Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 13:19, 23 May 2020 (→‎Disruptive editing at User talk:Hunan201p: gibberish). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    economy of Iran article vandalized repeatedly by IP editor showing multiple countries of origin

    Seems like an troll farm. Please advise. IP editor was advised to take it to talk page to no avail. Edit-warring. Leave it at that for now. Thanks much. 99.203.24.155 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rechtsstreitigkeiten disruptive editing

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

    This is absolutely untrue and unfair. I'll start with one point. I don't dare edit this case in my real name and I'd be a fool to do it: journalists and others have been threatened over this case. So yes, this is a SPA (special purpose account) but it's that for my own protection. The Radack case has a protection order for witnesses in the case, because both Radack and her friends on twitter ( group of people) have threatened anyone who write about the case. Fitzgibbon has been threatened with having his jaw broken (I can't publish it on this page which doesn't take twitter links - but it's on twitter) by Radack's twitter supporters . That's just one example of a threat of violence (that person was reported to the Police). For this reason, Fitzgibbon requested a protection-order from the judge for the witness in the trial (the trial is in July). The protection order came in about two weeks ago, here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376.79.0.pdf
    Radack (who is very famous and able to communicate widely) has been vociferous in abusing anyone who writes any aspects of the facts of the case. She's done everything from random accusations to threats. She continued this kind of behavior in 2018-2019 and was cited for contempt of court for doing so by the judge, at the time of the settlement in April. She only got fined 500 dollars, but she could have gone to jail. One journalist who wrote about the case 2019 was told that some personal information about her was going to be published online ("doxxed"), if she wrote another article, and this was enough to silence her. Some of her twitter supporters have threatened violence, threatened hacking, threatened doxxing. So it's a very ugly situation. And it's why I'm using a SPA. And I have not at all been abusive in the slightest here. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted that progressive journalists are avoidant of the case because of the threats (to reputations, even of bodily harm) for writing the facts of the case. The actual settlement did not get press, because journalists who had been covering it, had been threatened. That's just a comment. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm in-trouble for here, is writing the facts of the original case, which was for malicious prosecution. I'm really sorry if they were too salacious for an edit summary, but they happened, and there is a text-message history to follow-up on it. Basically someone organized an "assignation" (look up the word if you don't know it) with a long paper-trail, including plans for what would happen, and where, etc. Then after the "assignation" made statements positive about said-assignation (some of them lurid and graphic). Then one month later, the person went to the D.C. Prosecutor and claimed they had been the object of first-degree sexual assault (rape). Prosecutors refused to press-charges, after they saw the message-trail. A civil suit was opened, not for defamation, but for malicious prosecutoin and defamation, during which time the media printed that the rape happened. It took sixteen months, and a pending jury trial for malicious prosecution (with evidence of perfidy) for her to withdraw the accusation and pay-out 110,000 dollars compensation, with a promise to no longer make the accusation. That was the settlement.
    I am deeply sorry that this offends people, but it's the facts of the first case. They are in the court record. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265.10.0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That revdeleted edit summary is so beyond the pale, I have partially blocked the user from both Jesselyn Radack and Talk:Jesselyn Radack until such time that they can convincingly explain why they should still be allowed to edit that article. El_C 20:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just a link to the complaint. El_C 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear ANI-committee, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. I apologize I haven't done so earlier. I had things to do with work.
    In the time since you partially blocked me NedFausa reviewed some of the documents I hung-up above, and he did an amazing job of re-editing the case, in a manner more compehensive than I had ever done. He went back and reviewed all the material, and re-drafted the paragraph in a concise manner. So in fact, you can leave my login blocked if you want, because I don't have anything more to add. You can also unblock me. Whatever you want. I truly apologize if I made an error, or was inappropriate in providing information in the edit summary. It's a weird set of information, to be sure. So thank you for your review, and you can do as you wish. Have a nice day. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ps: On second thought, I'd appreciate being unblocked. I probably won't edit for a while, but you never know. For the moment, NedFausa did all the work, so nothing is needed. Thank you again. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who filed this ANI reporting the single purpose account Rechtsstreitigkeiten for disruptive editing, I oppose unblocking him at this time. The blocking administrator made clear at the user's talk page that he is not blocked sitewide but rather only partially blocked from two pages. Yet in the four days following his block, the user made no edits apart from his own talk page and this ANI. I suggest we wait and see whether or not he is capable of, or even interested in, helping us build an encyclopedia with contributions to pages that do not involve the single purpose to which he has thus far been disruptively committed. NedFausa (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, this is a single-purpose account, a "SPA" in Wikipedia parlance. It was created to intentionally hide my identity, and that's within the Wikipedia rules. I won't confirm or deny if I edit Wikipedia regularly. What I can tell you is that edits usually/often reflect the interests of the editor, and from them you can often determine data-points about their identity. I gave good reason as to why I use a SPA here (, notably that Radack's twitter-friends have defamed and threatened violence (even murder "I will end you", after a threat to break jaw - and that went towards Fitzgibbon, and it was a repeating pattern for that person) of people who discuss facts about her case (in print and online), who write journalistic articles (journalists have been threatened). I don't want to get-into that, so I'll keep my SPA a SPA, thanks. To prove my point: you created the Cassandra Fairbanks and if my memory serves me (I looked-up your history a while ago) you were aware of Alexa O'Brien's studies. A few other edit-points (including your strong-reaction to my use of a German word that actually means "litigation", not "legal fights" as you stated) narrow the population of whom you might be (identity) based on editing as a possible indicator of your your personal area-of-interest, experience or your field of work. I also find it striking that none of the trolls constellating around Radack have attacked the paragraph you drafted: you described the facts in a neutral manner, and to do so is, in that group's "way of thinking", that's a high-crime. So you may be someone of distinction. I thank you for the opportunity to review my topic-ban. In general, I think that your word is law on my status. So there you have it. R.G. The purpose of a SPA is to protect one's identity. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWN by Freeknowledgecreator

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

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

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

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

    I have reverted edits - for example, by you - that I have every right to regard as poor and harmful edits, and I am not sorry for doing so. You seem to be obsessed by pictures of Freud and have attributed an utterly unwarranted importance to them. That the images are "inappropriate" and "convey a false impression of legitimacy" is your baseless assertion. They are entirely appropriate images in articles related to psychoanalysis and you are wrong to remove them. Anyone who reviews the revision history of those articles will note that you have also edit warred. Your comment that the image caption at one of the articles makes "a false claim made about Freud's views on homosexuality" is itself false. The image caption is about how one person interprets or understand's Freud's views; it is not about Freud's views themselves. JzG's claim that "everyone else who has commented to date" agrees that the image of Freud is "inappropriate" is also factually wrong. No one but him supported his position at one of those articles, at the other article, (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality), Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate. I could go on to dispute JzG's claims, but it would be pointless. The bottom line is, the whole thing is a content dispute that can be resolved by discussion. Wikipedia has standard dispute resolution procedures, and they can be allowed to do their work. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2020
    JzG's statement above about Rod Dreher is a BLP violation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that it is, if "according to the linked article" he is described on those terms. But beyond that, it seems that participants do not favour your version, so why are you edit warring to include it, anyway? El_C 20:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Rod Dreher does not describe Dreher using either of the terms JzG used to describe him. If you are "not sure", then presumably the comment by JzG should be removed, to err on the side of caution and protecting living people. As for the Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality article, you are right that most of the editors who have commented do not support the image, so I have removed it for the time being. The reasons given for opposing it have been spurious, of course. Where other issues are concerned we simply need more time to work things out and establish consensus. JzG's aggressive editing approach has not helped. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure because I was still checking. Now having checked, I suppose it's open to interpretation, but probably ought to have been phrased less sharply. El_C 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, it is a BLP violation. Let's not deny that for the sake of not hurting JzG's feelings. He is guilty of doing the same thing at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. I won't repeat the comment he made about Dreher there, but you can see it for yourself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have redacted it. El_C 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, the article describes Dreher as promoting a racist book, this [1] makes rather a nicely nuanced case for him trying and failing not to be racist. The fact that he's anti LGBTQ is not in the least controversial: he has a history of tweets against gay marriage and trans people.
    But I don't care that much: the issue is that he's a right-wing commentator writing an opinion piece in a right-wing journal, he has precisely zero expertise on the subject of conversion therapy, so the inclusion of his diatribe with its, yes, bigoted title ("homintern", a clear reference to the "homosexual agenda"), from the primary source with no secondary source discussing it, is WP:UNDUE. As are the queer voices in QNews and Daniel Newhauser in Vice. We don't include contentious primary opinion pieces in low-quality sources from people who are not subject matter experts, especially when we have reliable secondary mainstream sources that cover the essential facts. Guy (help!) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly reasonable for an article dealing with a controversy to state what people, rightly or wrongly, said about that controversy. If something controversial becomes a matter of public debate, it is not only permissible, but necessary, to state what people said about it whether they happen to be experts or not. The controversy is not directly about conversion therapy, but rather concerns the rightness or wrongness of a bookseller selling a particular book - no one can really claim to be an "expert" about such an inherently contentious ethical issue. Your position is indefensible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, have you read WP:RS at all? Reliable, Independent, Secondary is the Wikipedia trifecta. Primary opinionated sources in opinionated publications fail at least two and usually all three arms (e.g. the Washington Times is generally considered a source to avoid).
    You keep making these statements of opinion-as-fact. My position is not "indefensible". It is absolutely defensible. You might not agree with it, but the idea that extremist non-expert opinions should not be quoted direct from controversial primary sources is hardly indefensible. Guy (help!) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is 100% reasonable to use these sources for statements about opinions that appeared in them, which is the only way they are being used. The opinions of the writers of those publications are being presented only as such, not as statements of objective fact. Your complaint that the writers are "non-experts" shows a misunderstanding of the issue. The controversy was over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one is an "expert" on that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, no it's not. Primary sourced opinions from non-experts are rarely considered appropriate unless there is evidence from secondary sources that they are considered significant. There is an old saying that opinions are like arse holes: everybody has one. Reliable, independent, secondary. Otherwise every single article could be overwhelmed by POV-pushers mining the internet for quotes they like. Guy (help!) 22:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely and utterly, even willfully, missing the point. The controversy is over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one can claim to be an "expert" on such a subject, making the "expert" status of the writers irrelevant. Your position is ludicrous. It would mean that Wikipedia would simply be unable to discuss an important public controversy, over an issue which no one can claim to be an expert about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, the facts give the lie to this. For example, you reverted content on the scientific status of conversion therapy three times within 24 hours, [2], [3], [4] despite unambiguous consensus on Talk that this was appropriate and necessary for NPOV, but left it in after I added one minor formatting change [5]. The RfC that produced consensus for inclusion was started, it appears, because you kept reverting Markworthen e.g. [6], [7], who was adding the scientific status of conversion therapy. Edit summaries such as "Restore previous; thank you, but I do not consider any of your changes improvements" are representative. While it is absolutely clear from these and your comment above that you don't consider anyone else's edits to be an improvement, it looks very much from the Talk page as if you are in a minority of one. The same applies to your cllaim of a "baseless assertion" about the image which you consider "entirely appropriate" - again, every other editor who has commented to date disagrees with you. Guy (help!) 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim about the image is factually false, as already noted ("Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate"). The RFC is ongoing. Despite what you claim, it has not produced consensus in favor of your specific edits. You should simply be patient and let the RFC and talk page discussion proceed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I have found the comment to which you refer. You are correct: Bilorv was not against inclusion. So that is 5:2 against. In particular, Muboshgu, an admin and a psychologist, and Markworthen, also a PhD psychologist, both support my "indefensible" interpretation of how the image is likely to be viewed and the inappropriateness of its inclusion. Maybe you'd like to change "indefensible" to a word that more accurately reflects the fact that my opinion is in the majority and supported by two subject matter experts? Guy (help!) 22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, there's an RfC? Where? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Wikipedia does not give any special status or authority to people who either are, or claim to be, credentialed experts. I am not moved by statements unsupported by evidence whether they come from credentialed experts or from the man in the street. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, are you "moved" by the content of Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality? He didn't believe homosexuality could be "changed". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason for me to answer pointless, vexatious, or presumptuous questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you won't be moved by statements unsupported by evidence, so I point out the evidence on Wiki and you have nothing to say? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will of course not answer irrelevant personal questions. You should not ask them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, "irrelevant"? This whole thing started because you're trying to tie Freud to conversion therapy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not answer irrelevant or inappropriate questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, good thing I haven't asked any of those. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, the RfC is about inclusion of the scientific status of conversion therapy, at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality
    What I hadn't realised is that when Freeknowledgecreator argues for the stable version, what he means is the version he himself wrote from whole cloth. This goes a long way to explaining the WP:OWN issue. Looking at the history, the first substantive edits by anyone else were by Markworthen in April, and were promptly reverted by Freeknowledgecreator, leading to that RfC.
    Freeknowledgecreator doesn't just have a dog in the fight, he is the dog. Guy (help!) 22:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring the point that I might actually have good reasons for reverting other people's edits. Markworthen is definitely editing the article in good faith and trying to be constructive. Unfortunately his very first edit to the article introduced a major factual error - as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I get the sense that you overrepresenting WP:FRINGE views well outside the scope of mainstream due weight. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That has never been my intention and you present no evidence that I have done any such thing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of Freud [8], as stated above, is an example of that, I would challenge. I'm sorry, but that comes across as tendentious editing. El_C 23:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All I did in that edit was restore an image caption that was, in fact, perfectly correct. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am of the opinion that it was a highly WP:UNDUE and borderline tendentious. El_C 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be undue and tendentious to restore a factually accurate statement? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly. El_C 23:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A factually accurate statement is a factually accurate statement. If you believe a factually accurate statement "distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly", the burden is on you to explain how. In my view, a factually accurate statement about what Nicolosi writes in his book is not a way of "invoking Freud's authority", and it is unclear to me what "authority" you believe Freud could have. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really just ask how the founder of psychoanalysis could be an authority? Anyway, the image of Freud with that caption serves to editorialize. Its usage as such is, at best, highly unusual. El_C 00:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All this discussion has come down to is you insinuating that the content I have added to the article is somehow biased and providing nothing of substance to back up your accusations. You cannot plausibly claim that a caption that you actually admit is a factually accurate statement is a form of editorializing. That is simply a baseless claim on your part. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not baseless. You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption. As an uninvolved admin, who may choose to invoke WP:ARBPS, that isn't an so much an insinuation as it is an evaluation. El_C 00:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption" is an assertion that you need to justify and provide evidence for. You have provided no justification and no evidence. I believe there is none you could provide (the image and the caption are not even in the article at this time). You are, it appears, proposing sanctioning me on the basis of claims you have made that you cannot support. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have substantiated my position amply, I challenge. If I were to propose sanctioning you, it would be more so because you appear to be seemingly oblivious to your borderline tendentious editing. Continuing to ask for "evidence" when I have addressed the matter already, does not do you credit, I also challenge. El_C 00:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have not substantiated your position. You have made a series of baseless or unsupported claims (such as that a factually accurate statement is biased editorializing), which you apparently want or expect me to accept automatically, in the absence of any evidence or any justification for them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are entitled to think that I failed to substantiate. I obviously disagree. But regardless of that impasse, I may still use my discretion as an uninvolved admin. El_C 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, the same issue with FKC has been addressed by multiple editors(including me) in Christchurch mosque shootings article i.e [9] by Netoholic. It sure tells you something that another editor from another article made the same complaint against this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, you're wasting your time to make an "I don't like you" comment. Find something better to do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SharabSalam, it's worth noting that the number of times when you and I agree on something is rather small, so this may indeed be significant. Guy (help!) 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue started when I removed a content from a section called "Background". The content was clearly original research. The sources were from 2014 and 2013 and they are all not related to the topic of the article, WP:OR To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. It included this In 2014 and 2015, local press reported an allegation that a congregation member had been radicalised at the mosque.[1][2][3]". This was in the background section of an incident of a shooting by a white superamist who killed 50 muslims in the mosques. However, I got reverted by this editor who said Undid revision 947758337 by SharabSalam (talk) seems both relevant and helpful for readers in terms of putting events in context. When I started a talk page discussion about this, I added a synthesis tag to the section but I got reverted by the editor FKC and everyone who tried to add that tag was reverted by the editor FKC. Another issue, in the same article, and after everyone agreed to change "Islam is practised by over 57,000 New Zealanders, around 1.2% of the population" to "Based on 2018 census information, over 57,000 New Zealand residents affiliated with Islam, around 1.00% of the total population." FKC reverted saying "Thank you, but it is unclear, vague, and ambiguous what "affiliated with Islam" is supposed to mean; it is much more helpful to readers to use language people can actually understand". The other editor just reverted FKC disruptive revert without an edit summary because it was clear that this editor is just reverting any edit in that section. FKC then reverted saying "No. That is not good enough. You cannot make unexplained reverts. That is rude and of no use to other editors. You must give a reason for your edits and you must discuss disputed edits on the talk page - stop being so rude". Although this has been discussed and agreed on in the talk page. Another editor comes and revert FKC [10] without any edit summary. And as I said above, he didnt let anyone put "orginial research" tag to that section [11]. There is no question that the content in that section was original research. Yet, FKC was always saying that there is no evidence. I dont know what "evidence" he wanted. The editor who should bring the evidence is the one who is claiming that the content is related. I saw this discussion in my watchlist and I was surprised that FKC is also making troubles in other articles. Also, this is not a "I dont like you" comment. I dont have any like or dislike feelings towards this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Wall, Tony; Ensor, Blair; Vance, Andrea (27 July 2014). "A Kiwi Lad's Death by Drone". Sunday Star-Times. Auckland. Retrieved 2 August 2019. [Daryl] Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch. Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place.
    2. ^ "Christchurch Mosque Linked to al-Qaida Suspect". Newshub. Auckland. 4 June 2014. His parents … say their son told them he was first taught radical Islam at the Al Noor mosque…. '[He was] no different than other people,' says mosque president Mohamed Jama. 'He was a normal man.'
    3. ^ Matthewson, Nicole (3 December 2015). "Fighting, Killing 'Not the Muslim Way'". The Press. Christchurch, NZ. Retrieved 20 March 2019. Jackson, of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies … said … 'Just because they were attending a mosque at the time, doesn't mean the mosque was connected.' … Morris, a specialist in world religions, said … 'It creates an opportunity for these issues to be raised and addressed.'
    • You may also notice that FKC usually says "no evidence", "what evidence do you have?" and "there is no evidence" when the fact is not disputable. For example, someone says this is original research because sources that are used are not related to the topic of the article, FKC would say "what evidence do you have" or "no evidence for what you are saying". Imagine if someone in the morning said "it's morning" and the other asked "what evidence do you have that it is the morning", what FKC does is the same.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Proposal

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

    Discussion

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

    The only thing I take from this is that you are angry that I have disagreed with you and some other editors and want to punish me. If you are trying to insinuate that I have a perspective in favor of conversion therapy you are mistaken. The truth is that I have no interest in promoting conversion therapy, and indeed, I have little interest in conversion therapy per se. I have not, for example, made that many edits at Conversion therapy, and certainly not edit warred with other editors there. So what justification could you possibly give for banning me from that article? This edit is a typical example of the edits I have made. Do you see a problem with it? What I have been interested in are articles about books related to the topic area, eg, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals and Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. In some cases, I am the only significant contributor to those articles (as with Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals) or at least the key contributor (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality). You have said exactly nothing to justify banning me from them. I am content to resolve whatever disagreements exist at those articles through discussion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I tried warning Freeknowledgecreator on their talk page about their inappropriate usage of images and captions in a manner that I have evaluated as borderline tendentious editing. Unfortunately, they have not responded with any sort of introspection about that. Which, I'm sorry to say, is not a promising sign. El_C 10:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You made some unsupported claims asserting that a caption that you actually admit is factually accurate was biased editorializing, something which you have never justified. The edit at Conversion therapy I linked to above gives the lie to JzG's implied accusation that I am on some crusade to promote conversion therapy. It is a baseless smear. He comments, "Conversion therapy is a contentious topic, where religiousn freedom advocates argue for the "right" to pursue treatments that professional psychologists reject as harmful and ineffective, leading to legislative bans on its promotion and the usual fights over whether the state has the right to ban harmful practices when they are pursued out of religious belief". Where is my advocacy of 'the "right" to pursue treatments that professional psychologists reject as harmful and ineffective'? It doesn't exist. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about that. I have yet to evaluate that which you allege as being a "smear." And "lie" is not the best term to use — rather, assume that maybe there has been an error rather than intentional deception. As well, you keep calling my evaluation unsupported. I argue that this conclusion is false. Moreover, you have received an explanation from multiple participants, including myself — input which you have failed to substantively and specifically address. The behaviour is coming across as increasingly tendentious even as we speak. Finally, you need to fairly represent the available reliable sources in a manner that reflects due weight. It is not your right to do otherwise — rather, it is your obligation to adhere to that principle. El_C 11:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "gives the lie to" is a common English expression. It means that it shows that something is false. It is not actually an accusation of lying and should not be taken for one. However, JzG's accusations about me are clearly false. He has implied that I have tried to promote conversion therapy and that I should thus be topic banned from the entire area. The history of the dedicated article on Conversion therapy shows that this is utterly false. I have A) never promoted conversion therapy and B) never done anything that a reasonable person would conclude justifies banning me there. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to edit the main conversion therapy article to be promoting conversion therapy on Wikipedia. That's not a prerequisite. Again, I'm only aware of the problem with the two image and caption sets. And the problem that you don't realize it being a problem. I have no further comment on the proposal at this time. El_C 11:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not promoting conversion therapy on Wikipedia. I have never done it anywhere in any form. People making completely false accusations against me is "problematic". The caption of the image of Freud at Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals states, "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Bieber and his colleagues discuss Freud's views". What exactly would the problem be with that bland and utterly uncontroversial statement? SlimVirgin saw no problem with the image and stated as much on the article's talk page. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True, that Bieber caption is less problematic than the Nicolosi one, but it still comes across as an inappropriate appeal to authority. I respect Sarah, but in this case I would disagree with her on this matter. You are taking too many liberties with images and captions if this is your modus operandi. El_C 11:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an utterly unremarkable, bland, and factually accurate statement. It is not "problematic" or an "appeal to authority". That is an entirely baseless claim. Stating that Freud is the "founder of psychoanalysis" is simply true, not a suggestion that his views or anyone else's views are correct. If SlimVirgin too now stands accused of promoting the views of Irving Bieber, then that is a strange development. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't put words in my mouth. You are responsible for your own edits. Maybe it's relatively benign, but along with the much, much worse Nicolosi caption, it perhaps begins to illustrate a pattern. That you fail to see this connection is not on me. El_C 11:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. It's just that if you accuse me of promoting the views of Irving Bieber, because I support the inclusion of an image of Freud in an article, then by that logic, SlimVirgin should stand accused of the same thing, since she supported the image too. Why the double standard? "Maybe it's relatively benign" is an empty, vague comment that nicely shows that you cannot clearly identify any real problem with the image. There isn't one. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still failing to see a connection between the two Freud image and captions sets. Again, that is not on me. El_C 12:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have again made a vague, evasive comment that contributes nothing to the discussion. Whatever else it is, the "maybe" part of your comment above is not the language of someone who has clearly identified an important issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, continue to ignore the connection. I am done with this comment thread. El_C 12:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, that's interesting, since I am not angry at all. When you say you disagree with me and "some other editors", that's somewhat disingenuous: you disagree with me and somewhere between most and all other editors depending on the specific question. That's the point. You give a very strong impression of weighting your own opinion somewhere between 10x and ∞x that of any other contributor. It's disappointing that at this late stage you're still misperceiving this as "make the nasty man go away" and mistaking broad statements about the contentiousness of the topic area (which are accurate, to the best of my ability) as attacks on your own personal view on it. I have no clue what your personal view on conversion therapy is, and I don't care: the problem is not your personal view but your reversion to your preferred version of the article, regardless of who edits it or what rationale they might give, based on comments and edit summaries that strongly imply that you have appointed yourself as arbiter of what goes in there. Guy (help!) 11:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagreeing with other editors is neither forbidden nor a reason for banning someone from a topic area in itself. It might become that only if an editor is unwilling to respect consensus. I am content to resolve disagreements through discussion, and try to establish consensus. You have over-reacted to some behavior at two articles by proposing banning me from the entire topic area of conversion therapy. This is despite the absence of anything like the behavior you see as a problem at the Conversion therapy article itself. Your proposal is not reasonable. Your (very recent) claim that you do not think I am pro-conversion therapy is inconsistent with, for example, your comments at Talk:Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. They imply that I have tried to promote Bieber's views by adding an image of Freud. That does amount to accusing me of taking a pro-conversion therapy stance, since Bieber supported conversion therapy. The accusation is baseless. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, dude, you might want to stop digging. I have repeatedly made the point that disagreeing with people is fine. The problem is when you assert that no other vierw is even defensible, and that is the problem here. Guy (help!) 11:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If I really thought "no other view is even defensible", I would not have A) compromised by removing the image of Freud from Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality and B) done all I can to try to discuss things with other editors there to establish consensus, even when this is difficult. I am the one who suggested the ongoing request for comment. I wouldn't have done so had I seen no merit in the views of other people. Again, why would you propose banning me from the entire topic area of conversion therapy due to disagreements at two articles, neither of which is Conversion therapy? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something? AFAICT, one of the articles that is of concern is one on a book about conversion therapy, so the whole article would clearly be covered by such a topic ban. The other is also on a book, with a slightly wider focus, but still deals significantly with conversion therapy. If you are causing problems in those articles, it seems likely that the subject area of concern is conversion therapy and the topic ban therefore makes sense. It's a bit like asking why someone is proposing a topic ban for the Global warming subject area when they were only causing problems in IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and Scientific consensus on climate change but never caused problems in the global warming article per se. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The disagreements at those two articles primarily relate to the inclusion or exclusion of images. If JzG or others consider my views about the inclusion or exclusion of images a problem, then why propose a topic ban on conversion therapy-related articles, rather than a topic ban on images? It is illogical. I would have every right to suggest that JzG is the one causing problems at those articles with his unreasonable positions, and propose banning him from them, except that unlike him, I don't propose banning people from articles when they disagree with me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WTF does that have to do with anything I said? Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned an accusation against me. It seems pertinent to respond that the accusation is false. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mentioned any accusation that you "promoted conversion therapy". Please read what I wrote more carefully. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "From what I can tell, the concerns surrounding your use of images relates to concerning you appear to be using them to promote conversion therapy." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongest apologies, you are right. I should never have said that. I tried to make my response as general as possible to avoid issues like this but forgot I had said that at the beginning. I also should have checked my comment more carefully before responding to avoid this confusion and my false accusation against you. Again I can't apologise enough for these mistakes. What I should have said is "appear to be using them in a manner which misleads readers about conversion therapy". What I was trying to convey, but failed to, is that the concerns over your editing related to whether they are sufficiently neutral in the subject area of conversion therapy. They don't relate to how you use images per se, but how you used images in this particular instance because they seem to indicate a problem with your editing in the subject area of conversion therapy. Therefore a topic ban on conversion therapy is logical, whether it's justified and whether it's too broad. A topic ban on images is not particularly logical because the reason for your editing problems seems to be because of how you edit in the subject area, rather than because of how you handle images. As I've now uncovered, it was a fool's errand anyway. Despite your misleading claim, this isn't just about images. Concerns have been raised about your editing in those articles beyond simply images. I should have looked more carefully from the get go rather than take you at your word this was just about images when it's quite clearly not. (Although I do stand by comment on the logics of topic bans if they was just about images.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the dispute was just about images. Obviously there are other disagreements as well (the disagreement was apparently only an image-related one at one of the articles). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) The more I look into it, the sillier your response is. According to the opening statement "reverting all attempts to improve the articles <removed> He's also fighting a one-man battle against all comers at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality". When I visit that talk page I see extensive comments by Freeknowledgecreator. Again, I make no judgment on whether the opening comment is accurate, and especially not whether Freeknowledgecreator is causing sufficient problems to merit a topic ban. But the idea that this is just about images and their captions seems false. The suggestion that a topic ban on images would be a better alternative is just completely silly. Again, I'm not sure if I can be bothered to look into this enough to support or oppose a topic ban, but my current view is a full hearted supported based nearly totally on the utter nonsense responses in this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal that I be banned from the topic area of conversion therapy misses the point that I am not even interested in the two articles where there have been disagreements primarily because they relate to conversion therapy, rather I am primarily interested in them because they are book-related articles. Try to avoid making overly long wall-of-text comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don'r really give a flying flip why you're interested in the article. If you are unable to edit acceptable in the set of articles for some reason, then that is a problem we may need to deal with. It doesn't matter why you got interested in those articles. Again, if someone is causing problems in he 5AR and scientific consensus articles, it doesn't matter if they're interested in those articles because of an interest in the concept of scientific consensus, if the problems they're causing indicate they cannot edit acceptably in the global warming subject area and so should be topic banned from it. Your response on wall-of-text comments is noted however fairly ironic considering this existing ANI which is full of such comments by you, and checking out that article talk page shows more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) continued from edit of my comment at 03:22 above. This obviously isn't enough to actually support the topic ban, hence why despite this view I make no judgement on the actual merits of a topic ban. But I can't emphasise strongly enough to Freeknowledgecreator that their responses here are basically the opposite of a boomerang. They're basically trying very, very hard to talk themselves into a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have caused no problems at Conversion therapy, or most other conversion therapy articles, it is completely unfair to suggest I should be banned from them. In the case of the two book-related articles under dispute, the problem has been caused by edit-warring between myself and JzG, and I obviously am not solely to blame; JzG's behavior has also been a problem. I understand that the way forward is through patient discussion and building of consensus. Again, the proposal of a topic ban is unfair. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my involvement in this discussion is at an end unless I can be bothered looking more into the dispute to figure out if there is sufficient justification for a topic ban. It's clear I'm not getting through to you. But let me repeat one final time, that if you continue to ignore the good faith concerns others have expressed with your editing, and especially whether you are able to edit acceptably in the subject area considering the way you have edited so far, and refuse to take onboard such concerns and improve your editing then don't be surprised if you're topic banned or worse, now or sometime in the future. Note that not being solely to blame doesn't mean your editing is acceptable, or that a topic ban is not justified. Also I never brought up edit-warring, because I didn't know it was a concern and frankly it doesn't seem that important in the grand scheme of things. The primary concern over your editing doesn't seem to be about edit-warring and the fact you think it is, is likely further indication of why your editing could be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has done anything to show that I cannot edit responsibly in conversion therapy articles per se. JzG obviously did think that edit warring was a major problem, despite the fact that he was edit warring himself and contributing to the problem, as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I made a total of two reverts in support of consensus on Talk. You made three, against that consensus, and have consistently reverted numerous other editors who have altered, and I cannot stress this enough, your monograph. You wrote virtually all the text in the article, you revert anyone who changes it, you then demand that others step back and not edit war as long as your version remains current. This is in the article history and on the talk page. In discussions there you're generally in a minority, usually of one, and yet you continue to try to enforce your version of the content. Can you see why several people above have suggested that is indeed a problem? Guy (help!) 09:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not interested in a long argument with you, but "you revert anyone who changes it" is factually false, and anyone who checks the revision history carefully can see that for themselves. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking out loud, and having read the background content, I'm wondering if a brandishing the ARBGG Discretionary Sanctions might restore some order and let others have their say rather than the consensus of Freeknolwedgecreator. Hasteur (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have encountered both Guy and FKC in the past. It is my observation that neither is particularly good at reflecting on relevant feedback and even backing off when they have made a mistake, and I believe that both would benefit from further skill development in this area. However, I find the characteristic much less problematic in Guy, where it appears to me to come from the amount of time he spends dealing with fringe material and editors whose additions are not intended as beneficial to the encyclopedia. That is not to say that FKC's intentions fall into that category, and for the record, I don't think that they do – I think FKC is genuinely here to contribute to an encyclopaedia... but that his self-confidence leads to blind spots and that, in those cases, this makes his contributions problematic. One example would be the responses to Nil Einne which read like FKC is determined not to engage with or admit to hearing what Nil Einne is saying. Sadly, FKC's inability to see the flaws in his own work is causing a problem on this article, and in the topic area in general.
    • This is the version of the article that FKC submitted for GA review. He was essentially the sole editor at this point, and evidently he sees it as being at or close to GA standards, and yet:
      • The first paragraph of the article states that the book is about conversion therapy as promoted by its author, which does not remove all (my emphasis) homosexual feelings. It adds the author's view that homosexuality is the result of a developmental disorder. It does not tell the reader that the entire notion of conversion therapy is pseudoscience and that the views being advocated are rejected by every major scientific and medical organisation and that these practices are viewed as unethical and (in some places) are illegal. It doesn't say that "does not remove all" means "little evidence that it has ever removed any" homosexual feelings – in other words, that this "therapy" (a) doesn't work and (b) is often harmful, are apparently also not relevant information for the lede of an article of a book about conversion therapy.
      • FKC will defend that the article is about the book and not about its author or the topic discussed by the book... but these are fundamental pieces of information that need to be presented to readers. FKC will also argue that the second paragraph covers this, however that paragraph says:
      • Nicolosi's reparative "therapy" departs from traditional technique and influenced the practice of conversion therapy, still without saying that conversion therapy doesn't work. This can be read as "Nicolosi's approach was revolutionary / ground-breaking / unconventional" rather than the truth, that it is based in religiously-inspired prejudice and a time of very substantially different social times... and I don't mean the time when it was written. Placing a book in the context in which it was written is important, but it was way outside the mainstream in the 1990s too.
      • Next, we are told that criticisms of the work are based on Nicolosi's scholarship rather than because the entire field is utterly discredited. We get that "some" described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific, which is not only weasel-wordy but also an odd way to describe the unanimous view of the scientific and medical mainstream. We then get that APA opposes reparative therapy, apparently not because it is harmful pseudoscintific bunk that an ethical psychologist would not advocate and that it is based on the totally rejected notion of homosexuality as a mental disorder, but rather because the APA has a position that is in conflict with the theory underlying this "therapy." In other words, when the lede finally gets to conversion therapy being a pseudoscience, it is written like there are differences of opinion and that reasonable people can disagree. The book was then removed from Amazon after a campaign by gay rights activists, without mentioning that the campaign was not about a "we don't like this" political campaign, it was because the book promotes harmful and unethical practices that have done a lot of damage to many people over the years - which is why laws have been passed making these "therapy" practices illegal. Also, shouldn't the facts be stated as facts: Conversion therapy is discredited and dangerous pseudoscience (followed by references from a bunch of major medical sources, etc) rather as Nicolosi says but the APA says otherwise?
      • If FKC can't see any of the flaws in the lede, then his judgement of what is and is not encyclopaedic is flawed.
      • FKC included a picture of Freud with a caption "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological." In fact, the entire summary is referenced only to Nicolosi. On the talk page, FKC defends this even when it is pointed out that Freud's own words show that he did not see homosexuality as pathological, stating in this section:
        Markworthen, I am sure you are acting in good faith, but the statement you removed ("Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological") is not "erroneous". It is clearly, demonstrably, and unambiguously true. Please consider that it is not a statement about Freud's views, but about what Nicolosi says Freud's views were. Nicolosi does indeed write that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological. You may argue that what Nicolosi writes is mistaken, if you want, but it is nonetheless true that this is what he writes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Is there any circumstance in which presenting a picture of XXX with a caption saying that YYY says XXX believes ZZZ, when in fact XXX believes the opposite of ZZZ, and not including anywhere that YYY's beliefs on XXX's views are mistaken or a misrepresentation, is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article? Instead, FKC argues that an article on Nicolosi's book is not the place to debate what Freud's views were on homosexuality, which is true in one sense but preposterous in the face of a quotation from Freud that is clear in its meaning.
      • Look at the mentions of pseudoscience in the rest of the article: We are told that Gwen Aviles from NBC News dismissed conversion therapy as "pseudoscientific". We are told that Brad Polumbo of the Washington Examiner describing Nicolosi's work as "harmful pseudoscience". That's it. Where is the medical and scientific consensus? Where are the high quality reliable secondary sources on the subject of both conversion therapy and specifically Nicolosi's work?
    • Even without looking at stonewalling on the talk page, behaviour in the two GA reviews, posts that totally miss the point of policies – arguing for the Freud image because GA criteria call for illustrations in the face of content guidelines (like representing facts accurately), for example &nadsh; and behaviour on other articles (like on Nicolosi's article), I see more than enough reasons to doubt FKC's about to edit about conversion therapy topics to believe removal would be appropriate for the sake of encyclopaedic content. EdChem (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdChem, you have every right to disagree with or criticize aspects of the article Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, as written by me in the past. I don't see what purpose it would serve to laboriously discuss these disagreements here, however. I could respond to all your points in your overly-long comment and present different views, but ANI is not the place for this. You may have a point that criticism of conversion therapy should be presented more strongly in the lead. I do not object to that, in principle. Discussion about this and related issues has been ongoing on the article's talk page, and I will be happy to respect a consensus that develops there. In response to your complaint about how the version of the lead you link to above presents the APA's view, there is not much I can say, except that the wording you criticize closely follows exactly what the APA does actually state in the source used in the article. The caption you complain about is entirely factually correct, as already noted. As for, "Where are the high quality reliable secondary sources on ... specifically Nicolosi's work...", my response is that I included what discussions specifically of Nicolosi's book that I could find. There are not that many of them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not going to wade through all of the above, nor even read what ever article it concerns. But in my experience, FKC is very prone to "ownership" of articles as well as insistent and incompetent judgments.

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

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

    Drassow

    I am raising concern about personal abuse directed at me by User:Drassow. On 5 May Drassow wrote the following on a user talk page: "Sounds like you're the different side of the same coin for atheism. You're acting like a manchild over Slugger being in favor of a synonymous term that makes sense contextually." [[22]]. They used the term "petty manchild" again against an administrator User:JzG [[23]]. I asked Drassow to explain or apologise but they blanker their talk page with the words "Still don't care dude" [[24]] Can someone advise on how I proceed please? Thank you in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I really dislike writing anything here as rule... but OK, I'll just float something from the teachers (and parents) playbook.
    Scenario 1
    • Child performs attention-seeking behaviour
    • Teacher reacts to attention-seeking behaviour
    • Child thinks "this is working", and continues attention-seeking behaviour
    Scenario 2
    • Child performs attention-seeking behaviour
    • Teacher pointedly ignores attention-seeking behaviour
    • Child thinks "this is not working", and discontinues attention-seeking behaviour
    Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a warning may be in order about WP:PA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Exceptions are valid when at the editor's talk page or at an administrator noticeboard to discuss behavior. —PaleoNeonate – 13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree in principle but not in practice. The user in question has been previously adequately warned. With this kind of behaviour, in my opinion, any response at all would be a reward for attention-seeking behaviour. Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It's indeed not a very welcoming statement... —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaleoNeonate:, you seem like a knowledgeable type of person. Do we allow userboxes featuring terrorists?--AdamF in MO (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you already pointed at WP:UBX on their talk page. @Drassow: Would you care to explain the intention, especially while under scrutiny at ANI? —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's vague and arbitrary logic used to remove my satarization of a clearly ego-driven meta of the userboxes. Shall I delete anybody's userboxes that I find divisive or abrasive? Any cabal referencing userboxes are divisive by definition, hypocrite. Drassow (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

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

    Mindful that he's literally above just abused another administrator as a "hypocrite" for asking a perfectly civil question, then I would support this proposal. I don't appreciate being called a "manchild" - I am an adult thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread is to far up the page to get any traction at this point, probably. —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people would be reluctant to support an outright ban this quickly, but a final warning at minimum is deserved for that comment above. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He will certainly just ignore it and blank it off the page. That’s if there’s an admin with enough bandwidth to pay attention to it. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    You can probably just ask for longer protection. Perhaps a partial range block would also work but I imagine RFPP could deal with that if they feel it's a better solution. It's good that you're seeking help rather than continuing to just revert. The only real fault I see with your editing is that especially since (I believe) the trailing zeroes do nothing other than slightly increase the page clutter, it would have been better to stop reverting the IP when this first started and wait for them to join the discussion. Once all they did was remove your talk page comments, it became clear that was fruitless so simply reverting them and asking for protection if they tried again was reasonable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a month of protection to the article.--v/r - TP 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a question: Why do we have stupid trivia lists like List of prime ministers of Australia by age? Can someone falsify the thesis that 95% of lists could be deleted without anyone caring beyond those who create and tinker with them? EEng 23:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It has a surprising 2200+ pageviews over the last month, so apparently it's of some interest. To whom, I can't imagine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe people visit it just to see whether such an idiotic thing actually exists. Kind of like a road accident where you just can't help looking. EEng 05:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As an almanac peruser, I can see how it would spark interest. But isn't calling the edit war "lame" redundant? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Justice007 socking with IP and poisoning the well

    User:Justice007 aka Ehsan Sehgal is currently attempting to rescue the article about himself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (4th nomination) by evading scrutiny with his IP address and alleging editors including me of engaging in WP:MEAT.[25] He has been canvassing as well.[26] While the SPI had been already opened nearly 2 weeks ago,[27] it seems that nothing is happening there. Orientls (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we cna just ignore the edits on the AFD for now. It's going to be deleted and I'll watchlist the page and salt it afterwards.--v/r - TP 17:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: Don't you think his main account Justice007 should be indeffed too? He has been warned about socking before as well.[28] Orientls (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, page was deleted. I wonder if user names containing "justice" don't telegraph an need to right perceived wrongs on Wikipedia. I wonder if someone is offering a class somewhere on getting one's way on Wikipedia by bullying and casting aspersions and accusing others of doing what one his doing. It seems to happen. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think user has edited constructively? Perhaps a firm warning and a TBAN on Ehsan Sehgal? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorrect etymologies

    User:Gderrin is a prolific writer of plant articles. Part of his writing is providing botanical etymologies, that consist most of the time of words/word parts of Latin and Greek origin. Gderrin has admitted, despite his keen interest in providing botanical etymologies, that his knowledge of Latin and Greek is limited. Over the last two years, I have corrected hundreds of edits in which Gderrin, misread, misinterpreted or misquoted his sources, as he seemed to have confused several linguistic entities in Latin and Greek (cases, adjectives, nouns, compounds, verbs, participles).
    Currently, Gderrin seems to push another etymology on Balanophora, that is already his fourth attempt for Balanophora, that differs from his earlier three attempts. His first three attempts were some form of Original Research, as none of his sources ((Wiktionary for the first two attempts, Brown's Composition of scientific words for his third attempt) mentioned the full compound Balanophora and he merely selected on face value, possible words in which Balanophora could be analysed (see for an overview here). There are still tens or maybe more than a hundred plant articles left on Wikipedia, that are the result of Gderrin analysing a compound, without providing a source that explains the full name.
    Gderrin has requested earlier for an administrator to intervene (see here) and accused me of unwarranted deletion of certain etymological sources, while at the end of his request, it became clear that the diffs as provided by Gderrin showed that he might have misread his sources (administrator Someguy1221: "I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited. When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value. I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading, which also saves me the time of having to find and evaluate a source myself.")
    Although I might sound harsh in our latest dispute on the etymology of Balanophora, I sincerly do think it is necessary that Gderrin accepts that it is no longer in the interest of Wikipedia that he continues to add etymologies that in several cases can be considered as unreliable. Any help would be appreciated. With kind regards, Wimpus (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gderrin: Do you really think Wimpus is bluffing with all that jargon at Talk:Balanophora? What makes you think Wimpus is wrong? Sure, edit warring is bad and people should be nice, but the real issue concerns putting false information into the encyclopedia backed by possibly incorrect sources. One of you is doing that and it must stop. Can you show an example of Wimpus adding incorrect information to an article or posting incorrect information on a talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Johnuniq:. Thanks for your help. "Can you show......?" No, I can't, because Wimpus doesn't add information to articles, only reverts what others have added. Here and in other articles, Wimpus removes reliable references without discussion. The reference I added is a book written by Maarten J. M. Christenhusz, Michael Francis Fay and Mark Wayne Chase and published by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.[1] In my opinion, it should not have been reverted, whether or not another editor considers it to be incorrect, without discussion first. Incidentally, I replaced my earlier reference to Wiktionary (on 30 March 2017) with a reference to a book by Roland W. Brown. Wimpus also reverted that without discussion, leaving the article without an etymology. It would be great if Wimpus were to add etymologies to articles that don't have them, rather than only reverting articles that do. Gderrin (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gderrin:, your statement: "No, I can't, because Wimpus doesn't add information to articles, only reverts what others have added." seems to be at odds with the edits I have made the last few days:
    1. [29] Adding the etymology as provided by the describing author.
    2. [30] Replaced incorrect etymology of Balanophora by using different source.
    3. [31] Replaced etymology that does not mention any words, by etymology that mentions the Greek origins.
    4. [32] Reinstated the source I had previously added that mentioned the Greek and Latin origins, instead of Gderrin's etymology that fails to mention the Greek origin.
    5. [33] Reinstated the original etymology/referevce of the describing authors, that was removed by Gderrin (reverted earlier by Gderrin without any discussion).
    @Gderrin, could you try to answer the question of Johnuniq ("Can you show an example of Wimpus adding incorrect information to an article or posting incorrect information on a talk page?") again? Wimpus (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gderrin:, could you still answer @Johnuniq:'s question? I have mentioned in my request to intervene that "I have corrected hundreds of edits in which Gderrin, misread, misinterpreted or misquoted his sources, as he seemed to have confused several linguistic entities in Latin and Greek (cases, adjectives, nouns, compounds, verbs, participles).", but you have not responded yet to this accusation (or provided any counterevidence). So, do you agree with my assessment, or do you think you have made far less mistakes? And would the number of mistakes you have made be considered as a threat to the reliability of Wikipedia?

    I have already answered Johnuniq's question. No, I have not misread, misinterpreted or misquoted anything, and if the implication is that I am dishonest, no, I am not. I have made more than 30,000 edits to Wikipedia and created more than 2,000 articles to Start Class or better. Only one editor has reverted any of those 30,000 edits. That same editor repeatedly removes references without any prior discussion, and not only to pages I have edited, often with condescending edit summaries like "Please do not add incorrect etymologies" or "Please read your source carefully before adding information". That same editor is not prepared to compromise or to try to reach consensus and as far as I can tell, has never added an etymology to any one of tens of thousands of potential plant, animal or fossil articles that lack them, seemingly only taking pleasure in telling other editors, sometimes also distinguished botanists and Latin scholars that they are wrong. Gderrin (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "No, I have not misread, misinterpreted or misquoted anything, and if the implication is that I am dishonest, no, I am not. " Okay, now I do consider you as dishonest and it can clearly be demonstrated that you are again not telling the truth. Remember in the previous "reguest to in intervene", the administrator told you: "When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value." And again, you seem to be regress to "not telling the truth" again. So, for example, your translation "canaliculata" (adjective) with "small channel" was not an example of misreading/misquoting Brown? Wimpus (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gderrin: as it seems that you flat out deny that something went wrong with your etymological edits ("No, I have not misread, misinterpreted or misquoted anything), it is imperative to show that this is clearly a false statement. I would like to ask the administrators to take this into account. Giving his repeated denial, I would not expect that he would seriously reconsider changing his (etymological edit) behavior.

    A ton of examples

    1. [34]

    • λεκάνης means "of a dish", not "dish" (confusion of nominative and genitive case)
    • λεκάνης = lekánēs not lekánē (incorrect rendering of Greek)
    • source does not mention full compound

    2. [35]

    • source does not write phitros but phitra.

    3. [36]

    • corona (=noun) is translated as "crown" by Brown, coronata is not translated as "crown" (=adjective) by this source.

    4. [37]

    • caro (=noun) is translated by Brown with "flesh", not carnea (= adjective)

    5. [38]

    • kamptos is not translated with "to bend" by Brown.
    • full compound can not be found in Brown

    6. [39]

    • globula is not mentioned by Brown.

    7. [40]

    • full compound not mentioned by its source (Brown)

    8. [41]

    • indicating that lepidota is Greek (while that feminine form would be written as lepidōtē (λεπιδωτή). Incorrect inference of information of source.

    9. [42]

    • source does not indicate that the adjective orbicularis is the diminutive of the noun orbis.

    10. [43]

    • source does not indicate that the adjective campanulata is the diminutive of the noun campana.

    11. [44]

    • source does not mention word caudiculum.

    12. [45]

    • misidentifying word-part as diminutive
    • full compound is missing in the source

    13. [46]

    • source does not mention arborella

    14. [47]

    • source does not mention that adjective capitellata is the diminutive of the noun capitulum

    15. [48]

    • source does not mention mimulum.

    16. [49]

    • source does mention full compound
    • own translation of compound is incorrect

    17. [50]

    • source does not indicate that adjective foliolosa is a diminutive of noun folium
    • own translation would relate to a noun, not to an adjective.

    18. [51]

    • source does not indicate that adjective crenulata is the diminutive of the noun crena.

    19. [52]

    • provides genitive case, but gives translation for nominative case

    20. [53]

    • source does not mention specific orthography smaragdyna.
    • smaragdyna is not Greek (and is also not suggested by the source) as the Greek feminine ends on -ē (σμαράγδινη)

    21. [54]

    • source does not mention ágrostos.
    • full compound can not be found in source

    22. [55]

    • source does not indicate that perfect participle globatus is an infinitive
    • full compound can not be found in source

    23. [56]

    • incorrect translation incompatible with information from source

    24. [57]

    • source does not translate sepalum with plural sepals (but with singular sepal)
    • compound can not be found in source.

    25. [58]

    • source does mention full compound
    • own etymological analysis seems unlikely (and contradicts other source, that mentions full compound)

    26. [59]

    • source gives circum for "around", not "circus"

    27. [60]

    • gives genitive case pugionis, but provides translation for nominative case pugio.
    • identifies something as a suffix, while the source seems to indicate that it is just a noun

    28. [61]

    • source give other translation ("neighbouring" instead of "neighbour")

    29. [62]

    • gives genitive case pholidos, but provides translation for nominative case pholis.
    • full compound is not mentioned by the source.

    30. [63]

    • full compound is not mentioned by the source
    • clavia is translated as club-bearing while that is the translation the source uses for claviger.
    • clavia can not be found in the source

    31. [64]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • antenni is not mentioned by source (antenna is the form mentioned)
    • source writes -fera and not fera.

    32. [65]

    • etymological explanation refers to Diosma, while that is not mentioned by the source.

    33. [66]

    • identifies dienema as Greek form, while Greek feminine ends on -os (διήνεμος)

    34. [67]

    • translation of gamos as gamete can not be found in the source

    35. [68]

    • identifies a word-forming element as "compound"

    36. [69]

    • confuses feminine singular montana with neuter plural montana, with providing a translation based on the latter (that is incompatible with the epithet of the plant)

    37. [70]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • translation of granum as granite is not provided by source.

    38. [71]

    • source does not indicate that perfect participle stricta is an infinitive

    39. [72]

    • source writes kalos, not kalo

    40. [73]

    • translation applies to nominative and not genitive case.

    41. [74]

    • confuses nominative and genitive case.

    42. [75]

    • compound not mentioned by source.
    • suggest that compound would derive from unlikely flora [=goddess of flowers] instead of more likely flos [=flower]
    • suggest that florum is the plural of flora

    43. [76]

    • suggests that densiflora derives from Latin medius
    • full compound is not explained by the source

    44. [77]

    • compound can not be found in source
    • suggest that compound is derived from flora, that is actually mentioned by the source as the "goddess of flowers".

    45. [78]

    • compound can not be found in source
    • suggest that compound is derived from flora, that is actually mentioned by the source as the goddess of flowers.
    • translate flora as "flowers" instead of "goddess of flowers" as mentioned by the source.

    46.[79]

    • full compound is not explained in compound
    • translation for mutator (=changer) of the source is misapplied to other word mutatus

    47.[80]

    • translation of puber in source is misapplied to puberula

    48. [81]

    • word despectans is not mentioned in source
    • participle despectus is translated as ínfinitive

    49. [82]

    • full compound can not be found in source (while wording in Wiki-article suggests otherwise)

    50. [83]

    • full compound is not explained by source.
    • ouris can not be found in source

    51. [84]

    • flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower)
    • full compound not in source

    52. [85]

    • other translation than in source

    53. [86]

    • mentioning of "bi" as part of "pinnatifida" (that is actually impossible)
    • compound not explained by source

    54. [87]

    • γλυφή (gluphḗ)' can not be found in source
    • it seems that Wiktionary as source was replaced by Brown as source, without changing the actual content, leading to a mismatch between text and source
    • full compound not mentioned by source

    55. [88]

    • flora (goddess of flowers) instead of flos
    • full compound not in source

    56. [89]

    • source indicates that the words are Greek, not Latin
    • full compound is not explained by source

    57. [90]

    • calycina can not be found in source
    • translation of calyx is misaplied to calycina in Wiki-text

    58. [91]

    • confuses nominative and genitive case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    59. [92]

    • iphthima is not Greek (ἴφθιμη). Incorrect inference from source

    60. [93]

    • sphacelatum is not mentioned by Brown as Greek word

    61. [94]

    • confuses genitive with nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    62. [95]

    • misapplied translation as given for Brown for podion to pedion
    • full compound is not explained by source

    63. [96]

    • confuses nominative and genitive case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    64. [97]

    • confuses nominative singular with genitive plural
    • full compound is not explained by source

    65. [98]

    • confuses (considering translation) philos with philia
    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    66. [99]

    • Brown write holos, not holo
    • full compound is not explained by source

    67. [100]

    • Brown writes mesos, not meso
    • full compound is not explained by source

    68. [101]

    • pterus is not mentioned by Brown
    • full compound is not explained by source

    69. [102]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    70. [103]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • labels Latin word triplex as Greek (not supported by source)

    71. [104]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • Brown writes ochros, not ochro.
    • Brown writes pteron, not ptero

    72. [105]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • misapplied Brown's translation of philia to phileo.

    73. [106]

    • Brown uses melas as nominative, not melanos.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    74. [107]

    • flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower)
    • full compound not explained in source

    75. [108]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    76. [109]

    • confuses for two nouns the genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    77. [110]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    78. [111]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    79. [112]

    • Brown writes aden not adeno
    • Brown writes lasios not lasius
    • full compound is not explained by source

    80. [113]

    • Brown writes rutilus, not rutilis.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    81. [114]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case

    82. [115]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    83. [116]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    84. [117]

    • Brown writes phyllon, not phyllum (on specific page)
    • full compound is not explained by source

    85. [118]

    • Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    86. [119]

    • Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    87. [120]

    • Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    88. [121]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    89. [122]

    • Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia.
    • Brown translates ovalis with "egg-shaped", not with "egg"
    • full compound is not explained by source

    90. [123]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    91.[124]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    92. [125]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    93. [126]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    94. [127]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    95. [128]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    96. [129]

    • Brown writes niger, not nigro.
    • Brown translates montanus as "of mountains" not "mountain"
    • full compound is not explained by source

    97. [130]

    • Brown writes forma instead of forme
    • full compound is not explained by source

    98. [131]

    • confuses florum (= of flowers) with flos (=flower)
    • full compound is not explained by source

    99. [132]

    • Brown writes cauda, not caudum

    100. [133]

    • translates montis (= of a mountain) with "mountains". Inconsistent with source.

    Wimpus (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC) added another fifty examples Wimpus (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am actually surprised how indiffent some editors (like @Peter coxhead:), but also other editors) appear to be and seem to turn a blind-eye to the etymological mess created by @Gderrin:. The evidence is quite clear (and I have added another fifty examples) and this is not merely a content dispute that can be solved by discussing the specific edit on the talk page. Gderrin has repeatedly misread, misinterpreted and misquoted his sources an he is willing to make false statements to cover up his mistakes. Echoing adminstrator Someguy1221's remarks ("I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading,"), I can not assume that Gderrin's etymological edits can stil be trusted. Each single edit has to be checked. As I do no possess each single source that Gderrin is using in his etymological edits, I am unable to check a large number of edits. And trying to find out from Gderrin what is actually in thoses sources, is a frustated endeavor. Giving Gderrin a topic ban for "etymology" would considerably protect Wikipedia and would prevent that false etymologies (that do not correspond to the cited sources) are being spread. Wimpus (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnuniq, in case you need more diffs, I am more than willing to provide those. Wimpus (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wimpus: Your 00:56, 19 May 2020 diff at Balanophora changed the "name is derived..." from:
    the Ancient Greek words balanos meaning "acorn" or "glans" and phoros meaning "to bear"
    to:
    the ancient Greek words balanos (βάλανος), meaning "acorn" and pherein (φέρειν), meaning "to carry"
    Your point 4 at Talk:Balanophora explains your position. However, not many editors would see a substantive difference between the above two explanations as "to bear" and "to carry" seem equivalent. Is the main point phoros vs. pherein? I understand you are saying the underlying issue is a systematic problem, but is this example worth a dispute? Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Johnuniq), not this specific example, but it shows that:
    1. it is part of a pattern that Gderrin adds over and over again different etymologies in the same Wiki-article, without being aware that these etymologies differ, while he considers each single etymological edit he has made as "correct"/"reliable".
    2. difficulties arise when someone is being unable to compare different sources, as he is unfamiliar with the specific linguistic content. I am unable to discuss with Gderrin theses linguistic issues, and Gderrin only resorts to statements that his sources are reliable (even the blog he added yesterday (that included a non-word in its etymological analysis), while initially denying that he used a blog).
    3. it can be detrimental to Wikipedia, when someone "invents" an etymology by comparing the full name to a list of single Latin and Greek words without actually knowing what he is doing. Gderrin didn't respond previously to administrator Someguy1221's question: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon".
    So, I am actually concerned that Gderrin will continue to add incorrect etymological information to Wikipedia, without even noticing. So, I kindly ask an administrator to intervene.Wimpus (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, in the context of an article about a plant, rather than an article on etymology or linguistics, referring to the Latinized component -phorus, which can easily be sourced, e.g. from Stearn, W.T. (2004), Botanical Latin (4th (p/b) ed.), Portland, Oregon: Timber Press, p. 466, is sensible.
    I have engaged in discussions with Wimpus before, sometimes at length. He seems to be unable either to understand or else to accept why his edits are a problem. He clearly could improve etymologies, and I agree that they often need improving, because modern biologists lack the knowledge of classical languages that would have been common in the past. However, he appears to prefer to remove them, even when they are sourced, if the source does not meet his exacting requirements, which as far as I can tell, include requiring them to
    1. give the exact form of the source word or words in the original language
    2. explain the full compound.
    On (1), I do not believe that readers of articles about plants need the original Greek or Latin. I like to see it, but it should not be a requirement.
    On (2), Stearn's Botanical Latin, the "bible" for the scientific names of plants, has an extensive glossary providing meanings for components of names. There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name.
    In summary, I agree that the originally added etymology for Balanophora could be improved, but cannot agree with the way that Wimpus acted. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter coxhead:, considering your remark: "There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name." Gderrin has used this approach in his first three attempts in the aforementioned example of Balanophora, but presents three different etymologies that differ on orthography (balanus versus balanos; phora versus phoras [=d-stem]), language (phora as Latin or phora as Greek) and meaning (phora as "bearing" or as "crop"). Do you think that using this approach will lead to consistent results, irrespective of someone's knowledge about Latin or Greek? As I have tried to show with this example: I have serious doubts. Wimpus (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wimpus: the key issue seems to me to relate to the old "verification not truth" slogan. (See the essay WP:VNT.) Our task is to present verified information.
    • If Gderrin or anyone else has misrepresented the source, then correct that misrepresentation – this is unarguably correct.
    • If the source gives an incorrect meaning according to other more reliable sources, then add to the text accordingly. Respect WP:NPOV; it's what the sources say that matters, not what we think, so if multiple meanings are widespread in sources, all need to be reported.
    • Removing an explanation of meaning altogether because the only available source(s) are not completely precise (e.g. saying that -phorus is Greek rather than Greek-derived) does not help our readers. Our mission is to report what reliable sources say. Sometimes this might mean putting up with imprecision, but by careful omission you can usually manage to present correct and fully sourced information.
    Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter coxhead:, thanks for the answer, but my real question was: "Do you think that using this approach will lead to consistent results, irrespective of someone's knowledge about Latin or Greek?" Wimpus (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wimpus: Peter coxhead answered your question rather well, actually. Perhaps you misunderstand it? Or is it because he didn't jump on your bandwagon of dumping on Gderrin that you won't accept it? Or did you miss it because it wasn't the "yes/no" you were expecting? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to regardless of their knowledge level. It has policies and protocols in place to ensure consistent results and reliable information is the end result. Peter's answer nicely summarizes the key policies/protocols. TelosCricket (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TelosCricket:, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to regardless of their knowledge level.". The procedure Peter coxhead suggest, requires a higher level of competence of the editor, than is required when you are merely quoting verbatim a source. In the example of Balanophora, you have to understand that it is 1. a compound, 2. that the compound consists of two parts, 3. that the compound would probably consists of Greek words. As, Gderrin didn't used a source, trying to explain the full compound is probably dependent on some pre-existing knowledge. In case you would ask me to give an etymological explanation of the Persian خوارزمشاهیان‎, I do not know where to start. Is this a compound, it is a verb, an adjective? I might try to find a Persian dictionary, but the Persian language might contain all kind of linguistic categories and rules, I might be unfamiliar with. I will actually be prone to make mistakes. In case I would not find this Persian word in a Persian dictionary, it would become a hazardous task to find the single elements of which this Persian word consists. My request related to WP:COMPETENCE: "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." I have tried to explain that Gderrin editing in etymolgical sections creates significant errors and therefore it is necessary for an administrator to intervene. Wimpus (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree. First, errors are a content matter, not an administrative matter. Second, Gderrin is not the problem here. You and your approach is. Over and over, when you point out an error, Gderrin does indeed try to correct it. But you demand perfection and wage a war of arbitration until your preferred version is the one that remains. Peter Coxhead's answer was a way to work within the policies and protocols of Wikipedia to correct errors. Stop assuming bad faith on Gderrin's part. Stop questioning their competence. They are clearly very competent, and in most of the cases where you have gone after them, the corrections are minute and subtle. Most readers wouldn't even understand the difference. You may be an expert in Ancient Latin and Greek, but that doesn't mean you exclusively get to edit etymolgical sections or decide who else gets to. Stop trying to correct Gderrin or get them to stop editing in your sandbox and start helping them make the encyclopedia better.TelosCricket (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only encountered Wimpus and Gderrin in the last couple days but wanted to chime in here. I've been going over their edit histories in the days since I first encountered them both and I don't think I'd characterize this dispute as a content dispute (as you, @TelosCricket: did in your comment below). The primary source of conflict seems to be Wimpus's fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules, guidelines, and mission, as well as their unconventional and strongly held opinion on exactly what an etymology section in an article should be.
    Wimpus frequently deletes entire sourced etymology paragraphs, which might include 4 or 5 derived words, with edit descriptions like "OR etymology" or "xxx is not a Latin word" when the only problem with the copy in question is something as small as one word using the wrong case (eg. Greek genitive 'lago' vs. nominative 'lagos'). In some cases it's not even that there is anything wrong with the copy, instead Wimpus seems to take issue with listing any form of a word because they cannot find the precise case intended by the original author listed explicitly in the source cited. When I reverted some of these unnecessary deletions Wimpus's first response was to engage in an edit war, which seems to be a pattern of theirs. In the cases when I have gotten Wimpus to talk about their issues with an entry they have been relatively civil and clearly knowledgeable; they seem, however, to lack (and be unwilling to gain) a basic understanding of what information belongs in a Wikipedia article, what the point of a word's etymology section is, or what to do when a dispute arrises. One alarming practice I've noticed by Wimpus is their seeming unwillingness to discuss issues with an etymology on the Talk page of the word in question. Instead they seem to keep any discussions on the talk pages of individual editors. While this may be a good faith misunderstanding of how talk pages should be used, in practice it makes it much more difficult for other editors to be aware of disputes and help form a consensus.
    Wimpus's unwillingness to expand their understanding of what information is valuable to the readers of Wikipedia; their propensity for flaunting Wikipedia's standards for conduct; and their quickness to delete copy from an article that could easily be improved, and contains useful information as is, does not (in my eyes at least) describe a content dispute, it describes a disruptive editor whose actions reduce the information available to Wikipedia's readers and make it more difficult for other editors to improve articles. I have no specific course of action to recommend but wanted to provide an additional voice to the conversation. Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skoulikomirmigotripa: You can not correct an error made by a source, by simply writing something else, that can not found in the specific source, without providing any additional source. In case that would be your standard pratice, you should immediately revert such dubious edits. I can easily correct all kind of etymological mistakes as can be found in etymological sections, but that would create a non-correspondence between the text in the Wiki-article and the text as can be found in the original source. Wimpus (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skoulikomirmigotripa:Ah, well, hope blooms eternal, or something like that. I made the comment below because I had honestly hoped that it could be settled as a content dispute without either editor being sanctioned (e.g., a boomerang). Both are valuable to the project in their own way. But, you are right, there is a conduct problem. TelosCricket (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TelosCricket: Sorry friend, I hate making things complicated and I completely agree with you that both are valuable, or at least could be. I wouldn't have spoken up except that what's going on seems like a chronic issue and seems so damaging to articles in a section of wikipedia that already gets notoriously too little love. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This should probably be closed as non-actionable. It is mostly a content dispute, albeit a large one drawn out over many articles. Gderrin and Wimpus are both very knowledgeable editors who disagree. Wimpus is prone to edit warring, but otherwise there isn't a conduct issue at hand here. TelosCricket (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Change my mind. TelosCricket (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Christenhusz, Maarten J.M.; Fay, Michael F.; Chase, Mark W. (2017). Plants of the World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Vascular Plants. Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. p. 425. ISBN 9781842466346.

    Eurocentric view in Wikipedia

    Reverts

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

    Read the second paragraph of the lede of that article Proto-Indo-European homeland, where it says: "A notable third possibility, which has gained renewed attraction due to recent aDNA research, is the Armenian hypothesis which situates the homeland for archaic PIE south of the Caucasus." I do not see how this could be construed as "Eurocentric"? Also, this sounds like a long running content dispute at that article, that you should be addressing via the article talkpage, not here. Heiro 04:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Worse; it's also a conduct-issue, with prolonged WP:DISRUPTIVE pov-pushing by this editor. See:
    See also User talk:MojtabaShahmiri for the repetitive warnings they've been issued. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heironymous Rowe: You yourself say south of the Caucasus, not just south, as you read here: Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth, the Caucasus is a border between Europe and Asia, for those who believe Europe is the center of the world, a land in the south of Caucasus is just in the south, I have corrected it three times but @Joshua Jonathan: says it is "pov-pushing". --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this seems to be connected to your attempts to push your own WP:FRINGE research and POV interpretations (see Talk:Gutian language#Germanic Theory) and the many warnings on your talkpage over this matter, I'd be wary of WP:BOOMERANGS if I were you. Heiro 06:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heironymous Rowe: What I said about Gutians here?! Do you mean I can't edit in Wikipedia, just because as a historian I have researched about ancient Gutians in my country?! We are talking about Proto-Indo-Europeans who lived thousands years before Gutians, many great scholars believe Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the south of Caucasus, so it should be mentioned. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, I forgot the rest:
    Time for a topic-ban. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joshua Jonathan: You can ban me and others in Wikimedia but you can't ban science, about ancient Gutian language, I don't work on a theory but a project of scientific decipherment, I am an academic historian and an artificial intelligence engineer with over twenty years of experience. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Proposal for topic-ban

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

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

    • This looks like the age-old problem of an academic expert with an idiosyncratic view, who is unable to understand why we won't help him make it mainstream. Sadly, topic bans are indeed the usual result in such cases. Guy (help!) 09:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support He’s fringe, he’s not just idiosyncratic, and I don’t think having an MA counts as being an academic even necessarily. If you look at any of the stuff he’s tried to add it’s clear he has no idea what he’s talking about. Honestly, this guy is wp:NOTHERE and should probably be banned from editing entirely.—-Ermenrich (talk)
    • Support, due to their seeming determination to push their pov (including a tendency to use WP:OR for the purpose) against discussion/consensus, with a refusal or inability to WP:LISTEN or understand what is (sometimes repeatedly) explained to them, and a seemingly quite weak grasp of the topic and topics related). I agree that they seem to be WP:NOTHERE, and there may also be a competence (WP:COMPETENCE) issue. Skllagyook (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: While it can be nice to have people involved in a given academic field contributing to a given subject area, user seems to misunderstand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a way to push and promote their own views and "research". Which in this case is, as mentioned above, beyond idiosyncratic and squarely in WP:FRINGE territory. Their original report here claiming a "Eurocentric view in Wikipedia" seems to be more an argument with how it is described in the literature by academics and not with Wikipedia. A dead horse they seem to have been thumping on for months now over several article talk pages.Heiro 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I myself don't allow that my works are published in English Wikipedia (There are several pages about my works in Persian language version of Wikipedia). MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I myself don't allow that my works are published in English Wikipedia" - Do I understand you correctly? You are a published author and you don't want any of you works used as a reference on the English language Wikipedia? That is not how Wikipedia works. All sources that meet WP:RS are usable on any language Wikipedia. Authors do not get any say in where they are used. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell he's a wp:self-published author on academia.edu, so he should not be cited by Wikipedia. He claims to have published an article in an Iranian magazine, but a magazine is clearly not an RS for the claims he's making and I'm not even sure it's true.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you support? It is not my theory, please at least the article: Proto-Indo-European_homeland, it itself says "Some recent DNA-research has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian or Iranian homeland for archaic or 'proto-proto-Indo-European', the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and early proto-IE." I have just talked about "Mycenaean Greece" and "Proto-Germanic language" in the talk page and I never edit anything in the main page. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is really funny, I have myself complained and then you blame me for what I have never done, I just said "Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis" is wrong, why do you support it blindly? Southern of where?? Why there should be an obscure hypothesis? --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This has been going on to long. We can't allow our articles to be vehicles for other editors' fringe ideas, and the WP:IDHT problem doesn't look as though it is going to go away looking at the above. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself know that the Caucasian/Iranian homeland of the proto-Indo-Europeans has been proposed by some great scholars, like David Reich, not me. You can ban me but other ones will add it to Wikipedia. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Macuto Bay raid move proposal

    I have warned ZiaLater against mass pings. Implied in that warning is being especially cognizant of any canvassing, intentional or otherwise. The content dispute facets of this report ought to be resolved by discussion and dispute resolution. Jamez42's editing in the topic area are already subject to severe restrictions, so I'm not sure going further beyond these is due at this time. While there are strong and conflicting viewpoints here, I think this is something Wikipedia can accommodate by striving to reach consensus in any given related dispute, especially by having uninvolved editors weigh in. El_C 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    To those reading, I am a user who has always tried my best to respect neutrality and I take pride in maintaining Wikipedia's credibility. Regarding Venezuelan topics in particular, I was recently recognized for my "neutrality and objectivity" (by a user that does not always agree with my edits, nonetheless). Since the integrity of my edits is being questioned, I am deeply concerned about the motives of some users. So, let me provide my account on these edits.
    During and following the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, I created WP:COUP to assist with potential "coup" events that were to happen in the future. The essay was created in an attempt to maintain neutrality and verifiability in articles of future events that may be described as a "coup". Now regarding the Macuto Bay raid article, many, many reliable sources have described the event as a "coup" (see article's talk page). So since the description of the events as a "coup" was seeing widespread use by generally reliable sources (the most reliable sources we utilize on Wikipedia), I proposed renaming the article "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt". As with Venezuelan articles in general, discussions became disputed and circular.
    This brings us to the pings. I receive mass pings all the time and saw no issue with sending out some innocent pings to users who have been involved in similar discussions. Knowing the valuable precedent of the very detailed move discussion regarding the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, I pinged everyone who was included in the previous move discussion. The only individuals who were not pinged were already involved in the Macuto Bay raid move discussion. This was not a targeted effort of canvassing. Whether the pinged users supported one decision or not in a previous discussion does not mean that they would support a move in this case. I do not control the edits of such users nor do I have the ability to know what they will decide in such a controversial discussion. The motive of the pings was to determine a more clear consensus and to possibly set an additional precedent for coup article discussions in the future, all to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia project. This is why I encouraged detailed discussions among users, similar to what happened with the 2019 Bolivian political crisis article.
    To any users reading the allegations of Jamez42, I must bring attention to their previous efforts of forcibly defending the controversial Juan Guaidó of Venezuela. In this previous discussion regarding Jamez42's behavior, I argued that Jamez42 was editing in good faith. My opinion has now changed as they have continued to remove[1] or cover up sections potentially critical of Juan Guaidó. Now, I know this discussion is mainly about my actions and I take for responsibility for my edits. However, I have to share this contextual information due to being brought to such a severe noticeboard without the slightest bit of Wikipedia:Goodfaith.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to mention (thanks to a mention by a user) that according to WP:APPNOTE, appropriate notifications include "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". This is clearly what I was doing as I pinged everyone involved, not a select group of people. Jamez42 also asked why I did not ping users in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt discussions. There are multiplte reasons. The obvious reason is because many of the users in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt move discussions were already involved in the 2019 Bolivian political crisis move discussions. Also, there were more users involved in the Bolivian article's discussions, so it appeared to be more thorough. Lastly, the discussions in the Bolivian article are what inspired me to create WP:COUP, so it was the first thing that came to mind when looking for users knowledgable of such a controversial subject.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the response given, the point remains that there are concerns regarding canvassing: As laid out in the article's talk page: Out of the 25 pinged users, 19 showed support to move the article to "coup" (a 76%, 13 of which specifically showed "strong support" and one that had made few or no other edits outside this topic), compared to only 5 that opposed and one that commented. I'm not denying Zia's previous feats or the importance of their involvement in other articles; this notification is not meant to be punitive but, as I stated when I stated the thread, to inform administrators about the situation in the talk page and how the things can affect the discussion. At least two other editors have shown this concern as well: [134][135][136].

    Two wrongs don't make a right. If there are concerns regarding any of my edits, they can easily be discussed either in the article's talk page or in mine, but they shouldn't be used as a justification of concerns whose explanations are offered. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a second ping in a discussion about the removal of a section, unrelated to the move proposal. All of the users from Bolivia's move proposal were pinged again, and of the 31 editors notified only 6 were originally involved in the talk page, before the ping, less than 20%. I don't think the cited WP:APPNOTE still applies, and venues such as a RfC could have been used.
    I want to stress that I didn't start this thread to seek punitive measures whatsoever, but rather being concerned of the course the discussion has taken. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: Please see this warning/restriction by El C resulting from this action, where a number of editors felt that Jamez42 should be topic-banned from this area from behaviors such as WP:POV editing, edit-warring, and other concerning editing behaviors in the topic area. --David Tornheim (talk)

    The community restriction states a 0RR [restriction] when you've been reverted and 1RR otherwise. I have done my best to comply with these restrictions, and I would like any possible violations to be pointed out. As I have mentioned before, I look forward improving my behavior if there is wrongdoing.
    However, I call upon again not to turn this into an ad hominem argument and shoot the messenger. There appears to have been a second ping now to the discussion about the removal of a section, which is unrelated to any of the move discussions mentioned before. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should also be noted that David was the user that started the cited discussion, was the one that first requested a topic ban and fears of possible WP:TAGTEAM were brought up during said discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks like canvassing to me. The logic of pinging in everyone who participated in a similar Bolivian discussion-- while ignoring those who participated in a similar Venezuelan discussion-- doesn't wash. Also, I think Zia could do less pinging in general, because of the potential POV introduced.
    And for Tornheim to bring up Jamez42's 1RR restriction because he brought a canvassing issue to ANI says more about Tornheim's tendencies than it does about James.
    I hope the closing admins will take this canvassing into account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alessio Bidoli

    Maxxdetom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Maxxdesignvc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Article is being plagued by two SPAs (who are almost certainly the same editor) who are persistently reverting the article back to their preferred version, which is promotional and has few sources. I partially blocked User:Maxxdesignvc from the article previously, only for the other editor to start doing the same thing. They have also tried to have the article deleted, supposedly on the orders of the subject ([137]).

    As I spent some time rewriting it with better sources and less promotional prose this morning, only for them to simply revert it all again for the fourth or fifth time, I'm probably INVOLVED now, so could someone remove User:Maxxdetom's ability to edit the article, please (or just block them for disruption)? Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by User:Lucius Corin

    Lucius Corin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Personal attacks and harsh languague at my talkpage. Lucius Corin is a new created User and started disruptive editing. Tried to talk to him civily at my talk page, but got this.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just replied to you on my user talk page. I did issue a "only warning" to Lucius Corin and C.Fred is mentoring the user. If any other admin wishes to take other action, I would not oppose it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping that the warning is sufficient, and that there will be no future conduct from Lucius Corin that requires using the administrative toolbox. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamamat Montia

    Could someone knowledgeable have a look at this page, specifically the comments near the bottom of the page about her partner and the car purchase Lyndaship (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Drmies

    RESULT
    Bodole is banned from the topic Jacy Reese Anthis (broadly construed) for a period of three months, ending 20 August 2020 midnight UTC.
    Lourdes 14:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Drmies is disruptively editing Jacy Reese Anthis and is beginning to also disrupt other articles (Michael Pollan). I request a third-party administrator to take a look at this behavior. I am relatively inexperienced on Wikipedia, I admit, but I know that we should discuss disagreements on Talk pages instead of repeatedly editing the page and making condescending and ad hominem attacks on editors who disagree. I have tried to raise these points with Drmies to no effect. When I commented on their talk page with the edit warring template, they said "Aw boohoo." I do not know what to do. Please let me know if this is the wrong noticeboard. It seems that the issue goes beyond edit warring so I did not post there. I am worried about the state of other pages on Wikipedia and Drmies' behavior towards other editors, especially new ones. Bodole (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I should add here that there seem to have been previous complaints about Drmies aggressive and disruptive behavior before such as this one. I am not really sure how to search for these but I would not be surprised if this is a pattern of problematic behavior. It saddens me that an administrator is able to get away with this. Bodole (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And there have been previous complaints that you are editing in a COI-fashion regarding Jacy Reese/Jacy Reese Anthis: see the links in my comment below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I am happy for my behavior to be critiqued as long as that critique is consistently applied to Drmies as well given their disruptive behavior. Bodole (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how you use the citation template, which is why he's removing it (and why I've just removed it from the Pollan article too). The template is for citing content. Using it that manner you just end up with the template output in the main article, rather than in the footnotes where it should be. The other removal appears to be a big section of text about the organisation that Anthis works for, which already has an article. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't seem right. The citation template is not the reason Drmies gave for making these changes. But even if it is, that does not seem relevant to the appropriateness of their behavior. Bodole (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's another point; we don't list articles that someone has written, either, otherwise articles (for example) of well-known journalists would be stupidly long. If he's notable as an author one would expect to see a bibliography, which appears to be one book. If the articles are notable they can be mentioned in the prose and then cited to those articles using the template you were using. If they're not, they don't belong anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, what? Since when do you not use citation templates to give information about articles, books, etc.? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't use a list of bare cite templates in a list - they cite text, not themselves. Have a look at the version with the bare cites and you'll see. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is probably irrelevant now, but if you are going to use the cite template it should be used without the Retrieved parameter (because it shows on the page and that's for when you're using cite for footnotes) and it should only be cite news for actual newspapers, not articles on websites (use cite web for them). Also, they really need to be important articles and/or cited in the text. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should focus on the behavior here, not the subject matter and content of the article, but as you can see in the discussion page there, many writers including journalists have these bibliographies. It does not include all of their work but perhaps 5 to 20 of their most notable works. The issue is not about citation templates. Everyone agrees those are not what a list of works should look like. Bodole (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Why 5 notable works. Why not 20 notable works. Why not 100 notable works. What even is a notable work for the purpose of these lists. Is that your interpretation of notable or someone else's ? If you're including only a selection, why do these lists claim to be incomplete and in need to help to expand/complete them ? Nick (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have the answers here. I don't even have a personal opinion except that in the cases of Pollan and Anthis more than their books should be included on the apge. But this isn't the point. I am raising this on WP:AN not for a discussion of what bibliographies should look like but for my concerns about Drmies' behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodole (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Since the issue appears to be you doing things incorrectly and Drmies fixing your mistakes, this may not go how you intend it to go, as YOUR behavior can also -- and, fairly should be -- examined. --Calton | Talk 22:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I have supplied my arguments for my edits. I think bibliographies should include non-book items for writers with significant non-book works, such as Pollan and Anthis. I do not agree with your assessment that Drmies was fixing my mistakes, but even if I did the issue is how they went about doing so and how they seem to be aggressively interacting with other editors on this website as well. Bodole (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not agree with your assessment that Drmies was fixing my mistakes
      So we can add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the list, now. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)@Bodole: The answer is that we're not supposed to list random articles they've written because we're not Academia.edu and it'll clutter up the place. We just list major publications (either books or other writings which have received significant independent analysis, such as the Annus Mirabilis papers). If we are going to focus on behavior, you are just as culpable since you're spamming the titles of minor works. "But pages on other people--" don't matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see how the the edit warring template Bodole put in Drmies's talk page was necessary given that Drmies made a grand total of one revert to the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My impression was that if you make an edit then another edit reverts it then it should be discussed on the Talk page and both editors should avoid further edits until it has been discussed. Perhaps my impression was mistaken then. Bodole (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That's odd, Bodole, since you've been telling me all day long how Wikipedia works and what our conventions are. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because I am less experienced than you does not give you the right to dismiss and revert what I say. That needs to be based in Wikipedia policy. I am eager to learn but I am also strongly concerned by your behavior. Bodole (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Bodole, I understand you are frustrated by the situation, but if your belief is that "both editors should avoid further edits until it has been discussed," why did you immediately turn around and revert his edit a second time? Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your understanding. I reverted because my impression is that if a bold change is controversial then the main page should be kept in its original state pending discussion. I was attempting to keep the main page in its original state. If that was a mistake, please refer me to the relevant policy so I can learn exactly how and why it was inappropriate. Bodole (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read through WP:EW. I don't see anywhere in that policy where it states it's appropriate to edit war a page to its "original state." In fact, if there wasn't an "original state" to revert back to, it wouldn't be possible to edit war. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not asserting that it's appropriate to edit war a page to its original state. Reverting the page when someone preemptively edits it before discussion seems to be the appropriate response according to WP:BRD as long as one does not violate the 3-revert rule, which I did not. Bodole (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't going to come here, since my advanced age and being locked in the house with a bunch of criminals (aged 7-14) don't really allow me any more stress--but after yet another disruptive revert by the Bodole editor, I am convinced that they have a serious conflict of interest with the Anthis article and associated articles. Note also the long and tedious exchange on the Anthis talk page about the name--I couldn't care less what this person is called, but that discussion, and the way in which Bodole tried to sweep that under the rug (thank you AlasdairEdits), only confirm my suspicions. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no conflict of interest. As I stated multiple times on that page I have spent a lot of time on that page because it has ended up being edited in unfair ways and I am compelled to defend it. Unfortunately I do not have a huge amount of time to spend editing Wikipedia, so having even just a handful of pages I contribute to fills my quota. More importantly please do not turn this discussion around on me. I was already brought up to the COI noticeboard and you could put me up there again. These are distractions from your own behavior which is why I added this section to the administrator noticeboard. Bodole (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep complaining about "unfair ways" and yet you think that you know better than everyone else. You're accusing me of edit warring when it is obvious you are just as guilty--and you're the one who restores content that violates our policies, including WP:V and WP:RS. So excuse me if I think you have a conflict of interest, yes. As for turning this discussion on you, you should have seen that coming. So far I think I'm in the clear, and if you think that "aw boohoo" somehow outweighs your aggressive edits and hostile comments, then ... well. Say, you won't be coming back to my talk page anymore, I hope. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How have I violated those policies? Please explain. I don't mind my behavior being critiqued. I will explain my decisions and hopefully learn something. I am just trying to ensure the focus stays on your behavior because that is what I created this discussion for in the first place. I think critique of my behavior would be more appropriate elsewhere or perhaps in a subsection herein. I am not trying to argue anyone's mistakes outweigh anyone else's. In fact this all started because I agreed with you at the Project Veritas Talk page! Bodole (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above "As I stated multiple times on that page I have spent a lot of time on that page because it has ended up being edited in unfair ways and I am compelled to defend it. Unfortunately I do not have a huge amount of time to spend editing Wikipedia, so having even just a handful of pages I contribute to fills my quota." Bodole (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...being edited in unfair ways and I am compelled to defend it
    • Really. So what drew you to this miscarriage of justice, how do you know that, and what, exactly is "compell[ing]" you to "defend it"? --Calton | Talk 22:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm more amused that that was their response to being called an RGW account. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure exactly what you are asking. I joined Wikipedia because I care about the project and share its goals of promoting knowledge. This page has seemed like a place where those goals are not being properly realised so I have worked on that. I think this is a common Wikipedia story. Bodole (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A common Wiki story is someone comes here and begins to edit, likes it, and works on lots of different subjects and articles, becoming part of the culture. Another common story is someone comes here with a COI, tries to ram their version of an article through and then screams bloody murder and slings accusations around about unfairness and rule-breaking by everyone but themselves. Which seems to fit you better? Heiro 22:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither. I think editors like me came here and began to edit, then found themselves so caught up in discussions on a single contentious page or group of pages that they were unable to expand to work on lots of different subjects and articles. I would like to do that one day but it is tough with this terrible mess! Bodole (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were actually caught up in a "group of pages" or focusing on one topic (as you said on the talk page) like factory farming or animal welfare issues or whatever, it might be easier to believe you. But actually, from a quick look this isn't how you've edited. In fact your sole focus here seems to be on one person. There are surely many people who have discusses the issues, some of them who's views tend to get more attention than the random person you've focused on who's name I can't remember. Therefore the fact that somehow, it always seems to come to this one person makes your defence far harder to accept. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether a fan or some other WP:COI, I think they are exhibiting WP:OWN and attempting to bully their chosen version in. The whole “edited unfairly motif” and their insistence in adding promotional material, coupled with this uncollaborative stance as seen here, makes this clear. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at the article history and talkpage, it is apparent that:
      • Drmies is not editing disruptively and/or against consensus.
      • Bodole is doing both, and have been doing so for months, with the obvious effect (if not effort) of promoting Jacy Reese on wikipedia . Beyond My Ken has already provided a thorough review of the apparent COI, to which I'll only add this RFC sparked by the DRN Bodole initiated, where consensus was found to be clearly against their effort to include Reese's name in a template.
    Barring self-admission it may be impossible to know whether or not Bodole has a real-life COI. But their promotional editing and tendentious conduct is clearly problematic. Should a topic-ban from editing the articles (not talkpages) in this subject area be considered? Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare: I thought this was tendentious, but I'm never quire sure. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good grief. We all care for the quality of our pages. That’s why we are trying to educate you. I do wish you’d listen --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am open to education! But without specific feedback on exactly what I did and exactly what policy it violated, what can I learn? So far today I have mostly just learned about the Manual of Style for bibliographies and the noticeboard process. Bodole (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also noting that Bodole is the third [140] [141] (the fourth if you include an IP) editor to add these articles and interviews in the same non-standard format. It's not sockpuppetry - they don't overlap - but it's weird; though perhaps not so weird when you realise that a number of articles on effective altruism were written for pay. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is far from conclusive, but it's interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if this means much. Non standard format perhaps, but standard for that article perhaps? What I mean by this is at least with the case of Utsill, it looks to me like they only did that after Reckston had already added all those essays in that format. When they created the article, they added that book as a simple item [142]. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for the IP. Has Bodole actually commented on why they chose that format? It seems easily possible it's the same reason. Point being that for inexperienced editors, if they come across something someone else has done, the may simply repeat it it looks good to them. To be fair, Utsil has an interesting edit history for an inexperienced editor but still.... Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal WP:TBAN Bodole

    Whether WP:COI, or WP:RGW or some other reason, Bodole’s editing of Jacy Reese Anthis related articles has become overly strident and disruptive. I propose a 3 month topic ban on Jacy Reese Anthis related articles and templates, and any pages I've missed, to be revisited after 3 months of constructive editing of other subjects. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Clearly either a case of WP:COI or WP:RGW. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I am not sure if it is appropriate for me to comment here, but what is disruptive about it? I and a few others have been dreadfully caught up in these messy debates regarding the page and related pages, but what have I done that is actually disruptive? Argue? Make bold edits? I ask partly because a topic ban seems undeserved but partly as well because I would like to improve as an editor. I have pushed strongly for my opinion, or rather pushed strongly against a few editors' changes, but what is wrong about that? Bodole (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: (edit conflict)@Bodole: I have had issues with Drmies in the past, but I'm not seeing anything in these links that demonstrates disruption on his end. The best you could argue for is edit warring, but if we blocked Drmies for editing warring, we would have to block you as well (it takes two to tango and you were both reverting each other). You claim that Drmies made personal attacks, yet none of those supposed diffs are linked here that I can find. If you are trying to make a case against him, that's a very important thing to leave out. Especially considering:
    • A) You are reporting a connected and well known administrator on Wikipedia, so obviously people are more likely to take his side or assume innocence.
    • B) The onus is on you to supply diffs and proof of your accusations (assuming they are correct to begin with). Most people aren't going track down the discussions, read through the situation in chronological order, or go hunting for the diffs themselves.
    If evidence of personal attacks exists, provide it. If not, I would advise you to vacate the situation. DarkKnight2149 23:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I referred to an example where Drmies said "Aw boohoo" in response to my concern. But yes I agree that in retrospect raising my concern about Drmies here was a mistake, not just because of the potential topic ban but because it because a much bigger deal than I expected. I was thinking that I may get one administrator to respond and explain to me whether Drmies' behavior was appropriate in a sentence or two, and if it was inappropriate, they would be warned about it. I definitely did not expect this huge discussion! I am glad that I have seen some improvements I can make in my own editing though obviously I would prefer to work on those without having a ban of any sort.
    Should I vacate the situation at this point? I honestly do not know what the relevant policies or norms are in this situation. I have been doing my best to respond to concerns herein because I thought the discourse would be important for all sides. Bodole (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add that I was not previously aware of the WP:OSE policy which has been informative. Bodole (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1-month TBAN: And escalating measures if this continues. I think the best thing you can do is take a break from this and focus on something else. Try to familarise yourself with our policies and guidelines before edit warring or filing another report (with the exception of reporting obvious vandalism). DarkKnight2149 23:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support- a 3 month topic ban to all subjects Jacy Reese Anthis related sounds reasonable. If they truly are here to learn how to edit and become productive contributors to the 'pedia, they will stick around, learn the nuances of editing and the relevant policies, and contribute to more than this one very specific subject. It will be their chance to prove they are not only here to "right this great wrong" on this one one subject. Drmies has been here for almost a decade and a half, longer than myself by a few years, OP should be paying more attention when such a long term and respected editor gives them advice on editing policies and the ins and outs of behavior here. Heiro 23:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But what have I done wrong? These accusations of RGW and COI seem to be attempting to peer into my psyche. Am I being judged on your guess of my intent, or is there actually some policy I have broken or overly bent? I am open to learning, but I have to say this seems like an entirely unsubstantiated process. I have made a number of edits on other topics, as many as I've had time for, but these discussions are such quagmires that I have little option except to make comment after comment trying to resolve the debates unless I want to just abandon the discussion. Maybe that's what I should have done but I felt and still feel like I had something valuable to contribute. In fact in some of those cases I seem to have been vindicated, such as with the naming debate in which the final consensus seemed to be that the subject should remain named Jacy Reese, which I argued for from the beginning. Obviously this has changed now that the subject has changed their own name. Bodole (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bodole: WP:COI is defined as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships." It extends to editing on behalf of anyone, including people you have not met, for your or their own personal benefit. Beyond My Ken and others have cause for concern that you are editing to insert the name of a specific living person into as many articles as possible. DarkKnight2149 23:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I understand that and take "editing on behalf" to be included in "my psyche" as it seems to assume I'm doing something on behalf of someone. This is also the case for "editing to insert the name..." which again assumes my intent. I found a subject on Wikipedia that I was interested in and have made edits on that subject, including adding content into other relevant articles. As far as I know each of those additions have been in accordance with Wikipedia policies and best practices, but again I am open to being shown why they are not! Was there a page I added something to that I shouldn't have? If so, please point it out so I may learn. I will certainly be more cautious about doing so in the future if I continue editing Wikipedia but I would appreciate any guidance in doing so here. Bodole (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really compete with Darkknight2149's green text, but here goes. Bodole, maybe it's time to stop bludgeoning the discussion. You do not, in fact, need to respond to every single comment here. In any case, there are millions of other articles to contribute to on Wikipedia. It would have reflected well on you to have voluntarily withdrawn from this particular set of articles as a sign of good will. That would have demonstrated you're not just here to affect change in this limited area alone. El_C 23:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I knew that earlier! Thank you for the information. (This is hopefully a short enough comment. I will try to now leave fewer comments on this discussion.) Bodole (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Given the evidence, I think 3 months of editing outside of the topic of Jayce Reese Anthis (broadly construed) would go a long way to show what Boodole's purpose is in being here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I think a three month ban in this instance is reasonable. It will hopefully motivate Bodole to contribute in other areas and forget about Jayce Reese Anthis for awhile. As an aside, I really enjoyed this thread. It's refreshing to come across a new editor with a decent attitude at an Admin Board. Except, perhaps, for the comment below (amended my comment). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the three month topic ban as described, and I would recommend broadening the topic ban to include meat, veganism, vegetarianism, animal rights and animal sentience, all broadly construed. This editor needs to learn that pushing a POV is not acceptable conduct. In the spirit of full disclosure, most of my own article editing in the last month has to do with documenting the failings of the American meat processing industry during the pandemic, but I try very hard to be neutral and not push a POV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that those topics should be part of the TB, but thought that making it "Jacy Reese Anthis (broadly construed)" would be sufficient. I guess, though, that being as specific as possible would avoid the possibility of probing the edges of the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the above, and also per Bodole's own WP:BLUDGEONing of the discussion which is tending towards the IDHT variety. The bottom line is, if they want to edit here productively, they aren't prevented from doing so; if, on the other hand, they just want to push this book and/or its author, then they are. serial # 10:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a three-month topic ban, and predict the editor will cease editing altogether once the pipeline to allow their COI editing is closed. Grandpallama (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A final comment

    Thanks to everyone for the comments here. I have learned a lot. I think regardless of the outcome of the vote above, I will now sign off of Wikipedia indefinitely. I now know that I have left too many comments and argued too strongly, and I also should have diversified my editing experience earlier in my Wikipedia experience, but I also feel very disappointed with the Wikipedia community's behavior here, particularly adminstrators, who I hoped would be above the insults and ad hominem. I really do care about this encyclopedia and would love to contribute more. I know I am talkative, in real life too, but I don't think that has justified the dogpile I have been met with. I know some of you will see this as "Woe is me! Poor Bodole!" but I hope you also consider what if I'm being sincere. In posting on this noticeboard, I hoped one or maybe two administrators would respond to my concerns, as I was feeling very disheartened after Drmies' actions and did not know what response was warranted. (Isn't that what noticeboards are for? To get someone to notice?) I did not mean to rope in half of Wikipedia. I only meant to share what I took as inappropriate behavior for third-party evaluation.

    I really do wish all of you the best with your endeavors here, but please give some more thought to how you treat new editors. Bodole (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If personal attacks took place, you have to actually post links proving that this is the case (and even then, context would play a role unless it's a blatant personal attack). It can't just be you saying it. Although you could use a break from that topic area, I hope you reconsider leaving Wikipedia permanently. DarkKnight2149 02:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need an essay on this area. Call it "The Newbies guide to Flouncing." -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:RaphaelQS

    RaphaelQS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has now twice reverted a good-faith claim of a BLP violation, the second time while making a fairly unambigous personal attack. Please see revert 1, revert 2, personal attack after violating WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, and finally a refusal to self-revert. The discussion is at Talk:Alison_Weir_(activist)#smears_by_association. nableezy - 06:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Very clear BLP violation. A particular website (which personally seems to me to be rather on the nose) reprinted some of this LP's articles first published elsewhere. I checked all of them. The website does not list her as a columnist. However, RaphaelQS claims that she writes a column there and combined that with attacks on the website which don't mention her at all. This is classic smear by association and can't be tolerated. Zerotalk 09:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Though we need a proper secondary sources its not like the accusation is WP:REDFLAG claim there are plenty of sources about her that put her in negative light [143],[144] --Shrike (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)][reply]
    Implying that a living person is racist is definitely a BLP violation. Calling other editors liars multiple times[145][146][147] even after being warned is also unacceptable. And this is not the first time I see this editor accusing other editors of lying, here some more [148][149].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sources that implying that [150] --Shrike (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one side you have backers of the IHRA working definition; on the other, critics such as Alison Weir. The author of the linked source is Mark Weizman, chair of the IHRA's Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial [151][152] (described as the architect of the IHRA definition [153]) and also the director of government affairs of the Holocaust research group of the Simon Wiesenthal Center [154]. Alison Weir being a strong critic of the IHRA definition and the groups promoting it [155]; it's questionable to use a footnote from a source written by the definition's "architect" as being neutral biographical fact.     ←   ZScarpia   13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only do I claim and maintain my assessment that characterizing the original facts as a "smear" is a lie, but I also add that saying that I call other editors "liars" when I am not is a lie in itself. The difference between saying something is a lie and calling someone a liar is the difference between making a personal attack and criticizing a particular edit.
    I'm not surprised to see SharabSalam trying to pretend that I'm making personal attacks because he's been on the opposite side on an issue on a previous article.
    In response to my comment ([156]) that you gave an example of a personal attack, I maintain that you lied. You pretended that I said the article was "my page" which is a lie. I let everyone read the exchange and see for themselves. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It seem that user indicated that they will disengage from this article [157] --Shrike (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't think of anything else to add in addition to the things I've already said on the talk page of the article. I would simply add that I believe that I've criticized edits and not users, and therefore that I'm not guilty of personal attacks. I withdraw from this article and let other users decide what to do. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, "Not only do I claim and maintain my assessment that characterizing the original facts as a "smear" is a lie". (The underlining is mine)
    What's the "original fact"? Are you trying to say "original research"?. Also, please read WP:NPA, you have repeatedly accused other editors of lying. And you should read WP:BLP which says that any content about BLP that has been challenged should not be reinstated until there is a consensus to include it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you said, "I'm not surprised to see SharabSalam trying to pretend that I'm making personal attacks because he's been on the opposite side on an issue on a previous article.". I don't think I have had any interaction with you before. I only remember you from that article because it was in my watchlist. I saw the conversation only. I didn't join that conversation or made any edit in that article. You probably think I am the person who you were arguing with. No, I am not. I am a completely different person.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent deliberate copyright violation on a talk page

    I removed an entire section from a talk page as being in breach of authors' copyright, but my deletion was summarily reverted as "It is not normal to delete other peoples contributions from a talk page- or to make personal accusations in a H2" --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted and warned on personal talk page. I suggest a short block if it is repeated. Zerotalk 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohconfucius (on the move):, just an FYI for the future, please make sure to let the subject(s) of any ANI know on their talk page that the discussion is occurring Nosebagbear (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In case there is some confusion, ClemRutter is not the one who added the original copyvio. That was User:Kiranj2605 [158], who is already indefinitely blocked I think mostly for spamming links to dailyknowledgefactory and those reposts [159] [160] [161]. That doesn't mean it was any more acceptable for ClemRutter to revert the copyvio removal of course. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking all this seriously- there is obviously a lot more going on here that was not explained in original edit summary. It would be helpful to share with those of us who are monitoring the article so we know the intention. There still remains the offensive ==H2== ClemRutter (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "rem section as being copyright violation" -- complete with link -- seems clear enough to me. Was there something unclear about that? --Calton | Talk 23:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ClemRutter: are you referring to the Premier of Victoria bit? If so I agree with you that it's an inappropriate header although frankly a politician being called a traitor is such a minor thing it's not really that important. Still since it arguably is a BLP-violation, and no one "owns" a section per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, I've re-worded it [162].

    However I have no idea what this has to do with the copyright violation issue. The header was added by an IP [163]. Ohc on the move's contribution to the talk page besides removing the copyright violation was this [164]. The closest thing to an "accusation" is "over indebtedness". I guess copyright violation was also an "accusation" of sorts, but it wasn't in a section heading but an edit summary. Frankly though, it's a perfectly fine section heading, as is the edit summary.

    True Ohc on the move did not do anything about that section heading but nor did you [165]. If you had dealt with the section heading and re-added the copyright violation in the same edit, and someone has reverted you without re-implementing a fix of the section, I could perhaps understand why you were complaining about no one reintroducing your fix.

    But since I was the first person to actually do anything about that section heading, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up. Just deal with the section heading and be done with it. Frankly since the IP has a single edit's it's not even worth a warning although I've notified them about this thread since I'm a sickler for notifications.

    Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: Thanks. As I said at the start in the comment box- this was a difficult edit. The end result is we have all got what we needed and we can go back to monitoring this one normally- if normality isn't blacklisted! ClemRutter (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ClemRutter: I still don't get why there is any connection between the subheading and the copyright violation. These seem to be completely unrelated and I have no idea why you brought it up here, or in your edit summary. As I said, there was nothing wrong with dealing with it yourself. If you weren't sure what to do, then seek advice in an appropriate place like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. Randomly bringing it up in an edit summary is not likely to achieve much, especially since there's a good chance most people viewing the edit summary would have no idea what you are referring to. And bringing it up here, well it meant I dealt with it, but mostly it's just caused confusion since as I said, AFAICT, it has nothing to do with anything discussed in this thread nor any editors involved, until you brought it up.

    Nor do I get what was a "difficult edit". It's simple, don't re-add copyright violations. If someone removes something as a copyright violation, then don't revert them unless you're certain that it's not a copyright violation. Again, if you're confused about something, seek help in an appropriate place. Don't blindly revert when you don't know what you're doing. In this case, you could also have asked Ohconfucious for further clarification.

    Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The last cleen edit I had was in April 2019, a quick diff at the history showed multiple edits and some reversions. You will notice that I invited other editors to help restructuring the article. There is no connection between the copy vio and Australian politics. It is just annoying when an editor steps and fixed one thing but does not check that the rest of edits are clean. This is a talk page and some indication should have been left of what the back story is and why the fix was so important. At a quick glance I saw the url in a similar H2 and in the editor it looked as if the entire text had been embedded in the url. It seemed as if the deletion had been a quick act too- and there was nothing in the edit summary to indicate otherwise- →‎Blue Dot Network : Counterpart to China's Belt And Road Initiative: rem section as being copyright violation. There was nothing to indicate why the H2 had been removed. If I had had more time I would have checked. But I did notice the other H2- I have mentioned. As soon as I was criticised I put myself in self isolation with regard to this page and wont make any edits till these conversations have finished.ClemRutter (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why quicker action can't be taken in such clear cases. Neither the original removal of the copyright violation nor its restoration touched any heading of another section, so that is a complete red herring. The only question is whether the editor who restored the copyright violation made a simple mistake and apologised when it was brought to his ("Clem" looks to me like a male name) attention or made a silly attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The latter happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: You can have as many apologies as you want, I was wrong. At this point it is also necessary to understand why the original gave the wrong signal to me. I have never in over a decade, seen an edit on a talk page that removed an H2 as well as the content (which would be normal) in main space- that flagged up concerns. Sorry, if I was too hasty. ClemRutter (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Charlie's Angels (2019 film)

    I am a bit concerned that the RfC on that page is running a muck, I have no way in knowing, but after ToeFungii was blocked for socking could there still be socks RfC vote stacking?? Govvy (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ew. What are you doing to the English language? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    So instead of being helpful you rather be rude to a dyslexic guy, it would of been better if you didn't posted at all. Govvy (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry. Please accept my apologies. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was the initiator of the RfC, and I concur that the process has been strange. Long story short, a user from the discussion that led to said RfC canvassed for responses; one out of the three canvassed joined said discussion and another responded during the RfC period. I tried addressing the canvassing multiple times, to which no one responded. Now, the canvassing user as well as the canvassed RfC responder have suggested changing the scope of the RfC multiple times, with the former even suggesting starting another RfC only to incorporate their suggestions. KyleJoantalk 07:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions

    I added Pope Francis and Donald Trump to List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions.

    It is well-documented and well-sourced that both of these men are alumni of Jesuit educational institutions.

    But, User:Kvoien reverted my edits, claiming these edits were unconstructive.

    There is no basis for User:Kvoien's actions. Shoebringer (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted your edits because of your Poor Referencing . I didn't see any siting. If I'm wrong, please correct me, or discuss this further on my talk page. Kvoien (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added sources. My edits were constructive. Shoebringer (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shoebringer:@Kvoien: It looks like with the addition of a source things should be smoothed over? If not, please discuss on the talk. Should that fail, seek a Third opinion, and should that fail, seek formal dispute resolution. As a heads up, this board is not for dealing with content disputes, that is why talk pages exist. This page is for urgent or intractable behavior problems or issues which threaten the encyclopedia. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is correct but the interpretation is wrong (WP:SYNTHESIS anyone?). Trump attended such an institution but he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania before graduating. He is thus not an alumnus (in that he did not graduate from Fordham University). 86.164.109.84 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This has come up before: Surprisingly, "alumnus" can refer to simply having attended an educational institution, not necessarily to having graduated from it. [166] In that respect, Trump is indeed an alumnus, but not a graduate, of Fordham. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the subject of a move request. A little research shows that there is a WP:ENGVAR issue here. (British) English sources define 'alumnus' specifically as a graduate (Oxford, Cambridge and Collins all concur). However: American English sources define 'alumnus' as an attendee or graduate. Since the list is a global list, the alternate title should provide less scope for the confusion. 86.164.109.84 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    The users removed were those permanently blocked for a variety of reasons. I removed the gnome and/or Fairie tags as they auto populate the main lists for both of those. I do not see this as an issue as it is house keeping. However the editor who opened this ANI thinks “it is trivial work” of which it is not. It’s called house keeping work. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As User:Bbb23—ever meet him? He'd doubtless have found you of great interest—might have said, no reason to edit this userpage. ——Serial # 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: - I am sorry but what does this user have to do with this conversation (besides you trying to get him/her involved)? I never touched his page as he/she is active. Serial please chilltake a breather and step back so that the administrators can handle this as there is no more need to dispute this between us. Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please retract your aspersion that I should "chill"; it is either intentionally rude or accidentally patronising. ——Serial # 19:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is neither. It is the same as saying please step back which is part of the DR process. I have edited my comment. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • WP:GNOME and WP:FAIRY are designated as humour. I can't imagine why it matters whether there are some indeffed users amongst those who have chosen to display those userboxes.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at your history, Galendalia, you seem to be taking an active role in multiple areas of the site where you lack experience and are making mistakes and creating an unnecessary burden for other editors. I recommend slowing down, editing the mainspace, and listening when others are telling you that something you are doing is problematic. Nihlus 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Galendalia, if you're reading this, it's considered poor form to edit others' user and/or talk pages. Simple as that. MiasmaEternalTALK 22:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I was indefinitely blocked, and I had my userboxes removed, I would be pretty peeved myself. Those userboxes are a connection to the Wikipedia community, and may be used as an indicator to get the editor to appeal and become part of that community again. I would like the removal of infoboxes reverted. Though in my case, since I have pending changes and rollbacker, and if I had those rights removed, those infoboxes would be misleading, and should be removed. Tutelary (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not support the removal of trivial userboxes or templates from blocked or inactive editors' userpages (and I'm afraid I think those under discussion here do fall into that realm). However, there are definitely rare situations where the continued presence of one or more stale template or even a userbox can cause disruption or confusion to current editors. There I have been willing to step in and remove them. Examples I've deleted from some userpages/subpages include {{Adopting}} and {{adopt me}} templates, which unhelpfully retain inactive usernames on Category pages that really do need to remain current. Also, certain userboxes that claim some sort of user right, but which are patently untrue, only serve to mislead others, whether by intent o]r otherwise. I think Galendalia's attempts at housekeeping were well-meant, but were unnecessary and a bit misguided. I don't hold a view on whether they need to be reinstated on blocked editors' pages, so long as no more removals of this type are made. I would observe that there does seems to be a bit of a gap in the guidance at WP:UP about the deployment or retention of misleading templates/userboxes, and when it is acceptable for another editor to remove them. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you Nick for not bashing my work. One thing that did come out of this is one of the editors that I did remove it from has their personal information on their user page which included real name, address, email, phone number, and their work information. I don’t plan on doing this anymore as it caused a giant uproar amongst Wikipedians. Honestly I think this conversation can be completed and closed. The point has very well been received. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 01:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since User:Galendalia appears to understand that they should not alter user pages. There's really nothing served by the effort and is poor form, that these particular edits were unnecessary and a bit misguided, and that over all, at this point, they lack experience and are making mistakes and creating an unnecessary burden for other editors in certain areas, this can indeed probably be closed.
      Having said that, USPS could be brought up to at least GA status. ——Serial # 08:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this is closed, I would encourage that one or two administrators review Galendalia's recent history and his predeliction to play hall monitor even though he's a brand-new editor. He's working on several projects, not the least of which being WP:DRN where he has no business being involved given his lack of experience (just a month), and seems to want to run around the place fixing things and cleaning house rather than exhibiting much interest in contributing to mainspace and learning the basics. After a recent edit war at Queen of Hearts (film), which resulted in his filing a wholly inappropriate SPI report on User:MarnetteD after he made a very minor cosmetic edit, I've had concerns about Galedalia's real purpose in being here, and whether it aligns with the aims of this project. As I noted, he recently joined WP:DRN as a volunteer, then after a previous encounter with admins over the SPI report, decided to leave WP, dumping his DRN cases on ever-helpful user User:Robert McClenon, who graciously took them over. Now he's back and back at his same games. Galendalia should be strongly encouraged to leave the activities that lead to this report, along with areas such WP:DRN alone until he gains considerable experience and concentrate on editing in mainspace while he learns basic policies and practices. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the thorough analysis, Drmargi. You'll note that, while telling other editors to "chill" isn't a personal attack, "playing games" is. Hmmm. There's also the attempt to chill the discussion by way of allusion to a "conversation with the WMF" when Galendalia's behavior is scrutinised. The conditional "I may have edited as an IP" is also of interest. ——Serial # 08:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Drmargi: First off, I dumped no cases on Robert. I asked prior to my departure and per our guidance on the DRN, and he said he may be able to take them but wasn't sure. I continued on, as I spent the weekend thinking about things (as requested by numerous users on my talk page), and I carried the case and it is almost at resolution pending one editor's remarks and if they agree with it. Secondly, I am in a few things, including a conversation with WMF about the onboarding of new editors. For you to ask administrators to review my history and to state I am "playing games", of which the latter is a personal attack on me. That is the reason adding Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers to this mix. My very first day I asked for help on something and was bitten. I asked the experienced editor why they were doing this and being hostile to me and they never responded. This seems to be the norm and it was something I brought up in the group discussion with WMF about the onboarding in which it was stated this is not the first time we have had this complaint. He even linked some useful articles on this that were created by outside sources as to why the newcomers decide to leave. It appears only outside people have issues with what I am involved in, including DRN. For people constantly saying I am brand new, it is definitely a reason to throw out as I may have been editing for years under an IP and just created my account. No one knows that or knows me on here or my background. When I have questions, I ask. I have already stated I will not perform "housekeeping" on the lists. As far as any projects I am involved in, which are few (CVU (graduate and have rollback rights), I am listed as a TeaHouse host because there are somethings I can provide advice on and I have been warmly welcomed by numerous people who are also hosts. I am the coordinator of the Wikipedia:Spoken articles as this has great potential and it was not being utilized. Recommendations were provided by an administrator and a fellow coordinator which are going to be implemented over the weekend so it meets the new requirements. I participate in DRN and 3OR to assist with things I can do. In 3OR, I have never had kickback on anything I provide my opinion on and I always point to the policies regarding it. I do not get involved in more than one case, however, I will post the appropriate notices and if something odd (i.e. an editor posting it on my talk page, I will make a remark to the volunteer to let them know. I would sincerely appreciate if people would stop the personal attacks and if this discussion can be closed, as requested and seconded. Thank you. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editor

    Indeffed by Floquenbeam (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is the 2nd time I am reporting this user to ANI for repeated unsourced additions, specifically genres. The last time they were given their 2nd block by Ymblanter for a week but soon returned to their disruptive behavior, hence my issuing of this final warning and personal plea. It seems that the 2 blocks and repeated warnings on their talk page are not having the desired effect with their lack of communication further compounding the issue. Here, here & here are some of their latest unsourced genres. Please could an admin assist with this. Robvanvee 18:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef until they agree to change their behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help Floquenbeam! Robvanvee 19:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Block evasion and disruptive editing of taxonomy templates

    Jaimelesmandarines is a french language user who is making large volumes of unexplained changes to taxonomy templates which are breaking them, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Changes_to_taxonomy_templates and Special:Contributions/Jaimelesmandarines. This is the same pattern as Prehistoricplanes another french language user who was indefinitely blocked for the same pattern of behaviour several months ago. Both users have requested similar changes on talk pages, see Template talk:Taxonomy/Synapsida Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, thanks NinjaRobotPirate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I have to figure out how to report sock puppets on French Wikipedia... ugh. I should have practiced my French more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs/2020/Semaine 7#Demande de blocage de Prehistoricplanes closed 14 February 2020
    fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs/2020/Semaine 12#Demande de re-blocage de Prehistoricplanes closed 22 March 2020
    fr:Utilisateur:Prehistoricplanes blocked 22 March 2020
    fr:Utilisateur:Jaimelesmandarines registered 17 May 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It is worth noting here that in this diff Prehistoricplanes stated that he was an alternative account of fr:User:LoiDavid2307171 a user who was blocked on the french wikipedia on the 14th of March 2019, Prehistoricplanes started editing also on the 14th March 2019 immediately after the block, so this user has a consistent history of sockpuppetry to evade blocks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Grand Mufti of India Problems

    The issue which has been rumbling on for some time is the fact their there are two claimants for the title of Grand Mufti of India. The gist of the situation seems summarised here, [[167]] and I think I've seen this carried by sources which which would probably be better. Affected articles are:

    Two the accounts, the the editors showing some good knowledge, have sought to impose their view on the articles. Discretionary sanctions were issued however move continued to edit over the top of a Template:In-use when I was trying to achieve at the minimum a claim from the not so long standing claim. I have correctly (or perhaps incorrectly) attempted to use Template:POV notice as a means of noting the alternative points of view for discussion.

    There is no point me getting into an edit war: its time to ack off and let others handle it.

    Proposed Actions.
    • Investigate my actions on the matter and impose discretionary actions if necessary. Im pretty sure I've been trying to do the right thing here.
    • I propose Ishraque Hussain is blocked with immediate effect for blatant violation of discretionary sanctions it any uninvolved administrator feels this is appropriate, and not to do so in this case would likely render such cautions meaningless.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case with the The cool mew is more subtle. They have won an edit war; albeit to a long standing status quo. They seem adept for a newbie user, but of course may have had experience as an IP editor. The removal of the POV for the second time with how discussion is crucial here. I have requested semi-protection but this will likely soon not apply to the The cool mew who has concerns my my edit count on my talk page. I am reasonably sure it is appropriate as a minimum from mentioning the alternative claim on the article but I feel I have been blocked from doing so. I would appreciate admins looking for a way forward, try not coming back to me because I've been exhausted by the edit conflicts. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not this again. ECP'd both articles for 2 years (logged at WP:AEL this time). Warned both Ishraque Hussain and the The cool mew. Hopefully, that will be the end of the Grand Mufti of India rivalry on Wikipedia for a while, at least on the mainspace, as it has proven to be a huge timesink. El_C 22:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked The cool mew as a sock of Easytostable, but I think there are probably more socks active here, potentially including some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone done a check user to see whether Easytostable/Mariyaibrahim/The cool mew is a sock of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...  Technically indistinguishable. I don't know how to behaviorally identify these socks, though. I dislike walking into complex sock puppetry cases without any background, and I often find cases that center on Asian topics confusing. The CU tool throws up mountains of useless information, and it all has to be analyzed by a human. If that human doesn't even know what a Mufti is, it's not so easy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, I had some interaction with Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. The behaviour generally involves pro-Barelvi, anti-Deobandi POV-pushing; in general, if you see any blatantly POV edits on topics relating to Islam in the Indian subcontinent, there is a good chance that this user is behind it. Pinging AaqibAnjum in case he has any further input. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have presented behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah mailed me a times and said he was sorry and was trying as if his anti-Deobandi bigotry was gone but he failed to convince me, because I told him to shed tears infront of WP admins and learn WP policies. I possibly thing this newbie user is his soft suck as Toddy1 has analysed. Best - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the meaning of Mufti, and I confess being no expert, to quote from [170] which also is an indictor of use of "mulfti" for a "dress-down" or "informal-dress" may become policially incorrect: "A Mufti is a respected Muslim cleric ... Mufti interpret Islamic law and then issue fatwa (legal opinion)." My understanding is this implies the Grand Mufti of XXX is the most senior person to interpret Islamic Law in XXX. In some countries this is built into the constitution, with India it may be less so; and some divisions of Islam may feel they are not represented by the Grand Mufti of India. It is also possible some may use the term "Grand Mufti" for a state of India such as Kerela. I'll also note I am concerned about Bareliv/Deobandi non-neutrality spilling to Wikipedia. Hope this helps and apologies if I've got something wrong.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Djm-leighpark, good luck stopping the British Army from using "mufti" for civilian dress. They still refer to the Air Force as "crab air". Guy (help!) 09:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor editing user

    User DodgeBoy102 has continuously been making minor edits even with multiple warnings on their talk page. Even after warning the user on their talk page today, they continued to do the same exact thing. Looking through their contribution history, they've also used the edit summary approximately 0 times since they began editing in December 2019. There are a few edits not marked as 'minor' but there is still no edit summaries used whatsoever. See here, here, here, and here for some examples of edits without any edit summary that are marked as 'minor' (and are very clearly not...) The user also often adds completely unsourced content, which would also be helpful if they used edit summaries for explanations... Something probably needs to be done here, as apparently warnings will seemingly be completely ignored by the user. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Might need a short block to catch their attention. Zerotalk 03:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Failing to collaborate is bad for the community. I tried to find a discussion about another habitual minor-marker because it contained someone's observation that leaving the user messages was wasted because their edits were tagged with, as I recall, something about "mobile edit". Apparently the tag meant that the user received no notification for talk page messages! DodgeBoy102 (talk · contribs) has edits tagged " Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, iOS app edit". I couldn't find the discussion but I did find another case: DerTorx (talk · contribs) (see User talk:DerTorx#Minor edits). I propose manually archiving the talk pages of these two editors, then putting a nice-but-firm message on them with what I said to DerTorx, but with a statement that I will issue a block unless the issue is addressed. I would start with a 24-hour block, but that would quickly escalate to indefinite with a polite message announcing they can be unblocked as soon as the issue is addressed. I would not blame them for failing to see a new message on their long talk pages, so would start with clearing them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, El_C's method at #User:TylerKutschbach below sounds good: block for 24 hours from Article space with edit summary requesting attention at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Before I saw Johnuniq's comments, I gave DodgeBoy102 an indefinite block, explaining the need to communicate with other editors and pointing them to Help: minor edit. This editor can be unblocked if they agree to collaborate with other editors and agree to stop marking major edits as minor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, sorry I didn't see the message and to this day I'm not sure where to reply. I hope I didn’t commit a major offense. I made visually minor changes, very rarely textual ones. --DerTorx (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TylerKutschbach

    I am not sure @TylerKutschbach: understands how to use talk pages, read edit summaries, or collaborate on Wikipedia. In their 10 months of editing (14k edits), they have not used a talk page of any type. I have brought up issues to them twice, as have other people. This user will revert to their desired version continually, with no discussion. I am not sure what to do further... ɱ (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I had just reached out to this user and saw this ANI. I had reached out in the past and never gotten a response. It's clear now that the lack of response is not because I'm being ignored; it's because the user seems to have no understanding that messages have been sent. We need to find a way to ensure that users new and old (TK has more than 10,000!) know that the talk page is a vital part of the communication process. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked them from the mainspace for 24 hours so as to get their attention to this report. El_C 03:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks El_C. I saw that when I went to warn him re this. Same issue Alan noted above. John from Idegon (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that I haven't got attention for the talk pages, but I now know how to use the talk pages on Wikipedia now. So can you unblock me please.TylerKutschbach 3:58 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Can you first please address the constant reverting established editors, with seemingly no attempt to learn how to talk? And can we resolve the Columbus issue? ɱ (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I address the constant reverting established editors? TylerKutschbach 4:08 22 May 2020
    Responded on my talk. In the future, please talk to people after they revert you, do not start edit wars. ɱ (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiscus Brady!! – posting virtually nothing but massive Disney fancruft, despite warnings

    Fiscus Brady!! (talk · contribs)

    This user has been active for a little over two months, and he has caused a great deal of problems by posting vast amounts of Disney fancruft, posting vast uncited or poorly cited articles, uploading copyrighted images, and ignoring the myriad warnings on his talk page.
    NOTE: El C has currently collapsed the user's talk page, so the 20 notices on it aren't visible unless you click "show".

    Most of the articles he has created have been either AFDed or redirected. Nearly all of the images he has uploaded have been or are being deleted.

    He has never responded to any of the warnings or friendly notices on his talk page, nor availed himself of the Teahouse as suggested. He is still sending his massive fancruft straight to article space rather than going through AFC or draft space (I just now had to draftify this and redirect this -- both created in the past 24 hours).

    Due to the fact that his behavior has not changed at all, and he has refused to communicate, I think he needs one of those wake-up blocks until he communicates and acknowledges his behavior and mends his ways. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them from the mainspace for 24 hours so as to get their attention to this report. El_C 03:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pinging Meters, Ssilvers, Sulfurboy, Buidhe, and Boleyn, who have also tried to deal with him. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the ping. My interaction with the user seems relatively limited as they're no longer going through the AfC process. However, I would certainly second the concerns Softlavender.
      That being said, their ambition, no matter how misguided, is something we should encourage and try to shape instead of squash. Particularly, as I don't think COI or UPE concerns are driving their fury. Hopefully, this post will wake them up to the critical need for communication.
      Maybe a good solution would be to temporarily require them to run all articles through AfC? This way, they can garner a grasp of what we're looking for in new articles and our policies while presenting little disruption to mainspace. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the requirement for AFC should be temporary; it should be indefinite. And no more uploading images unless they receive permission from an administrator for the image in question. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been concerned about this Disney SPA user's edits since I first noticed them. Zero response to multiple attempts to engage user on his or her talk page, continuous creation of inappropriate articles, and multiple uploads of unlicensed images or images with incorrect claim of "own creation" (at least one of which was so blatantly a copyright violation that the image itself actually contained a Disney copyright notice). I agree with Softlavender, no unsupervised uploads either. Meters (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything I've seen from this editor has been a wall of uncited WP:OR. They do not want to collaborate and they have no concept of what is encyclopedic. I think they should be permanently banned, and all of the articles they created should be considered for deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually agree with that, sadly. I don't think the editor is going to change, as they seem to have a one-track mind. So even imposing the AFC and image restrictions is not going to solve the ultimate problem and the resulting ultimate time-waste: inspecting all of their non-collaborative, unencyclopedic walls of uncited WP:OR. So I think an indefinite block is going to be the eventual longterm result here. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we should to give them a chance to respond here and to mend their ways after the block ends. I'm inclined to agree with the likely long-term result, but let's try. Meters (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Persistent violators will be blocked from editing". Fiscus Brady!! received the first warning to that effect (re: uploading copyrighted images) on May 7 [171]. He ignored it completely and has since blithely uploaded 10+ more copyrighted images [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181]. Even with a strongly worded intervention-type warning from Meters on May 17 that he would be blocked [182] he still persisted. We've already given him dozens of chances and warnings about being blocked. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like a week's mainspace block to see if they can be pushed into actually engaging. If they do that, then the AfC-only setup seems most suitable. If they don't, then we may just have to go CIR and indef block them, since what else can we do? We should specifically make it not a CBAN, as if they change their communicative position in the future, any admin should be able to make that call, with suitable safeguards. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that a 24-hour mainspace block is not enough; he is on a break now between spurts and his last break was for more than four days. El_C, can you extend the mainspace block to at least a week? That way we don't have to keep checking his contribs. In fact, the mainspace block can be indef and this thread can be DNAUed if desired; that way we don't have to be vigilant. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      A week does seem more appropriate and more likely to get a response too. Meters (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello everyone. I am very sorry about all of this that is going on. If you did not know, I am fourteen (almost fifteen) years old and was just looking for a fun activity to fill my time with. Unfortunately, I guess I did not realize how much damage can come from uploading an image without credit or creating an article with not reliable sources. In no way was I intending to hurt Wikipedia or any of its pre-existing articles. And if you would like an answer as to the changing of Disney articles, they all should say the parks are closed currently (except for Shanghai). But in my defense, I feel I have changed some articles that needed to be changed, specifically ones on music theatre. Again, I am very new to this and was just looking for a fun project to fill my spare time. I did not realize this many problems had backed up and I was not responsible about checking my notifications. If you would like for me to exit Wikipedia, I would not object, but I was just interested in talking specifically about what I need to do to change my editing style. Again, I am very sorry about not responding to these messages, I learned about this thread when El_C notified me. But I do appreciate what SulfurBoy said about my work. I, in the end, just want correct information to be spread so I try my best to do so. I also do realize that perhaps I am too young to truly understand what can be deemed as reliable information. Please respond in any way I can help my case and Wikipedia as a whole and I again sincerely apologize. Thank you all for notifying me about these issues. Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi there. Often a better way for new editors to get started, rather than creating new articles, is to make small changes to existing articles. Even there it can sometimes be a bit rocky because, as you mentioned it takes time to understand what counts as reliable. Keep at it, and ask for help when you don't understand why something you've done was reverted. You'll get it in time. EEng 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the user has not responded, and due to multiple requests above, I have adjusted the duration of the mainspace block to indefinite. El_C 14:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: Brady responded directly above your comment... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just going to point out the same thing. What gives? EEng 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw that. My mistake. Should I re-adjust the mainspace block again, and if so, to what duration? I'm open to suggestions. El_C 20:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of good will, I just unblocked entirely. El_C 20:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to apologize to Fiscus Brady!! for missing their comment directly above. I applaud their message and am hopeful that they are now on the road to productive editing. El_C 20:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    whoa... this editor was not yet born when I started working on Wikipedia. On the one hand, that's cool - welcome aboard, Fiscus, it's going to be a much different trip for you than it was for me. But gosh I feel old. --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Fiscus Brady!! must send all new articles through AFC and may not upload any image without an adminstrator's permission

    Proposal: Fiscus Brady!! is strongly discouraged against creating any more new articles, and any new ones must be submitted to WP:AFC rather than articlespace. He may not upload any image without an administrator's permission for each image. Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. Fiscus Brady!!, you must read, comprehend, and respond to notices on your talkpage. Also, Wikipedia is not a "fun activity" -- It is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to indulge your interests and hobbies and fandoms. You would be better off doing that on a blog, a fan site or forum, or a fan-wiki. Please step back from Wikipedia until you understand what constitutes encyclopedic content, what constitutes an independent reliable source, and what copyright violation is. Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, wait a second. Fun is OK, just it better not be your primary purpose for being here. And Wikipedia is a good place to indulge your interests and hobbies if you learn to channel those interests into the forms of activity the project needs -- building articles. EEng 00:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @EEng#s, thank you but I do understand what Softlavender is getting at. While it can be fun, I will make sure to put in the time and effort it deserves. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 4:47 23 May, 2020
      I just didn't want you to get discouraged. EEng 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Softlavender, while I do agree with your proposal and promise to not upload any more images without permission and will stay away from creating any new articles, I feel that maybe I misworded my claim. You're right, Wikipedia is not a fun activity, but what I meant was that I use it as a way to spread correct information that may have been wrong. And I personally felt that I was not indulging in my interests, I feel that since I am not an employee, I will naturally edit pages of a certain genre. But I will definitely make sure to do correct research, submit photos for approval, and focus more on editing pages. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 3:20 22 May, 2020 (UTC)
      @Fiscus Brady!!: Because it isn't always obvious to new users, not an employee refers to pretty much everybody who doesn't have (WMF) at the end of their username. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Just passing by based on the section title: @NKohli (WMF): example use case for phab:T6995 and phab:T199918 (with a per-namespace option) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @DannyS712: Thanks! This is helpful. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I don't mind any extra workload put on AfC if it means potentially help carve out a quality editor. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sulfurboy: I really appreciate that, and (if any) new articles will be sent through AFC. Though, I am going to take some time to truly understand what a new piece takes. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 4:48 23 May, 2020
    Fiscus Brady!!, some friendly advice: it might not be in your best interest to respond to every single comment in this section, as you appear to be doing thus far; see WP:BLUDGEON. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 05:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like crash-landing on an another planet where they have all these social rules you have to learn. EEng 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure you remember the case not too long ago of the editor who was blocked for six months partly as a result of their bludgeoning an ANI thread about them. I certainly wouldn't want to see something similar here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent addition of unsourced, incorrect information relating to height and weight

    Indeffed by 78.26 as NOTHERE. NAC. –Davey2010Talk 21:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikiuser88888881 is persistently making disruptive, unsourced changes to height and weight in articles. None of the edits is sourced and the user regularly changes sourced information. They appear to be using several IPs to make similar changes, one of which appears to be 92.98.9.20. All of the edits are the same, so a quick analysis of their edit history will show this persistent behaviour is continuing unabated. Here are some diffs that make the behaviour very easy to spot.

    Here the editor changes information that is explicitly contradicted by the source given. 1

    Here the editor simply changes the height without explanation or source, seemingly at random. 2

    Here, again, the editor has changed the height, directly contradicting the source next to it. 3

    Here, the editor has again made unsourced changes. 4, the editor was reverted and warned by another editor, then they made the same edit again, here. 5.

    Not including the IP, which I strongly suspect is the same editor, warnings have been given:

    1 2 3 4 5

    It is enormously frustrating having to correct unsourced changes - repeating the same edits in spite of warnings, and failing to communicate once on their talk page, suggests that this behaviour will not change.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    VeritasVox

    A couple of years ago, User:VeritasVox narrowly avoided a topic ban for wasting time defending Julius Evola. Evola was a figure on the fringes of Nazism and neo-Nazism, and is of historical interest in the study of fascism and extremism. Evola is now occasionally recommended reading among the alt-right and some racist or apathetic new-agers.

    For the past year, VeritasVox has been a true WP:SPA at that article. Just now, this editor violated WP:3RR:[183][184][185][186] by attempting to downplay and whitewash Evola's status as a antisemitic conspiracy theorist. From the article's talkpage, this is apparently based on VeritasVox's personal interpretation of primary material. Note in that same section VeritasVox's comparison of Evola to Hitler, etc. and claims that mentioning antisemitism in the lead would be a "childish slur". Evola wrote a forward to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion where he said "The problem of the authenticity of this document is secondary and has to be replaced by the much more serious and essential problem of its truthfulness".

    Considering VeritasVox's past history and the previous discussion, I'm taking this hear instead of AN3, Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • What do you think an appropriate sanction would be, a topic ban from Julius Evola, or something more encompassing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note in passing that in 2018 there were 6 comments on the proposed topic ban, 5 of which supported the ban, while the other of was a non-voting comment which cited WP:BITE. It's almost two years later, so BITE doesn't apply. (Also "VeritasVox" means "The Voice of Truth" in Latin, and I think we're all aware that editors who put "Truth" in their usernames turn out with great frequency to be a problem, as they usually carry a POV and are often here to RGW.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny you mention that, I was thinking of your past comments about "truth" in usernames when I was filing this.
    As for sanctions, this editor is now a SPA who's willing to violate 3RR to whitewash an article about an obscure fascist, and has, as far as I can tell, never introduced a reliable source to to the article. At other articles, they seem to think Twitter is reliable. They are clearly willing to cite academic sources, though, based on whatever this is, using a source from 1920 to stick up for those poor, beleaguered ancient Sumerian slave-owners. To me, all this is WP:NOTHERE. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started with a partial block from the article, that will stop the edit war. I am ope to suggestions re topic bans or even an indef block. Guy (help!) 22:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deeply amusing that User:Grayfell seems to think that the fact that I have studied the code of Ur-Nammu in the original language means that I support sumerian slave-owners. This is another example of this editor's personal grudge against me - an editor who has in the past labelled editors arguing against his views on this talkpage as 'nazi-apologists' and posted screeds about the 'real-life consequences of nazism' as somehow supporting his edits to the detriment of all other opinions on this article.
    My objection is that 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' is imprecise, and seems to reek of 'childish name-calling,' as I actually said. My edit is as follows;-
    'Evola frequently criticised both capitalism and communism as subversive manifestations of the modern world, and is noted for his prologue to the second Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where he placed this critique within the context of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.'
    This is not a statement denying that this was a conspiracy theory or that it was antisemitic - it is stating that Evola in this prologue integrated this view within the wider theoretical framework of his thought. To say he was an 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' is a simplistic statement that obscures the fact that his prologue levels the conspiracy therein not simply at 'the jews' but at the fundamental postulates of modernity, integrating this within much wider themes. I aim, as ever, at precision.
    If your judgement is that I should be banned from editing this article, so be it. But I humbly request that Grayfell also receives a parallel ban, as his influence has been continuously toxic, rude and unhelpful, visibly tinged with a personal, ideologically rooted bias which I feel has made any dispassionate analysis of this figure impossible. This may allow further development of the article in question outside of what has become largely a personal crusade - I admit, for both of us. VeritasVox (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can "admit" that it's a "personal crusade" for you, but you are not in any position to make the same claim about Grayfell. Not being him, all you can do is express your (very convenient for you) personal opinion that it's a "crusade" for him, you cannot "admit" that it is. But, in any case, since you do admit to crusading, it seems as if Guy's partial block of you is appropriate. Any other violations of editing propriety you'd like to admit to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to also invite the administrators, in support of the points above, to examine closely how Grayfell has chosen to frame his complaint. Note the tone and language that is being used - the framing, immediately, of me and this article in terms of the 'wasting time defending' and of (presumably) those disagreeing with him as 'the alt-right and some racist or apathetic new-agers.' I can assure you that similar rhetoric can be found in every discussion he has engaged in on the talkpage. VeritasVox (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, you know who else integrated his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories with complaints about modernity and other "wider themes"? The author of Mein Kampf. In fact the distinction you draw is one without a difference, since for the fascists, Nazis and other virulent anti-Semites of that time, the Jews were largely (if not entirely) to blame for the problems of the modern world. For them, it all went back to the Jews. What this means is that your attempt to water-down the claim of anti-Semitism against Evola is merely an attempt to whitewash him, presumably so that he will continue to appeal to modern types who like to think that their anti-Semitism is a little less virulent and a little more nuanced.
    I suggest that if no one has a taste for a site ban, a topic ban from Fascism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism, broadly construed, would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • VeritasVox has repeatedly mentioned my passing comment, from over a year ago, that Nazism is ideologically incompatible with Wikipedia's values. This is not a controversial point, and that this is framed as "gotcha" is a pretty good demonstration of why yet more protracted discussion is likely to be futile. Evola had "almost servile admiration for Himmler". This is his legacy, and his uninteresting opinions about communism/capitalism are merely extensions of this. His significance isn't his philosophy or poetry. His legacy is far-right terrorism, like Terza Posizione.
    Note also, that VeritasVox still doesn't seem to understand sources, as having studied the code of Ur-Nammu in the original language is not a reliable source. For the record, having read Evola, in any language, is not really a reliable source either. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reductio ad hitlerum is incredibly simplistic, and neglects fundamental ideological differences in far-right thought. The fact that someone is an anti-semite doesn't mean we pidgeonhole them into imprecise definitions of their thought because we don't like them. This is an encyclopedia. Evola was antisemitic. 'Anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' however is, in my view, wrong because he commented on a work featuring an established antisemitic conspiracy rather than creating his own, leaving aside his obvious departures from various other elements of fascist thought. Grayfell - exactly what acts of terrorism were Evola known for?
    On Ur-Nammu - yes, that was more a reaction to you deciding to interpret my edit on sumerian legal terminology as me trying 'to stick up for those poor, beleaguered ancient Sumerian slave-owners' which is an excellent example of your bad faith personal attacks and condescension. VeritasVox (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also make the rather obvious point that 'VeritasVox has repeatedly mentioned my passing comment, from over a year ago, that Nazism is ideologically incompatible with Wikipedia's values.' is a willful misrepresentation - I'm saying that you invoking Nazism as being incompatible with wikipedia's values to attempt to win an argument over this article on the talkpage is an example of 1. your personal belief that you are waging a war against your 'nazi' opponents who disagree with you 2. essentially a personal attack by proxy and a shining example of your really quite incredible belief in the bad faith of any/all edits you personally disagree with. Which, ironically, is somewhat totalitarian. VeritasVox (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nikkimaria

    All sorted out by Acroterion. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can one of you sort this shit out please? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As best I can tell, by examining the last dozen or so contributions of Georgeparpas (talk · contribs), they had a conflict with Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) on the article Erumpent, and took a particularly creative approach to furthering their goals. They moved User:Nikkimaria to User:Kill me., then deleted the contents. Not clear why this would solve the original issue, but I'm guessing Nikkimaria might not appreciate the humor involved. I think you need to be an admin to move a page back over a redirect? You may also want to take whatever action in regards to Georgeparpas you feel is appropriate. They are a relatively new user, under a hundred edits, so possibly may be granted some latitude ... or not.--GRuban (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM was just a bit more concise, I see. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit sorted. :Moved back, protected, and Georgeparpas indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong, but I believe you don't have to be an admin to move a page right back to where it was, as long as there have been no edits to the target page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:72.130.54.120 and user:2600:1013:B017:38A4:E467:608D:3B62:BD25 Blocked user? Sockpuppet?

    user:72.130.54.120 and user:2600:1013:B017:38A4:E467:608D:3B62:BD25 recently made all but identical POV edits to the Far-left politics article, stating that "I am well aware of Wikipedia rules" - despite only ever having made this one edit. Diffs:

    Smells fishy to me. Bacondrum (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't report random IP editors to ANI just because they revert you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but i think Bacondrum has a point, the IP is not providing any citation and is just spamming the same edit and saying its justified because he says so. The person is clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing: repeated addition of badly sourced information by DevBali02

    On the Toki Pona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia page, after informing them multiple times the sources they listed were not verifiable and the information was not notable, user DevBali02 (talk · contribs) has continued to readd information about themself and their personal work only providing their personal Google sites page as a reference.

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=954211420&oldid=953241068&title=Toki_Pona - First addition of the information on May 1st, 2020
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toki_Pona&diff=prev&oldid=955525508 - diff from May 8th, 2020 undoing a previous edition to bring back the badly sourced information despite the suggestion that the information is not notable
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=956573419&oldid=956023107&title=Toki_Pona - diff from May 14, 2020 undoing a previous edition again to bring back the information despite being warned again that it was not sourced well and not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources

    LesVisages (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing at User talk:Hunan201p

    Hunan201p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    First some background. Hunan201p has been blocked for Disruptive editing [190] as a result of this ANI [191]. The first unblock request was declined by @Drmies:[192]. Then, an extensive unblock discussion ensued by editors opposed to unblocking early [193]. The unblock was declined a second time [194] with @Deepfriedokra:'s rationale "I see no consensus to unblock and opposition to unblocking, so I must maintain the status quo.. I'm afraid you will need to wait till the block expires or make another request. (Reviewing admin) -- there is extensive discussion on this page with issues not addressed in this request that were raised by those opposed to unblocking."

    Hunan201p is now using his talk page to encourage 4 editors (by pinging them) to revert edits on Wikipedia articles to his preferred version [195], [196]. Please see the top of that section for the pings. How this is done is - the pings are in conjunction with some gibberish about another editor and some IPs engaged in sock behavior and/or meat behavior on certain named Wikipedia pages. Hunan201p is doing all this under the banner of pointing out sock disruption and meat disruption, when in reality, the edits he to which he points are in agreement with guidelines and policies.

    This is a variation on the behaviors that resulted in the block. Hunan201p would revert the edits himself, engaging in slow motion edit warring (see link to ANI above). Then it emerged during the "Unblock discussion" that he was also attacking other editors via specious sock investigations and/or accusing them of being socks [197], [198]. He engaged in these behaviors while avoiding talk page discussions and building consensus, and so on. It seems to have been WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that took place within a certain group of articles.

    Anyway, I would like an admin to intervene to stop any possible disruption on the named pages and to stop any specious sock puppet investigations that might result from this highly irregular situation. Also, please take into consideration that in the final analysis, Hunan201p is NOTHERE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Quinn, TPA revoked until the end of the block. Guy (help!) 08:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that that sort aforementioned gibberish is the reason for the block. He also requested to be unblocked on WP:SPI, talk pages, and noticeboards. That seemed a silly thing to do, and this gibberish spewing just confirms that perception. @Hunan201p: I would like to point out that continuing this behavior after the current block ends will certainly result in a longer block. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting User ElKevbo

    This user has repeated reversed my good faith edits on Duke University's page citing inane reasons like "these rankings suck" based on nothing more than his/her personal opinion.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk • contribs)

    You forgot to notify him of this report. Also, Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ElKevbo is right. The sources you're using are not great (the store page for an HBR paper?), and you should work to establish consensus for your proposed addition on the article talk page, particularly considering that Duke University is a featured article and as such, has undergone extensive editing and discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Duke's a great university - a lot of my family went there (although I went to Yale). But as you've been told, it's a feature article, you don't seem to understand our sourcing policy, and you need to get talk page consensus. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Speedy Delete page:College Swim Team Rankings by College Swimming

    College Swim Team Rankings by College Swimming looks like it may be one big copyvio based on the nomination comments at AfD. Could someone versed in that area have a look? It might be a speedy delete candidate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, I do not see any copyrightable text in the current version of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bdeven

    They are cross wiki vandals. refer to history of File:Arnab Goswami Times Now.jpg. //Eatcha (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed, latest edits revdeleted. El_C 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullying by User:Games of the world

    I'm in complete amazement by User:Games of the world 's horrible treatment of other editors. Please take a look at his latest outbursts: Stop being stupid! with absolutely no provocation from User:Wici Rhuthun 1. Other outbursts, intimidation and provocation include: This table is nonsense, declares that he or she is trolling me and left a No-heading warning on my Talkpage in error, other than he or she doesn't agree with my attempt to change COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom into a balanced, non-biased article. I wish I could work out how many reverts this editor had made on this article; every time an edit is made about Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, User:Games of the world will either revert or find something negative to say. This is not nice.

    The editor also turned against User:Capewearer, who has stopped editing since. To put it simply, I think many of us, now are frightened of this user. I stopped editing the English Wikipedia for a few years because of such behaviour, and if this doesn't stop, then I give up! John Jones (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone look at John Jones' behaviour. Not only has he not followed guidance. But he has repeatedly stated that other editors have a conflict of interest and incited that they worked for the government and were being paid to edit. He repeatedly doesn't understand any wiki policy in regards to neutrality and balance and blatantly ignores others. In respect Caprewearer and I had a disagreement over how to write something not the content and that is a substantial accusation which is unsupported by JJ, considering the last time we interacted we were cordial with each other. The really bully here is JJ who has made numerous threats. Games of the world (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that their editing in this area has not always been optimal (something I'm sure Deb is already aware of), but honestly, Games of the world, you can't go around telling people they're being stupid (in boldcaps, even), it's really not on. ——Serial # 11:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That one comment aside (which was out of frustration ) as this is the umpteenth time that a welsh user has attempted the same argument and frankly it is tiring. So would you agree that JJ going around accusing me and Defacto of paid editing is on? Which he has done numerous times. Games of the world (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, Games of the world; if you provide Deb diffs as to Jones' remarks, I'm sure she'll address them also. The article talk page, I suspect, is symptomatic of the wider real life sense of crisis. If tensions on COVID-19 pages are rising, then editors should considor temporarily self-isolating from them. ——Serial # 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I was only on a long break, thanks. But I agree with John Jones: Games of the world's edits at COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom are often combative, frequently skating to the edge of WP:3RR and occasionally breaching it. Other editors who have disagreed with John Jones' edits there, such as DeFacto and RWB2020, have adhered to WP:AGF and WP:BRD and patiently discussed proposed changes at the talk page. My own attempts at dialogue with Games of the world at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#Lifting_lockdown have been replied to with long, bombastic essays, which appear to be aimed at discouraging other editors from joining the discussion. Warnings at their talk page from John Jones[199], me,[200] and Deb,[201] are blanked with no reply apart from an angry edit summary.
    I believe I tried in good faith to maintain a neutral tone in COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, but my most recent edits there were consistently reverted by Games of the world, often accompanied by accusatory edit summaries, multiple reverts of my and John Jones' edits disguised with misleading edit summaries, and other WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. So I've quit editing there, as to be honest I found Games of the world's aggressive reverts too much like bullying, so I've given up trying to clean up that mess of a page. Capewearer (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=958378105"