people from all sorts of religious backgrounds who are able to put their personal beliefs to one side when editing Wikipedia and stick to NPOV, but IZAK is not one of them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Feel free to review my editing history over 17 years and see that I have abided by WP:NPOV. It is not a crime to also sometimes be WP:BEBOLD. IZAK (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That you've been here 17 years and can't see the problem with categorizing articles based on primary religious sources (and, from our brief dialog at your talk page, didn't even know what edit warring is) does give me additional concern. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Speaking of additional concerns, Boing! said Zebedee, I was shocked that IZAK [35] would consider these edits [36] as major improvements to an article at AfD (that article being Heresy in Orthodox Judaism). That's 81 words added, and no references. Roughly around 5% of the body. How could this be a major improvement? starship.paint (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Starship.paint: Yes, I think that's a further example of how a worldview directed by a very firm religious belief can make it genuinely hard for people to step back and see the wider picture. I am convinced this proposed topic ban is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @Boing! said Zebedee: You are wrong when you say "a worldview directed by a very firm religious belief" that borders on WP:NPA, since my 17 year record on WP disproves your allegations. A good Jewish education would be a more accurate description of my background and credentials as a WP editor. IZAK (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @IZAK: If you see criticism of your religious approach to truth as a personal attack, then that's unfortunate but there's nothing I can do about it. I see "a worldview directed by a very firm religious belief" and "a good Jewish education" (also "a good Muslim/Christian/Hindu/etc education") as synonymous. I base that on the mainstream secular approach that Wikipedia requires. Wikipedia is not a Jewish encyclopedia, can not (and will not) accept Jewish (or Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc) education as truth, and will not present Jewish (etc) beliefs as fact in Wikipedia's voice. It genuinely disappoints me that you can not see (or will not accept) this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
              • @Boing! said Zebedee: Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia that faithfully and empirically describes and explains phenomena, it does not advocate, and I am not advocating. Heresy in Judaism exists, I did not make that up, and certain categories and classes of people in this world of ours fall into that category. Not accusing or doing anything bad. Very simple actually, IZAK (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Switch to Oppose. Having read and digested a lot more comments from others, below, I've been swayed into the opinion that this is more a genuine content disagreement than anything. That is, deciding how to present the subject of Heresy in Judaism. I do think there are problems using categories (which appear to be stating things in Wikipedia's voice and do not require sources, as others have mentioned) and that lists and narrative are probably better ways to deal with this subject... But, yes, that's a content discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - as per Cullen328. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why? And what's wrong with a bit of WP:BEBOLD since WP:NOTCENSORED in Heresy in Judaism "broadly construed"? IZAK (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • IZAK, badgering the votes that don't go your way isn't going to help. 1292simon (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support The religious concept of heresy has caused many wars and innumerable deaths throughout history. The modern post-enlightenment world, especially after the French and the American revolutions, finally saw the implementation of the new concept of freedom of religion to democratic nation-states in the west. In the 20th century, western secular thought went even further in coining the expression "freedom from religion." Of course, we now live in a period where the pendulum of religious liberty seems to be swinging back. Wikipedia, as a free and secular encyclopedia, should not be giving religious fundamentalists a tool to go around tagging encyclopedic entries about historical phenomena as heresy. This is a very dangerous tool, in my view, and should be watched very carefully by WP admins. It certainly should not be given freely to a declared spokesperson for the Orthodox sect in modern Judaism. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • All you are really saying is WP:IDONTLIKEIT of the notion of Heresy but it does exist in all religions and it may be presented as such on WP, because WP:NOTCENSORED. IZAK (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What I wrote has nothing to do with me liking or disliking an idea, quite the contrary. I tried to highlight the importance of the concept for religious intolerance throughout history. I tried to explain how the tagging of different religious ideas as "heresy" has always been a dangerous tool in society. I believe it is not less harmful for a serious intellectual tool as Wikipedia. It has to be handled with utmost scholarly care, in my view. You definitely have shown you lack such care, by creating a dubious religious category and then going around and tagging different streams of thought rather carelessly, based exclusively on religious primary sources. It is also important to point out that your own alleged "zeal" stems from religious dogma itself. This threat of religious intolerance needs to be put in check here, and that is why I support your ban from the topic. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Warshy, you are mistaking "zeal" for enthusiasm and expertise. WP values WP:EXPERT editors. Editors contribute because they are enthusiastic and knowledgeable about a subject, you may call it "zeal" but I know a lot of sports fans who are big fanatics and spend tons on sports, yet I would not criticize their motivations. I would not dare write or tag something I knew nothing about. But I do know about this subject through long-time study. I see that the "supports" here do not have the maturity to accept a tough subject. Let me just say, that if editors disagree with an edit they can simply WP:REVERT. Your concerns are totally unfounded. IZAK (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support It's a relatively narrow topic ban that addresses the behavior at hand, as comments by IZAK in this thread indicate that the user still doesn't understand why those particular category additions are problematic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Um @Ohnoitsjamie: this is really a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, it has zero to do with anyone'e behavior! IZAK (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen and Ohnoitsjamie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

IZAK, the Vilna Gaon, a widely revered Lithuanian Orthodox rabbi, denounced the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shneur Zalman of Liadi as a heretic, and judged the entire Hasidic movement as heretical. Should we categorize every Hasidic rebbe and dynasty as heretical if we cite the Vilna Gaon? There are many sociologists and academic experts in comparative religion who describe the leadership of contemporary Hasidic dynasties using the term "cult of personality". Should we create a new category called "Jewish cult leaders" to categorize these self declared "Grand Rabbis" of villages of a couple thousand people who wear 18th century Eastern European garb and beaver fur hats in the state of New York or settlements controlled by Israel, in communities where independent thinking is forbidden and total subjection is mandatory? How about the ultra-Orthodox group Neturei Karta, who preach that the existence of the State of Israel is an "affront against God"? Should we cite them to categorize Israel, all of its institutions and every one of its politicians as heretics against Orthodox Judaism? If not, why not? Please do not answer that you love the sources that support your POV but reject out of hand the sources that contradict your POV. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Since you know what you are talking about, and have addressed me directly, I will answer you in detail: "the Vilna Gaon, a widely revered Lithuanian Orthodox rabbi, denounced the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, Shneur Zalman of Liadi as a heretic, and judged the entire Hasidic movement as heretical." True! You quote an amazing WP:RS!! "Should we categorize every Hasidic rebbe and dynasty as heretical if we cite the Vilna Gaon?" Most probably yes, but the jury is still out, the latter-day Hasidim have "reformed" themselves and returned to a better path of Torah Judaism, so "judgement is still pending" on them! "There are many sociologists and academic experts in comparative religion who describe the leadership of contemporary Hasidic dynasties using the term "cult of personality". Should we create a new category called "Jewish cult leaders" to categorize these self declared "Grand Rabbis" of villages of a couple thousand people who wear 18th century Eastern European garb and beaver fur hats in the state of New York or settlements controlled by Israel, in communities where independent thinking is forbidden and total subjection is mandatory?" Maybe it is possible, but they are not quite cults because they conform to the Shulchan Aruch the classical Code of Jewish Law required of all Jews, and they abide by all the Torah's 613 Mitzvot so they are boderline and don't make the grade of a "cult" but in some extreme cases it may be so. They number hundreds of thousands of people by the way. "How about the ultra-Orthodox group Neturei Karta, who preach that the existence of the State of Israel is an "affront against God"? Should we cite them to categorize Israel, all of its institutions and every one of its politicians as heretics against Orthodox Judaism?" I was holding myself back from classing Zionists as a Heresy against God because the question is a very complicated one. But it is not just Neturei Karta or Satmar Hasidism who are against the ideology of secular Zionism, every single Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism movement would categorize Zionism as a Heresy against God. This is not "my" personal view but it is the reality out there in the world. "If not, why not?" As I just said, the question is complicated, in addition you have many in Religious Zionism who are NOT Heretics according to Jewish Law. "Please do not answer that you love the sources that support your POV but reject out of hand the sources that contradict your POV." I just explained the views of Haredi and Hasidic Judaism, they are not "my" personal views and it is pretty much their standard party line as it were. Feel free to continue asking. I just wish that User:Ermenrich had engaged in such a thoughtful debate before he rashly ran off like a baby to ANI to get help from "mommy and daddy"! Thanks and take care. IZAK (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your frank reply, IZAK, I believe that you have provided additional evidence that this topic ban is needed. According to Wikipedia:Categorization, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." These Jewish heresy categorizations are profoundly controversial and you are seemingly having difficulty understanding why. It also says "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". You can read hundreds of randomly selected articles published by reliable sources about Reform Judaism for example, without running across one that describes that denomination as heretical. It is simply not a defining characteristic of the Reform movement and it is tendentious and disruptive for you to categorize it that way or defend that category. This is a neutral encyclopedia, is not Hasidicpedia, and the category system cannot be used as a tool in endless faction fights among various Jewish denominations and dynasties. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: That there are hundreds of articles about Reform Judaism not mentioning Heresy does not make it non-Heretical as far as classical Judaism is concerned. Do you even know what Heresy in Judaism is in the first place? Basically everyone voting "support" has no clue what Heresy in Judaism even means IN Judaism! They think it is like a dirty "swear word" not uttered in polite company. But alas, Heresy, or being an apikores aka heretic in Judaism is a legal status in Jewish Law and jurisprudence. In Judaism, correct and incorrect beliefs and practices matter. There is no way around a tough topic and there is no reason that articles and categories cannot serve the purpose of what is clearly identified in both the Heresy in Judaism and Heresy in Orthodox Judaism articles, NEITHER written by be, I just wish we could have all the editors who are now gone to help me out here, but that is the price I pay for longevity on Wikipedia. Let's face it, the "supports" here just cannot abide understanding religious notions qua religious notions. Just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What comes next? a wholesale massacre of Category:Heresy in the Catholic Church, Category:Heresy in Christianity in the Middle Ages, Category:Heresy in ancient Christianity, Category:Heresy in Buddhism etc etc etc? saying that Category:Sabbateans is "not" a heresy in Judaism, turning day into night, and light into darkness, truth into lies and lies into facts? This is sad day for Wikipedia as due to the "supports" here it takes a huge step backwards and violates its own WP:NOTCENSORED principles. IZAK (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban with a banning summary that clearly explains the scope of "broadly construed" Looking at his talk page, you will see that he rejects science in favor of religious pseudoscience. This will cause issues in multiple areas of the encyclopedia if we do not address it by making it clear that he must stay away from all topics where (some) orthodox Jews disagree with other branches of Judaism, with scientists, etc. He is a good editor when not riding his hobbyhorse. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not "religious pseudoscience" -- it's "Judaism 101"! Nothing I said is "my own" invention, you can find it in any WP:RS about classical Judaism. You keep on comparing Judaism with Mormonism, which is also bad logic. Thanks for the compliment though. IZAK (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant the complement from my heart. In fact, one of the reasons I am following this discussion is because sooner or later someone is sure to suggest an indefinite block instead of a topic ban, and it is my intent to oppose any indef block.

Science says that the Exodus as described in the Old Testament did not happen, Your religion says that it did. That's pretty much the definition of "religious pseudoscience". Or I could be more specific and call it the subset of religious pseudoscience known as religious pseudohistory.

Your continued insistence that your religion is right and the scientists are wrong in the middle of a discussion about whether to topic ban you is a classic example of the Law of holes. It is also WP:BLUDGEONING.

I don't know how aware you are of my editing history, but I have put in a lot of effort into dealing with editors who are unhappy with Wikipedia saying that holocaust denial is not supported by science. I think I am safe in assuming that you also reject the arguments of holocaust deniers.

The parallels are striking: like you, they like to point out that the POV they are pushing is not their own invention. Like you, they want Wikipedia to say that the 99%+ of scientists who disagree with them are all wrong. Like you, they seem to think, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that somehow their arguments will prevail and cause Wikipedia to present pseudoscience as truth.

(Before someone mentions Godwin's law, let me make clear that the only similarity is pushing pseudoscience and rejecting science. Looking at the big picture, Neo-naziism is a force for evil in this world, and Orthodox Judaism is clearly a force for good. I am comparing two completely different things that share one small aspect.)

IZAK, I don't think you would like an encyclopaedia where you won this one. If you were to win, then all of the pseudoscience I listed at WP:YWAB would also be open to being presented as facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Guy Macon, I appreciate your sincerity, but I must point out that you persist in comparing apples and oranges, you fall into the trap of a category mistake, a big failure in logic, each time you opine on something in Judaism which I regret you evidently know little about. For someone of your caliber I suggest you read as many articles on Wikipedia itself in the founding Category:Jews and Judaism which I inaugurated myself in 2004 [37] when the whole system of categorization on Wikipedia was started. It will take you time because there are tens of thousands of articles associated with the topic. But at the end of it you will see your mistake of comparing Judaism to anything to do with Mormonism or Neo-Nazis, or Holocaust Denial. Finally, once and for all, NOTHING (I know you don't like caps) in true Judaism is a "pseudo-science'. The Hebrew Bible aka the Tanach is an important historical document. It does not matter that some shnook/s on WP decided to "act God" and tell God that the best-seller of all time is "pseudoscience" or whatnot. P.S. I am most certainly NOT unhappy with Wikipedia, I think it is a great leap forward for humanity but it has a way to go before it tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, yeah, yeah, I know about WP:V but the truth is most certainly 100% WP:V. Take good care, IZAK (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The above demonstrates that the topic ban needs to cover more than just Heresy in Judaism. IZAK cannot tell the difference from what I actually wrote (that virtually all scientists agree that the Exodus as described in the Bible never happened) with an imaginary world where I tried to describe or define Judaism. He seems to be fine when those same scientists say that the holocaust didn't happen the way the holocaust deniers say it did, and he seems fine when those same scientists say that pre-columbian North America was not at all like what the Book Of Mormons says it was like. The belief that millions of Jews actually wandered the wildness being fed by manna from heaven is pseudoscience. The belief that the angel of God actually killed the firstborn of any families who didn’t have blood sprinkled on their doorposts on the night of the Passover is pseudoscience. Most of what IZAK believes to be historical fact never happened. The archaeological record is not consistent with the Bible version. He needs to be stopped from editing in this area. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon—pseudoscience, also known as religion. You are saying "The belief that millions of Jews actually wandered the wildness being fed by manna from heaven is pseudoscience. The belief that the angel of God actually killed the firstborn of any families who didn’t have blood sprinkled on their doorposts on the night of the Passover is pseudoscience." Are you saying that Wikipedia can't describe religion? Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly Wikipedia can describe religion. The paragraph IZAK deleted in this edit[38] described religion. He just didn't like the describ=ption, so he removed it. When we say, for example, "The resurrection of Jesus, or anastasis, is the Christian belief that God raised Jesus on the third day after his crucifixion" as we do in our Resurrection of Jesus article, we are describing part of a religion. If instead we say that Jesus actually rose from the dead (not that Christians believe that he did, but instead reporting it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice) and use the Bible as our citation, that's psuedoscience. It goes against what scientists know about people who have been dead for three days. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon—you are misusing "pseudoscience". It is "any body of knowledge that purports to be scientific or to be supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method." But that definition wouldn't apply to religion because religion generally doesn't purport to be scientific. Bus stop (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, you are correct in your explanation of the difference between religion and pseudoscience, but you have completely mischaracterized my position to the point of stuffing words down my throat, making an excellent argument refuting a position I have never held, then, having knocked down a straw man of your own creation, declaring victory. I don't think you are doing this purposely, so I will assume that I was unclear and attempt to explain my actual position to you. You may end up agreeing or you may wish to argue against my actual words, but at least we will be talking about the same thing.

If anyone claims

• "God exists and created all things".
• "Jesus saved me and the Bible is his inspired word".
• "The Torah, both Written and Oral, as literally revealed by God on Mount Sinai and faithfully transmitted ever since"'
• "Joseph Smith is a true prophet, and translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates with divine assistance".

Those are religions, not science or pseudoscience. Wikipedia will never say that those claims are false, and Wikipedia will never say that those claims are true. We describe them as accurately as possible, and we describe who holds those beliefs. However, the following claims are both religion and pseudoscience:

• "God reliably heals people of HIV. You have received his healing and you can stop taking your medications".
• "What you read in the Torah is historical fact, literally happened exactly as described, all of the scientists who say otherwise are wrong and quite possibly antisemitic".
• "Joseph Smith says that in the pre-Columbian Americas there were horses, elephants, and steel swords that rusted, so those are historical facts and all of the scientists who say otherwise are wrong."
• "The earth is less than 10,000 years old, and humans and dinosaurs coexisted."

The above are all religious pseudoscience because, although motivated by religion, they make claims that purport to be factual and supported by science but are not. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Again, as I have already pointed out, your are mixing apples and oranges and falling into the illogical trap of a category mistake because Judaism and it Torah in all its forms have NOTHING to do with anything in Mormonism or HIV or any "pseudoscience". IZAK (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Guy Macon—an Orthodox Jew would not find a scientist antisemitic because they disprove the Torah. You are writing "What you read in the Torah is historical fact, literally happened exactly as described, all of the scientists who say otherwise are wrong and quite possibly antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support reluctantly. I've been waiting for IZAK to understand the problem, but to no avail. Categories are not designed for the purpose of stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice that can't be stated in Wikipedia's voice in the article body. It doesn't make any difference whether it is IZAK's private opinion or the opinion of a religious group. Are we going to find Christianity in the "idol worship" category next? Zero^talk 04:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wow @Zero0000: so does that mean you also support the annihilation of all in Category:Criticism of Christianity, Category:Criticism of Buddhism, Category:Criticism of Hinduism, Category:Criticism of Islam and of course we do have Category:Criticism of Judaism etc etc etc???!!! IZAK (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

None of those examples are analogous. Zero^talk 15:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: How about all in Category:Heresy in Christianity, Category:Heresy in Buddhism, Category:People convicted of heresy, Category:Free Zone (Scientology), Bidʻah for Heresy in Islam (redirect) somehow, we don't have a Category:Heresy in Islam quite yet. Are all these okay with you? If not why not? If yes, what's wrong with Category:Heresy in Judaism? IZAK (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I already wrote that Category:Heresy in Christianity has the same problems. I expect that the Buddhism one is also bad but I don't know much about Buddhism. I know even less about Scientology so I can't really say. The other examples seem ok. Bid'ah is an article similar to Heresy in Judaism, which is in poor shape but should be improved rather than deleted. Category:People convicted of heresy is not similar at all. Zero^talk 04:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment:

"[You cite] so-called secular anti-religious professors, while I am relying on the ongoing scholarship of Torah by Jewish sages from ancient to modern times... [thousands of Jewish scholars spanning two millennia] would and do assert and affirm what I have to say about the veracity of the Hebrew Bible and that The Exodus is 100% true and the 100% reliability of Judaism's Oral Torah..."[39] --Wikipedia uesr IZAK, 11 June 2020

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Guy Macon, tell me which part of the sentence you quote is not true within Judaism? Ever heard of Judaism's Three Pilgrimage Festivals of Passover, Sukkot, Shavuot observed by Jews since the time of The Exodus that the commemorate the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai? Remember, you cannot make up your version of Judaism or any religion or any subject, you must FIRST use Description and Explanation first empirically before jumping to your own (very inferior, half-baked) conclusions. Creating *your* version of Judaism or of the Hebrew Bible or of Jewish beliefs is a clear violation of WP:NOTMADEUP and would be a WP:HOAX which is a trap a lot of modern day secular professors fall into. They think because they have a PhD they can just say anything they want about Judaism and the Bible, and it just ain't so! IZAK (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from heresy in Judaism and heresy in Orthodox Judaism, broadly construed. Cullen328's arguments would be convincing enough, and Izak's responses just reinforce the need for this. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment May I just point out to those supporters of the TBAN that one of the edits that is supposedly "offensive" is marking "Jewish-Christianity" as part of the category Heresy in Judaism. Do we really need to explain that people who believe in Jesus as the messiah, doesn't believe in one of the core beliefs in Judaism? Further, again, one of the categories, is "Heresy in Orthodox Judaism." While you may not agree with some of those beliefs, are we now censoring Wikipedia as the OP did with his edit summary of "offensive?" Take Baruch Spinoza for example, one of the most famous heretics in modern times, should we not label him because he, were he alive might find it offensive (or he probably wouldn't, but that's another story)? I actually find this one of the most egregious examples of consensus going wrong and ruining the encyclopedia. Heresy in Judaism or Heresy in Orthodox Judaism are legal terms and some of those terms that Izak edited most certainly qualify for those categories. TBANNING him is wrong, and not allowing those edits is wrong as well and just furthers the descent of PCness of this encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Heresy in Judaism or Heresy in Orthodox Judaism are legal terms

Under what law? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Jewish Christians were some of the first followers of Jesus, so no, they should not be classified as a heresy in Judaism. The next step is classified Christianity as a Jewish heresy (which in the view of the rabbis, it undoubtedly started as!).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—we don't even find any mention of Christianity in Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. You say "The next step is classified Christianity as a Jewish heresy". Why don't we cross that bridge when we get to it? Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Jewish_Christian#cite_note-JVL-2. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, WP:Category:Jewish Christianity includes The Epistle to the Hebrews and subcategory WP:Category:Jewish Christian mystics, which includes John of Patmos, John the Apostle and Paul the Apostle. How can you defend labeling some of the most important Christian figures and texts as "heresy in Judaism", as this particular category is the one you've most locked onto? Subcategory wp:Category:Early Jewish Christians includes Mark the Evangelist, [[John I {Bishop of Jerusalem)]], Saint Stephen, and many, many other important early Christians. This is offensive to Christians, obviously, and there is no defense for it, just because you dislike Messianic Judaism.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Jewish Christian is an article, not a category. Also, is WP:OFFENSIVE a new policy I never heard of? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Is that even an argument? Please see [40]. IZAK never added the heresy label to Messianic Judaism, you would do well to look at what he actually did before defending him. He added the category heresy in Judaism to most early Christian figures via the category Jewish Christianity.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, Jewish law, and it's categorized as such. This is all just a content dispute and trying to censor Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Jewish "law" is religious doctrine. And are you going to argue that Orthodox belief has authority over all others branches of Judaism? Can you seriously, in good faith, argue that one denomination gets to decide all others are heretical & we should, in Wikipedia's voice, mark those religious beliefs as such? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, a category called Heresy in Orthodox Judaism by definition means that it's Heresy according to Orthodox Judaism, not you, not me, not Izak and not Wikipedia. That's how the encyclopedia works. We have plenty of articles regarding Heresies in the Catholic Church, would you like those AFD'ed? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you really not know the difference between an article and a category? Zero^talk 17:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph First, Zero makes a good point: articles are not the same as categories. I have no issue with theoretical articles about what Orthodox Judaism believes to be heretical. However, categories are an organizational label we're applying to Wikipedia articles. Such articles could certainly have the category mentioned in this thread applied to them, as they're covering a doctrinal issue (supposing that controversy is notable enough for an article in the first place).

What we're dealing with is a situation where Orthodox Judaism has declared other branches of Judaism to be heretical. What the Orthodoxy declares heretical within their own denomination is one thing; what we have here is applying a category to other branches of Judaism, effectively saying "these aren't real Judaism, per the Orthodox jews." We are not going to apply a category to brand these other forms of Judaism "heresy" based on what a competing sect says. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, it's a category ACCORDING to Orthodox Judaism. Heresy in Orthodox Judaism implies that it's a category about Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and that it's not necessarily about Heresy in Judasin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph it's not necessarily about Heresy in Judasin (sic)

And that's the problem. It's not about heresy in Judaism in general, or even in specific tenets; it's about the Orthodox sect declaring other sects to be heretical. Are we going to have these categories for every religious sect that declares its rivals to be "heretics"? What happens when two denominations declare each other heretical, we give them each opposing categories? It's ridiculous, and these categories should not be applied to pages about the sects in question.

And that's the last I'll say on this matter, as we've gone off topic of the proposal itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds—even if the Category did brand another form of Judaism heresy, it would be according to Orthodox Judaism, as the title of the Category says: Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. You say "Are we going to have these categories for every religious sect that declares its rivals to be heretics?" Why don't we cross that bridge when we get to it? Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop We're already on that bridge with this action. I'd like us to get off it rather than keep pushing articles across it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, An article can have many categories. It doesn't cost anything to put one on an article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph You've missed the entire point of this conversation. Please do not ping me back here again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I can see why some folks might disagree with some of the edits, at the end of the day, all you got here is a couple reverts and a content dispute, which does not rise to the status of anything worthy of a topic ban. Now, if IZAK really had falsely accused someone of antisemitism as a way of getting an upper hand in such a dispute, as Ermenrich claims, that would be topic ban worthy indeed. But here is the thing - IZAK DID NOT do that. Here’s the diff, again, provided by Ermenrich [41]. I’m sorry, where is the accusation of antisemitism again? It’s not there. In fact, it’s quite appalling that Ermenrich would so shamelessly accuse IZAK of something he didn’t do and provide essentially a fake diff. This kind of sneaky attempts at WP:GAMEing are WP:BOOMERANG worthy. Volunteer Marek 04:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice of you to stop by Volunteer Marek, I love you too. Wonderfully bombastic as always. If you don’t see how saying someone has “an axe to grind against everything Jewish” is antisemitic, I’m not sure what is accusing someone of being antisemitic.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a content dispute. It is symptomatic of a deeper issue: the indifference in most of the articles in this topic area to following the letter of WP:RS. There is a huge and tolerated amount of WP:Primary sourcing, almost invariably making up half of the ostensible paraphrase and, as often as not, citing 'official' primary sources taught in yeshivas. Touching anything on issues in the ancient history of religion by citing materials imbibed in yeshivas, madrasas or seminaries is playing with fire. The practice should be forbidden. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—you opened this thread with "Additionally, they have cast WP:ASPERSIONS by implying that editors that oppose their changes are antisemitic [42]." But they are not "implying that editors that oppose their changes are antisemitic". Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. They said I have noticed that a number of editors such as User:Ermenrich have been acting in a WP:OWN in articles relating to Judaism and go all out to deny what classical Jewish commentators and scholarship has to say. Very nice that you can quote SECULAR anti-religious profs xyz, but they know beans about Jewish theology and just have an ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish. So basically: I somehow "own" the article Sadducees, where this all started, because I reverted his category additions and argued against them. I'm relying on secular scholars who "have an axe to grind against everything Jewish." If secular scholars "have an axe to grind against everything Jewish", they are antisemitic. And if I'm defending their use on Wikipedia, I by implication must also be an antisemite. It's not a direct accusation, so it has a certain degree of plausible deniability (as also below where he seems to accuse me of being a Jew for Jesus but then claims he didn't), but it's there nonetheless.

Let me make a comparable example. If in a comment I accused someone of adding and defending sources that denied the Holocaust, would I not be accusing them of Holocaust denialism? Just because he didn't say "he is an antisemite" doesn't mean that it wasn't strongly implied.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reasoning is convoluted. Ermenrich—no one accused you of antisemitism. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What Bus stop said. Stop digging your hole. Volunteer Marek 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This seem like content dispute but I think an RFC is order when category "Heresy in Judaism" should be used --Shrike (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree that the category Heresy in Judaism is not NPOV and should not be applied to non-Jewish topics (Samaritans et al.) or even non-orthodox Judaism, but I think a personal TBAN goes way too far and is a non-proportionate censorship of an editor who has made some good contributions. To solve the underlying content dispute, I propose creating a wiki page "Beliefs condemned as heretical by Orthodox Judaism", similar to Beliefs condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church. Note that this appears as "Beliefs condemned as..." in the nav box title (in Protestantism for example) but the actual wiki page is "List of heresies in...". Such a page on Judaism will list individual beliefs that various Jewish movements (not necessarily Orthodox) see as heretic. It preserves NPOV since it lists individual beliefs (not entire religions) as heretical. It would also make the Judaism-related pages consistent with the Christianity-related ones (and so on for Islam etc.). altmany (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose These articles were tagged by IZAK probably for the simple reason that Orthodox Judaism indeed considers those more modern determinations of Judaism as being in part heretical. His edits are therefore well explained, and even if I disagree with them, I would simply have discussed this with IZAK. Ermenrich however did not do so, and is mistaking IZAK's work as an editor on Wikipedia for IZAK's personal opinions. That is wrong. In addition, I think that proposing a ban on an admin forum before even discussing with the editor why he made those edits, is not the correct procedure, and is making misuse of the fact that there was already a discussion going on regarding his edits. Looks a little bit like Ermenrich is turning this into a crusade against IZAK. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, there was a discussion, in fact multiple ones, Talk:Sadducees#Sadducees are Heretics according to Judaism and User talk:Ermenrich#WP:NPOV. I simply decided after seeing their inability to understand why this would not be a good thing to add to an encyclopedia (e.g. how can the Sadducees be heretics in Judaism if they were a major sect of Judaism) that it would be better to try to spare the encyclopedia of further endless and unbending discussions on the matter. I certainly am not on a "crusade" against IZAK or seeking to punish him or whatever. I'm just interested in avoiding POV-pushing. I might also note that IZAK appears to have been on a crusade against me as he mentioned me in a thread [43] when I had had nothing to do with reverting his edits at The Exodus up to that point, that was A.Parot [44].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. Strange that you don't understand how he could tag Sadducees with a Heresy in Judaism category, because again he was correct in his logic, because modern Judaism, coming from the Pharisee school, does indeed consider them to have been partially heretical.

So you are basically reporting an editor he for a content dispute. And you even propose to ban him for it? I remain very opposed to this proposal. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I'm proposing it for a pattern of religious POV-pushing. If you think that's a content dispute, so be it. It's an extremely narrow ban because I recognize that IZAK does good work in other area.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he is pushing a POV. I have seen him around since I am on Wikipedia, and he has been around much longer. We have had our disagreements, up to ARBCOM, but he is a reasonable editor. He was simply making misguided edits, and that is not enough reason to topic ban an editor. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Aren't you the one making religious pov-pushing edits? You're the one who reverted Izak with the summary of "offensive" as if that is a policy reason to revert. It seems that you are the one who is trying to push your agenda here and getting Izak banned from editing, when all this can be taken care of as talk page discussion or RFC or 3rd party, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And what agenda is that? Am I trying to force him to convert to secularism or something? Is that my religious POV? That Wikipedia should treat all religions equally and shouldn't allow one to decide which parts of them get labeled heresy in Wikipedia's voice? Oh the horror, it's truly dystopian!--Ermenrich (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not in "Wikipedia's voice". It's in Orthodox Judaism's voice. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

• Comment. A personal note to IZAK. Per WP:TLDR, to be ignored by others. Take a spell and read Henri Bergson's Two sources of morality and religion. It will illuminate the modal differences between secular and religious learning. Both have enormous claims on our curiosity, but when their conclusions clash, the secular view prevails, for a simple reason: the secular sphere accepts doubt as a method, revision of principles under empirical testing, and its conclusions are provisory, not dogmatic, and it has a far wider scope in its assessment of realities. In biblical scholarship, a huge amount of what we know comes from archaeological, comparative-linguistic, textual form analysis, and non-Hebraic sources, not available to the debates internal to Judaism down to the 19th century. Josephus cited the Second Temple derivation of Babel from bālal(π.182 σύγχυσις) (confound). Only as a far wider comparative knowledge of ancient languages, via archaeological excavations of archives, emerged, was light thrown on minutiae like this, i.e. that Babel in Akkadian meant something like 'Gate of the god(s)', and that the Hebrew term reflected perhaps a folk etymology (Akkadian babālu ('to scatter') which, since it had no root reflex in Hebrew, was assimilated to that language by analogizing it to 'bālal'.) I.e. To resume Bergson's terms, knowledge can be 'closed' within a particular hermeneutic system, or 'open' (secular). By the nature of a modern encyclopedia, the latter must be the neutral voice (and Wikipedia's coverage of religious articles constantly fails to do this, reflecting the internal religious tradition's explications rather than how they are analysed in secular scholarship. The Targum's etymological section is nonsense for this reason: it is a Luwian word borrowed into Akkadian and then with Aramaic and Hebrew reflexes. But no single person can fix this). We work by collegial negotiation on the basis of both what the closed and open traditions say, naturally privileging, for the last, if provisory, word, the latter. Reform Judaism, for one, is totally receptive to this. Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi @Nishidani: I always enjoy hearing from you. I appreciate your POV which is not a WP:NPOV when it comes to Religion. You are not going to convince billions of believers in whatever faith and deity of your very secular scholarly arguments. Need I say more. While your observations may be true of "biblical scholarship" outside of Judaism, it is not true in Jewish studies and your claim that "the secular sphere accepts doubt as a method, revision of principles under empirical testing, and its conclusions are provisory, not dogmatic, and it has a far wider scope in its assessment of realities" does not apply to Talmudic studies and Talmudical hermeneutics where all the criteria you value are indeed practiced. Obviously you have not spent real time in a serious Yeshiva and then you would see and learn that you are dead wrong in your assertions about the inferiority of Jewish religious arguments and methods. Kindest regards, IZAK (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

People, even within the one 'faith' believe in very different ways. 'Only distinguish'. I'm not in the game of 'convincing' anyone. You did not grasp my point. I'll provide you with an image from set theory. Imagine a circle that encloses A, within which there is a smaller circle (B). For secular biblical scholarship, B here would be the total output of the Tanakh, the Talmuds and rabbinical commentary thereafter, what yeshivas concentrate on, and would form an integral and fundamental part of its body of knowledge. This 'subordination' is not compact of 'inferiority'. The field outside B is what modern scholarship consists of, i.e. inclusive of all research embracing ancient history, archaeology, comparative and semitic linguistics, form theory and textual criticism, genetics and Jewish studies as practiced in universities is utterly at home with it. Glance at the way I did the etymology of the name Esther, which was a WP:OR mess before my fix. I.e. here It starts with early rabbinical opinions (B) and then provides the modern scholarly estimations, one of which sides with one of the two sages' diametrically opposed views. If a yeshiva limits itself to B, it is a closed world; if it is open to A, we get Jewish studies and a far more accurate grasp of the problem. By the way, per below, Messianic Judaism is nothing new. Christianity began as a Jewish heresy, and the daily prayer of the 12th benediction reminds one of it. In that sense, all those raised within Graeco-Judeo-Christian civilization are Jewish in good part, conceptually. Were that understood, western anti-Semitism would become a contradiction in terms.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose those in support of this TBAN are showing why consensus is not always a good thing. Heresy in Orthodox Judaism is a legal term defined by Orthodox Jews. Now you are going to say that we can't mark articles as such because Wikipedia doesn't like it? Being declared a heretic doesn't make you an ex-Jew, it is just a legal term. Reform Judaism is an heretical movement according to conservative and orthodox Judaism, not the individual people, but the movement. Just like you have Christian sects that feel the same way. Keep in mind the OP reverted Izak's adding the tag to Messianic Judaism. It's clear someone has an axe to grind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)

If you want to have an article based on non-WP:primary sources where it discusses what and why Orthodox Judaism finds heretical, fine. Adding these categories in Wikipedia's voice is wrong however. If the information is wp:due (i.e. reliable sources frequently mention the movement as viewed as heretical by group X) it can even be added to the article body for that group. The fact is that heresy isn't a real thing, it depends on the perspective of the group in question, whether this is codified as some sort of "law" or not.

And why should reverting the addition to Messianic Judaism show I have an axe to grind? Are you suggesting that Messianic Judaism is inherently wrong and heretical? That's called POV. I originally reverted him at Sadducees, are you going to suggest I'm a Sadducee next?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect. Not one Jewish movement accepts them. Are you now saying that Christianity=Judaism too? Just how twisted can one's logic be? IZAK (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Um, if, as you say, Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect, how can it be a Jewish heresy? Talk about "twisted logic".--Ermenrich (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It is Jews who accept Jesus and then want to have their cake and eat it and they say they are still practicing a form of "Judaism" plus they accept Jesus as the "Jewish messiah" which no Jewish movement does. So it is "Jewish" since Jews are involved foisting a false claim that denies the beliefs of Judaism hence it is a Jewish heresy. This is not rocket science. Only dyed in the wool Jews for Jesus use your arguments. IZAK (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been accused of being many things in my life, but never of being a Jew for Jesus. This is a (very strange) ad hominem you realize?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Gosh Eremenrich, you take everything I say as a personal description of you. Note, if I want to insult you, I will address you directly and be very clear I mean you, so stop twisting my words. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be very good at, if I wp:AFG, not understanding what your words imply. If Only dyed in the wool Jews for Jesus use your arguments then I must be a Jew for Jesus to use them. At any rate, you can't have it both ways: either Jews for Jesus are Christians, in which case they aren't a Jewish heresy, or they're Jews, in which case other Jewish groups might consider them a heresy, but it's not up to Wikipedia to decide if they are. If they themselves are Jews, then it's obviously not true that all Jewish groups consider them heretical: they are a Jewish group, and they don't consider themselves heretical. The article already covers the issue of what they say they are and what (other) Jews think about it. Adding a category "heresy in Judaism" is not helpful or productive.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There you go again. They are (mostly) Jews who have accepted Jesus (whom Judaism regards as a false prophet, or did you miss that point?) and at the same time they want to remain Jews (for Jesus). It's an intersection and they cannot have it both ways, if they are Jewish then they are Heretics because they deny the Jewish God. If they are Christians then you are right, and please tell them this, that they cannot therefore be Jews. As illogical as it sounds, that's what they believe in. They sincerely believe in their mish-mash belief, don't pin it on me, but alas it is Heresy in Judaism that all of Judaism agrees upon. IZAK (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

They absolutely can have it both ways, it's their religion, not yours or mine. It doesn't particularly matter if other Jewish sects regard them as heretical or not. Wikipedia is not in the business of policing beliefs. And per your comments, you could just as easily argued that Christianity should be tagged as a heresy, if Jesus is a false prophet in Judaism. Better not to have to deal with such questions and engage with the issue as I have said: using reliable sources in the article body according to wp:due.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—you say "It doesn't particularly matter if other Jewish sects regard them as heretical or not." Of course it "matters". Or at least it can matter. This isn't a forum for you to wax eloquent about what matters or not. It is potentially "encyclopedic" material that one subset of an identity regards another subset of that same identity as "heretical". Why wouldn't we want to pass that along to a reader? Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand me Bus stop. Of course it can matter, and if wp:RS report that it is viewed by most other Jewish groups as heretical, than they deserves mention (as I believe it is mentioned at the article Messianic Judaism). What I object to is saying as a category in Wikipedia's voice, that something is a heresy in Judaism. What others think matters, but obviously the adherents of Messianic Judaism don't think they're heretical.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we allow for contradictions within the encyclopedia, Ermenrich. Thank you for pinging me. In my opinion our Categorization can be the embodiment of those contradictions. There is no avoiding this except by failing to address certain pieces of information that contradict one another. The reader has to be given a little credit—they are not deriving logic from our Categorization. They are using our Categorization as a navigational tool. If they see within a Category tree an article they might want to check out, they do so. They haven't signed up for a belief system by clicking on an article. Readers should be assumed to be more intelligent than us. But they can't locate one of our articles if they are not aware of it. So I favor implied contradictions in our Categorization process. And I also favor overCategorization where possible. You write "What I object to is saying as a category in Wikipedia's voice, that something is a heresy in Judaism." I don't think Categories "speak". We are not "saying" something "in Wikipedia's voice" by Categorizing. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, Messianic Judaism believes in Jesus and is used to proselytize . There is no movement that considers them real Jews, and there are plenty of rs. But again, the categories are about heresy in Judaism, not heresy in Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - how is this not censorship, or somehow related to advocacy? Regardless of whether or not we agree with the editor, if they are adding material that is cited to RS, and it is relevant to the article, we should include it - especially if it's a different POV. That is called diversity and NPOV. WP doesn't own a single POV - we are not homogenous, and we don't/should not t-ban or block editors because we disagree with their POV. Arguing a point in a debate is not necessarily stonewalling - look at the opposition more closely - perhaps they are stonewalling to keep negative material out as in censorship, whitewashing, etc. especially when an editor has to present a valid argument to aggressive opposition. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, what reliable sources support his additions in Wikipedia's voice? Indeed, what non-wp:primary sources support his additions at all?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, please consider my list at WP:YWAB. If an editor was trying to say that scientific racism or flood geology described accepted science and that Wikipedia should present them as being true in the name of diversity, would you accuse those who oppose them of "stonewalling to keep negative material out as in censorship, whitewashing, etc."? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Do I really have to go over the Jewish principles of faith? Especially Maimonides' universally accepted 13 principles of faith! IZAK (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish principles of faith and Maimonides are both wp:primary sources. You can't use them to determine whether a group is heretical unless a wp:secondary source has said that group X says they're heretical, and then it can only be added with the bounds of wp:due. Try again.

To quote policy: Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Using Maimonides to decide whether a group is heretical is a clear violation of policy.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I can't do your homework or your reading for you, please see Jewish principles of faith#References for all the secondary sources your heart desires, over 40 of them. See also Jewish principles of faith#Further reading, 16 of them, including many analyzing Maimonides' 13 principles of faith. So what's your problem? IZAK (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, what you are asking is a content issue, not a behavioral issue. The allegation of canvassing is misplaced - at least from my perspective. The editor was requesting collaboration for editing an article, and that is not canvassing. There weren't enough requests to call it spam. The allegation of aspersions is iffy - from that editor's perspective, you were being noncompliant with WP:OWN. They are just as entitled to express an opinion and speak as freely as you do and have done here. It appears to me that there is a conflict over scholarly perceptions of what actually took place historically. The 3 edits you provided as evidence of edit warring do not cross the line into edit warring unless there are restrictions on that particular article. We actually are allowed to cite primary sources per WP:PSTS but again, I'm not here to discuss content. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. No legitimate scholar thinks that what actually took place historically is what was described in the Bible. See The Exodus#Origins and historicity and Historicity of the Bible#Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that is a content issue and it belongs on the TP, not here. We should not be t-banning editors over their POV, and I am not seeing any disruption in the evidence provided as I outlined above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme: This call for collaboration occurred after a portion of IZAK's edit was reverted, as seen here. While it wasn't a call to tilt favor in an active discussion, it's reasonable to examine the motive behind pinging like-minded editors to an article after being reverted. Was it an attempt to tip the balance of consensus, disrupting the normal consensus-building process? If so, that violates a core value at WP:CANVASSING and shouldn't be brushed aside and ignored. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, GoneIn60 - we will simply have to disagree about the canvassing allegation because based on my perception of the guideline, he was not canvassing, he was requesting collaboration from editors "who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". We are also allowed to request collaboration from "editors known for expertise in the field" or "who have asked to be kept informed". There was no RfC or survey in process that could have been construed as attempting to influence an outcome. His request was for collaborative help, and to assume otherwise does not align with WP:AGF. What I'm seeing is clearly a POV issue regarding content, and it concerns me that our PAGs are being incorrectly called into play in an effort to silence an opposing POV which completely goes against the very core of WP. My advice to those who oppose IZAK is to call an RfC regarding the material that either wants to be included or excluded, and when it closes, adhere to consensus. It is not difficult, and best of all, we could have avoided all this drama, don't you think? Bishonen imposed a month-long page block for IZAK which I believe was a reasonable decision in the effort to stop the drama and give IZAK a bit of time to gather his thoughts and approach to an article where there is so much opposition. If he has the scholarly sources to support the material he wants added, he can present it at a later date in an RfC and let the chips fall where they may. I think it would be a big mistake to t-ban a 17 year editor from an entire topic area based on this ANI request. And that is simply my perspective. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you overlooked the fact that I didn't take a position here. I was simply stating "it's reasonable to examine the motive", which is a step removed from a simple content dispute. To frame context around the action is to look at this objectively, not an act of bad faith. You've laid out a plausible explanation, and I don't necessarily disagree. The point was that it shouldn't be an automatic dismissal in the grand scheme of things. Also, pinging "concerned editors" is legit as long as care is taken not to select "on the basis of their opinions". If you want to widen participation, you cannot skew it in such a way that it tips the bias in your favor, especially not intentionally. It doesn't look like it ever had a chance to play out, as this ANI discussion began shortly after the pings. I'm content on making that point and moving on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, none of the editors IZAK notified has ever edited anything related to The Exodus or the article/its talkpage. If they had, I obviously wouldn't have accused him of canvassing. Unless you consider "Jewish topics in general" to be related to The Exodus, they also have never edited anything related to it. I ask this in all good faith: how do you figure that these other editors were previously involved with The Exodus? I respect you and your opinions, and I genuinely would like to know your reasoning.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Ermenrich, thank you for the kind words, and please know that I reciprocate the sentiment. I believe closely related topics would include anything central to Judaism, Israel and/or Jewish prayer, so I used the editor interaction tool to see what types of articles were of interest to both the contacted editors and IZAK. The results confirmed related topics. I'm of the mind that it is acceptable to ask 5 or 6 editors who have collaborated on related topics to help improve an article. The latter is important for editors to know because it is easy to misconstrue the intent of our canvassing guideline, not to mention the fact that nothing resulted from it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Do you know why they avoid editing articles that you think you WP:OWN? Because they are afraid of getting into arguments with editors like yourself who will then attack them for their scholarly contributions. They are humble and lack my chutzpa aka WP:BEBOLD and WP:IGNOREALLRULES (within reason of course)! I know for a fact that editors like @Ibn Daud:@Ar2332:@SamsonKriger:@Yoninah:@תנא קמא: would be able to and VERY HAPPY to contribute of their immense depth of Jewish and Torah scholarship to Hebrew Bible articles but they avoid getting their heads blown off by secular Biblical criticism editors, as you can see happened to me here. So it is fear that keeps them away, and I was trying to bring them out of their cover and not have to live in fear on WP as if they were "Wikipedia Marranos". IZAK (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: you're making me regret merely pageblocking you. I have siteblocked IZAK for 48 hours for the above intemperate, insulting and battleground-y post. Bishonen | tålk 17:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC).

• Support This is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy platform for one group of believers in an imaginary sky wizard to push their (mostly offensive) personal beliefs about other groups of believers in imaginary sky wizards. I can accurately guess what would happen if we started adding similar categories to the opposer's above pet articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Only in death—Wikipedia isn't a creative writing project. There are no references to "imaginary sky wizards" in this discussion. If you wish to weigh in, it might be helpful if you stayed on topic and provided links to possibly farfetched references such as "imaginary sky wizards". Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I will give your comment the consideration it deserves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Only in death When writing encyclopedia articles, we include sourced negative comments about religion when relevant , no matter how rude. But in discussions about contributors' behavior we avoid insulting people or groups; religious groups as much as national groups or ethnic groups. Nor do we discuss other contributors' personal religious or political beliefs. Your comment is so far out of line that were I not already involved in this discussion I would consider a block. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I do not agree with dismissive comments about others' faiths made by some other supporters – if nothing else, they are beside the point – but I believe a topic ban is necessary, per the reasons presented by Cullen, Boing! and Ohnoitsjamie. --bonadea contributions talk 15:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bonadea: Does that mean you also support the annihilation of all in Category:Criticism of Christianity, Category:Criticism of Buddhism, Category:Criticism of Hinduism, Category:Criticism of Islam and of course we do have Category:Criticism of Judaism etc etc etc???!!!IZAK (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • No. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bonadea—within an enlightened framework, which presumably describes the framework of a general purpose reference work such as Wikipedia, "faith" can never be "dismissive" of "faith". Do you see any "dismissive comments about others' faiths made by some other supporters"? I don't. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bus stop: Apologies for being unclear; by "supporters" I meant "editors supporting a topic ban", not "supporters of a particular faith". All I meant was that derogatory comments about the world views of other editors is not conducive to a constructive discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• But where did anyone make "derogatory comments about the world views of other editors", Bonadea? Could you link to that? Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, as there's a "per Boing" here, I've reversed my position and I now oppose a ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Sir Joseph's argument above. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support : Per the conversation between proposer and subject at beginning of this section. That's the most egregious religious POV pushing (and WP:IDHT) I have seen on wiki in ages. Heiro 17:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTSOAPBOX: Wikipedia is not the place to engage in religious disputes or other forms of POV pushing, and clearly this editor has repeatedly engaged in such behaviour in this area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OVERCAT and reasons stated by Cullen328. Also IZAK responses indicate a lack of willingness to WP:LISTEN to the community. Per my first comment above, this is something I wanted to deescalate and avoid, but now believe it is the correct choice.   // Timothy :: talk  18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I will add that I think IZAK is completely acting in good faith with no ill will at all.   // Timothy :: talk  18:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone familiar for over a decade with IZAK's contributions doubts his good faith. They worry that at times, his faith - and the rule applies to all editors who have fundamentalist commitments (which they have a perfects right to) gets in the way of good edits to a global and neutral encyclopedic project. There is nothing personal about this.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, I definitely agree. But since I had not interacted with IZAK before this, I didn't want him to think otherwise about my comment.   // Timothy :: talk 

Let me pile on and say that I also am convinced that IZAK is editing in good faith and is an overall extremely positive asset to the encyclopedia. It fact, I hope that after this cloes he will be open to working with me to improve the Eruv and KosherSwitch articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose full topic ban. As mentioned even by those supporting the ban, IZAK edits in good faith, and has the fortitude to enter areas of Wikipedia which have caused enormous burn out. They are also "watched" by many editors—both those who may agree or disagree with the positions in question, and I, for one, am somewhat concerned about rote piling on. I would suggest that for the next x-amount of time (month?) IZAK should consider not making any possibly controversial edits until they are discussed on the talk page. ANd discussion means both sides discuss the merits, not a simple denial because it is IZAK. I think it is a net detriment to the project to lose the efforts of a productive editor that a topic ban would force. I'd rather see more discussion prior to edits, by anyone for that matter, but as the case here discusses IZAK, we can start with him. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If the ban were to apply to Judaism, I'd underwrite every word above. I think it's about heresy in Judaism, that's a very restricted field really, and abstention from it would not reduce his productivity. Certainly on Judaism, he undoubtedly has much to offer. The vexed potential issue is the area of historical articles regarding the Bible. I think he just has to take on board that, modern historical approaches leave traditionalists of all faiths and creeds uneasy, and that there is little scope for challenging reliable academic specialist sources, 99% of which (many of them, need one add, from the superb professorial ranks of teachers of Jewish studies) accept that literalist or orthodox interpretations are fine within communities, but not appropriate to encyclopedic studies.(Nice to see you around, by the way, Avi) I refrain from voting either way on this kind of issue because a vote from me would look, inevitably, political or otherwise. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban from Judaism I think IZAK is an extremely good contributor in that area. It is only when he pushes pseudoscience or attacks other religions / other branches of his religion that I have a problem with his edits. A wise closing admin should be able to craft wording that doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone proposed topic banning him from Judaism? That was certainly not my intention.—Ermenrich (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I was just responding to the "If the ban were to apply to Judaism..." hypothetical above. I doubt that it would get a single supporter if it became a proposal. I also realize that having your behavior discussed in ANI can be quite stressful, and I wanted to make my high opinion of IZAK outside of the areas of religious pseudoscience and labeling religions as heresy crystal clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment to the closer - Would the closer please take care to differentiate between !votes which are about a hypothetical ban from Judaism as a whole, which no one has actually proposed, and those !votes which pertain to the actual proposal under discussion. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - But only a simple ban on using the heresy in Judaism category tag. There's no evidence of major problems beyond this, certainly not in the whole field of Judaism. For now, just make sure that this user can no longer add the heresy in Judaism tag to any articles.Homemade Pencils (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose any ban. Wikipedia isn't censored. Argumentation is normal within Judaism. Snowflakes oppose frankness and forcefulness of argument. There is something to be said for speaking plainly. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC) (Striking vote. Sorry. I voted twice.)

Wikipedia isn't the place fight sectarian battles. And who are you calling snowflakes? Heiro 02:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify: what "sectarian battles" are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You said "Argumentation is normal within Judaism.", I'm merely noting Wikipedia is not the place for it. Now, which editors are you calling snowflakes? Heiro 02:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the meanings for "snowflake" found at wiktionary is "someone who is too sensitive". Are we going to topic ban someone for engaging in normal rough-and-tumble of argumentation, and for representing those places where Judaism finds irreconcilable differences—represented by the word "heretical"? Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for arguing about doctrinal matters, but most importantly Wikipedia is definitely not the place to present the opinion of one religious group about another in Wikipedia's voice. It would be ok for Christian Judaism to include a properly-sourced sentence stating the opinion of traditional Judaism about that sect, but it is definitely not ok to label it as heretical by categorisation. That is an abuse of the category system. Zero^talk 03:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, A category called "Heresy in Orthodox Judaism" is not in Wikipedia's voice, it's a category for Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. Are we now to strip all the Christian Heresy categories? What about this article? List_of_heresies_in_the_Catholic_Church Isn't that offensive to those who practice it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not an "abuse of the category system", Zero0000. The Category system can tolerate contradiction. And no one is "arguing about doctrinal matters". Do you seriously think that "heresy" cannot be represented in our Category system? How could it matter if two groups each call one another "heretical"? That is not in Wikipedia's voice. The Categorization system does not have a voice. Yes, the "implications" are present, but we have a choice—we either studiously avoid "implied" contradictions within our Category system, or we accurately represent the views of each of two subsets of Judaism. I favor representing reliably sourced information. I don't think it is all that important that our Category system may appear to be contradictory. The Category system is a navigation tool; it assists readers in finding articles they may be interested in. Omitting contradictions means not apprising readers via the Category tree of articles related to a subject area they are interested in. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Note that the category is named "Heresy in Orthodox Judaism", not "Movements considered heretical by Orthodox Judaism" which would at least indicate whose opinion it is. I still wouldn't like it much, though. Will the article on Orthodox Judaism soon sport a category stating the opinion of Reform Judaism? Will the article Haredi Judaism soon belong to a category giving a highly unflattering characterisation by secular Jews? There are Christian movements which think that Jews have the choice between converting and going to hell; can't they have categories expressing their opinions too? Why not? There is lots of labeling fun to be had by all. I say nip this practice in the bud right now. Zero^talk 05:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You are asking a farfetched question when you ask "Will the article on Orthodox Judaism soon sport a category stating the opinion of Reform Judaism?" There is no concept of "heresy" within Reform Judaism. But within Orthodox Judaism there is a concept of "heresy". So, why wouldn't there be a Category "Heresy in Orthodox Judaism"? Bus stop (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I said "the opinion of Reform Judaism", nothing about heresy. The point doesn't rely on what the opinion is. Zero^talk 10:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We would not have a Category for a mere "opinion", Zero0000. You are taking issue with Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism, are you not? The concept of Heresy is not found in Reform Judaism. Hypothetically, supposing there was a category for "abstract art of 20th century Italy". Would there be a category of "abstract art of 15th century Italy"? Why not? Because the flourishing of abstract art is thought to have arisen in the 20th century in many countries including Italy. You say "Will the article on Orthodox Judaism soon sport a category stating the opinion of Reform Judaism?" It can't. We don't have opinions as a parameter for categorization. By way of contrast, "heresy" is actually an institutionalized concept in Orthodox Judaism. It makes sense to have a Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. The existence of a Category "Heresy in Orthodox Judaism" is not saying anything "in Wikipedia's voice", as you or others have termed it. The Category serves the very constructive purpose of allowing readers to sort through the articles in that Category. This is the navigational purpose that Categorization is supposed to serve. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A doctrine of a particular religious group is an opinion, no question. Anyway, you are avoiding my general point by picking on the details on one of several examples I gave. Zero^talk 15:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000—I only addressed your first example, that is true. You also asked "Will the article Haredi Judaism soon belong to a category giving a highly unflattering characterisation by secular Jews?" We don't categorize by "highly unflattering characterisation[s]". The contrast is even greater here than in your first example. We cannot possibly say that there is an institutionalized concept of "heresy" among secular Jews. These are insubstantial opinions shared on a whim by a small percentage of secular Jews. We don't categorize by virtually meaningless parameters. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

But you are proposing that the highly unflattering characterisation "heresy" by one Jewish group against another is ok. "Institutionalized concept" is a strawman that you introduced; why should one group care whether the other group's insults are institutionalized or not? Zero^talk 16:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, it's a categorization according to that group. We don't censor Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The "not censored" argument is the weakest given here. Nobody that I can see, certainly not me, has suggested that Wikipedia shouldn't report what Orthodox Judaism considers heretical. We do however require some things of our edits, such as that opinions be attributed and sourced. What I object to is using the category system as a device to avoid those requirements. Zero^talk 17:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: So the correct and rational solution (according to you and User:Ermenrich) to this situation should have been a broad WP:CFD which is done all the time on WP with a solid discussion to follow (as happened with Heresy in Orthodox Judaism now), and definitely not an unfounded vendetta against me simply because I express myself strongly, yet I always abide by WP:NPOV, because I was just following up posting the categories of Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and Category:Heresy in Judaism based on the content in the two articles Heresy in Judaism and Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. IZAK (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You aren't here because of "an unfounded vendetta against you simply because you express yourself strongly". Many editors express themselves strongly -- some with opinions far more unpopular than yours -- on article talk pages and user talk pages without ever ending up at ANI. You are here because of [A] Your edits to articles and categories, and [B] your being unwilling or unable to accept the advice of the many editors who have tried to explain to you what you are doing that is unacceptable to the Wikipedia community. You are here because you have made it crystal clear that you will not change your behavior unless forced to do so by a block or topic ban. The only question is the exact nature of the topic ban needed to stop your unacceptable behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because you are now expressing yourself stridently, does not make your so-called allegations "right". This is A A Wikipedia WP:CONTENTDISPUTE over two categories Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism based on the Heresy in Orthodox Judaism article (which I did not write) and Category:Heresy in Judaism based on the Heresy in Judaism article (which I did not write). B A simple WP:CFD would have sufficed to resolve the issue in a WP:CIVIL manner, which I have abided by in a concomitant WP:AFD for Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. C No "behavioral" issues are present in this segment of the topic ban discussion. D This is an attempt to override the clear rules of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BEBOLD. Finally, I will continue by citing this, as per User:Atsme (the alphabetization is mine): "E how is this not censorship, or somehow related to advocacy? Regardless of whether or not we agree with the editor, if they are adding material that is cited to RS, and it is relevant to the article, we should include it - especially if it's a different POV. F That is called diversity and NPOV. WP doesn't own a single POV - we are not homogenous, and G we don't/should not t-ban or block editors because we disagree with their POV. Arguing a point in a debate is not necessarily stonewalling - look at the opposition more closely - perhaps they are stonewalling to keep negative material out as in censorship, whitewashing, etc. especially when an editor has to present a valid argument to aggressive opposition....Ermenrich, H what you are asking is a content issue, not a behavioral issue. I The allegation of canvassing is misplaced - at least from my perspective. The editor was requesting collaboration for editing an article, and that is not canvassing. There weren't enough requests to call it spam. J The allegation of aspersions is iffy - from that editor's perspective, you were being noncompliant with WP:OWN. They are just as entitled to express an opinion and speak as freely as you do and have done here. K It appears to me that there is a conflict over scholarly perceptions of what actually took place historically. L The 3 edits you provided as evidence of edit warring do not cross the line into edit warring unless there are restrictions on that particular article. We actually are allowed to cite primary sources per WP:PSTS but again, I'm not here to discuss content." IZAK (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment final comment here, Izak's edits were marked "offensive", there is a list article called List_of_heresies_in_the_Catholic_Church and under the section of 20th Century Movements are several heretical movements practiced by people worldwide, for example, Santa_Muerte, I think people who practice Santa Muerte would be offended that their religion is on a list of heresies. Goose, gander, anyone? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: A list article is quite different from a category. A properly written list article on movements considered heretical by traditional Judaism would be acceptable. The difference is that an article allows (in fact, mandates) attribution and sourcing of opinions, whereas a category doesn't provide for either attribution or sourcing. The category for heresy in Catholicism (which I wasn't aware of until now) has similar problems to the Jewish category. Zero^talk 05:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a content dispute, being played out on ANI instead of a RFC or the category's talk page. IZAK is on the wrong side here on some of the content, but that's a matter for discussion and consensus building and not ANI.--Hippeus (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the specific ban on the heresy label, per Boing and reinforced by the ongoing bludgeoning and Izak's responses in this very thread. Grandpallama (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, as there's a "per Boing" here, I've reversed my position and I now oppose a ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why we are all doing something merely because the OP finds something offensive? "This is offensive to Christians, obviously, and there is no defense for it, just because you dislike Messianic Judaism" as the OP repeatedly said? That is his reason for the TBAN, and many of the supports. Yet, that is not a policy, nor a reason to TBAN someone. If anything, this is a content dispute, but to TBAN someone because they are adding something to a category based on what you deem offensive, is wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't find any specific mention of Christianity in Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. I don't think the existence of that Category is offensive to anyone—not to non-Orthodox Jews, and not to Christians. Wikipedia isn't censored. Why can't we Categorize by what Orthodox Jews think constitutes "heresy"? The reader should be apprised, via the Category tree, of articles that may pertain to the Orthodox Jewish concept of "heresy". Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bus stop, what about this article? Heresy_in_Christianity_in_the_modern_era#Heresy_in_the_Catholic_Church Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

These are just concepts, wherever they they are found, and whoever issues them. And the Categorization system does not constitute an assertion. At most the categorization system constitutes an implication. But this is necessary if readers are to track down information. Bus stop (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be the last person to defend Christianity, but from memory, no one there is obliged in a statutory prayer to curse heretics every day.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Nor does Orthodox Judaism curse heretics every day as part of statutory prayer, Nishidani, but I don't know how that would be on-topic even if it were accurate. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It does actually, at least anyone who recites the Amidah. Basically, I've thought right throughout this that this was IZAK's problem with the category, why he was so convinced it was proper, because it is inscribed in daily prayer. But we don't need to elaborate here.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE: Judaism's view of Christianity: it is not Jewish@Nishidani:@Zero0000:@Ermenrich: Please take note, that Category:Heresy in Judaism and Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism do not apply to non-Jewish religions such as Christianity and Islam which are different non-Jewish religions, practiced by non-Jews (gentiles) outside of and independent of Judaism. Heresy in Judaism however would apply to the early Nazarene (sect) who "were an early Christian sect in first-century Judaism" as the article about them says. The Apostles and Jesus were Jews who accepted Jesus as the Jewish messiah, and so therefore Jesus is added to List of messiah claimants and it is difficult to put the word "heresy" on them because in their time there was the potential for a messianic claim but that was not proven true over time. But as far as Christianity and Islam are concerned they are not regarded as heretical movements within Judaism, just other religions practiced by non-Jews (gentiles) that Judaism does not accept. In fact Maimonides rules that there is a positive purpose to both Christianity and Islam in that they prepare the world for the notion of the future Messianic Age to come. IZAK (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support a broad topic-ban. Some people in here seem to be trying to argue this is just a content dispute, but that disregards how we got here to begin with; the issue is obviously conduct with regards to edit-warring, POV-pushing, and canvassing. Editors can reasonably differ on how to interpret or represent the sources, but if they're going to wade into controversial topics they need to sometime show a modicum of caution or restraint. In that regard, trying to argue that virtually every Jewish denomination but one ought to be labeled as heretical in the article voice would already be so inappropriately far from WP:NPOV that it would raise alarms, but to do so on top of all the other conduct issues only throws their aggressive efforts at POV-pushing into stark relief. IZUK's own statements here (which aggressively defend the patiently absurd use of categories to push a point-of-view, defend edit warring by taking WP:3RR as a guarentee, and defend plainly inappropraite comments like [45] by effectively saying "Well, I didn't literally use the word antisemite") all indicate that this isn't going to be resolved on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You make no sense and your POV was already refuted above, as per User:Atsme "how is this not censorship, or somehow related to advocacy? Regardless of whether or not we agree with the editor, if they are adding material that is cited to RS, and it is relevant to the article, we should include it - especially if it's a different POV. That is called diversity and NPOV. WP doesn't own a single POV - we are not homogenous, and we don't/should not t-ban or block editors because we disagree with their POV. Arguing a point in a debate is not necessarily stonewalling - look at the opposition more closely - perhaps they are stonewalling to keep negative material out as in censorship, whitewashing, etc. especially when an editor has to present a valid argument to aggressive opposition....Ermenrich, what you are asking is a content issue, not a behavioral issue. The allegation of canvassing is misplaced - at least from my perspective. The editor was requesting collaboration for editing an article, and that is not canvassing. There weren't enough requests to call it spam. The allegation of aspersions is iffy - from that editor's perspective, you were being noncompliant with WP:OWN. They are just as entitled to express an opinion and speak as freely as you do and have done here. It appears to me that there is a conflict over scholarly perceptions of what actually took place historically. The 3 edits you provided as evidence of edit warring do not cross the line into edit warring unless there are restrictions on that particular article. We actually are allowed to cite primary sources per WP:PSTS but again, I'm not here to discuss content." IZAK (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. IZAK, over the years, has proven himself to be a level-headed contributor that adds a special touch and dimension to our online encyclopedia, with broad knowledge in Jewish-related topics. His contributions, in my view, are invaluable to this encyclopedia. And while we all might differ on specific issues, there is always given a certain amount of hearing / recourse to these views, and they can be debated openly on the respective Talk-Pages, without hindering or jeopardizing the editor's overall good standing and useful contributions.Davidbena (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose any ban for IZAK. This is a content dispute. So for once IZAK was wrong at most points. Let me summarize my observations. Ideally, the heresy in Judaism article would suffice. Since Orthodox Judaism is most concerned with heresy this is a legitimate spin-off but someone -not IZAK- started such an article too early. Now it has grown a bit too much but it is a valid article after some trimming.

The validity of the article doesn't mean it should have a category. In fact, it shouldn't and its category should be merged with Heresy in Judaism in which the Orthodox heresy article is just an item. Other religions are not at all defined by Judaism in general. Orthodox Judaism does not define other parts of Judaism or other religions (well it does for its own purposes but not for ours). This includes Karaite Judaism and Samaritanism, all forms of Christianity, Islam, etc. Two exceptions I know are "Messianic Judaism" and "Jews for Jesus" as these without base claim to be part of Judaism (the former more than the latter), including in their names. If we keep these movements at these names, it should be written loud and clear that these are not part of Judaism, including in the first paragraph of their articles. This was a small digression of Judaism defining other religions in order not to be imprecise. There are also Frankism and Sabbateans, already subcats of the heresy in Judaism category. These could be included as historic movements. Yet no added value to rehashing these in the cat system. It can be mentioned in the articles that Orthodox Judaism views certain movements as heresy, given sufficient V and RS.

Per small cat, after removing the excessive items, there is no justification for the Heresy in Orthodox Judaism category. I will be happy to propose a merger. Beyond the nondefining part, heresy is not the same as heresies in our categorization system. The plural is reserved for the cases of heresy (compare to comedy for the art form and comedies for the items). These cases are by default nondefining.

Nothing of all this belongs in the ANI. IZAK is one of our best contributors. He does sometimes get carried away a bit but then again who doesn't? ANI just isn't the answer to content disputes. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gidonb and Davidbena: - how in the world does one of our best contributors, who is level-headed with invaluable contributions, make the following claim [46]? IZAK believes that an 81-word addition, equivalent to a ~5% expansion, with no references added, some of it is possibly original research, [47] constitutes major improvements to an article at AfD (that article being Heresy in Orthodox Judaism). This is a totally compromised judgement, the utter opposite of level headed. starship.paint (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So, if he he erred, reprimand him. Is that a reason to ban him altogether from editing in this area? Who doesn't err? I have seen many of IZAK's other contributions, and only with rare exception are they controversial (as in this case where he did not not add any references). The simple fact that we are all calling his attention to his blunder, he will now take the necessary precautions the next time around. That's my personal view. I am not quick to discredit an editor whose overall motives are good.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: - this wasn't IZAK's additions. It was someone else's additions which IZAK said were major improvements. Regardless of motives, dramatic errors in judgment can be disruptive. starship.paint (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, and that is a reason to TBAN someone? He said that someone's edits were "major improvements" and they weren't? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph - you have barred me from your talk page, yet you wish me to reply to you here? I thought you had enough of me. starship.paint (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, That didn't answer my question. You are using that as a reason to TBAN someone and this isn't my talk page, this is ANI. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph - I’ll answer your question after you remove the restriction. starship.paint (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I'd rather not, as you see from your behavior here shows. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

So it is, Sir Joseph, that’s fine with me. If anyone else wants to know my answer, just ping me and ask. starship.paint (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Starship.paint, sorry but these are extremely weak claims. He may have exaggerated a bit but this is extremely common when people try to make a case. It is well covered by my next statement "He does sometimes get carried away a bit but then again who doesn't?" If this is your strongest defense, then you're confirming my point that this should not have been an incident, let alone that any action is in order. I say "if" because I'm always open to my own mistakes and these of others. I'm happy to look into stronger arguments. Incidents take valuable resources away from content development and improvement and need to be opened as a last resort. I rarely if ever opened one as a Wikipedian for 17 years. Believe me, people have annoyed me at discussions. On a rare occasion, this has included IZAK for his 12 point responses. ANI is not the place for minor issues. gidonb (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. He's a primary sourcer, as often as not, and that means allowing one vast scope for going directing to a text in the tradition and citing it to support one's personal view as an orthodox person. How on earth can one talk of heresy in orthodox Judaism when so much of Judaism has had a complex history of internal dispute as to what constitutes heresy. Compare Moses Hagiz, to name one of many, or the standard orthodox view before 1948 that Zionism had heretical elements (now changed in the majority of orthodox views). You can't sort out issues like this by citing primary sources, or creating categories which preempt independent judgments.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is stronger argument but it does not take us out of the bracket of content dispute. You are an expert on certain sources. IZAK is on others. All are relevant. You guys need to talk and cooperate to move this domain forward. Below you are making a start. That is a good development. gidonb (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• NOTE to @Starship.paint:@Guy Macon:@Nishidani: You are making a mountain out of a molehill because 1 WP articles are not created perfectly ex nihilo, they are usually written incrementally, first an editor will write something without sources, a second editor will then add WP:RS, a third editor will then WP:WIKIFY the article and so on and so forth over and over again until a proper article emerges. 2 My editorial record on WP is superb, just looking at a few excellent articles I created in the last year in Category:Jewish history such as History of the Jews in Angola [48], History of the Jews in Malawi [49], History of the Jews in Eswatini [50], History of the Jews in the Isle of Man [51], History of the Jews in Artsakh [52], and many others too many to cite here. But this should put to rest any false allegations against me. IZAK (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: - if you are doing good work on the history of the Jews in somewhere, please do continue. Hopefully, the topic ban on heresies will not encroach on that, but instead make you focus on areas where you can make positive contributions. Also, if these articles are as good as they say you are, you should offer them for GA and FA. starship.paint (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear IZAK. I only checked one datum in one article (Angola), and the source you used, that on Paulo Dias de Novais, of whom you write that historians say he was "Jewish" , adding in brackets a WP:OR gloss '(probably meaning "Crypto-Jewish" or a Converso of some sort). Some historians turns out to be one historian, David Birmingham. Since the suggestion that a fidalgo of the Portuguese court, accompanying a Jesuit mission, and known to be a godfather at baptism of Angolan indigenous royalty, was a crypto-Jew was interesting, I looked into it also because there's a fine distinction, often appallingly ignored, to be made between acrypto-Jew and the Cristão-Novo. I checked the Portuguese wikibio, and there is no mention of this. Many in the Atlantic trade were either 'crypto-Jews' or practicing Catholics of Jewish descent, an important distinction. At least one of the men Dias de Novais brought with him was a 'new Christian' (Duarte Lopez), which can't be glossed as a crypto-Jew unless there is proof. These new Christians (not crypto-Jews) were the primary merchants in the Atlantic trade at that time (Jared Staller , Converging on Cannibals: Terrors of Slaving in Atlantic Africa, 1509–1670, Ohio University Press 2019 p.60). So I read a chapter in Linda M. Heywood's Njinga of Angola (HUP)2017, and there is no mention of it there either. She has him crediting his military victories to the 'Blessed Virgin Mary', and states nothing he did was undertaken without first consulting the Jesuit priests. His whole campaign, among his own troops, and the Africans was infused with the usual Catholic intensities (pp.30-33)

This to illustrate that just googling Jews+country to get stuff (unpaginated) is parlous. I'm glad you wrote those articles, but the method used leaves a large number of problems that could have easily been avoided by the usual multiple source control of each and every datum. People out there rely on us to do this pernickety legwork. I hope you can use this to correct the error.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, thanks for the thorough feedback, as usual. Feel free to make the improvements you feel are needed. My point was to show that I am not "married" to primary sources work only. It is one hell of a job writing new articles with good content that are readable, I welcome cooperation and input from other editors at all times. IZAK (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll dump the note on the relevant talk page for someone to use. I'm just too busy offline to do much at the moment. If I touch the article, knowing my character, I'd probably end up feeling obliged to go through it top to bottom for two days. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, per Cullen and others. Way too much soapboxing and problematic sourcing--never mind the myth thing. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, delete the category Heresy in Judaism instead. Problem solved.Smeat75 (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I was really on the fence up until now, but the sheer amount of WP:BLUDGEON going on here, combined with IZAK's refusal to listen to anyone else & insistence that his WP:EXPERT view is the only reasonable one, means I cannot see anything short of a topic ban improving the situation. I have no issue with the existence of the category itself, especially on pages about topics that Orthodox Judaism considers heretical within their faith. But the idea that it's okay to place a "heretic" category on the page of rival sects is poorly thought-out. Insisting that it's okay because of WP:NOTCENSORED is baffling. And claiming that a CFD is the solution is just maddeningly off the mark. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And now IZAK had to be blocked because of this personal attack. That says it all: IZAK believes himself to be "protecting" this area from anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint, and paints his side as persecuted Jews. This WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is not something that can be fixed by deleting a single category, and clearly IZAK has no intention of backing down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support narrowly defined topic ban from "heresy in Judaism" for two reasons. First, labeling non-religious Jews as heretics is indeed problematic [53]. Secondly, this is really a huge disruption based on the number of comments above. Something must be done about it. But having the category Heresy in Judaism is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The efforts by IZAK have always been to describe those entities that are described by reliable and verifiable sources as Heresy in Judaism or Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. Of course no one likes to be labeled as a heretic, but the facts that there are entities that are deemed heretical is undeniable. If the issue is with the category deal with it there. If the issue is that the entities have not been labeled as heresy as backed by reliable and verifiable sources, then discuss it on the article's take page. But this topic ban is intended to inappropriately censor IZAK. The facts simply don't justify a topic ban. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No, they are NOT described by reliable and verifiable sources as Heresy in Judaism or Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. That's the problem. Do you really belive that Cultural Judaism is ubdeniably a Heresy as this diff/edit suggests? Any RS to support such assertion? There is none on the page. Note that other numrous similar edits by the contributor (at the very top of this thread) were also just like that. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. If another sect of Judaism is considered heretical by Orthodox Judaism, it should be placed in a Category for "considered heretical by Orthodox Judaism" or some such language. Christianity definitely should not be placed in such a Category. It is a separate religion. But those articles on subjects that are related to Judaism and that are considered heretical by Orthodox Judaism should be placed in such a Category. This is entirely appropriate. Nobody should be offended. This is informational. It makes navigating the Category tree more productive. And Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Bus stop: - you voted twice. Please strike one of your votes. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: - Yes. I have struck my earlier vote. My error. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• This (User talk:IZAK#WP POLICY PROPOSAL BY IZAK REGARDING RECONCILING TORAH SCHOLARSHIP WITH SECULAR SCHOLARSHIP) is kinda insane. He's seriously proposing a WP:POLICY change that would give preference/precedence to what happens to be his personal religious beliefs over secular/mainstream sources in articles. Heiro 02:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not "insane" at all, Heironymous Rowe. Wikipedia can address cultural topics as well. I am considering religion to be a cultural topic. We wouldn't want someone not interested in art coming along and arguing "that's not a bowl of plums, it's just some paint". Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Cullen, Warshy, HandThatFeeds, and others, relating to "heresy in Judaism" and "heresy in Orthodox Judaism". After careful consideration, I believe this is the right move. The comments here and elsewhere by IZAK are consistently combative and demeaning in nature, particularly as of late. Here's just a sample:

Recent CFD regarding Hebrew names of Jewish holy days

• In response to a cordial editor's concerns, there was unwarranted condescension:

"Elementary my dear Watson..."

• Extreme lack of good faith toward the nom:

"so what does the nominator have against Hebrew names of Jewish holidays?!" — "Wow! Now that your proposal is going down the drain, you want to turn WP policies on their head and just get your way because you are angry! Pity!"

• Combative comments (Laurel Lodged's !vote):

"You're kidding, right?!", "...not as chauvinistic, than you make it out to be" — "...so much for English jingoism on WP. So give us a break..."

• More combativeness on display (Carlossuarez46's !vote):

"so what are you going on about?"

WP:Articles for deletion/Heresy in Orthodox Judaism

• Simply disturbing and uncalled for:

"By marginalizing huge mainstream Haredi and Orthodox movements the author reveals his anti-Haredi and even anti-Orthodox prejudices that would explain why he is doing this on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and nothing else."

• Invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING principles to refute arguments:

"if there is a true difference even according to him, then surely there needs to be a different set of articles ... the nominator wishes to demolish"

Granted, some of these are quite mild and exist outside of the heresy conversation, but when taken as a whole, the developing pattern is concerning and quickly leading into tendentious and uncivil territory. They are catching unsuspecting editors by surprise and immediately placing them on the defensive. It's important to note these are just recent examples. The further back I looked, the fewer I came across and the more IZAK interacted well with others. A narrow ban would serve as a wake-up call, that it's not in their best interest to venture further down this path. It was hard for me originally to see this as more than just a content dispute, but the behavior on this page and in these examples show otherwise. The aggressive, knee-jerk responses and walls of text are not conducive to a collaborative environment. Unless something changes, the drain on valuable community time and resources is likely to increase.

On a final note, the lite canvassing that occurred at the CFD I linked to above is unacceptable, and cannot be deflected by the excuse of "concerned editors". Neutral notices in neutral locations need to be the way forward, and if that vote-stacking behavior continues, it should be dealt with accordingly. And to those editors that like to bludgeon but have frequently flown under the radar in smaller venues (they know who I'm talking about), now would be a good time to hold back. We've seen enough. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to be nervous. I can’t help it. Give me a minefield and I’ll walk into it, whatever the consequences. IZAK is a religious fundamentalist. Secondly, he seems convinced that proper scholarship on these issues, that which is more authentic, is (ethno)Jewish analysis of Biblical and Talmudic primary sources.

• (a) He intimated that a number of editors who disagree with him ‘just have an ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish.’
• (b)He canvassed Jewish editors to chip in and tip the balance when he found he was in a minority position. Atsme is just wrong (here, esp. in adding ‘Israel’ to the issue)
• (c) confirms that he believes there is something of a subtext of prejudice against Jews since the editors he canvassed, in his view, 'avoid getting their heads blown off by secular Biblical criticism editors, . . it is fear that keeps them away, and I was trying to bring them out of their cover and not have to live in fear on WP as if they were "Wikipedia Marranos".

I.e. for those who don’t grasp this. The prevalence of secularists here has frightened off people with immense Jewish learning. They are compelled to hide in fear, as a kind of crypto-Jew within the menacing majority secular culture of wikipedia, as Jews did in the past when Christianity was hegemonic. That is an even stronger anti-semitic insinuation, applied to several editors (I've had thrown it my way dozens of times, and mud slung sticks).

• (d) likens the atmosphere to that prevailing in the ‘cold war’.
• (e) He believes all the methodologies of secular scholarship are standard in yeshivas. I.,e. there is no difference between the very secular scholarship he is uncomfortable with, and the talmudic yeshiva studies that underwrite his personal beliefs. (There is no difference between madrasa scholarship and what one does at Islamic Studies faculties at CHOPSYtell that to the heads of yeshivas surveyed by Reuven Firestone in his Holy War in Judaism: The Fall and Rise of a Controversial Idea, Oxford University Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-199-97715-4 or to readers of Uri Ben-Eliezer's thesis about 'ethnosymbolists' and their categorical rejection of key tenets of modernist scholarship in his War over Peace: One Hundred Years of Israel's Militaristic Nationalism, University of California Press 2019 ISBN 978-0-520-97305-3). That is a bewildering contradiction, that can only be understood if it has a tacit ethnic premise: the methods are the same, but the practitioners of the better form of knowledge are more reliable qua Jewish and believers.
• (f) Notwithstanding his assertions that secular scholarship is a threat to the authentic results of religious Jewish scholarship, he contradicts himself by suggesting the two can be reconciled. Namely, to work out a compromise wherein wikipedia ought to prioritize Talmudic perspectives over secular scholarship: articles should showcase the former, and then add on whatever secular scholarship might say, later down the page. In this way we have a reconciliation of two things, Torah scholarship and secular scholarship. I.e. on any article dealing with Catholicism or Islam, graduates of seminaries or madrasas should outline the official view of their respective faiths, and then the secular lasses and lads can barge in and add footnotes. Subtext of POV-practice: get your POV up high, preferably in the lead, because WP:TLDR works out in these digital times to mean most people only read the lead and the opening paras.
• (g) After 17 years IZAK still doesn’t have a clue about what WP:RS state about quality of sourcing and the preferred, optimal kind of referencing. Despite nuancing this means we must strive to use secondary sources of high quality from academic experts,and exercise extreme caution in the citation of primary sources.

The problem is obvious, and has larger ramifications if this is resolved as IZAK suggests on his talk page, and if IZAK himself continues to fail to understand that primary sources, esp. from ancient or religious texts, should never be cited unless through reliable academic sources (which are super abundant, nota bene.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree. Given his obliviousness to his POV, IZAK will be back here again if no sanction is imposed. Indeed, if he continues in his efforts to turn Wikipedia into a reflection of Hasidic Jewish beliefs, where other perspectives are maybe mentioned further down on the page, he may be back here again anyway.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

• 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:8003:59DB:4100:98B9:AA56:81C2:DA5F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:8003:59db:4100:2cbf:9248:5fd8:5de9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.136.107.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D15:19DF:B72C:889E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:8003:59db:4100:ad5b:b868:185f:c1af (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This user from Melbourne, Australia, hound me in Wikiquote for several months and was banned there for that, now he started to do the same here. Same behavior, same kind of edits and also hounding me through my edit history: [54] (2001:8003:59DB:4100:98B9:AA56:81C2:DA5F) → [55] (2001:8003:59DB:4100:2CBF:9248:5FD8:5DE9), [56] (2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D15:19DF:B72C:889E) and [57]. Same interest on Australia: [58], [59]. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The equivalent of the range that was blocked by Wikiquote admins would be Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35 over here on Wikipedia. Somebody should review what's in the equivalent range here to see if it all appears to be the same person. (At least, by looking at the person's editing interests). EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: he keeps with the hounding: [60] → [61] (2001:8003:59DB:4100:AD5B:B868:185F:C1AF), this edit was buried in my edit history, so he actively is searching for my edits and his edit is also in Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35, [62] → [63]

Also I see that also he is doing the same edit warring and pov edits like in Wikiquote: [64] → [65]

More POV warring: [66] → [67] → [68] Rupert Loup (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35 for three months per the above (same duration as was chosen over at Wikiquote). Notice the recent edit warring by this IP at Nathan Phillips (activist) which caused that article to be semiprotected for a year. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User Isenta

• Isenta (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Isenta's behaviour is unacceptable, and they appear to have a tendency to take revenge. They reverted my edit at Thanjavur painting in response to this in which they restored a spam link to gemsfly.com with edit summary rvv (again , and again). I left a warning on their talk page, but it was also reverted with edit summary revert harassment which clearly shows that they are not interested to look at the policies and their only motive is to take revenge and edit-warring. GSS ^💬 11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you should probably rewind it to where I warned you against treating other editors in a hostile manner and you have taken roughly 8 actions against me since then. Including watching a page I was working on as a draft and proposing it for deletion within hours of me finally submitting it after months of work. Isenta (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

How is following the AfD process "treating other editors in a hostile manner"? I'm genuinely curious. MiasmaEternal^TALK 12:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessarily in isolation. It is if it's a pattern of targeted behavior that includes lots of other harassing things.Isenta (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide diff to all those "8 actions"? GSS ^💬 11:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Watch out for that boomerang. You shouldn't be allowed to harass people the way you do on Wikipedia. Isenta (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Isenta, calm down; that (calming down) is the way to solve things. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been editing for over three years and had precisely zero negative interactions with anyone until I had the unfortunate experience of crossing paths with this editor a few months ago. Now it seems like every time I come to Wikipedia, I have a new notice from him on my talk page or some rude, dismissive edit summary while he reverts something I've done. He never goes to a talk page to discuss anything, it's always a rude edit summary or a warning notice. And clearly he was watching an article I've had as a draft, working on for months, as he proposed it for deletion within hours. I would ask for admin assistance here. That he cease and leave me alone. And be warned against being so rude to other editors -- as it's not just me. His own talk page and edit summaries are filled with this stuff. Isenta (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I always keep pages in my watchlist that looks problematic to me and so was the reason to watchlist AXLOIE. Since you were registered, I only reverted your edit on just 2 articles, and removed another spam link (woodsequipment.com) you added at Backhoe so your comment: every time I come to Wikipedia, I have a new notice from him is inappropriate. Also, can you please explain how this is "harassment"? GSS ^💬 12:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you being so honest about the various ways you've targeted me. You seem to think everything is spam, I feel sorry for all of the well meaning editors you've run off with this scorched earth approach. And wikipedia for losing them. Isenta (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you stop adding spam links and edit-warring then you won't get warnings about such behaviour. And giving warnings and watchlisting pages do not constitute harassment. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The context you're missing is that this user is clearly targeting me. Isenta (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If User:GSS is targeting you inappropriately then that fact is far from clear from the evidence presented here. Please provide such evidence, in the form of diffs. All that we have so far is evidence of your edit-warring to reinstate promotional content and spam links, and making false accusations of vandalism in edit summaries. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I remind you of your duty to assume good faith. If you can't bring yourself to assume it, the least you can do is not to make accusations. The accusations you just made about me happen to be false. However hard it is for you to assume or believe that. Isenta (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That is quite a show of hypocrisy, considering you've accused me of being unable to read while repeatedly attacking GSS and accusing them of harassing and stalking you. AGF only goes so far. You have had your reverts explained to you now by 4 editors. The first revert, I can understand but your persistent edit warring? Sorry but my good faith ran out when you started attacking everyone who dared tell you that you are incorrect. So does AGF only apply toward you but not from you or...?Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Isenta, where I said I targeted you? please re-read my comment, I said "I reverted you" which means there were some issues with your edits and now the same edit has been reverted by user MiasmaEternal and I hope you won't revert them back. GSS ^💬 12:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, please explain what was the problem with this edit that you reverted thrice using edit summaries like rvv, next time you get reported. See: BRD and undo 3RR violation, reporting the vandal. GSS ^💬 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

and you restored the spam link again. GSS ^💬 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment GSS, I’d invite you to let other users weigh in at this point. I understand wanting to nail down the issue(s), but I think it’s better to let this play out, to avoid bludgeoning. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, they are now edit-warring with Praxidicae at Backhoe so I don't think I have to say anything else. GSS ^💬 14:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Imagine my surprise seeing this here after they started spamming a link (one which they are the only editor to have ever added) and edit warring with me and then adding in personal attacks. I'd suggest a lengthy block for spamming, among other things including their uncollaborative and hostile behavior as well as WP:ASPERSIONS being tossed out any time an editor tries to discuss something with them. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Not one person here has ever tried to discuss anything with me. It's always reverts and warnings on my talk page. If people had been collaborative and kind toward me, none of this would have ever happened. Isenta (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I did (you've since reverted it on your talk page), I also posted on the article's talk page and instead of you bothering to actually converse with me, you decided to continue reverting and implied that I couldn't read while throwing out more personal attacks. Sorry but your woe is me story holds no weight here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see that on the talk page so yes, one person did try to discuss it with me. By accusing me of being a spammer and scolding me about what isn't acceptable, reverting my edit and issuing a warning on my talk page. I'd ask you to please be nicer to people in the future. Even if you're assuming bad faith, as you clearly are with me. Isenta (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted their reversion of Praxidicae, and referred them to WP:IRS. A temporary partial block might be needed to avoid further disruption until they communicate that they understand why an industry link such as that is inappropriate without consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the constructive edit summary. There is no block needed if everyone just leaves me alone. I feel like I'm under attack. Three years I edit in peace and harmony and now I'm getting ganged up on by the wiki mafia. Please leave me alone. Isenta (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a collaborative project. Nobody has the right not to have their edits challenged. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I guess that's you telling me you intend to start targeting me, too. I don't want to edit like this. Thanks for a great three years, Wikipedia. I'm out. I hope the Foundation is successful in putting an end to this sort of treatment. Isenta (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Nobody (or at least I and I'm pretty sure anyone else involved in this conversation) intends to target you, but that doesn't mean that your edits will not be reverted if they need to be. Just don't edit-war when that happens. And don't ask others to follow rules, such as assuming good faith, when you don't follow them yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
          • I made that Backhoe edit over a year ago. And today there are a bunch of editors super interested in it. I would call that targeting me. If you call it people reverting something that needs to be reverted, we'll have to agree to disagree. Isenta (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can’t speak for everyone, Isenta, but most don’t want to generally chase away editors. I’m sorry you’re feeling targeted, but when you come to a noticeboard, your edits come under a proverbial microscope, so to speak. I know most of your comment was sarcastic, but my edit summary was genuinely intended to help you. Likewise, I wasn’t promoting a total or permanent block whatsoever. Just asking that you acknowledge the advice provided to you so that the edit-warring stops. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My thank you was sincere. That edit summary was the only action by anyone in any of this that showed any good will or collaboration or respect. If the reporting editor here had interacted with me in that way from the start, this wouldn't have happened. A lot of you guys seem to get really grumpy and dismissive after editing awhile. It's a shame. It drives people away. Isenta (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That’s good to hear. And appreciated. As a few editors have expressed concerns related to paid editing / conflicts of interest, and if this is the case, you should disclose it. It’s not some cardinal sin in editing, no worries; Wikipedia long ago decided that this was permissible, as long as editors are upfront about it. Should this be the case, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. If you need help, let me know. If this isn’t the case, you should probably clarify why you made the edits in question. It’s not a big deal. So long as people acknowledge their issues, we all generally move on. As far as what you said before, part of the issue is that a lot of editors have to deal with trolls, sock puppets, and promotion regularly. Good faith is scarcer to come by when people deal with this on a daily basis. I assure you though, it’s more a general issue than a personal one. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like UPE. Should be blocked indefinitely, methinks. MER-C 15:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

MER-C taking a look at the history of Cardano, I'd agree but I also think that a block here for a variety of other reasons also applies...the least of which is edit warring at this point. Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed another spam link they added at Backhoe which went unnoticed for a year, and then creating a promotional article on a non-notable company does indicate upe. GSS ^💬 12:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

None of these links are spam. What they are is poor sources. Because they are related to a boring industry without much media coverage. I found what sources I could. If you have better sources, please add them. Isenta (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems you did find better sources. I agree the article is better now and your sources have improved the article. Thank you. All these accusations and assumptions of bad faith were not necessary to arrive at a better encyclopedia -- but here we are. Isenta (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I didn't want to do this but here we are. Isenta is refusing to stop edit warring and accusing editors anywhere who dare revert them, even with explanation of harassment and continuing to edit war. They clearly aren't learning and don't have any interest in doing so, so I think we're past the point of niceties. I'm proposing an indefinite block for promotional editing, combative behavior and egregious, endless personal attacks. Praxidicae (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm being harassed. You are the main harasser. Please leave me alone. Digging up years old edits just to troll me. Go back to whatever you were doing before you found out I existed and everything will be fine. Isenta (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Provide diffs of harassment. Thanks. Consider this a final warning since you're doing nothing but throwing out ridiculous accusations about anyone who dare ask you about your edits.Praxidicae (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You are not asking me anything. Everything you do is hostile, aggressive and condescending. Why don't you try being collaborative and assuming good faith and open a discussion politely? Isenta (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Isenta You have accused myself and GSS of harassment. Your next edit needs to be providing diffs or redacting; I don't care which. I've tried engaging you, you just revert, accuse me of vandalism and harassment and obfuscate. Oh and edit war. Praxidicae (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A warning on my talk page is not engaging me. It's hostile, aggressive and condescending. If you're not aware of that, it is. Each time you do that to some new editor, that's how they feel. Isenta (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No one is under any obligation to coddle you. Where are the diffs, Isenta? Praxidicae (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You are under an obligation to assume good faith, and treat other editors with respect. You shouldn't be allowed to treat people the way that you are treating me. Nor should the reporting editor. But this culture of hostility I know is deeply ingrained and I'm not going to be able to fix it. At this point, I'd settle for you all simply leaving me alone and finding someone else to harass Isenta (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, I’ve blocked per the above concerns with link spam/promotion and the responses here which suggest they aren’t compatible with Wikipedia because of their inability to listen, edit warring, and attacks on others when the issues are pointed out. They’re always free to appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Ylevental paying for edits in order to advance AfD goals

Ylevental nominated the article Shain Neumeier for deletion twice in a row, even after having previously been warned not to re-nominate articles for deletion shortly after a previous nomination. This time, they claim to have "paid an editor" to clean up the article before re-nominating it, which worries me for multiple reasons. Firstly, my understanding based on conflict of interest guidelines is that editors must, at a bare minimum, disclose who is paying them and which contributions are paid. Based on the revision history of the nominated article, the user in question appears to be Podcaster7, whose talk page does not bear any disclosure information. Secondly, given that the purpose of the paid edits appears to have been to advance Yleventhal's goal of getting this article deleted, this is not a case of being paid to improve Wikipedia, but rather being paid to disrupt it. I'd like to see administrator intervention here, especially given that Ylevental has a long history of disruptive edits evident from their talk page. Someone the Person (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• ....this is the weirdest case of paying for edits I've ever seen. Praxidicae (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't want the page to be turned into an infamous quagmire like the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page. If I edited it myself, I would seem biased. Ylevental (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought that one month was long enough, but I might have been wrong. The other incident you referred to was a few days after deletion, since I thought that articles could be re-listed right away. The paid editor disclosed on Talk:Shain Neumeier, but I will double check with them as to their own talk page. Yes, I know that I have made some mistakes in the past, but clearly, there were too many excessive sources and details on the Shain Neumeier page, no matter the outcome. See Talk:Shain_Neumeier#Current_source_review, which shows that most of the sources simply barely mention the subject, or are written by the subject. Edit: Just discovered this recommended guideline, that it's usually two months. Wish I had thought about looking that up first Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion#Renominating_for_deletion Ylevental (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You should also read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. While technically disclosing on the talk page alone may be sufficient assuming that's the only page you paid them to edit, disclosure on both the article talk page and on their user page is strongly encouraged. Ensuring anyone you are paying is sufficiently disclosing will reduce concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne This has long been a concern and Ylevental is well aware of our policies and has been advised repeatedly of them. Praxidicae (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• SPI started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ylevental. With 3 previous complaints in the archive it's not like Ylevental was unaware of what they were doing. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• My, oh, my. This is extremely hilarious. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• It looks like Ylevental has been frequently editing the page that he nominated for deletion? I'm confused. 50.239.129.122 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• At very least Ylevental has COI if they are paying for edits.--Hippeus (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• My favorite part in all of this is the reasoning (If I edited it myself, I would seem biased.). Bias concerns and COI avoided! Grandpallama (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yup. "Hired goons" makes it a conspiracy as well as whatever nefarious deeds result from it. DMacks (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I was hired by Ylevental to clean up Shain Neumeier's page. I noticed that the article really had redundant information, repetitive overlinking and citations which could be reduced. Though paid, I was neutral to the article as per WP:NPOV and did not clean-up mindlessly, I was aware that removing referenced content is considered vandalism in Wikipedia, so my edits only involved removing repetitive information which just served to create a lengthier page. My edits are visible here - [69] and here - [70]. While editing the article, I disclosed the paid status on the article talk page according to this - Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose, which clearly mentions that 'paid editors must disclose paid editing on their main user page, OR on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, OR in edit summaries. Further, I do not know why Ylevental wants to delete Shain Neumeier's page, but I am certainly not the same person because I was just hired by him to clean up the page. --Podcaster7 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Podcaster7 Guess you missed this part of the paid policy: Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services. If such an account is deleted or removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.[3] Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright Praxidicae, never came across this. However, I was wondering that any editor can share any freelancer profile link which can't be authenticated. That's why I feel its best to mention the paid editing disclosure on the article talk page.--Podcaster7 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Podcaster7 It's pretty clear in the paid editing page that this is required, but let me get this straight: you took on a job for a project which you've never really edited and have no experience and didn't read the terms of use? Have you added your freelancer or Upwork or whatever site you advertise on profile yet? Praxidicae (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• (non admin comment) Isn't this essentially a complex form of meatpuppeting? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Chronic edit warring, blatant COI by a school, copyvios

Involved editors:

• Formulaonewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.35.166.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (more generally, the IP block 5.35.166.0/24, likely the same person, or people at a single entity - the school):
  • 5.35.166.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 5.35.166.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 5.35.166.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 5.35.166.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 5.35.166.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 5.35.166.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 5.35.166.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (IP has been editing their article since January 2018)
  • 5.35.164.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Main page:

• Victoria College, Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Came across edit warring at Victoria College, Jersey yesterday. Looked like a mess. Apparently the issue hasn't resolved, and at a closer look, there's more issues than originally thought. Overall, I recommend just looking at the history with limit 500. But, in particular, these diffs (also see edit summaries, quoting a select few):

• The edit warring is actually chronic, since June 2019.
  • Initial edit by Formulaonewiki: Special:Diff/885020828
  • Beginning of reverts by IP block: Special:Diff/902103334 (with suggestion of COI: Re-Added information regarding the school uniform following further vandalism by ‘FormulaOneWiki’ whoclearly has no association with the college.)
  • Reverted by Formulaonewiki: Special:Diff/904022428
  • Admittance by similar IP, 5.35.164.224 (talk · contribs), of COI: Special:Diff/916246076 - Removed scandal as school do not want it visible
  • Continued reverts by IP block, persisting over months: Special:Diff/954689000
  • Further COI and WP:OWN: Special:Diff/954696888 - Final update and restoration of items removed without the permission of the College.
  • String of reverts by Formulaonewiki, beginning Special:Diff/960183395, followed by dozens of contributions by Formulaonewiki to modifying the article
  • Revert of all of these modifications by IP block: Special:Diff/962081661
  • Revert by Formulaonewiki, and further modifications, beginning Special:Diff/962144255
  • A stronger, acute edit war begins: Special:Diff/962342117 (sidenote: see edit summaries, quite amusing)
    • Denial of COI: I am not an employee or associated to the school. The school is a prominent local landmark, information on what flags are flying is relevant to the community (especially on flag days - do you even know what these are) stop mis-interpreting guidance on wiki pages to suit your Elizabeth College view on the world. - evidently a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's policies, not just ignorance

I added a section in talk earlier, encouraging editors to discuss, but (at the time) didn't notice the COI violations and larger edit history, at a quick glance. Formulaonewiki ceased edit warring after that, the IP persisted in their revert, then in making severe modifications to the article, without responding to warnings and messages on both their talk, and on the talk of the article. They continue to make modifications and WP:OWN is visible in edit summaries since end war stopped.

Formulaonewiki pointed out the following vandalism, recently done by IP block, to other school articles edited by Formulaonewiki (particularly note edit summaries and content changes). Apparently as 'retribution':

• Special:Diff/962352508
• Special:Diff/962351754

Copyvio: Formulaonewiki had added his account of the matter here. In it, he includes information on copyright violations within the article, including a few specific extracts of blatant c+p from other websites. Copyvio report.

No clue why this wasn't brought to admin attention earlier, since it's been going on, on-and-off, for years. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This is indeed concerning. The /24 mentioned above (unsurprisingly) geolocates to Jersey, though it isn't provably the college doing the edits. My thinking is to either semi the article for a while or pblock the range from the college (with the intent to get the problematic IP editors to engage on the talk page). creffett (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This saga was a fascinating read. I especially appreciate the twist at the end where, after a dozen lengthy edit summaries demonstrating they do not care to learn what is acceptable on WP; do not understand what or where an article's or their own Talk page is; did not follow any of the linked policies or guidelines; and will not acknowledge or respond to the specific policies even when spelled out for them on apparently the only wiki forum on which they communicate (edit summaries); all the while berating Formulaonewiki for "not being associated with the school" and accusing "... repeated vandalism by FormulaOneWiki. Traditional information is verified and formal citations are not required. (diff); the IP is now allegedly [re-adding] ... valuable contributions by FormulaOneWiki in an appropriate manner. (diff) JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

While I am ashamed to say I resorted to blatant edit-warring when, quite frankly, I really should know better, I hope it is seen that I was doing my best to explain the reasons for all of my edits and went to great length to explain the issues with the article on the article's talk page. In my view, the best outcome would be that the page is returned to the most recent edition left by me here, and that I can address any purported issues or inaccuracies described by the IP user (which appear genuine amongst the rest of nonsense they've sent in my direction) to achieve a genuinely good article for the school. I'd like to note that I've gone about improving several school articles in the Channel Islands including Elizabeth College, Guernsey—which now has good article status—and The Ladies' College, Guernsey, which I'm expanding currently. —Formulaonewiki 00:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I should add that there appears to be a response from the IP editor here. I note that they seem tremendously averse to the ISI report conducted in 2017 (arguably the best independent, secondary source available for the school) and are concerned for some reason with my previous contributions to Elizabeth College, Guernsey; both without any discernable reason. They maintain that "there is no active censorship or sentimentalisation", in direct contradiction to the edit and adjoining summary highlighted above where they deleted a sourced and notable paragraph on a well-publicised child-abuse scandal at the school. No attempt is made in the response to address or comment on the host of issues I raise here. —Formulaonewiki 01:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It's amusing how frequently the edit summary complaints mention an unnamed adversary from Guernsey or some Elizabeth College, Guernsey editor, as if such qualifiers are self-evident indictments of encyclopedia-writing. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Child abuse scandal is covered and the definitive report cited. This like others is a clear false accusation.

There is no 'averse' feeling towards the ISI inspection, it however has limited scope and concentrates on the present rather than the history of the site. If entries had been updated with this info this would have been more appropriate than re-writing the entire article based on such. Such additions have now been made, without losing any historical context.

Furthermore, regarding what a 'school-page' should 'look like' and the guidance that should be followed - we refer you to the page for Eton College. When the school has a prominence beyond a it's local community the information that it is beneficial to include goes also beyond what a school page typically contains.

However when the school has, for example, a large co-curricula programme to solely focus on matches in: Shooting, Hockey and Cricket against Elizabeth College is staggeringly short-sighted given the omitted events that are more important such as the annual MCC matches, Castle Trophy and Caribbean Cricket tours, the Greshams Hockey Tournament and successful Bisley participation. These and many other events such as the: Lord Jersey Rugby tournament, CCF camps and state ceremonial participation and the many OV team events has never been included as they would be considered trivia and not historical context of interest to the wider population. This is clearly lost on the editor associated with Elizabeth College who fails to see their own COI whilst accusing others of one that doesn't always exist.

If there are any further issues other than the lack of citations, please do raise them, now we have been provided with a link to the 'talk' and 'admin' pages we can interact positively. (Unfortunately my friend had no idea what these were yesterday and acted regrettably out of frustration (with no other obvious outlet to resolve such) at what was perceived to be regular vandalism by an editor with an agenda over the last couple of years.) - until then restoring the citations is what he/we will continue to concentrate on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.166.160 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not make edits in ANI to messages that aren't your own, as you did here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

How can you say it is a 'clear false accusation'? The evidence is literally right here: Special:Diff/916246076 with edit summary "Removed scandal as school do not want it visible". While perhaps it was not you yourself who made that edit, it is irrefutable that at least somebody associated with the school attempted to censor that information.

You evidently have still not bothered to read any of the breakdown of the guidelines and Wiki policy I have very clearly written out here. On a number of occassions I have invited 'your friend' to partake in the discussion and explained where the talk page can be found, so any claim they had "no other obvious outlet to resolve such" is rubbish and most certainly does not justify vandalising other articles.

Nobody is saying content beyond the guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG#OS (such as traditions, uniform etc.) cannot be included, only that inclusion of any information must be supported with reliable (third party) sources to verify such information. In the case of traditions and uniform etc., which would not normally be notable enough to warrant inclusion per the guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG, there must be some explanation as to why they are notable, again with support from reliable, third party sources. In the example you have given, Eton College, the tradition and uniform sections have such sources and the notability is explained. Again, nobody was solely focusing on certain matches, just an accurate summary was given based on the sources available. If such other matches and events take place, then WP:PROVEIT.

Where has there been any suggestion that I am associated with Elizabeth College? In fact, in contributing to that school's article, I have been involved in discussions with associates of the school who did indeed have a COI. They listened, understood what COI was and why that's an issue, and we worked constructively to improve the article with their help. You'd do well to do the same. The only 'agenda' I have is to improve the article as well as ensuring good encylopedic practice. —Formulaonewiki 11:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no blatant COI by the school, you are conflating multiple editors and making assumptions. When similar is done regarding your COI you object thus proving the point being made. It is beyond us why you continually reference an individual edit a couple of years ago that was reverted and which content remains in the current article in a succinct summary form with the report cited. This just further discredits your motives. As mentioned previously the expired or removed citations were there originally, it is better to restore such than to repeatedly delete the information. I myself being a total amateur at this will happily take procedural advice, as you should take content advice given your erroneous attempts to improve so far have not been successful. Evidence of other extra curricular events are all over social media as unlike with Wikipedia - the school maintains their Facebook, Twitter & Website. They just like the Elizabeth College matches are not historically noteworthy though. NB: there is no obvious link to a 'talk' page on the main page and it'd seen any directions you might have offered were lost in the dross at the time. The regrettable counter-vandalism is in-excusable, no matter how upset my friend was, but he is even less tech-savy than myself. At this point I do not see you making any concessions as we have done, so I'll wait for further input from a reputable admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.35.166.160 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The contributions of all the IPs listed above can be viewed as Special:Contributions/5.35.166.0/24. I have semiprotected Victoria College, Jersey for one month due to the edit warring. See [71] for some of the policy violations. Please use the talk page to request changes. User:Formulaonewiki should be careful not to break WP:3RR even if you believe you are enforcing policy. Ask admins for assistance before doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Apologies again. —Formulaonewiki 10:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing comments and edits of a blocked sockpuppet

Where can I request that the comments and edits of Smith0124, who was recently identified and blocked as a sockpuppet of the previously blocked Peterjack1, be removed/struck-through and reverted? This editor has made substantial edits on more than one hundred 2020 primary, caucus, and other election pages (e.g., deleting candidates from info boxes).

One area affected is Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries where this sockpuppet created two poorly constructed RfC's ([72], [73]). Can these be struck through? It would help the other editors clarify the issues without this disruptive presence. Humanengr (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Anybody is allowed to remove sockpuppet edits. State the reason in your edit summary (e.g. with a link to the sockpuppet investigation) if what you're reverting isn't blatantly unconstructive. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with Passengerpigeon, it's probably not a good idea to edit a closed RfC. You could post a follow up under mentioning that the edit was blocked for socking if you feel it is necessary. For the still open RfC it's common to strike out sock edits. However it's likely to be a bit confusing to strike out the opening statement which should be neutral anyway. It looks to me like Smith0124 is the only person with a clear preference against everyone else. You could ask others whether it's worth just closing that RfC but it's probably not worth a great amount of time so if anyone disagrees I'd just leave it.Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I did post a follow up in another section but do think, for archival and reference purposes, a hatnote should be placed atop the RfC § to indicate that "This RfC was proposed by a sockpuppet who was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. Reasons to doubt the intentions of this editor in proposing this RfC are documented here", with a link to the § I indicated. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I will communicate with the closer about the hatnote; I've also posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to see if anyone there cares to help address the removals by this sockpuppet of candidates from infoboxes. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You can strike through sock comments on open discussions without issue. But it's generally agreed that editing closed and archived discussions is more trouble than it's worth. Reyk _YO! 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content

• Vili.falenius (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

The editor consistent added unsourced sales information, claiming that the figures are from fan sites or certification, and has refused to add any valid sources on SoundScan sales figures in the article, here for example a few of many edits on Dookie's sales [74][75][76][77] (note the changes in sales figures which appear to be random estimates in fansites). It has been explained many times why the figures should not be used, but there is no sign that the editor will stop doing it despite the numerous warnings and explanations, and some kind of intervention may be necessary. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The editor has continued to add unsourced figure instead of replying here - [78]. All attempts at explanation that the figures are unacceptable have been ignored. Someone needs to do something about this. Hzh (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I must concur with Hzh, this user's edits are purely disruptive. Their talk page is a swathe of colours made up of warning after warning and they continue unabated. Leaving a warning clearly has no effect so instead I've rather added my voice to the concerns here. Robvanvee 07:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

List of public statues of individuals linked to the Atlantic slave trade

I am at a loss, I was just about to add a load of entries to the list, but silly me, I lost all the work I did, was trying to improve it, but clearly Egghead06 has no interest in helping the article from the way I wanted to change it to and just wants to edit-war. I am fed-up now, clearly some people have no interest in editing articles. I am going to take a break, but maybe someone can have a word with Egghead06. I'm done for the day, Govvy (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the content, but per BRD, you should've started the talkpage conversation when you were reverted. Right now, you look far more guilty of edit warring to force through a preferred version without seeking consensus when your edit was challenged. Grandpallama (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If you get an edit conflict, considering copying from your edit to a sandbox straight away especially if it's a lot of text to avoid accidentally losing anything. And if you are on a desktop, consider choosing a browser which doesn't tend to lose form data when you go back. Anyway putting aside edit warring issues, Egghead06 isn't required to agree with "the way I wanted to change it". That's often why WP:content disputes arise. One editor wants to change an article in a certain way and another disagrees. Both of you should be working to reach a consensus on how to change the article, whether by yourselves or involving others if necessary or it they participate. Saying someone has no interest in editing articles when the dispute is over a revert just seems weird. But anyway even if you want to argue reverts aren't editing, I'm fairly sure Egghead6 is an experienced editor as I recall their name and a check shows they've been around since 2007 so I fairly doubt all their editing of articles consists of reverting. I also remember you name and a check shows 2006 so your complaint is even more mysterious, it sounds like the sort of thing from someone inexperienced rather than an experienced editor who should be aware that content disputes arise and they are resolved via good faith discussion not WP:ABF. Frustration is one thing and stopping editing when you are frustrated is often a good thing, but random ANI complaints asking people to speak to someone over a content dispute, not so much..... Likewise I also don't understand why you failed to notify Egghead06 of this thread as you're required to, but I let them know for you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Large chunks of this article were removed with the edit summary of “Revamp”. Hardly useful as any explanation for content removal. My most recent attempt to engage in discussion with this editor were met with swearing. I’m pretty sure that isn’t how it’s supposed to work!--Egghead06 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, the article is at AfD. However, an IP has closed the discussion citing that the AfD was created by a sock. Please could someone take a look? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the IP editor is evading a block. That much I can say for sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I for one am shocked! Thanks NRP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There are clearly issues with the article, otherwise I wouldn't of done the edits I did, certainly there would of been an AfD if otherwise?? I love the fact that everyone seems to have missed the 3RR, bordering an a user who wanted to edit-war with me for some reason, when I posted here about it, not the content issue, it's always ignored, the last time I mention this style of dissatisfaction, that 3RR was ignored. I really don't know why I bother posting here. Govvy (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

a user who wanted to edit-war with me for some reason Why are you accusing the other editor of edit warring? Why, after making a major change to the article that was reverted, did you not follow BRD and discuss your proposed edit on the talkpage? Why did you instead initiate an edit war by reverting a revert? Why does concern about borderline 3RR apply to the other editor, but not to you? Grandpallama (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll reply to you on your user page since I probably should posting long comments which are mostly personal advice. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has expressed his hatred on the policy over Talk:BMW 3 Series (G20). When told to take his distaste to WP:RSN and maintain WP:CIVIL he reiterated by threatening me of administrative action and speaking like he owns this site. Seeing that this user has had multiple behaviourial issues in the past, taking into account the discussions on his talkpage and had assured administrators to improve this behavior, appropriate action should be taken seeing this recent behavourial outbursts.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

...didn't the two of you have an interaction ban going or something? If no, then it seems high time for one. My bad, that was faint memories of the ArbCom case. I'll stick with the Good grief. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Carmaker1, you really ought to know that user edited websites like LinkedIn are not acceptable for use as general references on Wikipedia, and that there is no special carve-out for automotive topics. U1Quattro, you are prone to the use of overly dramatic and confrontational language in the midst of otherwise routine content disputes. I urge both of you to back off, disengage and work on improving the encyclopedia in accordance with our policies and guidelines. It would be unfortunate to allow such a trivial matter to result in sanctions on one or both of you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never been good at mapping out where & how to reply on ANI, but anyway: the rejection of using LinkedIn is understood and accepted. I was trying to defend another user's (Gentleraccoon) submission in a collaborative effort (got a tip from @Toasted Meter:) on my talk page, so it's not even my battle to fight. It was helping out a new user, with good faith intentions. It's a point made by the other person (Magnolia677) involved in this discussion about verifiable content and I explained around that course, my own concerns regarding policy. I already have dire issues with bad information entering a Ford article, but I mostly recused myself. Magnolia677 doesn't make policy, so there was no attack on them. Simply, take it or leave it discussion regarding my perspective.

Journalists are not as credible as they used to be, yet there is a blindness to that truth. I am not referring mainstream media either. Glorified bloggers in the automotive sphere, shouldn't be relied on so easily as sources without direct quotes from a relevant party. Just as well as user edited pages (resumes), which is selectively applied on this site by observation.

The dramatic language used by the very user who brought up this ANI matter, I consider distasteful and now feels like one was deliberately baited into defense. I am well within my right, to warn the involvement of a neutral party, if someone going forward casts a negative aspersion on me, unprovoked and the claim made isn't valid. Especially when dramatised for effect to get a rise out of me or simply insult/offend. I did not resort to opening an AN/I over such a small matter, I moved along with editing and my life. Why waste your time, bringing him here? I kept my editing very simple and despite that...annoying witch hunt. I am commenting now and leaving this discussion. Very tiring, manufactured drivel over mole hill.--Carmaker1 (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy, Xeno, Worm That Turned, KrakatoaKatie, Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, Casliber, DGG, Joe Roe, and Bradv: Five weeks ago you declined the case in the mistaken belief that it could be worked out after two separate ANI threads and COI thread all showed overwhelming proof to the contrary and look where we are now. Five weeks. I thought you might like to know. And speaking for myself, I'm still very disappointment in you for your failure. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh really, that says a lot doesn't it? There is a saying called "picking at straws" and it's very much not a good look for anyone. Anyone can open an AN/I for any reason they want to, no matter warranted or unwarranted. Just like people can call the police for petty reasons and see someone meet their death, because of overreaction.

I made the right decision, to not bring U1Quattro here over my own grievances. Take a look at my user page and prejudices can be made against me from my self-written description about who I am.

Looking at the source of this even coming to fruition and their user history, it is hardly shocking. I could easily have done so first, but it would be such excessive action on my part. In being premature and obviously frivolous.

Are you going to say, "Lookie here everyone, I told you so" each time anything comes up (with my username), because unfounded nonsense makes its way here? Anyone with an axe to grind, can come up with anything to do/use as bait and come running. "Carmaker1 said to leave his talk page? Carmaker1 fumbled a citation hyperlink? Carmaker1 said not to make untrue statements about his conduct? Carmaker1 blah-blah?" Okay, then. Everyone should use common sense here in that respect.

I have the right to remind a user to mind their uncivil conduct towards me or that I will seek administrative intervention, if they are making false claims against my character and possibly using it as a means to instigate. I don't need to be going back and forth with them, thus I will prevent myself from doing so by seeking others' oversight.

"User Magnolia..." for all their content issues, has been quite civil and so have I in our discourse. Any concerns raised at G20... had to do with policy and not each other. What pray tell, required the rather snippy commentary from U1Quattro on this subject towards me a user, other than past whatever? Absolutely nothing. They weren't summoned, but if wanting to interject, do so politely or cordially. A simple reference to RSN policy like his first set of words, sufficed and truly helpful. Nothing more, versus the bordering on attempted character assasination with the full text, essentially claiming incivility.

We all edit in these articles, but I do not seek their (U1) input, comment on their talk page nor discuss much of anything to avoid any unwelcome issues. I politely mind my business, after dealing with them before. You should know very well by now there are countless people who edit on this site and many have egos to varying degress. Not all of them do, but many. To pretend like I am the only one with an ego, is ludicrous, as plenty of others here are friendly or cordial otherwise, thus having no run-ins and get along well with. In fact, inserted myself in the first place in content matter, thanks to a message from @Toasted Meter.

It is very disturbing to me, what I am witnessing from you already and I obviously know why. And I am well within my right, to make that last comment, as a human being of being "disturbed". By the implication, a previous AR failed your desires versus being a neutral party seeking genuine resolution then. And that is not an aspersion, you said it above regarding "5 weeks ago" and I highlighted it. Bias? Well, I will leave others to judge that.

Done with this, as I have done my part and followed what I said months ago. Suggest U1Quattro watches their language and minds their own conduct, as I have been minding mine and do not appreciate any double standards. There is too much happening with injustice in this world, to be involved.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae I did not cause any disruption in this matter so I don't know why you ought to think that a "one size fits all" approach, interaction ban in this case, is applicable to all behavourial issues.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 I don't know how that dispute was routine. This user has been calling out anyone who disagrees with him and hating on the policy by dictating what should be done and issuing threats of action like he's an administrator all while protecting a newcomer (as see here and here who ought to read the policies of adding reliable sources in support of what he's claiming.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro, I agree with you about 45% of what you said, but you are continuing with what I consider to be "overly dramatic and confrontational language" which I mentioned earlier. That style of discussion hurts your cause, whether or not you realize it yet. Try a calm and dispassionate style of communication instead, which I think that you will find more effective. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 point well taken.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@TomStar81: I vote to accept the case, but I'm sorry you're disappointed. If problems are continuing and community isn't able to resolve them, there's always the possibility of a new arbitration request. – Joe (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae good grief? Why are you insistent about the interaction ban?U¹ _quattro TALK 15:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not insistent about any interaction ban. I continue to shake my head at how the two of you managed to blow this up to knives-out level within a few lines of text, with the maximum of bad faith assumed by both parties; but no further suggestions from my side. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One can easily take from this, what the intended result was...sneak in dramatic language, to provoke an individual/editor, from being aghast at such an accusation, report and wait-n-watch. No one on that talk page had particularly any serious issues, until of course as you see what happened with the inflammatory claim that someone was flouting WP:CIVIL.

That is casting an aspersion. I am well within my right to defend myself and make it clear, if someone is looking for trouble by making claims which aren't true, I can and will go to a neutral party to avoid directly engaging with them, as it is petty and unwelcome. A quick study of U1Quattro's ironically shows a history[79] of problematic behavior on their part in terms of civility just the same. Is that any wonder why such attitude was thrown into a comment there, unprovoked? This has been done countless times in the past, which I am too tired to link. I was summoned to BMW G20 3-Series in good faith to look at the article by a fellow editor @Toasted Meter:. Naturally one would expect, they'd mind their conduct and how they approach a discussion, especially one they weren't even part of at all. Instead they jump in and make a snide, threatening claim that someone is breaching WP:CIVIL? WTH? Who has time for this?

I do not appreciate in the least, what I call "taking the bait" and use it as a credible case to "taint" and "kill". It is absurdly blasphemous to use the warning of "mind your conduct" or I will ask someone else (administrative) to step in, so it doesn't blow up into worse, as a reason for ANI. An utter time waster for everyone. I refuse to be doing back and forth with snippy editors. If the content doesn't fit the article as needed, then it's dead and it wasn't meant to be added.

I've made my point and I am going back to my life, as I have done nothing wrong in this particular matter, than remind someone to mind their behavior and avoid making character attacks.

I really don't have time for this kind of thing and strongly question the validity of this inquiry, when there is much worse afoot and everything is very plain to see, considering the source. If Magnolia677 had such concerns, they would have brought it to ANI or addressed it soundly. I deal with enough prejudice in my life, to be swallowing what happens here on a whim. --Carmaker1 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As seen in the above reply, this user has not improved their behaviour and continues to use abrasive language against others. While I made no claim that my history was clean, or that I didn't have any history of bad behaviour. This user has had a far worse behaviour than mine and this was the one of the reasons they were brought to the attention of the arbitration community. I hereby request the admins to take appropriate action against this user as we cannot have "invested contributors" who express strong hatred over the policies of this site and imply that they own this site.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of the G5 speedy deletion tag

@Amanuensis Balkanicus: is an editor who was in many content disputes with Fa alk (talk · contribs). A few days ago, Fa alk was blocked as a likely sock after a report by Amanuensis, who in the past has nominated to AfD several articles created by Fa alk -many of whom weren't deleted [80][81] Now, Amanuensis Balkanicus is going around and tagging every article that Fa alk has ever created. These include not only articles which should be probably be redirected but also articles with verified notability and even good and expanded articles. What is the point of deleting Pasquale Bruti or Convention of Dukagjin or Benedictinism in Albania just because an editor blocked as likely sock created them? The fact that a blocked user created an article is not a reason to delete it without taking into account any other criteria. AB is also nominating articles which other editors have worked on like Convention of Kuçi, an article which I have rewritten in its entirety a few months ago. I think that the editor in question is indiscriminately CSDing every article Fa alk has created because of their content disputes. I think that this harmful to the project as a whole as notable subjects shouldn't be deleted just because the editor who created them was blocked as a likely sock. I have contested and improved some of these articles, but I think that an admin should give a more thorough opinion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Side comment: many of these articles would never be deleted in an AfD process. At most, they would be improved. In fact, many of them have passed the page review process. What is the point in asking for the deletion of Giovanni Renesi. Does that improve the project at any rate?--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am perfectly within my rights to request the speedy deletion of articles created by blocked sockpuppets, as per WP:G5. If you wish you can contribute significantly to each and every one so they no longer meet the criteria. I will also be requesting the speedy deletion of articles created by Kadribastrica's other sockpuppets that haven't been substantially edited by other users. And for the record, I haven't sought, nor will I seek, the speedy deletion of every single article that this particular sockpuppet created (see Crime in Albania and Merchant fleet of Ulqin). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Amanuensis Balkanicus is claiming that it is perfectly within his rights to nominate for deletion Mikel Suma, an article about a Roman Catholic Archbishop - which would never get deleted if it wasn't created by an editor blocked as a sock is in my opinion a flagrant and disruptive use of the G5 tag. The fact that Amanuensis has nominated articles of Fa alk unsuccessfully in AfD (some of them related to Catholicism), thus has a history of such content disputes with him, makes it even more of a problem that now he is using the G5 tag in a way that was definitely not intended to nominate for deletion articles about Catholic archbishops and the history of Roman Catholic monastic orders in a country (Benedictinism in Albania. Amanuensis Balkanicus has nominated for deletion with the G5 tag over 30 articles so far. Some should see a redirect, but most would never get deleted which makes this an even more blatantly misguided use of G5. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• [82] Back-and-forth reverting has began in Gjini family (another perfectly notable topic, which is expanded). Another editor made a further expansion and removed the G5 tag, but Amanuensis is reverting it back. @Βατο: Another example of very misguided use of G5: Francesco Maria Da Lecce, the author of the first work on Albanian grammar was nominated just because Fa alk created it. AB who is an experienced editor knows that in no situation would this ever get deleted in AfD, but he went for G5 nonetheless.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• How is it misguided? It seems that many edits were made in hurry just in order to have an accuse to stop the deletion process, as topics are something you are intersted in. I can also see a lot of subtle accusing, not healthy really - and not helping. A number of articles created by his socks are good and ready for deletion, regardless of anybody liking it or not. For example, I like his article on piracy, but that is not an accuse. @Maleschreiber please read Red herring and try to be on-topic and don't get emotional, and I sympathize that it's not easy. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus, a reminder that G5 is a "may," not a "must" - while we often do delete articles created by block evaders and sockpuppets, it is not a requirement. Additionally, per the CSD policy: If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used.. You should not be re-adding a speedy deletion tag if someone else has removed it in good faith, which appears to have at least been the case at Gjini family. creffett (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Having the right to use a tool, doesn't mean that one should use it indiscriminately. CSDing an article about an archbishop and the author of the first Albanian grammar is not what the tool is intended for and I can only explain it in the way that I did when I created the report. The tool is not intended for articles that have passed a page review. If AB thought these should get deleted, he could start AfDs at any time. @Creffett: on Giovanni Renesi, I added a source and have contested the deletion so the article just needs cleanup because it already had a good bibliography section. Should I just remove the G5 tag now that it is inapplicable?--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason why even articles about notable subjects can be deleted per WP:G5 is WP:BMB. Leaving their work standing because it's worthy of inclusion essentially gives those editors a free pass to violate their ban. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to completely re-write such an article from scratch, leaving no sign of the banned editor's work. If the subject is notable, sooner or later someone will create an article about them, so it's not the existece of the article that's a problem per se, it's the existence of the particular article, which includes the banned editor's work. Save a copy of the article, delete all the text but save the references, and use them to create a new article, or go along in the article and rewrite every sentence so that it's not longer the work of the banned editor. Either of those should do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I get what you're saying, but that seems like unnecessary busywork - rewriting the article just to purge the "taint" of the banned editor. G5definitely is a tough one, but I think I lean toward not using G5 when other editors have argued for keeping it and the only reason for deletion is who wrote it. Mind you, I have no problem using G5 as a tool to quickly deal with poor-quality pages, UPE, and the like, but it's a tool, not a requirement. creffett (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Which though allows prolific but otherwise problematic editors, who were correctly banned, to edit Wikipedia "through the backdoor". Personally, I, too, don't like G5 / BMB from a "what is best for the reader?"-perspective but in these cases, what is best for the reader is not necessarily best for the project which is trying to enforce restrictions. Eating the fruit of the poisonous tree might yield satisfaction in the short run but it will hurt you in the long run. Regards SoWhy 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) From WP:G5: "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. [emphasis in the original] [...] To qualify, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." That wording strikes as clear and unambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Not an issue here. Fa alk's first edits were in 2019. The alleged sockmaster was blocked indef in 2015. If Fa alk is indeed a sock, then everthing they have done under that username is in violation of a block/ban. See SPI. The more relevant section is a couple of lines down in G5: "When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sock-puppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the block or ban of the primary account qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5." Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• G5 says you CAN. It does not say you MUST. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Afer Ephraimite

Afer Ephraimite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A new single-purpose account who is misrepresenting the sources he's using, pushing a WP:POV and adding fringe/outdated material to the article against mainstream consensus on the matter. Judging from the fact that their second edit after creating their account (in the same day!) shows high mastery of reference usage, he's clearly not a new user! And he knows how how to indent (even experienced editor are struggling with this.) After I reverted his edits he wrote in his edit summary "undid berberist edits". I don't think calling someone a Berberist (a.k.a nationalist) is civil. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I'm suspecting sockpuppetery. Again he said in a discussion that I'm removing reliable sources to push a "berberist agenda". He also show signs of I just don't like it when confronted with authoritative sources (the Encyclopedia Of Islam). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: It was Afer Ephraimite, not TheseusHeLl, who took the initiative to start the Talk Page discussion. And this post from TheseusHeLl is quite bitey. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The title of the response is a tongue in cheek based on Averroes' response to al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Incoherence). I don't think that Afer Ephraimite is a new account, that's why I'm talking to him like an experienced editor. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Heyday to you's WP:CIR issues

Heyday to you (talk · contribs) is back following a week-long block but the issues remain:

• They place inappropriate warnings on Talk pages: contributor had received a warning on 9 June, hasn't edited since, I cannot make sense of this one,
• they add unsourced content: [83],
• they use Wikipedia as a reference: [84].

At the contributor’s last unblock request, Yamla wrote „This does not address your blatantly disruptive edits. Also, frankly, it does not convince me you understand WP:RS and WP:CITE.“ WP:CIR still seems to be critically lacking. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The allegations of Robby.is.on are baseless. You may check user's contributions to whom I sent those warnings.

P.S. I failed to find reliable sources for those edits as my sources were being listed as external links. Since I am a novice in Wikipedia, so I ended up writing my defence statement in this page.

Heyday to you (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Heyday to you

@Robby.is.on: is not reporting a single stand-alone incident here. Heyday to you (talk · contribs) also placed a warning today on User talk:95.15.163.182 [85] (twice - having misformed the first one [86]) - with a header for a page the IP has never edited. The IP in question was blocked for 31 hours on 24 May and has not edited since. Gricehead (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This IP guy looked insane through his edits. So I placed the warning. I don't think placing a late warning is unlawful in Wikipedia. Heyday to you (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Heyday to you

That IP user was blocked as a result of their last edits. Placing a warning after that may not be "unlawful," but it's pointless and arguably disruptive, as it could potentially mislead someone reviewing an AIV report that there is more recent vandalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Heyday to you, would you at least calm down, ask for guidance when in doubt, use a sandbox to test your editing skills, and most imperatively; study a few of our policies and guidelines before attempting to directly edit in areas you aren’t sure about? Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

this guy,@Heyday to you is familiar to me. He is my neighbour;this dude doesn't know much about policies of Wikipedia. So I think he must have unintentionally did this. I am a IP address user.122.177.155.197 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC) You guys may check mine or Robby's talk page to check our conversation. There you may find our conversation.Heyday to you (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user Chaipau

Firstly, Chaipau made 12 edits on the Miya people article. The Miya people are a migrant community living in Assam, a state in India, who migrated there from what is now modern-day Bangladesh. The controversy with these articles is their identity as Bengal-origin Muslims living in a Hindu state in India.

The content of his edits were mainly "good faith" but removed a large chunk of my work on the Etymology section of the article. The term Miya is a Bengali language variant of a Persian language honorific "mian", and I provided a dictionary reference to show that Miya is Bengali for "Muslim gentleman". The term "mian" can also be found in the Urdu language spoken in North India and Pakistan (nowhere near where our topic is). The Urdu term, like the Bengali term, both derive from the Persian language. User Chaipau removed all references to "Bengali" in his edits stating that I was pushing a "Bengali POV" and then added that the origin of the word is from Urdu, even though it doesn't make sense at all as they are Miya (Bengali variant) not Mian (Urdu variant). The migrant community originated from Bengal and were pejoratively called "Miya" because of their identity as Bengal-origin Muslims. There was no relevance of Urdu in his edits.

User Chaipau then comes on to the talk page and says that mian is from Persian and that it doesn't matter if Bengali is older than Urdu. I never brought up the Urdu language first, I just forgot to write that it was a Bengali term of Persian-origin. My argument was that it is not an Urdu word, yet Chaipau made it seem as if I was trying to say it was a purely Bengali term and not Persian at all. He made little things a massive issue starting an argument over why I used "Bengali Muslim" and not "Bengal-origin Muslim" even though I never edit warred with him over this. (When he changed Bengali Muslim to Bengal-origin Muslim, I left it how it was yet he started an argument over it).

The two main terms the community is known as is "Miya" and "Na Asamiya" (an Assamese language word for "Neo-Assamese"). I added these two words on the infobox and lead with Template:lang-as (nothing Bengali about this). As of WP:MOSIS, Indic script is disliked as India has many languages and many scripts and makes the article messy. The only script being used here was Assamese script and it wasn't even in the actual article (I only kept it in the infobox) so WP:MOSIS wouldn't apply here. Other Indic community articles such as Punjabis, Bengalis and Tamils all have Indic script in infobox.

Chaipau in his recent edit, removed Indic script from infobox, added Indic script to Etymology section, and removed my dictionary reference. In his edit summary, he commanded me not to add Indic script, yet on that same edit he added Indic script to the article.

The only Bengali-related thing I added to the article was the fact that Miya is a Bengali variant, yet Chaipau accuses me of POV pushing whilst adding unsourced things like "it's an Urdu word". I've noticed he is a very disruptive user for months now involved in many arguments in related pages, although this is our first encounter. Looking at history of the article, I've contributed so much and Chaipau is here removing my referenced work and adding unsourced claims. UserNumber (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A registered user is persistently deleting talk page comments by IP users

While watching some pages that we all interact in, I noticed User:Binksternet is quite persistently deleting, striking-through, edit-warring, and casting aspersions against some (non-blocked) IP users, accusing them to be User:Asdisis. I reverted most of his deletions, but then he reverted my revert a couple of times, so I think I have to take this here.

His edits: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]

He also disruptively tried to get the IP blocked for "vandalism", even though the IP obviously does none of that: [105]

I warned Binksternet about his behavior on his talk page: User_talk:Binksternet#Why_are_you_deleting_the_IP's_posts? Notrium (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. While you were looking through my edits to see where I was "casting aspersions", I was researching the Asdisis case to create the LTA page Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Asdisis. Asdisis has been a hu-u-uge problem on Wikipedia, an ongoing problem, and your efforts here are unfortunately in support of the problem. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Ever heard of the presumption of innocence? You act as if you're the judge, jury, and executioner. Notrium (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guideline at WP:EVADE does not offer any presumption of innocence. Nothing would get done around here if block-evading IPs were allowed free rein. The institution of Wikipedia acts swiftly in self-defense, without spending a lot of time on procedure. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: The presumption of innocence is also known as WP:AGF on Wikipedia... Notrium (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. On Wikipedia, we are volunteers. We do not have the administrative capacity to support WP:AGF as some sort of presumption of evidence. AGF is how you interact with other editors in your discussions. But, WP:DUCK is the prevailing policy in cases like this and Binksternet is acting appropriately.--v/r - TP 22:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: OK, then; but could you FTR clarify how am I supposed to distinguish someone removing other users comments just because of a disagreement or difference of opinion, from legitimate removal? Also, how to recognize which comments may/should be removed, since WP:EVADE says that not all need to be removed. Notrium (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It's easy. WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 22:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: Obviously, doing that led me here. I assumed good faith on part of the IP user... Are you saying less faith should be given to IP users, specifically? Notrium (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You assumed bad faith on the part of Binksternet.--v/r - TP 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: Actually, I assumed Binksternet, too, is acting in good faith, but misunderstands WP policy and guidelines (which was false, I guess now). In case it's not clear, I'm trying to get guidance from you of what should I do in the future. Notrium (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

, uninvolved editor comment Notrium, Binksternet is clearly very experienced (one can see from his Userprofile) so yes, one should assume good faith when he edits or any other editor with experience. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: I said that I am assuming good faith on Binksternet's part, but it was clear at least from his "vandalism" report that he does not fully understand relevant policy. Please see my question below. Notrium (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Notrium, you don't have to keep pinging someone in an active discussion. Regarding AGF, good faith is assumed in the absence of evidence otherwise. Once evidence shows a lack of good faith, then the courtesy of AGF is changed for something less than that, as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I support Binksternet, I suspected from some of his comments that the IP was Asdisis. I'm not sure other editors realize what a persistent sock Asdisis is. Also this is occurring in a very acrimonious RfC. Binksternet is an extremely well regarded editor. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

General questions

OK, I don't care about Binksternet or that specific IP anymore; but there are definitely some things that need to be clarified here to prevent problems for me in the future:

1. How am I to distinguish legitimate removal of non-blocked users' comments on talk pages from illegitimate? This consists basically of two questions: which users are legitimate targets for removal, and which comments of theirs are legitimate targets for removal.
2. Is Binksternet (or anybody else) now authorized to remove any comments (at the RfC and similar) at his discretion? Even though he's not an admin? Keep in mind that even with assuming good faith on Binksternet's part, I cannot assume infallibility. Notrium (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:EVADE says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." This allows quite a lot of leeway. "Anyone" means not only admins but anyone. Of course, if you think the removal is wrong, you can restore edits and communicate your views about it. However, EVADE also says you should not be aiding a blocked editor, so if you know the editor is blocked then restoration would be wrong. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: You should probably read Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Asdisis to understand why Binksternet is convinced this is a sock. Then raise the issue with Binksternet if you disagree with their rationale.--v/r - TP 00:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That list is huge. Surely there is zero chance of all those IPs being Asdisis? And I do mean zero. As I said, Binksternet is not infallible, nor is he omniscient. This completely backs up my point of "authorized to remove any comments [...] at his discretion" (FTR, I don't know if they are still present, or if B is working on removing them). I mean, unless I'm wrong, this whole sock-recognition thing is based on stylistic analysis, so almost any comment of only moderate length can't be confirmed to be Asdisis by a non-CheckUser.

And please don't tell me anyone in Croatia could be Asdisis, there are a couple million people in Croatia. Notrium (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Either this isn't "about Binksternet or that specific IP anymore" or it is.

It's one thing when an IP or a new user makes such talk page deletions, but I would suggest that when a very experienced editor (100s of thousands of edits in this case) tells you that he or she is deleting block evasion by an LTA you simply accept it and move on. If you don't recognize experienced editors by name or know how to see their long term edit counts and history then you are likely not experienced enough (or active enough) to be worrying about this. Meters (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Meters, as I said this is more general than just Binksternet, but still, the RfC and other discussions, which are immediately relevant to this issue, are ongoing.

Regarding your comments about "experienced editors", I abhor them. If nothing else, it sounds like you're "protecting your own"; and as I already said Binksternet is not infallible, and the mentioned "vandalism" report really does not speak to his experience in these matters. Notrium (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nortium: That IP range is actually quite small and it's entirely in the realm of likely that Binksternet is accurate. You're exceeding my patience here.--v/r - TP 01:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, I glanced through some IPs you listed in your new big page on Asdisis, and some older IP was espousing the viewpoint that Tesla was not a Serb, while "our" IP was AFAIK consistent on recognizing Tesla as a Serb. How can you possibly reconcile that, unless you're just listing every IP who remotely disagrees with you in relevant issues? Notrium (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I am not accusing you of bad faith, everybody has their biases; that's why we need many representative voices to achieve NPOV. Notrium (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your comment that there is "zero chance" of the LTA page on Asdisis being 100% accurate, I should point out that this is Wikipedia, with everything in motion, and nothing really set in stone. If you think one or more IPs should not be listed, take them out. Or tell me why you think they are wrong and I'll take them out. Mathematically it's more likely that I have failed to include some Asdisis IPs than wrongly listed non-Asdisis ones. Also, the clues about who is and who is not Asdisis are more than just the style of wording. Finally, I don't think of Asdisis as a static entity; I imagine he's human and that he has changed over time. He might have started out denying Serbian ethnicity but in the face of impossible opposition shifted his position to downplaying Serbian ethnicity. Certainly his English has improved over time. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Nortium is indeffed on hr.wiki. Google Translate is not very useful at translating why. But I'm starting to get a feeling for it nonetheless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It's Notrium, and if you knew the first thing about hr.wiki you would know that that place is basically a closed group for fascists, that's why I'm banned. And the admin who banned me is not even literate (neither in english, nor in croatian). Notrium (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI I don't know why Notrium is banned at hr.wiki but I can confirm that (a) it's a closed group for extreme nationalists, and (b) they ban anyone who doesn't share their groupthink. Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

"exceeding my patience here" - OK close then; but, FTR, my questions weren't answered, and especially "which comments of theirs are legitimate targets for removal" was completely evaded. Notrium (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The answers to the two questions you asked are pretty simple. For the first, if you see an established editor removing talkpage comments, ask that editor directly and politely on their talkpage as to why they're doing it. Usually they'll direct you to a relevant sockpuppet investigation or LTA page. If they don't or can't, you can always ask an admin what's going on. The other parts of your first question are answered by the policy pages you were directed to. As for your second question, no, you and others don't have carte blanche authority to remove comments from talkpages or RfC pages, and if you do so, you'd better be prepared to have strong policy backing to explain your actions (as Binksternet did in this case) when an admin comes calling. In other words, if you're not a highly experienced editor involved in fighting socks or complex vandalism, you shouldn't do it. In objecting to these particular removals, while you may feel you are attempting to uphold principles of AGF, you are inadvertently aiding a damaging editor, and have been advised by admins that Binksternet's actions are appropriate, so should drop the matter. Grandpallama (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And that pretty much sums it up. Make sure you can reasonably back up your actions with policy if someone comes asking.--v/r - TP 13:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out from that from a number of the earlier links, it's not like Binksternet just removed comments without making it clear why for DENY reasons or something. Quite a few of them specifically named Asdisis, indeed Notrium started off this thread mentioning Asdisis. So frankly it was easy to investigate why even without needing to ask Binksternet. If after investigating the history of Asdisis you had doubts over the identification, you could have still followed up with Binksternet. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuadBot seems to be malfunctioning

Spamming UTRS notices on piles of talk pages. See contribs. —{ CrypticCanadian } 00:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Already blocked. (And unblocked, and reblocked.) —Cryptic 00:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic, looking forward to DeltaQuadBot's appeal on UTRS being spammed... Guy (help!) 16:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive abuse from various Australian accounts (Meatpuppetry)

In the last December I had a conflict with User:Kpaspery. I suspected connection with 203.45.30.254, who became the part of the conflict, edited the same pages and even left the same edit descriptions. But according to Investigation, no connection was found, but Kpaspery and his sockpuppet were blocked. Since then I received some weird messages from 203.45.30.254 and 203.45.35.13 (probably dynamic IP) on my talk pages. Past months my activity in Wikipedia was basically zero. But this maniac waited for my edits and just three days after my recent edits I received a threat to hacking my page or may be something worse. Once again it was made from Australian IP. Please block User:2001:8003:3C4A:F700:EC97:8F37:E9DA:2952 and his IP range and start an investigation if it is possible. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop Yapperbot NOW

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

---

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

---

Need an admin to please press the big red button at User:Yapperbot immediately! Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Hi, botop here. Just checked your listing at WP:FRS and it's obeying - you have a number of different category subscriptions with relatively high limits, which is why you're seeing a fair few messages at the moment. As explained on the bot's userpage, on my page, and also on the FRS page, the volume of messages being sent is higher at the moment than it will be once it's settled in, but it's still respecting everything you've set. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I realise that if you have high limits set on the FRS page and you weren't expecting this, it's frustrating, and I apologise for that - I'd not realised quite how many people had such high limits set! As a rollbacker, I'm happy to rollback all the bot's edits to your or anyone else's talk pages on request) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to rollback. I've added a bots deny (after a half a dozen edit conflicts, I wised up and had the whole page in my clipboard, and slammed it in there one second after the last change, and managed to save it). Let's see if it respects it. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: It won't respect bots deny, I'm afraid, because it's a separate subscription list - this was addressed in the BRFA for it. You can remove yourself from the subscription list to opt out, although after the end of this single run to start it off there'll be far fewer messages being sent to you, as it won't have a backlog to deal with. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you won't respect DENY, then TURN IT THE FUCK OFF RIGHT NOW!!! Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, that is shouting; first time in 14 years. Sorry.

@Mathglot: The run has now completed, meaning you will receive no more messages until new RfCs are added. If you would like to unsubscribe, you can manage your preference at WP:FRS. I've again double-checked the listings there, and it has respected your preferences, not going over the limits that you've set on that page. I appreciate that this is frustrating when it's unexpected like this, but it is doing exactly what it's designed to do, and what you opted in to - albeit in a sudden way, unlike the normal more spread-out way that you'd receive these messages. Of course, from now on, the messages will be spread out again - only firing when a new RfC is added. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: the bot is after all just doing what you told it... ——Serial ^# 08:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

When someone works out their preferences to accept N per month, over however many different categories, knowing that that translates roughly into, let's say, one a day (or whatever number) over all categories, then if it starts up again after a period of being shut off, it needs to respect that rough frequency. It is *not* a reasonable design, to dump a whole bunch of Rfcs at once like that; that is maybe bot-friendly, but not human friendly. If you need to do a first pass through the whole file, to read all of a user's categories and then calculate a total frequency per month for that user to come out with "average one every 25.6 hours over the whole month", then do it. Send one to the user, look in your hash, realize that you sent the last one to that user three seconds ago, but user frequency is one per 92160 seconds, and don't send another one yet. How hard is that? Favor the user, not the program. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You've literally left yourself open to sixty—count em, sixty—feedback requests a month. ——Serial ^# 09:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair though, thats 60 spread out over a month. Not 30 in as many minutes (which is close to what Mathglot got). It wouldnt have been too difficult to send out a message to everyone on the FRS saying 'We are changing bots, you are likely to recieve lots of messages in a short period of time. You have 24 hours to change your settings at FRS'. Or just warn people they have 24 hours to temporarily put bots deny in, and have the bot actually respect deny. This was an entirely predictable sequence of events, which should have merited a bit of forethought in letting people know it was going to happen in advance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, So, two things:

1) This is this user's first bot, cut them some slack.

2) This will literally never happen under normal circumstances. In every other situation the bot getting around to it's task on time is a good thing, and impeding that for an edge case that'll likely never happen again is pretty silly. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 09:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf and Mathglot: It is doing what it's meant to, but I sympathise with the problem - I understand why people are frustrated, even if the bot is obeying the options that they have set. The option of dividing a rate limit wasn't one I had thought of, and is a good idea - if I were to make something similar again, I would implement that sort of a system. I appreciate the feedback, because at the end of the day, bots are here to serve the community, not the other way around! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Mathglot that per day is what editors probably want, NOT per month.

When I put 30/month, I wanted no more than ONE PER DAY. I posted same concern here: Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service#Bot_enabled_--_concerns

before I stumbled upon this discussion.

As for exactly how that should be coded, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the specifics of Mathglot's method to check. [more to be Added.] --David Tornheim (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Rather than add to the above, I would like to continue this discussion about implementation at Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service, User_talk:Yapperbot, or WP:BON per Serial Number 54129's suggestion below. @Mathglot: Since you were on top of this first, would like to create the (continued) discussion and section with best title? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway, since the bot has finished its run, and we have assurances that this won't reoccur, the issue is moot. This thread can now be closed and any further discussion continue at BON or the bot's talk page. ——Serial ^# 09:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it should be closed until everybody has had their say. It's night time in much of the Western Hemisphere; let's give people time to wake up, and react. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Moonythedwarf:, re "slack": yes, I agree; I didn't know it was their first bot. Naypta, I'm sorry that I came across so harsh. My apology doesn't mean I've changed my mind on the essentials, just on the manner of its presentation. Knowing that you are a new bot writer, I'll cut you the slack moony recommended. I think you understand what irked me, and David Tornheim; can you commit to looking into an adjustment to the code so that a cold start after some time offline won't repeat this? My suggestion above was made in the heat of passion, and I'm not sure if it was comprehensible; do you want to move to your Talk page, so we can discuss it more at length? Also, SN's assertion that this is "moot because it won't recur" doesn't make it moot, unless the bot designer agrees. To the extent that there is nothing admin-actionable now, it makes sense, Naypta, if you want to move this to your Talk page. If you do so, please drop a {{Discussion moved to}} template below, so newcomers can find it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you commit to looking into an adjustment to the code so that a cold start after some time offline won't repeat this? See continued discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I would only be comfortable with closing if these two conditions are met:

(1) This discussion is continued.

(2) an independent bot coder has reviewed the code, looked at the progress of the bot, and testifies that the bot is indeed caught up, ideally providing evidence that is the case.

If the bot has indeed finished getting caught up, then I would be opposed to turning it off. I do want us to start getting the notices as we are supposed to, so on would be better on than off if damage is past.

However, I'm not at all convinced it will not happen again per Mathglot. There should be a max. notices per day option IMHO no matter how hard it is to code to avoid these notice dumps.

I believe this should have been caught during code review, and that editors on the list to be notified should have been asked if it was okay to get a full month's worth of notices all in one day. They should have asked about this before the bot was fired up. I think this could and should have been avoided.

I must admit, I had concerns this would happen, and I regret I didn't express them earlier. I think it will be annoying to many other editors who put 30 or more per month.

I am happy to help with code review. I have tons of experience with coding, but admit I have yet to look at any bot coding here. Might be time to start. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) P.S. Yes I agree we cut slack to the new bot editor, who did his/her first bot. We are all volunteers. And it goes without saying that we appreciate your willingness to fix a bot that has been broken. However, when something impacts this many editors, the stakes are high. Whether you are new or old, you are on the hot seat when the work you do affects many and has high visibility. So you have to have a thick skin for inevitable criticism and/or pushback. It may be embarrassing to receive such seemingly criticism when praise is desired.

If you work through it successfully, admit there might have been a better approach, be completely honest about implementation, alternatives that may be more satisfactorily, be willing to work out bugs (even if you don't think they are bugs), people will forgive you... That's how it is in industry and your boss says his/her boss is very upset that your code is not working as expected... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim and Mathglot: The code is entirely open source, so feel absolutely free to review it! Of course, this is a project I've done in my spare time, so it's not commercial quality code, but it is all functional. As to verifying that the bot has caught up, you can verify this independently, because the bot keeps all of its data on-wiki. There's no database powering it - all the data is stored in JSON files. As such, you can see the "internals" of the bot on-wiki: the list of completed RfCs that are still in the category is here, and the list regulating the number of messages sent to users is here. I have no interest in this being closed, in any way - PRs are very much welcome on the GitHub repository, and any suggestions from people who aren't technical (or who are, but are disinclined to read through hundreds of lines of Golang code!) are very welcome and gratefully received.

I'm happy to continue this discussion wherever people want, I'm not fussed by the exact location - but I would also like to make sure it is continued! As with everything on and off-wiki, this is a learning experience, and I want to make sure that things get better over time Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Naypta § Frequency functionality continued

Per Naypta's invitation. Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Mathglot:, @Naypta: Shouldn't the discussion be continued at Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service or User_talk:Yapperbot? Editors will not expect a discussion about a bot to be on the talk page of the original programmer of the bot. Editors trying to find the discussion in the furture will not be able to find it and refer to it. I strongly believe it belongs in one of those two places. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Noted this at the discussion on my talk page, but I'm happy to have this discussion wherever people feel is best. I'll be leaving the notices up explaining the backlog run on the relevant pages for at least a week or so I should think, so there ought to be time for people to get involved. All of the relevant pages are on my watchlist anyhow, so I'll see discussions wherever. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Post-script: David Tornheim, I thought so as well, which is why I put it there in the first place. Until I noticed the boxed message at the top of the page, so I self-reverted, and moved it to the user talk page instead. That boxed message has since been removed. It's still Naypta's call, where he wants to have it. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Since Naypta said s/he didn't care where the discussion was -and- both of us agree that it is better at the bot page, I have restored the discussion continuation to

Moved to User talk:Yapperbot § Frequency functionality continued

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Works for me; see you there. (Btw: Naypta is he/him, per {{They|Naypta}}.) Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Iliochori2

• Iliochori2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two days ago, I noticed unsourced content had been added to a bunch of articles of Ukrainian footballers by Iliochori2 (talk · contribs) who had been blocked by @Ymblanter: in May 2020 for disruptive editing and CIR issues ([106]). I tried to remove most of it and left a warning at Iliochori2's page: [107]. At some articles they made some tentative efforts to source their additions (change / revert, change / revert) but they mostly failed WP:V and were full of broken English: [108]. At the same time, they also continued to make further, at times large, unsourced additions:

• Oleksandr Filippov: [109], [110],
• Oleksandr Ryabokon: [111], [112]
• Yevhen Past: [113].

Despite receiving helpful comments at their Talk page they have continued their disruptive editing almost to the point of edit-warring. Today, they finally started responding to complaints: [114]. As can be see from that conversation, language is a major issue and they do not seem to be willing to play by Wikipedia's rules. I think a longer or even indefinite block is in order. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's a problem. I left them a note, after reading over y'all's conversation. "You will not be able to write article content unless you can use reliable, independent sources to verify that content. If you don't know what that means, if you cannot understand even after reading the pages that Robby.is.on linked to, then I'm afraid you lack the competence to edit the English Wikipedia." Drmies (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Spandan72

User:Spandan72 (talk), has been making several disruptive edits related to disambiguation articles and others. These include: Advertising[115][116][117], addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content: [118], [119], and removal of content for no reason replacing it with red links including broken English: [120]. When I sent him a note on his talk page[121], I received no response and he continued to make the same edits after this. Some help is needed here. SK2242 (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• That help came in the form of a block. The editor is, I believe, mostly spamming. Unfortunately the edits are so inept that I can't tell exactly what's going on, and whether, for instance, there are phone numbers that need suppression. Thanks for reporting--though I think you could have sent this to AIV as well. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, yes: based on my research, this is a mobile phone number (originally Aircel) from Odisha, which is also where the spammer appears to base his business from his comments. I'd recommend oversighting. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, there isn't just one single phone number. I saw a whole bunch--if you can tell me which ones are which, and give me the diffs, I will get to work. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I looked through all of their diffs, and this is what I found. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks--got it. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

File:WWE Backlash GWME Poster2.jpeg

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

---

Survived mass deletion of Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 7 June 2020. Deletion bug? Please check, thanks. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. No idea about the bot.--v/r - TP 14:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threats at Southwest Georgia Academy

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

---

• Kelhaddock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Southwest Georgia Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diff: Please do not make us have to get attorneys involved (diff) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Another threat Slander. Incorrect info (diff) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• • Comment They seem to be willing to retract their legal threat(s), per their comment at User Talk:Ohnoitsjamie. Should they be allowed to continue to edit here, we should insist that they use the article talk page to attempt consensus, and acknowledge that they have read and understand WP:COI. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

All is understood and retracted. However, after reading the SGA page and several other "articles" about private schools in the south, it's painfully clear to me that you really can NOT believe anything you read on the internet. I used to use Wikipedia all the time as what I thought was a reliable information source, but have learned otherwise today. Kelhaddock (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, it uses them. Sources show SGA and many other private schools founded in and around 1970 were founded to avoid integration. It is hard to believe someone would deny that, but it happens on a very regular basis. Jacona (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources are difficult to come by, but it's clear that the school still is segregated. The town is 64% black, and the county 49% black. The school is 100% white. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kelhaddock: Given the legal threat, this comment, and this comment, it seems reasonable to ask if you/your family are still owners or stakeholders of this school. If so, you may want to read our information on financial conflicts of interest. —{CrypticCanadian} 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@{ CrypticCanadian } No. We do not own or have any stake in the school.

All three of Kelhaddock's edits to the article, and those of the IP preceding the account's edits, are copyvio from this barelink history of the school, cited as the first reference. The history contains useful information, but the copyright violations need to be scrubbed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Good spot; tagged for a CV revdel. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Edits Restored After Block

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

---

User talk:84.203.69.48 was blocked several days ago for 60 hours due to disruptive editing. Now that their block has been lifted, they proceeded to restore the same disruptive content that got them warned, reported, and blocked. The user has not learned their lesson. A longer block needs to be enforced or at least a page protection to the articles. Armegon (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Shui (surname)

I would like another set of eyes to take over on Shui (surname). User:Prisencolin keeps reverting, getting close to 3RR, adding red-links, and adding links to another Wikipedia. Reverted and told him why this is not what we want in lists, and he made what I consider a nasty insult. Being Jewish and at this particular moment I take this insult seriously and told him so. Due to this involvement, and this name-calling (which I redacted), I would like to recuse myself from the issue as it will be hard to be impartial on it. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at their contribs, and there's a whiff of a SPA. MiasmaEternal^TALK 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

That name calling was improper and was wisely rev'deleted but Alexf you both were edit-warring on that page. I posted a warning on his talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Curse of Fenric has abused his temporary unblock

95% of User talk:Curse of Fenric's arguments against me on his talkpage are WP:PERSONALATTACKS. He requested being unblocked over an issue I am involved in just so he could attack me. This user is notorious for attacking others on Wikipedia for years now: For instance, this is another attack against me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=946421018&oldid=946401455&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring As a result, the IP range of this user, Special:Contributions/2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35, is now blocked.

He mostly complains about articles I created, disputes from many years ago, and even goes into detail about a blog that he is working on against me: "I am in the process of a long winded full examination of his editing in readiness for a page on a blog I am working on, but it is a long job. I'd show it to you but even in it's present form it is huge and I wouldn't put you through that - along with the fact that I am only up to the beginning of February 2019 on it". Completely unnecessary.

As for accusations of bias, I have also deleted articles of activists that are critical of neurodiversity, such as Benjamin_Alexander and Sue_Rubin. I did successfully delete many other autism related articles such as Judy_Endow, Birger_Sellin and so on. I can be biased, but that is because there is a lot of tension in the autism field for the past few years and it gets to me. Ylevental (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbelievable, he just threw more personal attacks against me at User talk:Curse of Fenric "You haven't adjusted to being Autistic. That's the real problem and it is up to you to correct that as I have said to you previously off wiki. No you are not in touch with yourself - in fact you've gone off the rails hence the real reason for any issues you are currently having." Ylevental (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed talk page access again. That can't possibly be what User:Sphilbrick had in mind. And, gently, I'm not entirely sure restoring talk page access was the correct thing to do, even if it had been used the way they said it would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Curse of Fenric emailed OTRS wanting to contribute on Ylevental's SPI case. Temporarily re-enabling CoF's talk page access was an attempt take CoF's contribution, preserve CoF's real world privacy, respect OTRS rules, ensure that Ylevental could see what was being said against him & by whom, and ensure Ylevental had a viable right of reply. CoF was asked to present his case with diffs on his talk page which I then intended to link to on the SPI.

That was the intention. My apologies to Ylevental that it went awry. My apologies to Sphilbrick for suggesting it. And my thanks to Floquenbeam for stepping in and mopping up. Cabayi (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, I think you did a fine thing. Yes, it went wrong, but in a limited way that was easily fixed again. Guy (help!) 11:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, No apologies to me necessary. I take responsibility for the decision. I think you summarized the situation well; when someone purports to have some relevant information on SPI case, but is not permitted to share it because of their block, it seemed like an appropriate thing to do to temporarily permit talk page access. I'm sorry it went badly but as Guy says, easily fixed. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ownership and competence issues on Artillery wheel

Eddaido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No diffs; a cursory review of the past few days is enough for anyone with even a smattering of familiarity with early 20th century automotive technology. Qwirkle (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And the indications are that as usual this editor is unable to see a complete picture only a narrow personal view which is leading him astray once more. Eddaido (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Composemi and redirects

Check out User talk:Composemi and you will see a wall of RfD notifications for questionable redirects created by User:Composemi. They are still creating useless or near-useless redirects (such as Harvard BS, Saint Floyd, Sachin 10dulkar, etc.), and has thus made it clear that they do not intend to change this behavior. I propose a 4-month topic ban on creating redirects. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Good idea

Thanks, (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - with clear conditions for unblock, ie a topic ban from redirects and showing that they can and will edit constructively and communicate with others. Their failure to respond to talk page notices and to communicate is really not acceptable. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and talk page harassment

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

---

LoganBlade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit to Feminist views on transgender topics. There were a number of issues with the edit, and they were systemic, so I reverted the edit with a robust edit summary. Even though this was the first revert to her edit, after restoring her edit by reverting my revert, LoganBlade left edit warring notice template {{Uw-3rr}} on my talk page, which I subsequently removed. I also reverted her edit again, suggesting he follow WP:BRD and bring the contentious edits to the talk page. Instead, the original contentious edit was restored again, with an WP:UNCIVIL edit summary claiming that having reverted it would result in a ban for edit warring, and a new message left on my talk page about edit warring, also claiming that removing the notice "may result in a ban", despite removal being allowed per WP:OWNTALK. I stopped editing the original problem article, and only reverted subsequent edits to my user talk page. Meanwhile LoganBlade proceeded to WP:DRIVEBY tag Feminist views on transgender topics with multiple unexplained content tags, including "Systemic bias", in between threats of being banned for removing her messages on my talk page and other uncivil comments: 1, 2, 3. When I stated that I would be taking the matter to ANI, LoganBlade left a new message on my talk page consisting just of an inappropriate picture. --Equivamp - talk 07:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And now, he's also decided to blank this discussion. --Equivamp - talk 07:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I fixed an extremely biased section of that article and Equivamp decided he wanted to edit war instead of discussion so I left an edit warring notice on his talk page which he disregarded and continued

User literally only writes about transgender topis and writes like a huffpo author not a Wikipedia editor. User is not neutral in his writing

Tags tagged are extremely appropriate for that article as anyone with their head partially inside of or fully outside their ass are perfectly awware

stupid people like this dont deserve my time

Thanks, (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The personal attack being, of course, a continued pattern of disruptive editing. --Equivamp - talk 07:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

what is that like a personal attack or something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJlbssDHdHE Thanks, (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

LoganBlade's recent contribs to Equivamp's talk page are completely out of line. Disruptive edit warring over a template removal, PAs + harassment are not ok. Mysticdan (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

your honor if i may submit into evidence the prosecutions edit history and userboxes

Thanks, (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are three problems with LoganBlade's editing here (1) Not following BRD - theirs was the bold edit, it was reverted, but they did not discuss but instead reverted again and told the other editor to discuss (2) their personal attacks including in this discussion (3) their edit-warring to include a negative assertion about a BLP subject written in Wikipedia's voice, which I have reverted. I have given LoganBlade a warning on their talkpage that they may likely be blocked if this is to re-occur. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

IP well over 4 warnings for vandalism

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

---

81.164.150.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly making unconstructive contributions, and has then been blanking their talk page afterwards - which, of course, they are allowed to do, but it has meant that more users are giving them level 1 warnings when they passed level 4 a long time ago. I reported the IP already to WP:AIV, but was told there that it was not obvious vandalism. A few examples: pure vandalism, repeated addition of unsourced content, removal of referenced content, etc. Warnings: initial welcome with warning, level 2, level 3, level 4, level 1 again, level 2 again, level 1 for a third time. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Responding: You are referencing virtual constructs that have no significance if said unfairly. They seem to have nationalistic motivation and are causing conflict. I have not received any of these website warning codes. I am not the person who is starting "wiki-wars". I am here to see that nobody is treated unfairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.150.171 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block- user has been warned and continues to vandalise. "I have not received any of these website warning codes" is incorrect, the warnings were posted on their Talk page and deleted by them. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

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

2402:B801:2867:E200:BC10:5E1E:FB81:D8AB

Is clearly not here an unwilling to obey policy. So far their only contributions have been this [[122]] (which they are edit warring over the inclusion of) and their talk page. The out right repetition of antisemitic canards.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely reeks of WP:NOTHERE. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked 2402:B801:2867:0:0:0:0:0/48 for 1 week for antisemitic trolling. Guy (help!) 10:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by unsigned IP address 98.143.68.250

User:98.143.68.250 (talk), has been engaging on reverts without any justification and replacing sourced contents with unsourced and inaccurate ones. The IP adress has received several warnings from different editors/admin but has not responded and continues to do new reverts amounting to VANDALISM on one particular article: [123]

[124]

[125]

Because they have not engaged with anyone and ignored requestes and warnings, they indicate no respect for the WP:5P and should therefore be blocked. 10:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Melroross (talk)

Blocked users are constantly attacking me by IP.

Related1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rajmaan/Archive Related2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 Related3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage/Archive_2#Break_(June_11)

Blocked users have consistently hampered debate. He described too many lies and bullshit that had nothing to do with the subject in debate.

1. I opened the debate. 2. but only improper user attacks or disrupts it. 3. Sockpuppet investigations 4. The debate is already nullified. ‎ It's a vicious circle.

It is hard to ask for an investigation because too many accounts have been used.

He's even using outside forces to blackmail me. He's coming to my talk page and threatening me. [[126]]

He is using only the IP address as much as possible to avoid investigation. I even was tried to hack my ID[[127]]....

Is there any way to banish him? Bablos939 (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)