Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Horse Eye Jack continued undiscussed mass removal of sources

In the past hour or so, despite discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293 having not been formally closed (and no RfC or listing at WP:RS/P), [[User:Horse Eye Jack |Horse Eye Jack]] has undertaken mass removal of references to CGTN, even in strictly non-political contexts such as sports, historical writers, or infrastructure / public transport metadata (not pertaining to controversial projects such as OBOR): sports ([1], [2]), infrastructure ([3], [4]), writers ([5]). As HEJ has been subject to a prior report on mass removal of mainland Chinese sources (including CGTN) in contexts not pertaining to BLP, despite the false invocation of BLP, for which they were reverted (sample 2) they are well-aware of the scrutiny that they have incurred. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't mean to post this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic given that COVID-19 pandemic is where this dispute originated[6]? I’m sure we can all agree that CGTN, a source which has been caught red handed by WP:RS spreading misinformation about the pandemic, is not an appropriate source to use for factual statements about the pandemic. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This response confounds me: as I linked to above, the mass removal of references (33 (!) from 16:49 UTC to 17:17 UTC) has extended well beyond COVID-19 pandemic or political subjects. As this problem has extended back to February (the last AN/I thread on this matter), this falls under the header's stated purview urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sports, infrastructure, and literature all have political dimensions, especially when it comes to the Chinese government. The consensus of that discussion is clear to me, is it not clear to you? I’m sure we can do an RfC and formally deprecate CGTN like we’re currently doing for the very similar RT right now if that would clear up any concerns you have about the consensus on their reliability. I find it interesting that you find one unclosed discussion (the ANI) to be gospel while finding the other (RSN) to be irrelevant, one of those discussions had a clear consensus... One did not, you appear to be taking as gospel the one without a clear consensus of any kind. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We can do without the condescending treat one unclosed discussion to be gospel while finding the other personal attack. Literally anything can be made the butt of a political joke or subject to partisanship, you will need to come up with an explanation as to how Ding Junhui's snooker performance, the death of of a basketball player, the 2018 title of the well-known Beijing Music Festival, or the start date of a high-speed railway are political. Imbuing party or international politics into apolitical BLPs is itself a BLP violation.

At the RSN discussion, there was a significant cohort of those who had indicated CGTN's quality in non-political contexts: MarioGom, Khu'hamgaba Kitap, MarkH21.CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In general we can only use WP:RS on BLP pages, CGTN is not currently considered a WP:RS (at best you can argue we have no consensus but that would be a very flimsy argument) so CGTN shouldn't be used on *any* BLP pages outside of some very specific contexts like perhaps the basic biographical details of Chinese government officials. If you have issues with some edits but not others please take it up with me on the respective talk pages as appropriate.

If you want to re-litigate RSN discussions this is not the place to do it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Horse Eye Jack: To be fair, I don’t see how the CGTN reference for the dates, name of art director, and name of the theme of the Beijing Music Festival is controversial and requires replacement by a cn tag. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your point on the name of the art director and the theme of the festival (you’re also right that tagging that one wasn’t necessary), however dates for infrastructure project completion etc are inherently political numbers with a large amount of wiggle room available for official fudging. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the infrastructure numbers and most of the political removals. For the less controversial cases though, I think it would be better to just tag the instances with {{better source}} instead of deprecation-style mass removal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, that is a much better solution for the edge cases. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have the time to investigate this, but I do have a suggestion for you both: Stop your back-and-forth bickering, and wait for someone to come along and review things. Does that sound sensible? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It does, CA has reverted most of the edits and I have no plans to revert back while discussion is ongoing so its basically at status quo and besides for the COVID-19 page there is nothing urgent here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion is a content dispute, and should take place on the reliable sources noticeboard. There is no requirement to have an RfC, a formal closure, or an entry on the perennial sources list before removing a disputed source from an article. The recent noticeboard discussion on CGTN took place earlier this month, and Horse Eye Jack's removals are in accordance with WP:BURDEN ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"). I recommend starting a new discussion or RfC about CGTN on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Newslinger except in this case. Horse Eye Jack does demonstrate tendencies to bait users and extend discussions beyond where they should go. I think an admin warning would go a long way in helping to get this editor back on track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

An admin warning would help, but would it come? Following an earlier discussion around this user, I was advised to open an discussion around his work on Wikipedia on the Administration's noticeboard. After four days of lengthy discussions, no administrator came around to make any sort of judgement, and all the discussion lead to was the archive. Why would that be different this time?Jeff5102 (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be meaningful if the user Horse Eye Jack actually focused on the material (he does not, so it is not in accordance), but the edits is focused on mass removal of certain sources (regardless of the content, even the most noncontroversial, or factors such as the presence other RS). See [7][8][9][10][11] for a few examples. --Cold Season (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

At least for the last one, I think it's reasonable to at least consider CGTN to be a WP:BIASED source when it comes to WeChat given the controversies surrounding it and the Chinese government, which would make it better to avoid citing it without an inline citation. --Aquillion (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21, Atsme, Jeff5102, and Cold Season: HEJ is back to it after acknowledging a suggestion by MarkH21 to use {{better source}}. Enough is enough, at this rate they are well on their way to at least an indefinite topic ban on this matter: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We agreed that the infrastructure numbers are political, did we not? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also those diffs you linked are to BLPs... In general we can only use WP:RS on BLPs, I’m sorry if you didn’t know that. Its actually the obligation of every editor to remove information on BLP pages sourced to unreliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources which have been described by multiple users to produce quality content in non-political contexts are not "unreliable" simply by your dictat. You ought to stop and move to other areas of the project that do not garner the ire of others. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

As the admin has already told you the current consensus is that CGTN is generally unreliable. Please do not misrepresent consensus, its a rather serious infraction. If you wish to continue your line of thought do as they suggested and open an RfC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger made no such interpretation of CGTN being "generally unreliable". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How else are you gonna interpret "There is no requirement to have an RfC, a formal closure, or an entry on the perennial sources list before removing a disputed source from an article. The recent noticeboard discussion on CGTN took place earlier this month, and Horse Eye Jack's removals are in accordance with WP:BURDEN”? The consensus of that noticeboard discussion is generally unreliable, as you can also see you were incorrect before when you said that a discussion had to be formally closed for there to be a consensus. Also smooth pinging everyone but Newslinger even when you name them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, since WP:RSNRFC was closed, a reasonable reading of the consensus is that an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard is needed to authorize large-scale removals of a source if those removals are disputed. I believe your best course of action is to stop removing citations to CGTN, and to start an RfC for CGTN like you did for Sina.com. Whenever an action is disputed, it never hurts to start a discussion to clarify whether there is consensus for the action. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

General comment: but not even deprecated sources are subject to blanket bans, per WP:DEPRECATE#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources.

Commenting again on this case: I would still at most use {{better source}} for infrastructure numbers, since statements on what the Chinese government publicly projects / announces reported by CGTN are no less reliable than direct government announcements would be under WP:SPS / WP:PRIMARY. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think out problem with one of the infrastructure numbers is that its not just a statement of when a line opened or that a certain station exists but of how many people rode the line in a given period of time, I still don’t feel that CGTN is a reliable source for that statement of fact. I also have been attributing and tagging where I think appropriate like [12]. First glance removal is only for BLPs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Thanks for asking my input. At the moment, I am a bit disillusioned on the policies of Wikipedia.
In the past, I enjoyed creating articles with the help of a British Newspaper Archive- and Newspapers.com-subscription I got from the Wiki-library. With those, I could browse obscure newspapers like the Cheltenham Chronicle, the Walsall Advertiser; or the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette to find interesting content for the articles.
Under current circumstances, it would be impossible to do so. According to Horse Eye Jack, on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable, and that before using a source, you have to show that it complies with the standards set out at WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability (see Talk:Gerald_Fredrick_Töben#MEMRI). And as others has stated above, when Horse Eye Jack is not convinced that the source complies with those standards, he blindly deletes them.
I am short of arguments why, for example, the Exeter and Plymouth Gazette of March 1903 could pass any standards; I am unaware of any fact-checking department, and, following HEJ's logic, if "there is no "conclusive answer whether it is reliable or not” then we can't use it." I cannot work that way.
That is why I asked: "is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method?" on the administrator's noticeboard last February. Back then, no answer was given by an administrator. I hope this time will be different.
Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We have different standards of reliability for use on WP:BLP pages and non-BLP pages, you appear to still not realize that. Also no you should not be using obscure old newspapers as reliable sources unless they meet Wikipedia’s reliability requirements, I doubt you will run into any BLP issues using hundred year old sources though. PS, its “they” not “he” and we’ve discussed that before. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears you are contradicting yourself. According to you there are different standards for WP:BLP pages and non-BLP pages, but I am not allowed to use the hundred year old sources Wikipedia handed me personally to use here for dead persons? Moreover, some of your discussed edits are concerning the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, the Turkish Armed Forces, Cinema of Saudi Arabia World Heritage Sites by country, Qatar Airway, Lapis Lazuli corridor, Sheep Without a Shepherd, List of high-speed railway lines in China, Line_1 (Lanzhou Metro), Beijing Music Festival and WeChat. Could you please per article make a case why the WP:BLP-rules apply there?Jeff5102 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP policy in general applies to all pages and all spaces of wiki including talk pages however there are specific restrictions which apply to BLP pages, read this from the notice about sources which is at the top of the page every time you edit a BLP page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.” That removal requirement is unique to BLP issues, there is no removal requirement for non-BLP issues but per WP:BURDEN anyone can remove poorly or unsourced text at any time. Can you perhaps clarify what you think is the contradiction? I’ve never claimed that BLP rules apply in non-BLP circumstances, if you think I have present the diff. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any difference between removing contentious material per BLP-rules and removing contentious material per Wikipedia-rules; the result is the same, making the difference rather minimal. How you then come up with a slight personal attack as We have different standards of reliability for use on WP:BLP pages and non-BLP pages, you appear to still not realize that. is beyond me. Why pointing out the different standards if the result is the same? And could you point out where in WP:BLP I can find the phrases on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable, and that before using a source, you have to show that it complies with the standards set out at WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability? Moreover, I still would like to hear you why I cannot use the more obscure newspapers from the British Newspaper Archive, if Wikipedia gave me access to them to use them, and the issue never came up at Wikipedia_talk:BNA. Why is it then that you make a problem out of it? Or can you direct me to the discussion, where consensus was built on this issue?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That quote is about WP:BURDEN not BLP, per BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” You can use those newspapers if that meet wikipedia’s reliability requirements, which are much less stringent for non-BLP things like you would be using old papers for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The part you quoted from WP:BURDEN is about content, not about sources. Please show me the quote about sources. Jeff5102 (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"And it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source" is not the same as on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable. Please show me the quote about sources.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As you can see from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources British Newspapers are of varying quality, from the very highest to the very lowest. Facilitating access to an archive which contains almost all British and Irish newspapers is very different from endorsing the general reliability of almost all British and Irish newspapers. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, not a policy. Back in January , you considered that as a very relevant distinction, discarding arguments coming from "essays" and "guidelines". But now it suits your case, "explanatory supplements" are suddenly good enough for you. This behavior does not benefit for a good cooperation. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP is a collection of consensuses, all of those individual consensuses are consensuses and as such you should respect them as consensuses. Wild how that works isn't it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not the point. The point is that you dismiss appeals to WP:RS for it being a guideline (without further arguments needed), yet now I have to take you serious when you appeal to an explanatory supplement to the same Wikipedia:RS guideline? Sorry, but that doesn't work. That said, for the sake of the argument: WP:RSP does not mention the British Newspaper Archive at all. Thus, I do not understand why you brought up this collection of consensuses, all of those individual consensuses are consensuses and as such you should respect them as consensuses at all. @Newslinger: Is there anything you can do about this? It appears to me that HEJ is more discussing for the sake of discussing, while doing damage to the encyclopedia by mass deleting fine sources. I have no idea how his presence is beneficial for this encyclopedia. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, it is generally not in any editor's best interest to turn a content dispute into a conduct dispute. This noticeboard is a venue for examining conduct disputes, and continuing the discussion here is not going to benefit you in any way. As I mentioned in my past two comments, I strongly recommend settling this via RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard instead of debating other editors here. — Newslinger talk 07:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the issue Jeff5102 has is separate from the issue I have with CA and I don’t think there currently is a content dispute between myself and CA... As far as I can tell we’ve addressed each conflict in context and have arrived at a suitable consensus/compromise. If it comes up again I will certainly open a RfC at RSN but at the moment I don’t think I can because there is no active content dispute. The argument between myself and Jeff5102 was never over China related sources, they wanted to use MEMRI as a source on a BLP... As far as I can tell they *still* do. I will however desist though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, HEJ has been doing this kind of mass removal since 20/05/2020 (check here), while there is no consensus of CGTN's reliability on WP:RSN and even the discussion is not closed. Wo.luren (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How did you find this page? You seem to have never commented on a noticeboard ever and all but four of your edits since 24 March have been COVID-19 related. Of those four edits one is at Fang Fang, one is on the RFC I started on Sina.com (not related to COVID=19) [13], and the other two are here. So can I politely ask you why 75% of your non-COVID-19 related edits over the last few months are directly related to me? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is another attempt at baiting / derailing this discussion and not at all a sincere question given your own assessment of Wo.luren's 2020 edits as being COVID-19 related and...this inappropriate removal at a COVID-19 page, which does not take much digging of page history (160 intermediate edits) to discover. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@HEJ I do not have time getting into your argument. So please stop putting your nonsense on me like you did to other editors here. Wo.luren (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS

I looking for a fellow admin who might say to User talk:RexxS: Look, the guy’s polite, he has a right to talk, certainly on his own talk page.

Most recently, RexxS said “It's time for you to drop the stick and back away.“ After first accusing me of trying to subvert the standards of MEDRS, and after previously threatening to seek sanctions against me if my “disruptive editing” continued. This is at User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS.

I have followed the rules and have made solid edits on the main Coronavirus pages, and at the same time, I have civilly questioned policy on the talk page. In particular, I’ve pointed out that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) has a header which states, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . . “

Background includes:

Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints

Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ” (Archive 9)

Any help would be appreciated, and if I’m doing something unacceptable to group norms, please let me know. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how any admin intervention is required here. You're having a disagreement with another editor, which can easily be handled by continued discussion either at the article talk page or via your user talk pages. ANI is a board for requesting administrator actions and I can't see any actions that would be appropriate here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not just another editor. RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me as a result of that disagreement. I’m trying to be proactive and get a response before I’m blocked. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me as a result of that disagreement. Diff of that threat, please? --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

From User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS

• “Consequently, I'm now warning you, in all seriousness, that I will seek sanctions against you for disruptive editing if you persist.” (end of first paragraph) And this for advocacy on talk pages, not for actual live edits on article pages. And,

From Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 9 —> Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ”

• “As for ‘One study of COVID-19 patients at three hospitals showed ...’, if you finish that sentence with a biomedical claim, I'll block you until you're prepared to abide by our sourcing policies and guidelines. It's as simple as that.“ (RexxS’ first response, May 16) That’s an example of making up policy on the fly. It’s also an example of being both player and referee.

Again, I’m trying to be proactive. And probably should say, that even though I’m a 10+ year Wikipedian, I’m more used to sports sites in which extended debate on something like a talk page is viewed as just fine. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the same thing you said in your initial comment, but it doesn't tally with what you said in a follow up. RexxS said they would seek sanction against you. In other words, let other admins or the community decide if your behaviour warranted action. They never threateened to take admin action against you directly which is what you implied with "RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me". An editor saying they will ask for you to be sanctioned or blocked if you continue to violate some policy or guideline is perfectly normal, frankly I would expect you to know that with 10+ years of experience. It's not generally worth our time analysing whether your behaviour warrants sanction on ANI unless we're actually considering imposing sanction. So if you feel the threat is without merit, ignore it. If your behaviour is really fine then when they seek sanction they'll just be told to go away, or worse suffer a WP:boomerang, there is no need to be "proactive". Of course if your behaviour is a problem, the fact that you've already been warned means you'll likely get limited sympathy. If you're not sure whether what you're doing is okay, you should continue to engage in discussion with RexxS and others, or seek help elsewhere e.g. WP:Teahouse, not ANI. It's ultimately your responsibility to understand and follow our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I mostly wrote the above before you replied based on checking out your talk page, got an EC, skimmed through what you wrote and reworded it slightly. I missed the part in the second example where they did directly threaten a block. I haven't looked at the details and for AC/DS cases it can be complicated whether an admin is acting in a purely administrative capacity. However it is also about 17 days ago and given that in their most recent comment RexxS simply threatened to report you, it may be even RexxS now feels they're WP:involved. Have you at least asked RexxS whether they still feel they can block you directly? Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again I am seeing someone claim that WP:MEDRS should be diluted on the very page where it currently the most important. The way to counter "bat shit crazy conspiracy theories" is to cite proper science, not preliminary studies. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m all in favor of reliable sources (medicine), including the first header which mentions “common sense” and “occasional exceptions.” And with a new-to-humans disease like Coronavirus, we might well benefit from including the occasional primary source. If so, we (1) have to be really confident we’re summarizing it right and (2) state something like “A study of ___ number of patients showed.” Unless we’re simply going to repeat WHO and CDC, as valuable as these two are, there may not be enough good secondary sources otherwise. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting "occasional exceptions" to mean ignoring the policy on the very page where it is most important. For any exception to be occasional it must be stringently justified in the context where it applies, but you seem to be proposing to use this as a get-out clause to avoid confronting "bat shit crazy conspiracy theories" in a proper, scientific way and to promote other unproven theories. You are taking people's time away from providing some of the best, well-sourced, content on the Internet while you continually argue about this point. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been attempting for several weeks now to stem the tide of unreliable sources being used at COVID-19, in an attempt to keep up with news sources that report every novel study regardless of whether they are usable for an encyclopedia. It is very important that WP:RS and WP:MEDRS in particular are observed, as those are the key guidelines that prevent content from being degraded with text sourced from poor quality sources.

The situation was so bad that I even had to impose a specific general sanction to prevent the use of preprints (preliminary studies, not even peer-reviewed) as sources. See sanctions on the use of preprints Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints. The comments from FriendlyRiverOtter were outright opposition that showed a complete lack of understanding of the reasons for MEDRS: "What we’re up against are bat shit crazy conspiracy theories ... We’re also at risk of irrelevancy due to the 24-hour news cycle and social media. ... And then I’d ask, How often really does a professional journal make substantial changes to a pre-print? I mean, if we’re going to make big sacrifices to piously remain on the sidelines, that’s kind of an important question. Especially when a clear better alternative is to say “According to a preliminary study . . ” or something of this sort, or even add “(pre-print, not yet subject to peer review)” if we feel that’s necessary. Suggesting that we use sources that don't even meet WP:RS by using qualifications like "According to a preliminary study" is thoroughly unhelpful and sets a poor example for other editors at the article. Further comments from FRO in that thread included:

• "If a colleague said “a preprint showed . . ” pertaining to a real live patient under the care of both of you, would you try to pretend you never heard it, or would you cautiously take it into account?" - to an MD who disagreed with them
• "For several weeks from January and February, a preliminary study from China found that approximately 13% of transmission from pre-symptomatic persons." - advocating another preprint
• "To me, the overall issue of whether we remain relevant, or not, is huge. And in that context, a couple of weeks can be a big deal."
• "So, a professional journal is okay with a pre-print, with the qualification of course, but for us, Oh no. We have to outdo them and be more goody two-shoes, more by-the-book, seemingly more everything."
• "I urge you not to decide ahead of time that we’re going to relegate ourselves to the trailing edge."

After receiving support fro other admins, I imposed the general sanction. That provoked a personalisation in FRO's next response:

• "No compelling argument, eh? I’m not sure one should both energetically champion a viewpoint, and neutrally sit as a judge."

My viewpoint was that of upholding MEDRS, not a personal view on the content, but that's lost to FRO, who added:

• "Now, whether we’re really going to go the route of secondary sources only, that’s an entirely separate discussion. I don’t think WP:MEDRS is that hardcore about it. Yes, I have read it before, but it’s been a while."

Then back to challenging MEDRS/RS:

• "On an occasional, sparring basis, with the qualifier “a preliminary study shows . . , ” I don’t think we should immediately dismiss using a pre-print."
• "So, we’re going to have a “higher” standard than JAMA, are we? JAMA makes pre-prints available — with a qualification of course (key point!). And we’re going to do this as if super “high” standards are some kind of unalloyed good thing."

It was at that point on 14 May 2020 that I warned FRO that their continued opposition to our standards for sourcing was becoming disruptive. There the situation remained until 28 May when FRO decided to take up the argument again, this time on their talk page, claiming "All the same, I do not feel I should be penalized for participating on a talk page." Of course, FRO has not been penalised, other than having been prevented from using preprints to support medical content.

For sake of clarity: given the personalisation in their replies to my warnings about their behaviour, I will not take administrative action against FriendlyRiverOtter, but I am now looking for some support to curtail their disruption. The more that our sourcing standards are openly challenged, especially on talk pages, the more difficult it is to maintain quality in the article, which already is recognised as problematic and is under community-imposed general sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s also the part on May 15 and 16th in which I started the discussion: Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ” (Archive 9)

Toward the beginning, I said:

• ”Now, that doesn’t mean run hog wild (and it doesn’t mean consensus first for our Coronavirus article).”

I stand with both of these, because if we go at a snail’s pace that’s not going to help anyone. But the editor should be able to present his or her reasons for an exception. So, I’m all in favor of going medium in a thoughtful way.

• ”you’re one of us. You have jumped in and joined your fellow Wiki citizens, and we’re happy you have you!”

Now this is clumsy. And @RexxS: I wish to apologize to you for this clumsiness. All I meant is that if you’re playing a basketball game, you cannot also referee it.

On my talk page, I responded to your post of May 14 two weeks later on May 28. I often respond to posts at my own leisure. I want to eventually respond because I don’t want people months down the road to think I violated MEDRS, which is certainly not how I look at it.

RexxS, you ended your May 28 post by saying, “It's time for you to drop the stick and back away.” Given our previous disagreement and your role as admin, I viewed that as an order not to talk on my own talk page.

Obviously, I think I have a right to my talk page. And more broadly, I don’t agree that speech = crime. A person can follow a policy and at the same time work to improve that policy. And if other Wikipedians don’t understand that, we can and will bring them up to speed. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: please take a look at WP:LISTGAP. It's much kinder to those using screen readers if you don't continually leave gaps between your indented posts.

The thing about "occasional exceptions may apply" is that in all the years I've edited medical articles, I've never seen one of those occasional exceptions applied, have you? I'm always happy to discuss reasons for making exceptions, but you haven't brought any, apart from your desire to keep up with breaking news, and you've been told a dozen times now that it's not what Wikipedia is about.

As for your patronising welcome, it wasn't simply clumsy, it was downright rude. This isn't a game (of basketball or otherwise). You need to understand that on wiki, an admin is not disqualified from action merely because of prior admin actions. If an admin warns you about your behaviour, you don't get a free pass from sanctions simply because you argued about the warnings. Fortunately, I don't have to use any admin functions to seek sanctions and this board would be one of the possible venues.

Let me be clear on this point as well: you haven't violated MEDRS that I'm aware of, but you have challenged it, and repeatedly advocated to see it breached. You won't be allowed to continue down that road. It really is time to stop doing that ("drop the stick") and get on with more productive editing ("back away"). Is that clear enough?

If you feel you want to improve MEDRS, then let us know how you want to improve it, because all I've seen from you so far is how you want to circumvent it.

Finally, on Wikipedia, you have exactly two rights: the right to fork and the right to leave. Everything else is a privilege that is extended to you as long as you respect the established conventions of being here. One of those is MEDRS and if you still don't understand it, you can always have a look at this video from Wikimania 2019: File:MEDRS - bulwark or barrier.webm. It might give you a clue about why I'm so passionate about defending it. --RexxS (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: since you ask about exceptions, there are a couple of primary studies which found that an uncovered cough can travel further than the social distance of 6 feet. These are on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019. And if we look, we might be able to find a few more. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Just mark them up with {{medrs |reason=primary source used to support biomedical claim |date=May 2020}} and they will be removed, or just remove them yourself. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: no need to remove, they’re not on our article page. But since you ask and all, the two are clean, easy-to-understand studies, and I think they’re good candidates for making exceptions for. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: They are not. I'm done with humouring you. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If it would make FriendlyRiverOtter happier, I am prepared to block them rather than RexxS if the energetic pushback against general sanctions continues. Talk pages cannot properly function if they are dominated by campaigns to include preprints. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Editors are usually allowed a little latitude on their own talk pages, to be fair.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• The requirement for RS/MEDRS and prohibition on using preprints has wide community support, but we have a small number of people who seem to be constantly pushing back against that, and FriendlyRiverOtter is at the forefront. I know policy says "occasional exceptions may apply", but we should expect that to be very occasional, not every time a non-RS is published about Covid-19. That's the way we have tradtionally approached exceptions, and the community has very much reinforced that approach for Covid-19 articles. If RexxS has agreed not to sanction FriendlyRiverOtter personally, I have not. And I am very much prepared to sanction those who tendentiously keep on challenging the MEDRS requirement and agitating for its breach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So, it’s the case that speech itself on our talk pages is the “crime,” even if civil? And whereas, if someone makes a response and someone else hammers it with four responses, okay, that’s repetitive. But if you make a response and I make a response in turn, that’s not repetitive, is it? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, it comes across as "keep badgering until you get the answer you want".

The restriction on preprints is there for an excellent reason. Papers can fail peer review, the preprint version can be significantly modified, and this is an area where there has been noise about early findings that have turned out to be wrong to the point of likely fraud.

Sure, it means we won't necessarily be at the cutting edge of the latest breaking news. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (help!) 21:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I've now reluctantly reached the conclusion that FriendlyRiverOtter has no intention of abiding by our standards for sourcing, as the debate above shows – indeed they seem determined to undermine MEDRS in order to appear "cutting edge" in our coverage. I see no inclination to back down from their position and feel that their continued presence on those articles is detrimental to establishing quality sources.

I therefore propose that they are topic-banned from COVID-19 related pages for a month.

I understand that any uninvolved admin can impose any reasonable general sanction in the area anyway, but hopefully having some degree of consensus here might bring home to FriendlyRiverOtter the need to observe the community's express requirement for maintaining our standards for quality and behaviour on pages under general sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Support as proposer. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. FRO was heavily involved in pushing the "cough radius" primary study they cited earlier as evidence that "MEDRS primary exceptions exist", and kept agitating for its inclusion even after at least 3 literal MDs explained why it was important that we not use a (heavily underpowered) primary source. Clearly they are still carrying that stick and don't intend to drop it. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   @JoelleJay: this was in the context of an RfC which I myself started. So, yeah, if someone makes a thoughtful response, I’m going to try to make a thoughtful response in return, time permitting and if I feel I have something worthwhile to say.
   I can see two MDs by user name. If you know who the third is, I’d also be interested in knowing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Iff they persist in this outside their own talk page after this discussion. It's inappropriate and unwise to demand a mea culpa as a precondition of continued editing privileges, but this discussion needs to lead to them getting the message. Editors are allowed to express unconventional views on their own talk pages and this must not be banned.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   @S Marshall: thank you for your measured response, and I hope you appreciate my measured approach as well. Even though I have pointed out that the MEDRS header states “common sense” and “occasional exceptions,” I also said above “Now, that doesn’t mean run hog wild.” That is, I really have attempted to steer a middle course. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   Yes, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that the "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" clauses in practice mean hardly ever and only for something special. There's no "middle course" to steer here. The required course is "no non-MEDRS sources for medical information in Covid-19 articles", as the community has made very very clear. Seeing you continuing to push back against that even here, in a proposal to have you topic banned, confirms my conviction that this topic ban really is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Support per my comments above. This is, at the moment, the most important article on which WP:MEDRS should be upheld, and anyone who continually argues against this is taking editors' time away from providing a proper source of information to counter the disinformation that is prevalent on the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support, unfortunately, as FriendlyRiverOtter is still not getting it, or is refusing to get it. I'll add that I was thinking a 3-month topic ban would be appropriate if FriendlyRiverOtter continued, but hopefully a 1-month ban will prevent the need for anything longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   I’m polite, and for the most part, my responses have been relatively brief.

   Now, besides being a sports site person, I also a nerd. So, if there’s an unstated group norm which I’m not reading, and I get the definite feeling there is, it might be helpful if someone could just matter-of-factly state such. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   There's nothing unstated here, there's just a very clearly and oft stated "Stop pushing against the sourcing requirements for Covid-19 articles" which have a very clear community consensus, and stop pushing against those who strive to uphold them. Honestly, it's a long time since I've seen anything less unstated than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   If you make a commitment to stop promoting the use of primary sources and/or non-MEDRS sources, stop supporting their use, *and* drop your participation in the currently open RfC (in which you persistently show that you still don't understand how not to use primary sources), and if you commit to only using (and discussing) MEDRS compliant sources (without exception) in relation to Covid-19, then I will strike my support for this topic ban proposal. But it will be on the proviso that any breach of these commitments would result in an immediate topic ban under the active community-authorised discretionary sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   Oh, and please note the striking of my support won't stop the proposal - I don't have the power to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   And one final comment here, having just had a read through that RFC. Firstly, there's clearly no consensus for the use of your proposed source (and I hope someone will close it soon). Secondly, it's been going on for 15 days and it's 3,500 words long! That's 15 days and 3,500 words of timesink. Time that those repeatedly explaining the flaws in your arguments could have (and I'm sure would have loved to have) spent more productively looking for and using acceptable sources to develop the article to the standard required by WP:MEDRS. And *that* is why you need to be stopped from your attempts to get sub-standard sources used in Covid-19 articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   I add my support for closure of that RFC, to go along with the topic ban. It has obviously failed, and, as said above, it only serves as a time sink. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   I have closed and archived the RfC. I agree to cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!), as such discussions have not at all been well received.
   And I plan to continue positive edits on the article pages themselves as I’ve done on Coronavirus disease 2019: Revision history since at least early April, and other COVID-19 pages since March. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   That's not the agreement I wanted in order to strike my support, I need you to back off from promoting primary sources permanently, not just for "one month (and probably longer!)". You just *will not listen*, will you? I reaffirm my support for the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

6. Is this necessary? I think FRO may have got the point now. Guy (help!) 08:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

   What, FRO is going to "cool it ... for one month (and probably longer!)"? I really don't see that as getting the point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:1+1=yes and his humorous user page

1+1=yes (talk · contribs · logs) (ignore the percents, they are used to link correctly to the page) 's user page is very messy and definitely does not fit the description of a user page. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:1%2B1%3Dyes&type=revision&diff=960161036&oldid=959762701&diffmode=source. As you can see in the diff, there are a lot of humorous and/or nonsense parts of the page. You can't even see the history. All, I know, this whole account is only used for humorous purposes. I mean, look at the sandbox of this person. It is definitely made for humorous purposes. Seriously. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if I should be posting here, but this definitely feels like a good place. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this had to come to ANI either, but I've been bold and "tidied" most of the junk away and left them a note, which they may or may not answer. ——Serial ^# 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)^^^ btw ——Serial ^# 14:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The page can be linked from 1+1=yes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a "1=" prefix; encoding the "=" and "+" shows logs for all users (or just use 1+1=yes (talk · contribs) as they are not vandalising). Peter James (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter James: apologies for density, but I don't quite see what you're getting at? ——Serial ^# 10:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The template at the top of the section; the log links show logs for all users and not just User:1=1+1=yes. Also the use of {{vandal}} to link to users who are not vandalising. Peter James (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see, yes my density it was. You're dead right of course, thanks for noticing. I've taken the liberty of switching the tempate to something easier on the eye, and, 3125A, just a heads up, but you shouldn't use the vandal template when you're not actually reporting vandalism  :) ——Serial ^# 13:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:777 persona 777 and Talk:Christopher Langan#Intelligent design

Can I get some additional eyes on this user and their talk page section please? 777 persona 777 appears to be yet another SPA drawn to that page. In addition to the insults on the page, they have continued to email me despite me repeatedly asking them to keep the discussion to the article talk page. In their latest email they included the following threat: "You are allowing this source against him and justifying it. I've checked your twitter. Full of leftism. You have an agenda. You see yourself as fighting a war against the man with the highest IQ simply because he disagrees with you. I suggest ego checking yourself otherwise it won't end up good for you. This is a warning" GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, and 777 persona 777 has opened a DR case. here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"[O]therwise it won't end up good for you. This is a warning" is one of those crafty non-threat threats. Reading it, it certainly sounds threatening, and appears to be aimed at creating a chilling effect, but the person making it can always say "Oh, no, it wasn't a threat, it really was just a warning." I tend not to believe that, and to fall on the "chilling effect" side of the equation. I would urge admins to consider whether a sanction for User:777 persona 777 against editing Christoper Langan and communicating with GorillaWarfare might be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so they have. Nice of them to let me know... GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Their (and Langan's) argument seems to be that The Baffler shouldn't be considered RS since it's a non-expert criticism of a work they feel requires expertise to critique. They want to treat CTMU as a legitimate scientific/philosophical investigation. I'd generally agree that non-specialist interpretations of specialist academic works should not be included whatsoever; on the other hand, this idea reads more like an amateur continental philosophy blog post than a well-developed academic proposal. It also hasn't gained any traction in actual math/physics/philosophy/linguistics beyond mention as a curiosity. I think Justin Ward's assessment is naïve and reductive, but it's also telling that we have so little engagement by real scholars that we have to cite lay media at all. JoelleJay (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG:

"When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."

That's how the opinion is presented in the article:

"Journalist Justin Ward in The Baffler also wrote that it "isn't particularly scientific—or original", saying it was rather a repackaging of intelligent design."

This meets the requirements of NEWSORG precisely. It also meets the sourcing requirements of WP:FRINGE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that GorillaWarfare's purpose in starting this thread was to point out the implicit threat in the e-mail from 777 persona 777. That's an issue for this board. The question of whether The Baffler is a reliable source, or whether Justin Ward has the necessary credentials to criticize Langan's CTMU is better resolved on the article talk page, or at WP:RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I just thought summarizing the sock's complaint (and reasons why it hasn't been considered valid) might give context to the dispute. It highlights how petty the user is to cry libel over a single negative opinion being cited appropriately. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, I mean, yes, but The Baffler is not a RS for this stuff. We have an article on a man who claims to have exceeded Hawking's understanding of the universe, and the sources are men's magazines and cultural commentary. OK, I feel; proprietary towards Hawking, having attended the same school, but even so. Guy (help!) 00:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you Guy, that we don't go to sources like The Baffler for our scientific insights, but in this case it may well be that Langan's theory is off-the-wall enough that it doesn't take a Hawking, or even a degree in physics or one in evolutionary biology, to see it for what it is. In any case, the opinion isn't -- as is claimed on the article talk page -- "libelous" or "defamatory" or "slanderous", the reasons given why it should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, I seem to have fractured the conversation yet again by posting User talk:JzG#Christopher Langan. Happy to continue that discussion here if that's easier. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, actually we should just roll the whole thing up to the articler's Talk page. The user issue is fixed now I think (though the trickle of SPAs on that article will no doubt continue). Guy (help!) 08:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• GW: I see what you mean by the article attracting fans of Langan. Not only 777 persona 777, but now User:Crdvyniu is casting aspersions and making near-personal attacks on the talk page. [14] Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

inserting 'negative opinions' on an article that is suppose to be objective is improper. i know you fools will respond with your bias and ego but bias and ego should be removed from wikipedia. this is not a tabloid site. would you edit a wikipedia article regarding buddhism or other teachings and place high school tier remarks as a source? 'repackaging of intelligent design' on an article that says he's alex jones with a thesaurus is unproffessional. you all have more power than me so its your dictatorship but if you wish this unproffesionalism to remain then its more so an ego problem on your behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777 persona 777 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Latest email from User:777 persona 777, after I did not reply to their threatening email, reads: You should add 'evil' next to 'queer and femininst'. It would fit you nicely! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

And another: Incel and Satantic Bible...You are clearly a negative being who abuses their power to defame people who disagree with you. I don't care about 'wikipedia rules' because people like you are the ones in control. evil people always seek power. that's why you are posting these emails. it's just another weapon for you to get power over me. i suggest you read the ctmu... it would actually help you with your power issues. maybe you will stop being a pathetic negative being after a read or two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had been thinking about proposing a partial block for User:777 person 777 from Christopher Langan and Talk:Christopher Langan (where they've actually been the most disruptive), but now I think that a NOTHERE indef would be a better course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at those emails you are getting GorillaWarfare surely this constitutes WP:NPA? Glen 04:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC) - scratch that they're blocked. Beat me to it. Glen 04:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• With 777 persona 777 blocked, I suppose this thread can be closed. One interesting thing I just noticed is the number of editors of Christopher Langan who've been indeffed: 777 persona 777, EarlWhitehall, Snoogal, Mrs Smart Persons 421, NunsMuns12345, Drl, and some incidentals and IPs. Not all blocked because of their editing on the article, but the subject does seem to attract a rather disruptive crowd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well a big problem is that, recently anyway, most of the interest in the article has been SPAs both those supportive of the subject and those opposed. Last time this came to AN there was a proposal to topic ban a bunch of editors Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318#Christopher Langan which was never formally closed even though it probably had consensus. However it wouldn't have made any difference since most of those editors have already disappeared some from being blocked but quite a few not (or not directly), indeed the steady stream of new editors is a problem I noted. It seems like most of the anti Langan SPAs may have no disappeared leaving only the supportive ones. One earlier proposal was for community sanctions for the article but as noted at the time, the article is covered by BLP and a lot of the stuff pseudoscience DS so there was no real point. I guess long term ECP or requiring 500/30 for editing the article may help. But short of that, maybe just continue to give DS alerts so the DS process can be used if a new problem editor pops up that does't do something requiring a simple block. IIRC, I did notice Crdvyniu back in March but couldn't be bothered giving an alert. I've given one now but it perhaps illustrates why it's better to give alerts earlier. There is a slight chance SPI would pick up something, I don't think one was ever opened. But I sort of figures with the large number of SPAs and the AN thread, someone had already run a check if it was justified. So I suspect we're probably mostly dealing with meat puppets. From the discussion last time this came up, I think it's possible that discussion outside Wikipedia, maybe on a Facebook group or something, is attracting the SPA attention. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that seems likely. I think that giving early DS alerts is a good idea, which I'll keep in mind for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy and AfC woes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. If we want a general sitewide restriction on articles not meeting these parameters, let's have one, but we should not require one editor to provide more than is required of others for a draft to be moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Completely reasonable asks that hits all the marks of concern. Neutral, see second proposal. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral As written this is a higher bar than we set for other AFC submissions. The ruberic has always been (at least as far as I know) "Excluding policy reasons why, a draft must have at least a 50% chance of surviving a AFD discussion". Hold FA to that standard. in WP:AFC we have an informal practice of "If the same draft is submitted 3 times without correcting the defects, it may be taken to MFD for failure to support the purpose of Draft Space/AFC while pointing out contributing reasons for why this page wouldn't survive if it were in mainspace". Our standards and practices work, we just have to enforce them. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The only purpose given to AFC is to make sure the article demonstrates why it is notable and deserves to be on mainspace before it gets to be included. This is helpful for inexperienced users who might be writing about a notable topic but fail to explicitly establish exactly why the topic is Wikipedia notable such as is convention here. For editors familiar with SNGs and AFDs, the AFC minimum should be no more than one sentence stub establishinng which SNG is met, and one source verifying the claim. Draftspace articles aren't automatically submitted by virtue of residing in that namespace, so the point about the sandbox makes no sense. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are no minimum length criteria requirements for any editor to create any content, so imposing an arbitrary length for one editor is overkill. There are plenty of worse articles being saved into the main article space every single hour. Examples include this and this. The latter being created by an editor who has been here for 15 years! Topic ban from AfC might be an option, but a better one would be for someone to mentor FA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral as I think such a requirement is really only fair if applied to all, and clearly many articles are created in main-space that do not meet this reasonable condition. Make this a requirement for all and I 100% support KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this would be significantly more onerous than required. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any reviewer who doesn't want to deal with these sub-stubs can decline them or ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - someone starting articles is a good thing, perhaps we should suggest that they request articles? I'm sure WiR would welcome any list of suggested articles of women. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).
  

Resolution

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

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

Contrast these with the articles I'm having rejected:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Support but only if it applies to all submitters. It stops overwhelming AfC; It encourages submitters to put their best article through first; It encourages submitters to try to improve (better sources; clearer indication of the content that supports notability) before resubmitting a declined article. KylieTastic (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support as general restriction only. Everything more is just disruptive spam.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Clearly, FloridaArmy can write decent articles; let him decide to focus his efforts on the twenty that might get accepted. There's no reason AfC's queue should be burdened. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Accept that FloridaArmy is what he is and move on.

1. Support as proposer. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2. oppose,m because it's pissing people off. Wikipedia is not therapy, and obsessives doing the right thing in the wrong way cause drama. Guy (help!) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose because blanket accusations of racism are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose FloridaArmy needs to accept two things here. Firstly, some of the articles for creation were turned down because of good faith WP:GNG decisions. They just weren't sourced properly and did not establish the subject's notability, which is a key requirement of GNG. Secondly, repeated accusations of racism amount to a failure to assume good faith. The users doing the articles for creation reviews are trying their best, and should not be accused of acting in bad faith without very clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support I would rather have FloridaArmy contributing stubs than not contributing stubs. They are a net positive even if annoying. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support They did have a draft incorrectly declined immediately before this occurred, so I'm willing to WP:AGF. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose because the current way of running is clearly causing FA as much stress/negativity as it is to the AfC reviewers. KylieTastic (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support as he is a net positive, but needs to avoid casting aspersions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support Agree he is a net positive. I would also remove his AFC restriction because the problems with his articles aren't usually ones that AFC is well suited to deal with. (Bad formatting etc. should not be an AFC concern, and nuanced notability issues are better suited for AFD rather than a single AFC reviewer.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose per KylieTastic. I don't think AfC volunteers have to let FloridaArmy be a pain in the ass. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Policy Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no admin issue here

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

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

‎Pyxis Solitary's reverts and attacks

This report concerns the editor ‎Pyxis Solitary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I split the article to make the distinct separation between the first and second seasons. As the articles stood, there was only an article for the parent series and the second season, as, yes, Bly Manor is a second season and not a sequel series, as determined by reliable sources and past discussions. The split therefore separated these seasons and made content clearer. The article was split with the correct attribution and thus was acceptable and allowable per Wikipedia policy, and not every split requires a discussion to go ahead.

This split was reverted[15] without reason, prompting me to start a discussion at the article's talk page, after which I was egregiously attacked and sworn at twice [16][17], where they then directly edited my user page[18]. Previous behaviour of this example can be see at Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series). How am I to discuss the content at hand, when the reverting editor will not discuss in a civil manner at all and is fixated on being as egregiously insulting as possible? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• This split was reverted without reason. Really? The summary states: "Where in the Talk page is there a discussion to make this change? The display of WP:OWNership entitlement towards this article is appalling."
• User:Alex 21 made a major change to this article in February 2019 when he moved it, which afterwards resulted in the move being reverted after objections to the move.
• He took it upon himself, twice, to appropriate my latest talk page comment by merging it into his topic: 1., 2.. So, yes, "Who the fuck do you think you are to appropriate my comment?" was a gut-reaction to what I consider a violation of my right to decide what I write, when I write it, and where I write it. And the second time I undid his unauthorized grab I wrote: "I did not and do not give you permission to merge my comment. I specifically posted it as a separate comment."
• Btw, this is the comment I posted @ 05:30, 2 June 2020 in his User page by error, warning him about ANI if he appropriated any comment by me again. He then ran here one minute later to create this complaint. I re-posted my ANI warning in his talk page, and he deleted it. I've dealt with 'cheers' editors before. Their affections of politeness contradict their contempt for the contributions of other editors to this project. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  That is not a reason for the revert. You have not given a guideline or policy reason for your revert. In fact, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR actually states An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Furthermore, it even states An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. I see this in your revert of my edits, which now even has editorial support.

  Have I since proposed to continue the discussion of the article move from over a year ago? No. That's a dead topic, please find material relevant to this discussion. It'd be great if you could supply a reason.

  The two talk page sections concern the same topic, and I believe the only reason you have created your own topic instead of replying to me is 1) out of spite, and 2) so that you do not have to directly reply to me, which, again, you have not yet done. It is clear that the editor has no intention to reply, only to edit-war and revert, and to not be civil in the faintest. They have admitted that they were deliberately incivil, a clear violation of the WP:PA policy. Unacceptable.

  I was already in the middle of creation this report when you edited my user page without permission. Do you really think I wrote all of this in a single minute? No. Now, either reply to the discussion at hand, or admit that you have no intention to do so and recind your personal attacks and apologize for them. Refusing to do so will be your admittance that you have no intention to edit collaboratively. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Note that the reported editor did respond on the talk page[19], but only to discuss conduct instead of content. This furthers the stance that they have no intention to discuss the article's content, only to revert it, further supporting the creation of this report. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BOLD should not be used as a weapon: 06:55, 2 June 2020.
  The consequence from the previous lack of WP:CONS should have been the clue for what path to follow: 07:03, 2 June 2020. 'nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  None of this excuses your behaviour. You had zero reason to be so hostile in the face of a bold edit. Revert civilly, discuss civilly, come to a consensus. That is the behaviour of a collaborative editor. The previous discussions discussed the title of the article, not the season articles; they are irrelevant. And this[20]? Further proof that they are only here for a battleground behaviour. How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? Administration action is clearly required here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pyxis' revert of a major BOLD edit and insistence on consensus seems entirely justified. What slight incivility there is has gotten nowhere close to sanctionable from either party, and you have successfully avoided any edit warring, so - keep it to the talk page, ask for a third opinion if you two get stuck, notify related Wikiprojects, open an RfC... any of that before kicking up a storm here over what seems like a reasonable if hotly worded content dispute. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that their revert was justified, hence why I have not reverted. What I completely disagree on is the "slight incivility". Let's take a look at the actions from the reported editor that have unfolded:

  • [21]: an unbased OWN accusation.
  • [22]: another unbased OWN accusation, and an accusation of a "one-finger salute", no attempt at assuming good faith.
  • [23]: sworn at.
  • [24]: editing my personal user page without reason.
  • [25]: threatening to take me to ANI over the addition of an indent to a talk page comment.
  • [26]: accusation of "running here" and told that I have nothing but contempt for editors; again, failure to AGF.
  • [27]: my edits are "snake oil"?
  • [28]: Quote - "you're here for a one-track-mind self gratification, not collaboration". Even less AGF.
  • [29]: Repeating herself as if talking to a child. I especially like this last one - they repeated "seek consensus" while doing everything she should to not participate in the consensus-gaining procedure.

  Do you also see what all of these diffs do not include? Any sort of attempt to actually discuss the content. All of these edits, and not a single response that actually concerns the content. How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? keep it to the talk page, ask for a third opinion if you two get stuck? I've kept it to the talk page, and how we can we stuck if she refuses to respond? In anyone's next reply, can you please answer that? These three diffs [30][31][32] is what it looks like to actually discuss the content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. What a meltdown. Is there anything I posted that I, myself, have not already linked in my comments here? Do you assume that an editor who's read a comment has not also checked the diffs and linked quotes included in it? And, good lord, you've also diff-linked what has been posted here. By the way, I did not write that your "edits are 'snake oil'." When you indulge in parsing iotas you need to refrain from putting a spin to what was written, because what I wrote is →: "There is nothing 'civil' about appropriating another editor's comment: 1x, 2x. You do not have the right to decide what an editor writes, where, and why. Suffice it to say: I'm not buying your snake oil." I'll translate it for you: after your repeated appropriation of my comment I don't believe anything you have to say about civility. And this latest tinkering with the talk page comments is absurd. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  The entire point of a report at ANI is to provide diffs. We should not be taking other editor's actions here for granted; if diffs are needed, they then are provided. Is there a reason as to why you don't think I should be providing these diffs from you?

  Your actual quote at this edit[33] was Suffice it to say: I'm not buying your snake oil. Pray tell, if you weren't talking about my edits, what were you talking about? My contributions? My discussions? If it was something about me, my point remains.

  All of this, and you still won't actually discuss the topic at hand. Even when a consensus is starting to become clearer with other editors, you point[34] to an outdated RM (which did not have the consensus you thought), as if consensus's cannot be updated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Your actual quote at this edit...." Okay. This is all becoming very odd and should concern others who read your comment. I linked and quoted what I said in full, and your response is to re-quote part of it and link the same diff, as if what I quoted and linked was not exactly the same. Bizarre behavior is a red flag for me ... and I'm outta here. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, and? Explain the meaning behind it. Explain the meaning behind all of the diffs linked above. Or discuss the actual content. If you're "outta here", is that saying that you have no intention of contributing towards the current discussion(s) and forming consensus? Did you ever? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Elmidae that whatever mistakes were made, there doesn't seem to be anything warranting attention at ANI. Two things that really struck out from the summary were.

  1) the modifying my user page one. But when I check the diff I find it's clearly just a mistaken post to the user page instead of the talk page. It happens people visit a user page and forget or get confused and probably especially when people don't use the new section option to made new threads they post in the wrong place, if you're lazy or whatever, just revert and move on. Or better, revert with a note you're moving it to your talk page and do so and reply as needed. I mean even if it didn't occur to you that's what happened, Pyxis Solitary already noted that's what happened then in their edit summary when they re-posted on your talk page [35] which you should have noticed when reverting them [36] all of which happened before your follow up here [37]. So I'm not sure why on you would choose to continue to highlight an obvious mistaken post to the user page instead of your talk page as "editing my personal user page without reason".

  2) the swearing at you bit. Looking into it, it seems to me that Pyxis Solitary overreacted but it was a bit of a mess. Merging related threads is a well accepted practice. And AFAICT, the only modification of their comments was changing the indentation and remove the heading. [38] Per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN section headings don't really belong to anyone so it's generally acceptable to modify them although caution is urged when it's likely to be controversial. But modifying indentation is more problematic. While fixing indentation levels is allowed, the problem is you need to make sure you're actually fixing not modifying. If someone is at 2 levels and there are no other replies and someone else replies at 4 levels, that's likely to be a fair fix. If someone is at 2 levels and someone else replies at 2 levels below them, fixing that is risky since it may be the 2 levels is intentional as they are mostly replying to level 1. In this case, it seems that Pyxis Solitary chose to ignore your existing comment so weren't replying to it, so I can understand some frustration with the way you modified their comment so it appeared to be a reply to your comment. Probably the best solution in this case was instead of a pure merge, you could have kept the separate section heading but made it a subthread i.e. a 3rd level heading which is often the better solution and what our guideline suggests anyway.

  In any case, since Pyxis Solitary is clearly unhappy over it, it's best to just let it stand. I suggest you both keep discussing under one of the sections headings, and use WP:Dispute resolution as necessary. And try to keep the personal stuff over who did what wrong on the article talk page down to a minimum.

  Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Pyxis just seems to have an issue with any sort of modification, even when I merged the sections, didn't touch her reply or her header at all, but kept her reply as a level 1 reply[39], calling it "absurd"[40]. There's no sense to the madness, unfortunately.

  So, cutting a long story short, the demand to gain a consensus and then the refusal to discuss the content is acceptable? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to discuss content with an editor who refuses to discuss said content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  And now they have made another comment[41] that an unrelated editor deemed to be racist[42], and I completely agree with them. How long can this behaviour continue? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh. So I'm racist now? Your grasping at straws for anything that can stick is getting old. But ... maybe an admin with time on his/her hands might glance at the 2019 discussions, look into the IP addresses, and see where the crumbs lead. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't call you racist initially. That was an unrelated editor. Best to be careful of that boomerang. I thought you were done? Or "outta here"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Elmidae:, @Nil Einne: I'm pinging you because you've responded to this ANI.  Alex 21 is now making accusations of canvassing. My responses: 07:28, 21:04  He has also deleted my replies to being accused of "racism" (one was to another editor's "Now is hardly the best time to start being racist.", the other was to his "Please try to keep your internalized racism to yourself..."). My stance may be cocky, but the wordage I used in the second is Aussie slang and not "abusive, defamatory, or derogatory". "No wuckas" is slang for "no worries" and "Bruce" is slang for "man".
  This behavior by Alex 21 is becoming harassment. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 22:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIscuss the actual content. It's really not that hard. Or did you never have any intention to discuss the content after you reverted my edits? Funny how you refuse to answer this and keep deflecting.

  By the way, you forgot to actually link the diff to your racist comment[43]. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  You don't seem to understand what racism means. Stop calling it racist. "Racist" actually means something important, and using it as a gimmick is deeply uncool. My gut tells me we'd be better off if you were both blocked as being more interested in feuding than collaboratively editing, but my gut is sometimes wrong, and I don't have the stomach to see who "started it", and whether someone is behaving incrementally worse. But after just a cursory 60 second review, I'd be willing to wager that the admin who does eventually wade into this finds that you're both at fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I've asked the reported editor to discuss the content multiple times, because I'm interested in collaboratively editing after they reverted my major edit and told me to discuss it, but I've yet to see an actual reply by them on the topic at hand. That makes me think that they didn't intend to in the first place. So, as I think I've said for (at least) the third time during this discussion: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to discuss content with an editor who refuses to discuss said content? How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 deleted my comments again after I restored them: 23:23, 4 June 2020. This is both WP:BATTLEGROUND and vandalism. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• FYI: Article talk page discussion, as of 23:28, 4 June 2020. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Do you, or do you not, have any intention of actually discussing the content at hand? Or, at the very least, ceasing the PA's, of which I am one or two editors in concern? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think this and this are Pyxis Solitary losing her temper. She was provoked, but she reacted more strongly than she should have done. Apart from this instance, I haven't yet identified anything that I would personally see as overly uncivil. I think Alex21 strongly dislikes being reverted and sees it as a highly confrontational thing to do. Recommendation: (1) Apply the waggy finger and frowny face of mild administorial disapproval to Pyxis Solitary for going a bit over the line on one occasion; and (2) Offer support and direction to Alex21 on how not to overreact to being reverted.—S Marshall T/C 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible IP range block needed

Posting here since the disruption documented below only trickles in a small amount each time. The following IPv6 addresses are listed in descending order beginning with the most recent.

• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:71A7:C1B3:6354:5DF7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:85E8:778D:3F32:6B00 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:EDFD:DC37:4E71:3A95 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:8D4A:C03E:FFB4:107D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:54B2:BB90:4871:6FC4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:8D3F:6F4C:8D34:9FA9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Warnings here:

• User talk:2605:A601:ADCB:F300:8D4A:C03E:FFB4:107D (Level 1)
• User talk:2605:A601:ADCB:F300:85E8:778D:3F32:6B00 (Levels 1-3)
• User talk:2605:A601:ADCB:F300:71A7:C1B3:6354:5DF7 (Level 4)

Violation after last warning:

• diff1

In some cases, it may appear to be a content dispute, but this editor has a repeatedly inserted incorrect information or messed with wikilinks in ways that usually result in breaking them. Here are some examples of each:

• Incorrect info: diff2
• Broken wikilink: diff3
• Both types of disruption: diff4 (Kingda Ka is the world's tallest)
• Sea of Blue: diff5

I've been patient and waited a while to see if this editor would get the hint, attempt to discuss, or at least respond on their talk page. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. I know JlACEer has been dealing with this a lot as well. Overall, it's not a great amount of disruption, but it's becoming frequent enough to become a disturbance. Might be time to send a stronger message, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: IPv6 /64 ranges are generally the same user, and they generally have no control over which one they use. Thus, 2605:A601:ADCB:F300::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the correct range for any blocks. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

These may seem minor but they are persistent and annoying. This person is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month Anon-blocked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Devbali02 COI editing at Toki Pona

• Devbali02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toki Pona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Devbali02 has self-identified[44] as being the same Dev Bali he mentioned in[45], where he said

"Many attempts have been made to create an emoji script for Toki Pona. Most significantly, in mid 2019, Dev Bali compiled earlier attempts to create one Sitelen Emoji. This script is unique as it is "democratically chosen," with the community making and voting on changes to the emoji set regularly. Bali also made an android keyboard that makes using the script like pinyin for Toki Pona."

(The android app appears to be the one at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ourdhi.sitelenemoji )

In this post,[46] Devbali02 wrote

"The website in question, https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji, is the official website of sitelen Emoji. I will also add a link to github and google play store to add extra validity to there being certain tools for Sitelen Emoji."

https://github.com/holtzermann17/toki-pona-emoji/issues/3 references https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji

https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji says

"Make sure to visit our subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/sitelenEmoji and join our Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/486127038880577/ for more content in Sitelen Emoji!"

All of these sites have the name "Dev Bali" as the creator, exept the Reddit group which lists Devbali02 as the creator and moderator.

Devbali02 has had our COI policy (including not editing pages where you have a COI) repeatedly.

• User talk:Devbali02#Conflict of interest (COI) regarding Sitelen Emoji
• Talk:Toki Pona#Serious sourcing issues

Yet he continues to edit the Toki Pona page after being warned[47][48] and is edit warring to retain the citations to his sites.google.com page. his app on Google store, his Github page, and a file he uploaded at File:Sitelen Emoji Rendered on Apple.jpg.[49][50][51][52][53][54]

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Guy, there's a lot of words there and none of them explain simply what the complaint is here. Can you explain in simple terms which policies any the editor is, in your opinion, violating, and how? Thanks Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Devbali02 has a serious problem with IDHT regarding COI and sourcing, and is editwarring to retain material he has written and cached on file storage and sharing sites like github and sites.google. I'm actually starting to wonder if CIR may be part of the problem. Heiro 21:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them indefinitely from editing Toki Pona or its talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see from his block log that this is the new partial blocking feature I have been hearing about. It is good to see the WMF giving admins more useful tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yes - this was a feature option I definitely supported during discussions. With luck we can start to use it instead of site blocks for editors who fail to engage, for example. Guy (help!) 23:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Black Kite I have declared a COI disclaimer on the Toki Pona Talk Page. COI (with declaration) is not enough of a basis to remove information, as is clearly mentioned in the page you all cite. As far as sourcing is concerned, I have provided you with primary sources for the play store app that people allege COI for since I have made the app. You will only get primary sources for topics like toki pona. I have pointed out on the Toki Pona talk page, as several others have, that in a community this small, you will not get secondary sources or much external coverage of toki pona. Much of that article is supported by primary sources and personal sites. The issue is editors who do not have much context about toki pona or conlangs trying to use their general wikipedia skills. Context matters. I hope you read the Talk:Toki_Pona#Notability, which is from a while ago, when similar wikipedia editors had similar problems. If the information in my edit is not reliable to you people, none of the information on the entirety of the page is, yet it is a page that is there, meaning wikipedia editors more experienced than you disagree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devbali02 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a COI declaration -- no matter who adds it -- is not a magic wand that forces other editors to retain citations to web pages that you created. The material was removed because it was purely promotional material unsuitable for Wikipedia. It would have been removed even if you didn't have a COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If you had any knowledge of what you were editing, you would never had said that. Sitelen Emoji is one of the most used Toki Pona writing systems online, and just because you do not have any idea of it, doesn't make it untrue. It is large enough that it deserves a mention on the Toki Pona page. Just look at some of the social media groups that are linked on the sitelen emoji website. There are more than 70 people in the Discord committee, about 50 in the subreddit, and calling this a personal project of mine is laughable at best. I challenge you to show me 5 people writing in sitelen sitelen, another system that has a paragraph on there. All I have done is contributed to this project. I would like to repeat I DO NOT OWN SITELEN EMOJI, and that it is simply a set of emojis chosen by anyone who has an interest. It is obvious that you come from a place of immense ignorance. Bali (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: "There are more than 70 people in the Discord committee, about 50 in the subreddit, and calling this a personal project of mine is laughable at best", did you not create that subreddit (creator and sole moderator is Reddit user u/devbali02)? Did you not create that discord community (first announced by you on your subreddit, created and administered by discord user "So my name is Dev" jansewi#3483)? Did you not create sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji (which you call "the official website of sitelen Emoji")?

Again, you edit warred to retain citations to pages that you created -- pages that fail WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:The Cat 2020

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

---

The Cat 2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor submitted a draft Draft:Avyar to Articles for Creation. The draft was declined three times, for sourcing and stylistic reasons. The editor has chosen to insult the reviewers rather than either to discuss how to improve the draft or to copy the draft directly into article space (their right as an auto-confirmed user). The reviewers have discussed how to try to reason with this editor, but requesting administrative action seems like the only reasonable alternative at this point.

Insults Sulfurboy: diff

Insults LittlePuppers: diff and diff

Insults LittlePuppers again: diff and diff

Posts an interesting diatribe at AFC HD: diff I had said that the subject probably is notable, but that the draft does not establish notability. I meant to write a draft that establishes notability by focusing on notability criteria, with reliable sources, but the editor apparently thinks that this has some coded meaning.

Insults me (Robert McClenon): diff

Insults Theroadislong: diff

Insults ThatMontrealIP: diff

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

notified all users. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Snippy new editors is an unfortunately common occurence in AfC. However, railing on multiple different editors in such quick fashion is a fairly unique kind of awful. Looks like what time they haven't spent on the draft has been spent spamming external links to random Russian videos on established articles. Whatever they're here to do, it's quite clear they're WP:NOTHERE to contribute or at least try to get a handle of our rules. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I will reply to the Robert McClenon false allegations in order to clear my name. It is true that my article was rejected on several occasions but no real reason was stated. On several occasions, my article was called "an essay" which can be taken for a direct insult considering my level of expertise and the material featured in the article. I properly attributed all the sources but one user started an argument over this even though he knew that I was right. All of these facts can be easily proven simply by looking at article's history. I used many well known sources written by Godfrey Higgins and Frederic Shoberl. I used Sir William Jones' "Asiatic Researches" as well as many other highly respected authorities. This, however, didn't prevent several users from stating that, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources", which is a false and misleading statement. I can go on forever listing the false statements made against either me or the material in the article. User Robert McClenon wrote that, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." This statement is factually incorrect and false which I proved on several occasions as well as in my reply to the same user. The same user wrote an article Bile (Irish legend) which is in reality a very poorly sourced and I raised this point. He referenced Encyclopedia Britannica without providing a link to the material so anyone can verify that information. Moreover he listed the same link twice in a list of references which is unacceptable. Then he listed two modern books with several sentences about the person named Bile (Irish legend). You can compare his article and my article that he had rejected with the false reason stated. When you compare theese two articles you would clearly see which one is well-sourced and which on is poorly sourced, which one is notable and which one isn't. The most important thing is what happened after I posted my reply to that user. Another user named Moonythedwarf wrote to me the following, "I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed." So my properly addressed message was simply censored by deletion. I raised the point right away and told both editors that censorship on Wikipedia is not acceptable.The same applies to false allegation and misleading statements that are preventing an informative article from being published. Everyone has the right to raise the opposition against any false allegation and/or misleading statements made in his address. That's a natural and normal reaction. I raised the point again and was threatened by the user Theroadislong who wrote, "Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Robert McClenon. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing." Another false allegation was made since I never attacked anyone and was simply expressing my concerns and opinions in return to the false allegations made against me.

The user Robert McClenon is telling you that I insulted several people on 5-6 occasions which a complete lie. You can see this for yourself simply by reading my replies to the massages received. I told you that I can't accept false allegations and factually incorrect statements made against me, my work or the article itself. I raised those concerns patiently, politely and professionally. I asked to focus on my article rather than on attacking me or continue to argue with me. I met with censorship since my message on a talk page was simply deleted with a bogus explanation. Than I was threatened that I can be blocked from editing. Multiple false statements against me were accumulating and each one of them was recorded. I can prove each my word with clear facts that don't lie. You should always look at the whole picture and you must weight the information and facts coming from all sides. If you do that then you would see that the truth is on my side. Thank you very much for allowing me to express my side of the story and my experience on Wikipedia. I certainly believe that the censorship should not be exercised for the opinions one may not like or for critical comments made. We all can benefit from telling the truth on each and every occasion. That's my way of thinking. Wikipedia shouldn't allow biased opinions toward certain topics and material and a group of several people should not be doing all they could in order to prevent a professionally written, properly attributed and sourced article from being published. They should not sensor. They should not make false allegations and misleading statement. They should not threaten people with the blocking. It's highly unprofessional and childish. They should not use the word "insult" when there is no insult, etc. and etc.

Please kindly let me know if you need any additional facts from me. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, Please kindly refrain from making any misleading statement here. You are here to talk about a particular issue. Please tell us whether you are fluent in Russian or not? If not, then how you can make any statement about "spamming external links to random Russian videos on established articles". Maybe there are spammers on Wikipedia but that doesn't apply to me. If you want to make an allegation against me in particular then please start listing facts. Otherwise it is an empty talk. I listed all the sources and my draft for Avyar lists sources where the full texts are featured in both English and Russian. This can be verified by anyone knowing the Russian language. The English version you had a chance to verify personally. Please do not make misleading statements about spamming. That doesn't apply to me in any way whatsoever. I listed all the facts and the facts outnumbered the empty talk about spamming. Thank you for understanding and I wish we could have a more professional conversation in the future. On my side, I can reiterate that I have been always professional and very polite with you. I wish you could return a favor to me. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we can analyse this article at hand:

1. Amkgp initially declined your draft for not having enough sources. When you first submitted this version of the draft, it just had 2 sources. WP:BASIC, the notability criteria to be applied, asks for multiple reliable sources, which generally means at least 3. Besides, in the beginning large chunks of text were not supported by reliable sources. So the very first decline stands.
2. For the second decline by Sulfurboy, the decline was not particularly justified, considering that the source was in the public domain. This is why MER-C removed the {{Copypaste}} template. People often make mistakes and sometimes, you have to assume good faith and discuss the mistake seriously and civilly. Your comment on Sulfurboy's talk page didn't quite follow this guideline through the use of words such as "bogus" and "you need to educate yourself...". These can be seen as personal attacks.
3. The third decline by LittlePuppers said that it was not written neutrally and it read like an essay.
   • it was not neutral because of the use of terms like "Avyar (aka Ayvar) was a great Tamil Female Philosopher", "...the celebrated Avyar...", "Avyar's or Ayvar's writings contain good general ideas which are primarily based in the science of morality" etc. These terms seem to praise the subject, which is not what Wikipedia is for. After all, we didn't say that the COVID-19 pandemic was a "beast that destroys everything".
   • it still reads like an essay through the use of sentences like "Avyar's lineage and birth, as well as the exact epoch in which she flourished, are lost in myths. We can even have a well-grounded opinion about the mythological nature of her life". You can improve it in line with the given guidelines or ask a question about this, instead of saying "it would be great if you would take a minute and read the article first and then write your well-grounded opinion on the matter. It was clearly not the case with my article".

I shall continue my analysis below. The Cat 2020, please read this carefully. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article is never easy, especially for writers without much experience with writing encyclopedia entries. But if you have difficulties, it is a better choice for you to reach out to the decliner(s) instead of making insults. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 05:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• 100% a mistake on my part, which I would have happily corrected if it wasn't for the affront and statement of "you need to educate yourself". I'd rather spend my time helping editors who have an interest in being constructive and building something here, not causing dram. We also shouldn't fall into this rabbit hole of discussing the merits of the article. There's more appropriate venues for that. Ultimately, this is a conduct, not a content discussion. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at the draft and it is definitely lacking an encyclopedic tone, and its format needs quite a bit of work. This is not unusual in draft articles written by newbies. Once these formatting, sourcing issues and notability are addressed (conduct issues notwithstanding) I'm sure a request to GOCE can help get it up to scratch. On the conduct side @The Cat 2020:, as a neutral observer I would say that your talk page communications come across as highly aggressive. A lot of good faith is given to you as you are a very new user, but that good faith runs out very quickly in the face of continued aggression. Blackmane (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eumat114, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have rewritten two sentences to which you have pointed my attention. I will now add them to the draft. As I understand, from your perspective there are no other issues with the article after the previous corrections. Am I right? Please kindly review my corrections and I am open to hear your other propositions if you have them.

In terms of the "insults", I can't accept this characterization of my well-grounded replies and I insist that everyone must see the whole picture and also read the initial comments made by other users to me. The last user Robert McClenon wrote that, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I can't agree with this misleading and factually incorrect statement. The references have proved the notability level of this topic. I could have easily listed at least 10 more references but that was not required in accordance to the rules. Because of the factually incorrect marking about notability I am not allowed to resubmit my article even though I have corrected all the information you have mentioned. That's part of the problem which needs to be addressed by someone. The Cat 2020 (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, the report here is not about your article, it's about your behavior. I've reviewed all of the comments back and forth between you and the other editors and I agree with Robert McClenon that you have made unnecessarily aggressive and personal comments as evidenced by the diffs he posted. As an experienced writer, you are more than capable of speaking to disagreements about the content without personalizing it or characterizing other editors' motivations and qualifications. Please agree to do so in the future. Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have two more comments. First, as to content, there were originally two issues with the draft, tone issues and duplication issues. The draft was primarily declined for tone reasons. But there were also duplication reasons. The draft is about Draft:Avyar, but we already have an article on Avvaiyar, and those names are close enough that they may be two transliterations of the same Tamil name. Some of the editors tried to mention this, but it is not easy for reviewers to maintain focus on two issues when the submitter is being contentious about both of them. If the draft had not had tone issues, I would have tagged the draft to be merged into the article. Second, another editor removed one of the editor's hostile posts from my talk page, and the editor then accused me of censorship, citing the policy Wikipedia is not censored. That policy is more often misinterpreted than applied correctly. (I have written an essay, Yelling Censorship, about the misuse of the policy.) The removal of inappropriate material from talk pages is mentioned in the talk page guidelines as sometimes being appropriate, and is not censorship. If you don't understand a policy, you don't need to quote it incorrectly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Original issues with the draft were addressed in a timely manner and you have to discuss the current situation. There are no so-called "tone issues" in the current draft. The other reviewer pointed me into rewriting two sentences which I gladly did today. He didn't see any other issues being present and you must as well take into account his opinion on the matter. You are again misstating the facts and call my informative reply to you as the "hostile post". This is factually incorrect statement which can be proven by reading the post itself and facts listed there. I understand that you might have seen an inconvenient truth there but the comment should have never been censored by deletion. You are once again making false and factually incorrect statements by saying that, "the editor then accused me of censorship". My comment was addressed to Moonythedwarf who informed that he removed my legitimate comment. In that comment I stated that, "The comment was written in a polite and respectful manner which can be proven by looking at the comment itself. In the future please refrain from censoring my comments and the information you might not like. Censorship should not be exercised on Wikipedia, especially on a talk page. Censorship is a poor friend in a fight with facts. Please remember that as well as my polite reply to you." You can read this on my talk page. So I have yet again caught you in a process of making false and factually incorrect statements towards me which suggest of a particular trend being established. I suggest that you should focus more on my draft rather than on making false and factually incorrect statements. Notability has been established and no other issues are seen by another editor who expressed his weighted opinion on the matter. There is absolutely nothing which prevents you or anybody else from green lighting the article that I wrote. Let's focus on the article. I keep asking you to do that but you keep on making factually incorrect statements which is unacceptable. I came here not to argue but to publish some important material which has been overlooked. Looking forward for a productive discussion with you regarding the notability of my article. The Cat 2020 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• If the draft that is up currently is the final product, then I agree it still has numerous issues with tone, grammar, inline citations, and wikivoice. To me, Eumat114's commentary does not at all suggest their only objections were the sentences they quoted: it still reads like an essay through the use of sentences like "Avyar's lineage and birth, as well as the exact epoch in which she flourished, are lost in myths. We can even have a well-grounded opinion about the mythological nature of her life" and it was not neutral because of the use of terms like "Avyar (aka Ayvar) was a great Tamil Female Philosopher", "...the celebrated Avyar...", "Avyar's or Ayvar's writings contain good general ideas which are primarily based in the science of morality" etc. I bolded the words that indicate the quoted lines are just examples of the problems in the draft, not a comprehensive list of them. Regarding conduct, I am also getting a strong WP:IDHT vibe alongside the aggressive, repetitive bludgeoning others have mentioned. Your intent might not be to insult, but it is clear everyone else is interpreting your comments as verging on PA. Unless you can express yourself in a way that does not accuse others of spreading falsehoods or being uneducated, people will continue to feel harassed and be disinclined to engage with you. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

eh, none of those will get fixed until the sourcing is. Surely its possible to get an academic reference that is under what... 180 years old? or at least not from the colonial era? Curdle (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Cat 2020: There is a long standing practice on Wikipedia of comment on the content not the contributor. Each reviewer has clearly done so and yet every one of your replies diffed by Robert McClenon are confrontational and directed at the contributor. You may be have experience in writing outside of Wikipedia, but you have little experience on Wikipedia and would do well to seek out the advice of those with more experience here than yourself. Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Blackmane, I clearly listed the facts pertaining to the misleading and factually incorrect statements made towards me by the user Robert McClenon. Please see above. You might want to write a word or two to Robert and ask him not to exercise such a practice in the future. You can not receive an honest advice from the person who has established a trend of making misleading and factually incorrect statements. I, on the other hand, was happy to read the message from Eumat114 who was the only person who discussed my draft in a respective and truthful manner. I am glad he did it. If you have something to tell me then I would gladly take that into account.The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Curdle, One can clearly see from such a comment where the problem really is. You can not tell me that I can't use sources that are 180 years old or even older because these sources are highly informative, professional and academic. You have to show at least some respect to Sir William Jones, Godfrey Higgins and others who made an enormous academic contribution to our science and history. Colonial era? What that has to do with the information featured in my article? I followed the rules and my article is fully eligible for publication. If you wish to set your own rules regarding the use of only modern sources then you are welcome to put this proposition for a discussion but not here. Until your proposition is not accepted, we will continue to follow the rules which are currently in place. The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just to chime in here as a completely neutral voice: The draft article -- which I have just read -- is not in any way, shape or form ready for the encyclopedia. It is undersourced, badly written, is unencyclopedic in tone, and is non-neutral. In fact, the whole thing has the feel of advocacy about it. The quotations sections should be removed entirely. It's just an incredible mess and would require hours of editorial work to whip it into shape if it was moved into mainspace, work that should be done by its creator, not by other Wikipedians.
  Further, The Cat 2020's June 2nd comment (just before the article itself) comparing phrasing in their article to writing in The Bible about Methuselah shows a profound ignorance of the purpose of Wikipedia, and, not incidentally, the purpose of The Bible as well. I'm afraid that the draft will never be ready for mainspace unless The Cat 2020 learns that lesson and starts to understand why Wikipedia exists and how it should be presented to our readers. The Cat 2020 is not reading an essay to their friends, they're engaged in a semi-academic piece of research and writing for a popular encyclopedia. Certainly The Cat 2020 is in no position to be throwing brickbats at the people who are, after all, only trying to help them bring their article into line with our standards, and should stop doing so and show a bit of humility.
  I'll be blunt, so there's no misunderstanding: The Cat 20220 -What you've written is bad. Take the advice given to you and fix it if you can, and stop blaming your failure to write an acceptable article on other people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Are we on a one-way street where my opinion is not even considered? Please read the Robert McClenon's comments above and my reply. There are two parts of each story. I have clearly proved in my reply that Robert was continuing to make factually incorrect and misleading statements about certain issues. You can verify this information in my reply. I have clearly pointed out that Robert has established a trend in making those factually incorrect statements. The facts don't lie. Please also have a look at my article personally. All the issues were addressed but some people kept discussing things that were fixed a while ago. By the way, on Robert's talk page I left a comment in which I gave a link and the description for the additional information for his article. I thought that's how the things are supposed to work here on Wikipedia. Some people could have spent months trying to find the information for the article. I knew that information and I helped Robert to improve his article. I keep asking people to discuss the material rather than focusing on insults which never happened since I never insulted anyone on Wikipedia. This can also be verified by accessing the full-range of my comments. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If you cannot moderate your aggressiveness and bad attitude, then, yes, it will soon be a one-way street. And, no, you have proved nothing. I've already read your article and given my evaluation above. It is, as I said before, bad. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Bit late in my response, but as I said before every editor that you have engaged with has sought to discuss your draft. However, your responses invariably drift off into WP:OSE territory or attack the competence of the reviewer. You claim you have not attacked anyone, so let's sum up

[55] - You have provided a bogus excuse... Accusing Sulfurboy of lying.

[56] - It is outrageous that you voice your own groundless opinion by claimimg that this submission "reads more like an essay" which is simply not true Accusing LittlePupper of lying.

[57] - ...you will not make any false decisions in the future. And again

[58] - General WP:BATTLE combatativeness

[59] - More combatativeness and aggression.

I could continue, but the pattern is plain to see. I will echo what BMK says above, the draft is not well written and is formatted poorly. The reviwers were all correct in rejecting the article. Yes, other articles maybe in worse shape or are unsourced, but that is a WP:OSE argument that is not entertained on Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Blackmane, I appreciate that you have started to site me but unfortunately your statements do not provide any evidence of wrongdoing on my side. I thought that I could express my humble opinion in return to the comments and occasional accusations made in my address. I didn't know that I am not allowed to do that here on Wikipedia. You should have stated that earlier in your comments. 1. "A bogus excuse" became in your vivid imagination equivalent to "accusing of lying". 2. I expressed a reasonable and well-grounded opinion that factually incorrect statement was made by saying that my article "reads more like an essay". In your vivid imagination you once again made my whole sentence equal to "accusing of lying" All other so called examples are not backed by any evidence. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Who gets to decide if I am entitled for my own opinion on the matter or not? You didn't look at the comments that were aimed at me. You didn't pay any attention to the words in those comments. Any unprejudiced person will always look at both sides. Any reasonable person will not try to allow his or her imagination to interpret the real meaning of the phrase or sentence. I am stating the facts so please refrain from any groundless accusations in my address. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The Cat 2020, just for a few things in just the first few sentences of the article: Avyar (aka Ayvar) was a Tamil Female Philosopher. ("female Tamil philosopher", Don't Capitalize Random Words.) The reverend Dr. John (and who on Earth is that?), Avyar's or Ayvar's writings contain good general ideas ("good" according to whom?), and the rest of that paragraph is relatively incomprehensible. To start the next: The exact year in which Avyar was born is unknown to us. Since the epoch in which she flourished is lost in myths, we (Wikipedia articles should be written in the third person, no "us" or "we"). To be clear, those are not the only things that would need to be corrected, those are a few examples of how the entire draft is written in a totally unencyclopedic tone. The rejections were correct, and your attitude toward those trying to help you is absolutely unacceptable. If you're not here to build an encyclopedia, in the tone and style expected of one and in collaboration with other editors without the personal attacks you've been engaging in, this is not the right place for you to be. So either mellow out and accept the help and advice of the multiple experienced editors who have offered it to you, or else you may either choose or be helped to leave. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I would like to thank you for your phrase, "or else you may either choose or be helped to leave". You have just threatened me with blocking. Do you consider this as an example of an acceptable behavior here on Wikipedia? Threats can be freely made against me but I can't even express my opinion in return. Very nice indeed! The Cat 2020 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, a warning is not a threat. And I, too, am warning you that if you don't start comporting yourself with greater moderation, you will be sanctioned. At some point, patience with your passive-aggressive and tendentious tone is going to be exhausted. Please do better. El_C 02:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, The phrase "or be helped to leave" from a person who on his home page calls himself "a deletionist" is considered a direct threat. You can no threaten a person with blocking for expressing his opinion in return to the accusations made. It was not a warning. My tone is no where to be aggressive which can be verified with the independent experts if the situation requires it. On the other hand, the tone of several commenters here was rather aggressive, on two occasions threatening and I am clearly told to either accept the factually incorrect statements towards my tone and material or "be helped to leave" the Wikipedia. One individual even censored me by deleting my legitimate and highly informative comment on the talk page without providing any good reason for the action taken. Censorship and troll-like behavior are unacceptable here on Free Wikipedia. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, regarding your mention of troll-like behavior: this will be my final warning to you. Tone it down, or you will be sanctioned without further warning. If you have evidence to submit, about talk page comment removal for example, you may do so using diffs. El_C 03:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, You have requested the evidence and I am providing it to you. Here is the link for the diffs - [60] The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would have removed it necessarily, but your note was aggressive and uncalled for. You cannot interact with editors on Wikipedia in this manner. El_C 03:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the draft is very poorly written, is nowhere near encyclopedic in tone, relies on two century old sources by notable but speculative writers, and is formatted poorly. Those are all content matters, and not really a matter for this noticeboard. The real problem is the stubborn, pushy and confrontational attitude of this editor, and their extreme reluctance to take on board the good advice they are receiving from far more experienced editors. I have no solution to suggest at this time, but this is a genuine problem worthy of discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, AN/I, behavior, not content, but the behavior appears to be connected to The Cat 2020's response to the criticism of the article, so the one rises from the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Topic Ban
• 2. Deny
• 3. Move on with our lives

—AdamF in MO (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A topic ban from what? Writing drafts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They are auto-confirmed. It seems AFC is not the best method for this person to interact with the project. —AdamF in MO (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Following up on @Robert McClenon:'s comment above regarding an article on this topic already existing at Avvaiyar, I looked into the sources and believe this is the same topic (although the draft is more of a hagiography than an objective article). I believe the draft author would agree with this assessment based on their edits here [61].

As for the sources used in the draft, all I will add to the above is WP:AGE MATTERS would seem to advise caution. An article on the Roman Empire would be poorly sourced if it was written entirely based on Edward Gibbon and contemporaries. Other points/issues have been addressed by others and I won't repeat them, except to say the conduct of Cat 2000 towards others should be unacceptable.

I understand ANI is for conduct issues, not content, but I thought given the above discussion this would be the best place to post. If an admin feels my comment should be moved to a more appropriate place, please do so. I hope this finds all well.   // Timothy :: talk  03:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, I am quite shocked to see such a comment about Edward Gibbon whose works are timeless and there are tons of highly valuable information in them. People wrote research papers on his works and many other historians wrote their theses and became PhDs. You mentioned that the age matters. Please allow me to remind you that we are talking about mythology and you study mythology by going as far back in history as you can to the point when mythology becomes indeed history. You can't ask for a modern sources for the Bible, right? Similarly, you can't ask for a requirement for the modern sources for articles that are written about mythology, mythological persons, Gods and antient history. Any contemporary is a much better source than a person who lives 500-1000 or 10000 years later. It's a common sense. Please find some leisure time and read the moral sentences and other works of Avyar that I have listed. They are beneficial for anyone regardless of the time we are living in. The Cat 2020 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

First, I note you did not bother to address the first point I made above about this topic already existing at Avvaiyar.

re: Edward Gibbon - you're ignoring the substance of what I wrote. An article written entirely' based on Gibbon would be poorly sourced.

re: "You can't ask for a modern sources for the Bible, right?" - yes we can ask for modern sources and the article on the Bible is filled with modern sources.

re: "Similarly, you can't ask for a requirement for the modern sources for articles that are written about mythology..." - Yes we can and articles on these topics are filled with modern sources.

re: " read the moral sentences and other works of Avyar" irrelevant to the discussion here.

  // Timothy :: talk  05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, Let me remind you your own words, "An article on the Roman Empire would be poorly sourced if it was written entirely based on Edward Gibbon and contemporaries." Right now you dropped the contemporaries from your initial phrase. The article based on Edward Gibbon's and his contemporaries' sources is perfectly in line with all the rules. If you have rules in place requiring only modern sources, then I would like to see them. You can't ask for a requirement for ONLY the modern sources for articles that are written about mythology since there are no such rules in place on Wikipedia. I certainly hope that you would follow my humble recommendation and find some leisure time in your busy schedule which will allow you to read the moral sentences and other works by Avyar. Finally, if you would require only modern sources for the article about the Bible then you would have to forget what was written in the past which is unacceptable since history has to me remembered. The same applies to other topics. Something tells me that you perfectly understand the reasoning and common sense behind the issues that I have raised in my two replies to you. The Cat 2020 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Cat 2020's only contributions to Wikipedia so far, aside from the voluminous posts here, the draft mentioned above and many complaints about draft on many talk pages, have been three other edits that sought to add external links for a Russian-language video blog. There's this edit to Aleksey PushKov, this edit to Godfrey Higgins and finally the addition of this listing of videos to Geoffrey Higgins, from what is presumably the master blog from whence all the blogs come. Given the time of other editors that s being consumed here, the quality of the contributions (in particular the very crummy draft), the reluctance to take advice and the unwillingness to become less combative, they seem like a net negative to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A small suggestion. It seems like the logical thing to do, since the draft has been rejected with the "STOP' template (and there is therefore nothing left for them to complain about) might be to close this thread with a warning that civility is expected in future, and that if they're back here soon, something in the line of a stronger brew might be expected. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Please kindly refrain from using such a strong word as "combative", especially when you are trying to use it as a synonym for a "reasonable reply". I have posted reasonable and well-grounded replies on many of the messages addressed to me. At the end, you keep using the word combative without listing any facts whatsoever supporting such a strong accusation. In terms of the Russian-language news site that you have mentioned, I can just repeat that all the posts and/or additions were made in a strict accordance to the rules of Wikipedia. All the references you mentioned are relevant to the topic to which they were added. There were also English based posts on the same source that you forgot to mention. They feature 3 complete works of Avyar. The author did a great job and translated the same works to the Russian language for the first time in history which is highly notable. The same applies to Godfrey Higgins and his major work. Now it's available in Russian from the same source. Also for the first time in history. The Cat 2020 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment about me here [62] “you made a pathetic comment which is highly unprofessional and unreasonable.” certainly seems combative! Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Since The Cat 2020 has three times declined to comment about this topic already existing at Avvaiyar, along with the quality issues raised by Beyond My Ken and others and the draft author's replies to other concerns meeting WP:IDHT with no sign of relenting, I believe someone from NPP should consider tagging the draft with CSD:A10 along with a reference to this discussion and ending the content part of this discussion. Then admins may focus on the conduct issues as they see appropriate. (pinging users involved in content discussion: @Robert McClenon, Eumat114, Sulfurboy, Theroadislong, LittlePuppers, Blackmane, JoelleJay, Curdle, Beyond My Ken, Seraphimblade, Cullen, and ThatMontrealIP:   // Timothy :: talk  21:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - This shouldn't have even gone down the content rabbit hole in the first place. ANI isn't a review board for AfC decisions, there's much better venues for that. This will hopefully clear the air and allow for a focused discussion on conduct. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this is a major time waster. User does not show any interest or abitlity to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Done. Guy (help!) 22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong, My previous comment was addressed to ThatMontrealIP who used the word "combative" which doesn't apply to the tone and language of my messages and therefore he made another groundless accusation. You can read the definition for the word "pathetic" and then start discussing my comment. You are using the phrase "certainly seems" and trying to educate me about my tone? Funny! The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Guys, you have shown a great team work in removing my legitimate, well-written and highly informative article. I faced false accusations, threats of blocking me for expressing my opinion on the matter and on one occasion I was even censored - [63] . I get the picture. You will never allow me to write or publish any constructive, informative and historically important material on this "Free Wikipedia". The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was the OP, and I am satisfied with the disposition. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FREESPEECH. Blackmane (talk)

Guy's action takes the draft off the table, which means that The Cat 2020's behavior can be dealt with if it becomes an issue again. I suggest this be closed as unlikely to lead to anything else worthwhile at the moment. Another AN/I report can be filed should it become necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.   // Timothy :: talk  02:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020, that would be a legitimate point if the draft had been legitimate, well-written and not a duplicate of a topic we already have. Something that was pointed out several times, and to which you responded with personal attacks. Guy (help!) 08:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, At least you are not hiding the fact that my draft and legitimate article were removed because of my "behavior". My so called "behavior" is a simple method of expressing a well-grounded opinion which is solely based on facts and truthful statements. Some people prefer truth while others prefer to make factually incorrect and misleading statements. I really enjoyed watching the show: one person proposed to remove the draft, two others agreed and the fourth person simply removed without stating any reason or proposing any explanation. You have successfully showed to me how the things really work here. On my article's talk page which is now removed one person wrote that I would not be allowed to publish my article. Thank God we are not living in Middle Ages. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said that it was deleted because of your behavior. I said that now that it has been deleted, we could move on the behavioral issues. I was assuming that you would have no reason to bad mouth AfC reviewers now that there wasn't a draaft article; obviously, I was wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Nobody is putting anything in your mouth. I am simply stating the facts as they are. You used a phrase "bad mouth" towards me which is yet another insult going unnoticed by other people involved in the discussion. The Cat 2020 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to perceive insult easily. Such a personality rarely succeeds here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Let me remind you that this thread was started by Robert McClenon who accused me of insulting others. Why don't you tell what you just told me directly to Robert McClenon who didn't provide a single convincing evidence of "insults" that were allegedly made by me? That's what you should really do. Insults towards me are going unnoticed here on this thread while I am accused of insulting others but no evidence is provided. I provided a fact which directly proves that you insulted me. Did someone here put you on notice for doing that? Why not? The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:The Cat 2020 - See Law of holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Cat 2020: You're really big on "reminding people" about stuff. Perhaps you should assume the the folks participating here are actually following the discussion and don't really need to be "reminded" so often. You can use the energy you put into reminding people to actually pay attention to the advice you're being given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Do you think it's productive to fly away from the point made in my previous reply to you? A good editor can not ignore facts stated. By changing the narrative of any productive conversation, the party initiating the change, always shows the weakness and inability to be a part of a reasonable conversation based on the rules of common sense and logic. Was my last sentence "poorly written"? I am asking because I have noticed that the better the sentence is constructed, the worse its chances are to be recognized as being properly written. By the way, several people keep addressing me as "they" but I can't even question the fact that the salutation is being "poorly written". I asked that question and got another "they" in return, so I assumed it has become a part of a new proper English. I can't even question these things here because I will become "combative" with a "bad mouth" who is recommended to be blocked indefinitely for the future events which might never happen in reality. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (The Cat 2020)

This is based on the communication seen here and on what talk pages are publicly available. The Cat 2020 is reminded that per WP:5P4, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA, WP:BRD all editors are supposed to edit collegiality. Their conduct and tone has been seen by multiple editors as less than ideal. Further edits in the same conduct/tone could be cause for sanctions to address disruptive editing up to and including indefinite blocks and community bans.

Ping for editors concerned 1 (Robert McClenon—Sulfurboy—The Cat 2020—Eumat114—Blackmane—JoelleJay—Blackmane—Beyond My Ken—Seraphimblade—El C)2 (Cullen328—TimothyBlue—ThatMontrealIP—JzG)Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer especially in light of continued discourteous behavior after the draft being addressed still indicates that action needs to be taken to protect Wikipedia from further disruption. Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to the Proposal 2: Firstly, I was wrongfully accused of "insulting others". No facts were provided.

Secondly, my draft was simply erased from Wikipedia even though previous request for its speedy deletion was successfully denied. One person "proposed", two others "agreed" and the fourth person "removed" my legitimate draft. It's like the USSR troika tribunals.

Thirdly, some people started to discuss so called "behavioral issues". Only a professional doctor can use such a strong term against other people. These comments and terms are abusive and insulting and they are addressed to me.

Fourthly, "proposal 2" was made which seems to be the real reason for the whole process here since the Hasteur is looking into the future possible "sanctions" and then states that,"action needs to be taken to protect Wikipedia from further disruption." Basically this user is proposing to block me indefinitely for possible future actions which I "could" commit. I am putting such comments and "proposals" on notice and you can not simply continue such a witch-hunt. Hasteur thinks that he has the right to propose an action in advance, even before my "further edits" which I am not even making at the moment. Where is your common sense? What else can be proposed against me for the actions I never committed? The Cat 2020 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Cat 2020: I'm trying to indicate as strongly as possible that you're on your absolute last chance before you're going to be blocked indefinitely. Rebuttal to your first: Your behavior in this thread would normally and your behavior is being tolerated (in part) because you only created the account on 15:21, 17 May 2020. Rebuttal to second point: Your draft was removed because there's already an existing page that is much better developed that appears to cover the topic. We're trying to funnel your efforts to editing and improving the already existing page rather than fighting with editors about one specific copy that you're arguing about in draftspace. Rebuttal to third point: You're right, Wikipedians can't diagnose or treat mental illness, but we can demand that you obey the generally held conventions here at Wikipedia or you can be denied the privilege of being able to edit. Rebuttal to Fourth point: I don't know if they have the concept in your locale but the proposal is akin to Three-strikes law where you've already burned through a great amount of other editors good faith by being so caustic and abrasive. We're attempting to warn you every possible way that the next time you significantly fail to adhere to the principles of Wikipedia, you may be denied the ability to edit until we have reasonable belief that you won't disrupt the collective editing environment again. TLDR: We're trying to craft a "This is your final chance to change your behavior" warning/reminder. I strongly recommend you read the Wikipedia Policy/Rules that I included in the warning otherwise I see little chance in you moving forward in your editing career. Hasteur (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm leaning more toward a short vacation for disruptive editing. The Cat 2020 clearly does not work or play well with others, and may need a time out to readjust their thinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block - due to WP:IDHT, WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:CIVIL and probably a heap of others. Seems to be more interested in defending their honour than improving an encyclopedia... so I guess that WP:NOTHERE also belongs on the list. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the admonition above, but noting that The Cat 2020 appears to be ready to ignore the admonition. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I will observe that a major part of the issue is that The Cat 2020 obviously does not understand that what is well-written for one purpose is not the same as what is well-written for another purpose. They keep insisting that their draft was well-written, and I am willing to agree that it satisfied some standards, which is one of the reasons why the community was initially willing to work with The Cat 2020 to improve their draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - It is true that their draft was deleted from Wikipedia without a formal consensus. That is why speedy deletion is called speedy. After some discussion, it became clear that the subject poet and philosopher already has an article. A different transliteration of her name is still her name. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Let me remind you that on my draft's page you can find the information about the request for speedy deletion. The user simply requested speedy deletion and his request was denied. I created a discussion on draft's talk page and within short period of time somebody proposed here to delete my article. Two persons agreed and the fourth person deleted my article.

By the way, on your talk page I wrote about the Sun-God named Bel/Bil which is the same as Bile. Just read my message and you will understand the complicated part about mythology-history connection.

Also please read what the user named Hasteur wrote above. Do you find the "proposition" to block me permanently for POSSIBLE future "behavior" an acceptable one? It's like firing a person in 2020 for a possible misconduct in 2022 which is ridiculous. When I stated my facts he threatened me again" "This is your final chance to change your behavior" warning/reminder. I am just waiting to see the third proposition because users seem to be very determined on this thread. I expected that after my draft was deleted, the discussion would be closed but it seems that Hasteur was patiently waiting to post his "proposition" in order to block me for a possible future conduct or "behavior". I am just replying to the messages I am receiving in order to state the facts. The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hasteur, You wrote, "Their conduct and tone has been seen by multiple editors as less than ideal." Who are "they"? What are you talking about". The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, You wrote that you "support the admonition above but noting that" I "appear to be ready to ignore the admonition". If Hasteur proposed to block me indefinitely for a supposed conduct which could happen in the future then how I can "appear to ignore the admonition" he is cheering for? I am plainly stating my opposition to such a dangerous practice for blocking person indefinitely for the conduct that they might done in the future. That's plain censorship and you should read President Trump's Executive order on preventing online censorship which can be found here [64] The Cat 2020 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you consult Law of holes, unless your purpose is to get blocked from editing, in which case, carry on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block - both guidance and warnings (including a daylong [upd: now indef for EL spam] block on ru.wp) have shown themselves to be ineffective in improving behavior. Disruptive editing, getting awfully close to fringing on legal threats with the executive order comment above, continue to occur; per IDHT and NOTHERE, The Cat 2020 staying around is not likely to be conducive to building an encyclopedia (our purpose), and as such I see only one inevitable conclusion, which we might as well not draw out too much longer than necessary. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

LittlePuppers, Friendly advice to read President Trump's Executive order on preventing online censorship is now assumed by you as "getting awfully close to fringing on legal threats? WOW, that's something surreal. My comment is perfectly in line with the course of discussion here and relevant to the fact already stated: I was censored here [65]. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block As Xtools shows, the user has not made any consequential contributions to the encyclopedia. Reasonable requests, comments or questions are met with combative responses. Intransigent might be another way of describing their interactions here. The user is very strongly a net negative to the work we are doing here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block Per IDHT and WP:PACT - The Cat 2020 has not shown that they understand the concerns above, and keeps claiming that they can't see what's wrong with telling others that they made "childish comments" or the like and instead they keep writing repeated walls of texts professing their ignorance of the issue (grounds for CIR too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Let me show an example of double standards. You are marking my informative replies and comments as "combative responses" which is solely you own opinion not supported by the evidence of the alleged wrongdoing. If I were to say exactly the same thing in regards to your comments aimed at me, which I never did, you would have raised an issue about "insults", "bad behavior" or "bad tone". That's a clear example of double standards. I refuse to accept the factually incorrect marking of my highly professional and informative replies as "combative responses". I put you on notice for doing that, i.e. for making factually incorrect markings of my comments and/or statements. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Block From this discussion and the discussion on the (now) deleted draft, Cat 2020 shows no signs of being willing to listen and work with other editors WP:IDHT, they have a combative and insulting attitude towards others which shows no sign of being moderated and is causing disruption WP:DE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIVIL, has repeatedly refused to WP:AGF towards others, and has not shown any sign that they have or are willing read and be guided by any of the editing policies and guidelines that have been pointed out many times by over a dozen editors. They have been warned by uninvolved admins and others about these problems, but this has had no effect.   // Timothy :: talk  03:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question for @The Cat 2020: it would be helpful to know if at this point you are willing to stop, listen, change and abide by the guidance provided to you by other editors in this discussion and on the draft, or is it your intention to continue in the same manner with this discussion and your future editing?   // Timothy :: talk  04:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Timothy, I was always reasonable. That's number one. You once again made a strong accusation towards me by saying, "they have a combative and insulting attitude" By the way, you are the third editor who is calling me "they". Who are "they"?

You asked, "it would be helpful to know if at this point you are willing to stop, listen, change ...". My answer to you: when you will show the willingness to stop making factually incorrect accusations towards me. You are asking for my blocking. You are making accusations without providing any supportive evidence. The "proposition 2" is asking to block me for the future misconducts which I never even committed. Do you think it would have been nice to put a stop to that "proposition 2"? It should have been scrapped from the very beginning because it's asking for a block for a future "behavior" or conduct. Not for the past or present, but for the FUTURE. You should ask the question you asked me to Hasteur who initiated the "proposal 2". I am replying only because I have the right to reply to the "proposition 2" made and I have the right to defend myself from any factually incorrect statement and/or accusations. I didn't start this thread so you shouldn't ask me. Ask others. I am only responding to messages to which my response in necessary. When the unfounded accusations will stop, then I will stop responding. That's just the common sense and logical outcome. I would have rather discussed my draft and/or new proposition for Wikipedia but you refuse to let me go by claiming that, "they have a combative and insulting attitude". Your last sentence is equally applicable to you and this is not the place for double standards. I think everyone should agree on that. The Cat 2020 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate answer. I was hoping to find a way to deescalate this situation and find a way to help you learn to contribute productively. I see that is not possible.

re: The use of "they". Since no one here knows your gender identity, it is appropriate to use the neutral pronoun "they". If you have a preference, you can set this in your preferences and state it on your userpage.

re: "The "proposition 2" is asking to block me for the future misconducts which I never even committed." Blocking is prevenative WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE not punitive WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. So yes it is appropriate to block you to prevent future misconduct.

  // Timothy :: talk  05:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block. WP:CIR above all, but as others mentioned, WP:IDHT. The pace at which this editor is continuing to WP:WIKILAWYER even during this RfC is incredible. Instead of trying to assess why so many have problems with their behavior, they'd rather talk about their "right to reply". They clearly need a break to figure out whether they're here or not here. The exhausting wikilawyering to everyone who replies to this thread does nothing to build the encyclopedia. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block per NOTHERE, CIR, IDHT, Disruptive editing and tendentious editing. Doesn't need to be indef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block Per NOTHERE. This user's response are stretching AGF to it's breaking point. All of this user's responses have been non-collegael, and hostile. A short block may turn this user around. --AdamF in MO (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

PAs in edit summaries

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

---

Can someone please explain to User:Bosekgn that their edit summaries are unacceptable[66][67][68]? I tried to explain this at their user talk page[69], but they don't seem to be interested in discussion or in changing their approach. Fram (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Warned about edit warring and the disruptive PAs. Further edit warring or PAs should result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I left a cheery note as well and will act if necessary, if someone notifies me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Eyes needed on Floyd-related pages

Some are new and have few watchers. Pending revisions might be a good idea in some cases if problems continue.

• Derek_Chauvin_(police_officer)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Derek_Chauvin_(police_officer)
• 8′46″
• Killing of George Floyd
• George Floyd protests
• List of George Floyd protests
• Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests (bet you didn't see that one coming!)

Or take your pick from [70] EEng 07:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More related articles are listed at Template:George Floyd. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Antifa as well - there's something fishy going on ... can't fully put my finger on it. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• You know that an identitarian alt-right group, Identity Evropa, was operating a false antifa Twitter account which fomented violence, and that such groups have been caught on video provoking violence and looting under cover of the Floyd protests? Could this be related? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP called a BLP subject a "parasite" and "trumptard" on the article's talkpage. He has responded to others with comments like "Nobody cares about your conspiracy theories", when the user he responded to just posted a New York Times article. Now the IP is energetically commenting at Talk:Antifa (United States), where he called SpanishSnake a "long time wikipedia vandal". When told that aspersions like that are a personal attack, he doubled down and told others to take a look at SpanishSnake's talkpage. There is one vandalism warning on his talkpage from Jan 2019, in which both parties confirmed that it was not vandalism but a mistake.

The user has stated that offering criticism on talkpages is their main activity. Given that these consist of angry rants that are detrimental to people who agree with him, and offensive to people who disagree with him, he should be removed from those discussions.

The IP was made aware of the BLP and American politics discretionary sanctions on 24 May, and this is happening after that. --Pudeo (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I must apologize for my behavior these past few days. Looking back it's obvious that I've been acting irrational. I'm not sure if this is the proper way to remedy the situation, but i will go back and remove the offending comments. If there's a better way to remedy the situation, I'm willing to listen, and i will do my best to avoid personal attacks in the future. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [71] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [72] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [73]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I believe it is best if I stopped editing wikipedia altogether for the time being. Also, i know this is no excuse, but the vandalism accusation specifically was a stupid misunderstanding on my part. I made a hasty conclusion based on very little evidence, and didn't bother to double check. I should've known better. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible chronic and intractable behavioral problem

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

KhanQadriRazvi is seemingly attempting to impose their point of view on Wikipedia without success. Their behaviour is now resulting in continuous disruptive activity (whether deliberate or through frustration or through a lack of competency I cannot be sure). Their talk page show an almost daily set of problems at present. The disruption to Talk:Grand Mufti of India [74] in a poorly formed edit request disrupting main space. The sheer quality of a newly created article this morning also is very inconsistent with linguistic use on e.g. Old revision of File talk:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg is also a concern. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: Please explain about why the article you created today seemingly met WP:CSD for a copyright violation? This seems yet more disruption and I am minded you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Do you have any response or explanation? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Respond or Explanation

I,have said repeatedly that the tone of my article may not be neutral. If copyright matter, I will look into it, and I, will try to write in my words, So that Wikipedia does not have any copyright problem. It's your misunderstanding that I'm imposing my point of view on Wikipedia, and came here with different purpose. Whoever comes here, they come here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, I, also came here with the same thought that whatever I, know or read it somewhere, I, will share those things with everyone.Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Previous ANI thread about ongoing problems at Grand Mufti of India is here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I, just don't get it this thing, when newspapers has written about both person, then how can you choose the one person, so I, have suggested of this article, in which both are treated equally.

"Chop off the Snake’s Head" Delete the page, It may be best solution for this problem. Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi If by "Chop off the Snake’s Head" you mean censor and delete the article Grand Mufti of India because it claims Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad is the current incumbent then I am very concerned, and could might even taken you intended to slur Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, though I WP:AGP that was not your intent. Your edit suggestion at [75] "This is 'Y'" has have appeared to remove sources supporting the claim of Grand Mufti as Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad with promotion of a claim for Asjad Raza Khan as Grand Mufti. My reading of the key sources for Asjad Raza Khan are [76] (Sri Lanka newspaper report with unattributed reporter and arguably vaguewave newsflash) and [77] (fails to mention "Grand Mufti" and also indicates "decision" made at the Annual Fiqhi Seminar, not by electoral college as claimed in the table, according to Salman Hasan Khan, vice-president, Jamat Raza-e-Mustafa and only applying to Sunni Barelvi clerics). I may expand this on the article talk page if I have the energy, but given this weakness I am currently opined equal weight of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad and Asjad Raza Khan in the article gives WP:UNDUE to the latter. I remain possibly open to small section detailing Asjad Raza Khan's claim may however by appropriate, however even that may be WP:UNDUE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I am however re-looking at Grand Mufti of India and talk to see some useful comments having been somewhat distracted by your intervention. Every source and its use needs to be considered on merits .... and these sources are very difficult to use. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Response or Explain

@Djm-leighpark You can delete my account instead of ban. It does not matter to me, If I, talk about my point of view then it will not be right, because there are many things that you will not be able to understand, when you not understand, then it will not be beneficial to speak because you do not belong to this field. According to me that if you do not know about the field /subject then it is good not to say anything on this,

Now let's talk "Grand Mufti" ie "Qadi al-Qudat" (Chief Justice), Qadi al-Qudat would have been the one who would be above all as I have said, That Hanafi cannot follow other Imam jurisprudence, however, other Imams may follow Hanafi Jurisprudence, as Imam E Azam is the greatest Imam among all the four Imams. I am not saying this, but it is Islamic Shariah.

Now let's talk "Electoral College" India is a secular country, so where did "Electoral College" come from? Where is the Electoral College office, it conducts elections under the supervision "Election Commission of India", to explain a little more about "Electoral College".

Now let's talk on the list of Grand Mufti.

1) Abdul Qadir Badayuni, appointed by Akbar, was not an "electoral college" at that time.

2, 3 and 4, do not know any information about it.

5) Shah Fazle Rasul Badayuni appointed by the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, even at that time there was no "Electoral College".

6) Who appointed Kiphayatullah Dehalvi does not know yes but "Electoral College" did not appointed him.

7) Mufti Muhammad Amjad Ali Azmi (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ala Hazrat, not by "Electoral College".

8) Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri Noori (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was never written for some reason) not by any "Electoral College".

9) Taj Sharia Akhtar Raza Khan (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah from the stage of Urs E Razvi and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not written this time also for some reason) He was not appointed by any "Electoral College".

10) Abu Bakr, Talking about Abu Bakr, who has appointed him (let's see elected and appointed by All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyathul Ulama{mentioned in article}) this is what “Electoral College”? Are you talking about? According to you ‘’All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama’’ is “Electoral College"? Which appoints Grand Mufti of India in India?

Is Wikipedia (Grand Mufti of India’s Article) propagating false information to the people?

Same process was adopted for Mufti Asjad Raza Khan also which was adopted earlier for adopting Grand Mufti of India.

Mufti Asjad Raza Khan was appointed by 67 Scholars and Jurists at the 16th Annual Fiqhi Seminar (Note: Even this time also the name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not mentioned for some reasons).

When, I saw the table of Grand Mufti of India. I, found many mistake, but you guys are masters in this field (done PhD in Grand Mufti of India), so, how can all of you agree with me?

I, don't know when “National Assembly of Islamic Community of India"(mentioned in article) founded? And when started Nominating Mufti for the Post of Grand Mufti of India. Which Electoral College (mentioned in article) is appointing Grand Mufti of India. When was the last date of nomination? Where is advertisement for nomination? Where was voting details? Where is official website? List of nominated Candidate? Where is result?

I, asked this questions on the basis of Article of Grand Mufti of India and replies. If you want I can ask more questions on Grand Mufti of India’s Article.

Now you (@Djm-leighpark) tell me when you (@Djm-leighpark) are answering me. And one thing, don't blame me without proof. I have no problem with Abu Bakr.

Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: I am answering you now with at the timestamp of this post. The primary thing is I am pleased to hear you have no issue with Abu Bakr, as your phrasing above was in my view unfortunate and possibly could be misinterpreted. And to be clear it is not within my power to block you let alone delete you account, I am not an admin. It is my concern your actions have hindered rather than assisted any ability to deal with in my view possible WP:BIAS in the Grand Mufti of India article by distracting from valid points previously made at the article talk. You raise many points at me, and I am but simples, and unfortunately we seem not to have a published independent PhD thesis to work from. Per your last refused edit request changes are best done in smaller, clearer pieces. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You (@Djm-leighpark) can do, because you are master brother. Or else find some way so Admin can delete my account immediately.

If someone does not agree with you (@Djm-leighpark), then he does not know anything, he is hindering my work, etc. Brother (@Djm-leighpark) don't talk this things please.

I, used that phrase for the Article Page of Grand Mufti of India only.not for a person. Do not talk here and there thing Brother (@Djm-leighpark), answer the questions which I, asked you (@Djm-leighpark). so far didn't receive the answer of my questions from your (@Djm-leighpark) side.

Was there any mistake in that article Which I, suggested? Just added a name to the list and removed the infobox official post,and written both names as a Grand Mufti of India. As far as I remember I, did that only. I'm waiting for your (@Djm-leighpark) answer Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: You are both asking me to respond and asking me not to talk. As far as I am aware account deletion is not possible though account anonymisation and/or article deletion revision are possible in extreme circumstances, ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if necessary. I have no power over admins, though if you nom. me at WP:RFA I might accept to prove the level of support I would have for suitability for the role. I have in general no answers to your specific questions, I have been mentored there is no such thing as a stupid question; though I have sometimes mentored managers on the questioned that needed to be asked to get the useful and usable answer rather than the question that only yields an inappropriate answer. I do feel you have hindered my consideration in placing a Template:POV on the Grand Mufti of India article which was previously removed (or perhaps a Template:Systemic bias tag) ... I feel I need to have solid confidence to defend any tagging if I were to do that ... and prepared to follow through on any inappropriate removal. Per your last edit request which was refused as "A full rehash and replace of the article cannot be readily evaluated. You need to propose changes in smaller, clearer pieces" ... I did attempt to place my concerns on your suggestion on my edit at "21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)" above where you made significant claims. My next post here indicated I intended to review sources for the Article .... though such a review is complex and I give no commitment to any actions I might take or what the timescales are. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the topic area.

Support as proposer; this has gone on for far too long. The drama between Barelvis, Deobandis, Salafis, and countless other sects present in the region really doesn't need to be making its way onto Wikipedia. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but wonder if the drama would be eased if admins used discretionary sanction powers to issue final warnings to problematic editors insisting on operating in the ipa topic area. Removal of autoconfirmed user permission (if possible) would in my opinion be sensible, but I am unsure if admins can specifically do this. Semi-protection has helped in Grand Mufti but it has moved the problem to the talk page with disruptive edit requests.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Admin should understand that editors at Islamic pages are generally belonging to one school or other. Some may be good in editing some may not. Taking strict action should be avoided. Semi-page protection in case of page disruption is suggested. In case of user KhanQadriRazvi it is suggested he may be warned only. I found some of his contributions really helpful though he found it difficult to add reliable sources to Sufi Sunni Barelvi related articles. The reason is very clear most of Sufi Sunni or Barelvi or Deobandi scholars are rarely covered in mainstream media or reliable sources. The scholars who have millions of followers and number of books to their account get little or no space in English sources specially in India and up-to some extent in south Asia. Most of the Urdu/Bengali/Hindi sources are not online. These are some of specific reasons that many times articles are even deleted due to lack of notability and users/editors are at receiving end. ScholarM (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The warning needs to occur. Perhaps early intervention with advice like JBW gave recently: "I see that you have made a number of attempts to create articles, either directly or via drafts, but that again and again you have met with problems, with the pages being deleted or nominated for deletion. I am sure that must be frustrating, so I thought it might be helpful to offer you some advice on how to get established as an editor. ..... My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start." might have helped, but KhanQadriRazvi typically seems to adapt advice given and cause pain ... the example I typically think of is the copyvio deleted article which was up for WP:AFD and I said give me precisely your THREE best sources (or WP:RS) to analyse as I was only prepared to look at the top three. They provided eight bare URLs. Maybe one of the first three might have stood WP:RS scrutiny; though a couple of those towards the end of the list looked possible. In the end a copyvio copy/paste blew the whole thing away on a CSD (though because of the knowledge level of licensing/attribution needed to spot/analyze the problem it could be argued reasonably this was a good faith copyvio, but if you copy/paste stuff in you really needs to know this). Some admins have actually been giving advice but it probably has reach the point where an independent admin needs to get an agreement with KhanQadriRazvi to stop attaining WP:XC through problematic editing; possibly via a voluntary WP:TBAN.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Too unilateral and unproductive. If you want such imposition then list all the pages where disruption is being caused by non ECP users. But remember that there are thousands or millions of pages related to this subject and disruption on several pages won't justify the proposal. Azuredivay (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Azuredivay, but understand the reasoning. Unfortunately preparing good edit requests is actually for a semi-protected pages is a very skilled art and the risks of unpracticed failing and falling into frustration are very high; its also expensive in terms of talk page area, pending changes sometimes works better unless the summaries are being abused, in both cases its unwise if one person handles all edit rejections as disastrously happened in a case earlier this year.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Netholic and haunting-related disruption

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is behaving disruptively with regards to Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020, both bludgeoning the RM proposal with tendentious, circular argumentation (mostly focused on wikilawyering about Netoholic's idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW and WP:NDESC), and attempting to censor posts on other talk pages. The gist is that Netoholic is convinced that the article must be moved to "List of haunted places" (or something very close to that), with a claim in Wikipedia's own voice that they are haunted. The RM clearly already WP:SNOWBALLed against that idea before I even arrived to comment there (though exactly what the title should be is still open to some question - "reported", "purported", "alleged", etc.).

• See this firehose of "proof by verbosity" posts to the RM, arguing with everyone Netoholic can (though singling me out in particular even after I raised WP:BLUDGEON and tried to disengage from Netoholic): [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90] (minor edits elided).
• Netoholic is not making a consistent, cogent argument throughout, but veers between various policy/guideline principles depending on who N. is arguing with. The goal appears to be shotgunning every argument that comes to mind as long as N. gets what N. wants.
• WP:ICANTHEARYOU: Multiple editors have clearly objected about how off-base the personal reinterpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW by Netoholic are (LuckyLouie: [91]; me: [92], [93]). Yet Netoholic keeps citing the loose WTW guideline (sometimes at different shortcuts) [94] as if it is an ironclad policy, e.g.: "Still standing by FRINGE as an argument to violate MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt?" [95] We all know that WTW is words to watch (i.e., to rarely use, only carefully and sparingly, for good reason), not "words that are banned from Wikipedia". Netoholic posted this after this was explained to them [96]. If it's not what N. wants to hear, it just doesn't sink in.
• I repeatedly warned of WP:BLUDGEON, and attempted explicitly to exit the discussion [97],[98], but Netoholic engaged in WP:WINNING-flavored baiting [99], and then pursued me to my talk page [100], [101], [102], where Netoholic seems unwilling to take no for an answer and has been making repeated demands for the same thing over and over.
• When Netoholic didn't get the demanded action from me (for me to self-revert my proposal [103] at WT:MOSWTW to revise the relevant section of the guideline to be clearer, in direct response to the FUD being sown in this RM), N. decided to just go censor me, and to try to dictate how and where I may post [104]. N.'s rationale for this nonsense is that I "poisoned the well" of the RM or of N.'s notice about it. But the RM was already clearly not going to proceed in the direction N. wants, and I entirely accurately described it in my preamble to the revision proposal: "this discussion is relying on MOS:ALLEGED to suggest that WP cannot cast doubt on WP:FRINGE topics with terms like "reportedly" or "purportedly", and that is obviously not the intent of this guideline." And I explained this all to N. very clearly [105].
• I restored my post [106], and warned Netoholic not censor it again [107] or I would ask ANI for a topic ban. N. did it again anyway (even with a repeated edit summary, as if talking to a child or an idiot) [108]. So here we are. Netoholic did not respond at N.'s talk page or mine, just decided to editwar against WP:TPO in pursuit of whatever weird WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND thing this is for N.
• Before this escalated to this point, I also notified WT:FRINGE and WT:MOS of the RM (in just "please see this relevant discussion" terms), and also raised the BLUDGEON and FRINGE-PoV problem at WP:FTN, in a pre-existing thread (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#List of reportedly haunted locations) but at this point ANI seems more appropriate, and I'll direct the FTN thread to this one. NB: Another editor there, Roxy the dog, appears to indicate the bludgeoning effect was strong enough for that editor to just abandon the discussion without commenting.

I think a topic ban, from something like "hauntings and ghosts" and from MOS:WTW is appropriate for some meaningful span of time. I have no idea whether this behavior is motivated out of a sincere belief in ghosts and in a "duty" of WP to treat them as real, or some kind of obsessive wikilawyering and argument-for-sport habit, or what. I just know that it's disruptive and that it appears to be confined to this particular topic (that said, I have not gone diff-digging for broader behavior patterns).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removing of the word reportedly when we have WP:RS showing the existance of ghosts at that location, or those locations. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see healthy debate on a talk page involving an open discussion about page moves. Just because you can't get the last overly verbose word in for once doesn't make his behavior disruptive. You've had your input, now walk away and let a closer determine consensus. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about the content decision being discussed in the RM, it's about edit-warring to delete other people's posts, and bludgeoning a discussion with WP:IDHT, then pushing the matter to the user-talk page of an "opponent" after that party already did walk away, and badgering them there with three posts of the same demand (two after an answer was already given).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The pot is really calling the kettle black here. Calidum 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This got very heated and whilst no one should edit war to remove another users comments there were also counter accusations of canvasing. I am not going to judge the rights and wrongs just to say this should be closed and maybe a few quite words had.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few words, a few quiet words, or quite a few quiet words? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Quiet Words.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Which ones? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be up to the admin who utters them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The heat is on one side though. I was deliberative, factual, avoidant of escalation or circularity, trusting that neutral notices to relevant pages like WT:MOS and WT:FRINGE will draw any necessary attention to the RM content matter, proposing guideline clarification on the guideline's talk page (the proper venue for that), and drawing WP:FTN noticeboard attention to the disruptive aspects of what's been going on at the RM discussion (without even naming a name, just pointing to a circumstance that needed some intervention). Netoholic, by contrast, has been posting sarky baiting messages after I've made it clear I don't want to continue the discussion, has IDHT-style browbeaten people at the RM who have a different viewpoint, then badgered me in repetitive fashion on my talk page, tried to censor my guideline clarification proposal, and done it again after a warning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• "See this firehose of "proof by verbosity" posts to the RM, arguing with everyone Netoholic can" (SMcCandlish, above). Well, I looked at the RM expecting to see an editor arguing with everyone in sight, and it has 18 !votes or comments by other editors - of with Netoholic has replied directly to four, and become involved in a discussion on a fifth. Apart from the nom, Netoholic has made eleven comments in that section. And the filer of this report, SMcCandlish, has made ... eleven as well. So IMO if Netoholic is "bludgeoning the discussion", then so is SMcCandlish. The spat at WTW was just that - a silly spat which wasn't needed. But the majority of this report involving the RM is spurious and can be closed with no action. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nah. Netoholic has been serially challenging everyone who disagrees with him; that he hadn't yet gotten to all of them by the time we ended up here is a good thing, not evidence in support of his behavior. (And of course N. won't pick arguments with those who agree with him; your counting up of stuff isn't on-point). By contrast, I have mostly been responding to pings to bring me back to the thread, and to direct questions asked of me, and also chatted in a jokey subthread about ghosts of reporters. That's not WP:BLUDGEON or anything like it. You actually have to look at the posts and their context and content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It's obvious that both this discussion and the RM are haunted and thus outside the scope of Wikipedia, please stop before it spreads to the general text, Commons, and who the hell knows from there. Poking at and playing with the forces of non-nature seldom works out (although Mrs. Muir didn't do too bad). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    Aaaiiieee! a wikigeist!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• There was no good reason to edit war to remove SMcC's comment. If it was inappropriate, go to the appropriate venue and leave a note in the discussion it concerns. That said, the rest of this is a content dispute. The only thing actually concerning here is the idea that anyone thinks it's ok to use Wikipedia's voice to say that a place is haunted. Seriously? But I'll go and make that case elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• The firehose of "proof by verbosity" are mostly valid points that a reasonable editor would take on board and discuss. Do we really need to assume the readers are so stupid it is necessary to say "reportedly haunted". I don't know the answer but it's worth talking about. The inability of the group wielding the WP:FRINGE hammer to see any other perspective can be trying at times. fiveby(zero) 20:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • engaging with "the group wielding following the most fundamental aspects of the WP:FRINGE hammer content guideline" can indeed be trying when arguing to use Wikipedia's voice to legitimate fringe theories contrary to that guideline. It's uncontroversial that there are people who believe haunting is Real and True, and countless TV shows, etc. dedicated to promoting that perspective. So we don't need to assume anything to understand that it's WP:FRINGE 101 stuff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    Indeed. At least two cable TV networks that used to mostly produce educational and fact-based material have for about 15 years or so been engaging in almost propagandistic levels of programming devoted to fringe nonsense, especially ghosts and "ancient aliens". And it works. I know an otherwise scientifically minded elementary-school teacher who has become convinced by them that ghosts are real and common. It reminds me of actual belief in the kayfabe roleplay of professional wrestling; of the "alternative facts" echo chambers of far-right media; of anti-vaxers and other conspiracy theorists; and of the self-evident nonsense that people buy in supermarket tabloids like Weekly World News and National Enquirer. The less reasonable it is, the more it appeals to a certain subset of people who kind of revel in wallowing in entertaining falsehoods that allow them to identify with and feel they're part of a special group.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Like BlackKite, I was expecting to open that page and see the types of walls of text the complainant is renowned for. What I saw in reality was a fairly normal RM where the proposer challenges a few opponents. As a semi-regular RM closer, it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and I'm pretty sure I've made more challenges than that during RMs. I honestly don't know what action is expected here, so I would suggest this is hatted and we all move on to more important things. Number 57 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's fine. It's been my experience that virtually every time I raise concerns about an editor's behavior for the first time at ANI, no action is taken (unless it's a recent account that is an obvious troll or PoV-pushing SPA). What happens after that: either the behavior in question quietly changes so that the problem goes away (the best outcome), or the editor in question feels immune to consequences, so doubles-down and escalates the behavior, then community action is later taken when someone else reports the continued behavior pattern to ANI, another noticeboard, AE, or ArbCom, with my earlier ANI used as evidence. Either way, it gets resolved in the long run.

  To be clear, I said nothing about the length of Netoholic's posts; the concern was the "Bible-thumping" and WP:IDHT style of them, browbeating other editors with a personal reinterpretation of WTW, a guideline which does not (and could not possibly) mean what N. thinks it means, treating that personal vision of WTW like an inviolable policy, plus snide baiting to escalate when people try to disengage.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, and it should be kept that way. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I just looked at the block log of User:Netoholic. Sometimes one should learn from fifteen years ago. There may be a longer block log, but I haven't seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I wasn't going to raise that, since none of the blocks are within the last year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  The great majority of those were a very long time ago, and a number of the early ones were quickly contested and overturned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

User:LeoRussoLeo

LeoRussoLeo (talk · contribs) has been involved in a (until now) very civil content dispute at Cavoodle, but on not being happy with the discussion has resorted to vandalising a number of pages I have written:

• Poitevin hound – diff
• Perdigueiro Galego – diff
• Hunting the clean boot – diff
• Leyland Beaver-Eel – diff

I request that an administrator intervene. Cavalryman (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).

Moved from Ongoing Vandalism Cavalryman

I would like to request assistance with ongoing vandalism to the 'Cavoodle' page by Cavalryman. I have asked the user to stop multiple times and they are yet to do so.

They claim to be fixing things but remove most of the page because it doesn't meet their requirements . They go on to put information from their own sources which I feel hold less weight than what was there.

On the 27th of May, the user removed the page completely by placing a redirect on it.

I understand that this user thinks they are doing a service but those from the Cavoodle community are upset that the Cavoodle page is being ruined.

LeoRussoLeo (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@LeoRussoLeo: I suggest you read through Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. After that, you can engage in dispute resolution to resolve whatever content-related issues are bothering you. If the "Cavoodle community" doesn't like how English Wikipedia works, they can use some other website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SpaceRoverX

Can someone have a look at this "newbie"? They're on a crusade, removing lots of info with misleading edit-summaries. Especially this edit is striking; but also edits like this, removing info on steppe ancestry in China (also typical that a newbie knows what a TOC is), and this edit, removing info on R1a in the Xiongnu, ancestors of the Mongols/Turks. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Joshua's accusation is misleading as he ignores my positive contributions, how I have added links and sources, as well as corrected spelling and punctuation. And as a sidenote, the Xiongnu are not the ancestors of the Mongols. The Xianbei are. It is debated whether the Xiongnu are ancestors of the Turks too. If Joshua mixes up basic facts, then I am not sure how qualified he is to criticize others on these topics. Also it seems haplogroup R's father originally came from East Asia and is very closely related to the haplogroup O of Han Chinese (both descend from K). That seems to make R a descendant of Han Chinese males, which is quite ironic.SpaceRoverX (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS DATE violations

McGod1911 keeps changing dates to add commas to dmy dates (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Turnbull&diff=next&oldid=954427917&diffmode=source), in violation of MOS:DATE. Looking at their contribution lists, this is the only things they've done on the encyclopedia. They have 9 warnings for this, asking them to stop and adhere to MOS:DATE, but they continue making these edits, and not responding. Clear WP:NOTLISTENING issue, please could an admin block them- my suggestion would be temporarily, to try and get them to talk. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Block. They've been told the same thing, by multiple editors, for the last three months. A block will at least get their attention—note they've never even used their talk page—and I'm not sure I'd even argue against a CIR indef. ——Serial ^# 11:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning - one more incorrect date edit from them and I'll block them (or any other admin can do it). I haven't blocked yet simply because I really think they need to be given fair chance to have their right of reply first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Uh-uh: their 11th right to reply. ——Serial ^# 18:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks suspiciously similar to Bowtiebandit's contributions. The same kind of edits with the same edit summaries. – ².O.^Boxing 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I agree. SPI filed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowtiebandit. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a massive sock farm going on here. The standard sock's userpage looks like 1 or 2, and some representive diffs are Special:Diff/957361611 and Special:Diff/956289969. Characteristic edit summaries are "improved grammar", "added info and citations", "added wikilinks", and similar. If anyone has any suspected socks who are not listed at the SPI, please report them. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Central line

I made a very simple edit to Central line disambiguation page just to correct a misinformation about the type of a railway from fright to passenger, but user:Britmax reverted my edit on ground of "unexplained change". I reverted him and noted that the original text contradicates the information written in the railway article. Then s/he reverted me again stating "please find the source from the other article as otherwise you are using Wikipedia as its own source". I don't want to engage in 3RR and demand some sort of mediation from a third party. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They were poor reverts - the information was easily verifiable from a quick Google search.[109] I've reinstate the change. Number 57 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If the original changes were that easy to verify the original poster should have done it, and should learn to leave an Edit summary to say what they have done. Otherwise we have an unexplained change that requires me to do someone else's homework. Britmax (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverting is the least helpful response possible though. I regularly see IPs and editors making unexplained changes, but rather than blindly revert a possibly good edit, I take the time to see whether it's correct or not. Number 57 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Harassment, on and off Wikipedia, by User:89.159.44.130

Can someone please have a word with User:89.159.44.130? He or she is posting harassing messages on my User Talk page. This morning, I also received a harassing e-mail message - sent to my work account, sent to one of my personal accounts, and copied to others at my employer and Wikimedia staff - presumably from the same person. He or she is also using 37.165.33.241 so a CU may be illuminating although the harassment is not (yet) so widespread and persistent that I suspect a sophisticated operation. This same editor also posted similar harassment on Dawnseeker2000's User Talk page, too. ElKevbo (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ ElKevbo Please stop to lie and stop to abuse your moderator power on Wikipedia. What you are saying is UNTRUE. You are removing content unfairly while keeping similar pages and content. Can you post the email you talk about here so that everyone can read? It is simply a complaint against your autocratic behaviors on Wikipedia, no more no less. You are damaging the popularity of Wikipedia by your autocratic behavior. Wikipedia is popular because it is open and transparent. Do not damage it with your personal ego. If you continue to remove contents, I will stop to use Wikipedia and to promote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.44.130 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: - this not not "harassment". Do you have any other diffs which show behaviour from the IP what requires administrator intervention? Please also note that CUs will not link IP addresses. GiantSnowman 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Are you seriously saying that multiple messages posted to my User Talk page accusing me of lying and abusing my "moderator power" - posted using multiple IP addresses including one message posted after I deleted the previous one - is not harassment? Are you really telling all of us that an editor looking up another editor's personal and work e-mail addresses - not using Wikipedia's built-in e-mail function - and sending that editor, his employer, and Wikimedia staff the same kind of message as he or she wrote above is not harassment? If that is your stance then you need to resign your admin bit; harassment of Wikipedia editors is a serious problem and if you can't help address the problem then you can at least not dissuade others from trying to address and stop gaslighting editors who are being harassed. ElKevbo (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: The opening remark from the IP was "Why are you removing referenced contents from Wikipedia?" - the dispute then escalated because you did not respond to that reasonable comment, but stuck your fingers in your ears, getting them annoyed. Can you provide me with a diff of the dispute so I can understand what's going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, sorry but I don't see any point here where the IP first made a "reasonable comment" and then ElKevbo failed to respond. I'm also not seeing any "escalation" afterwards. The only thing I'm seeing is the IP – evidently some kind of COI/fringe-pusher – coming to ElKevbo straight away with guns blazing, with a stream of wild, personalizing accusations. And whether or not you find that first message over the top enough to count as harassment, the mails to off-wiki third parties are clearly far beyond the pale. This needs an immediate block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know; they haven't provided any specific details and the messages to my User Talk page and the e-mail message was the first time that I heard from him or her. Maybe it's related to this article but I don't know. He or she does appear to be editing solely to promote one specific author/researcher and many of those edits have been removed by multiple editors so I have no idea why he or she has decided to target me with wild, vague accusations. I did specifically ask if he or she is connected to that author/researcher but he or she has not responded to that question. ElKevbo (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: You posted one diff - now you complain about multiple messages. Like Ritchie asks for, we need evidence. GiantSnowman 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two links in my original message and you also have ready access to the contribution history of both IP addresses which are rather short. And if you don't see the messages I've shared - they're similar in tone and comment to the ridiculous message posted above by this editor - as harassing then you need to reevaluate your standards about what you think is acceptable for Wikipedia editors to write about and accuse one another of doing and being. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment, for those with OTRS access, please see ticket:2020060410005699. This appears to be relevant. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm disengaging from this thread and removing ANI from my watchlist; please post a message at my User Talk page if you need anything else from me. If the information that has already been shared doesn't convince you that there is a problem here then I can't convince you. It shouldn't be acceptable for editors to make the accusations that have been made, post multiple messages to User Talk pages making these accusations, and e-mail editors and their employer to repeat the same accusations; if administrators can't understand that then I'm afraid that this volunteer-run project is in deep trouble. ElKevbo (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• For Christ's sake, ElKevbo is a long-established and respected editor. If he says emails were sent to his employer, we can believe him, and that's harassment for sure. If he needs to submit evidence to OTRS or whatever, I guess so, but this committed skepticism is uncalled for. EEng 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, yes, we should take claims like that at face value from established editors. The lack of any actual detail of what the dispute might be doesn't obscure that fact. On the face of it, this is a disgruntled refspammer. I am minded to prevent this bullshit wiuth an edit filter for now. What do others think? Guy (help!) 15:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'd like to add my little voice to EENg and JzG. astonishing. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Especially since the IP admitted the emails were sent... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) If people want to check on the original editorial dispute, see the last two dozen article edits by 89.159.44.130. The IP keeps on posting mentions of a scholar named Khaled Moustafa to a variety of different articles. He also wants to promote a new Arabic-language preprint server called arabixiv.org, created by Khaled Moustafa. The IP user has protested indignantly against recent admin actions at User talk:89.159.44.130, in threads like 'Stop to abuse of your moderator position'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked the IP in question, and I agree with this action. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

<hat type="OTRS">

Per Alex Noble's link above, I confirm ElKevbo's story: there was an email sent to info@wikimedia.org, legal@wikimedia.org, business@wikimedia.org, donate@wikimedia.org, email addresses that appear to be ElKevbo's personal and work emails, and an email address that appears to belong to his employer. The email complained about ElKevbo's "autocratic" actions, stated that "a lot of people are complaining about [it]," and threatened to stop donating to Wikipedia, among other statements, and was generally similar in tone and content to the IP's post here and on ElKevbo's talk page. No further confirmation from ElKevbo should be necessary.

</hat> creffett (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I think there's a "FOAD" template for that on OTRS. Guy (help!) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Khaled Moustafa

The IP in question is essentially a WP:SPA devoted to adding articles and content related to Khaled Moustafa. This appears to have been going on sporadically since 2014, all from IPs allocated to SFR (mainly through its Numericable / Gaoland acquisition).

• 89.159.44.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.170.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 93.21.220.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.165.33.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Not cool. Guy (help!) 16:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not cool indeed. An edit filter like you suggested above would be cool though. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In Impact factor the reference removed as "spam"[110] was added as one of two sources for the sentence before it; it was not just added as a reference with no content - both were published in Science and Engineering Ethics. Based on Special:Contributions/Corio, if one of the references is spam it's more likely the one that's still in the article. Peter James (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter James, that journal rings a bell. It's also where Brian Martin (social scientist) published his diatribe about how biased Wikipedia is because it is less glowing about him than about all the other social scientists who don't have a history of publishing or enabling anti-vaccine conspiracist bullshit.

I am beginning to wonder whether it functions as the axe-grinders' journal of choice? Guy (help!) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support sanction. Posting confrontational notices on El Kevbo's talk page is one thing. Reseaching their real-life identity and sending a message to their employer is altogether different and totally, totally unacceptable. The subject user has admitted sending such a message. This kind of conduct is chilling and needs to be met with a strong sanction, preferably a block, IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a block would be lenient. Off-wiki harassment that includes emailing an editor's employer (potentially compromising their job) should result in a community ban IMO. Number 57 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Cbl62, sod blocks, that's siteban material. Guy (help!) 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Site ban sounds good. My message was meant to express outrage at the extraordinary off wiki harassment presented here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The obvious...

The anonymous SFR user promoting Khaled Moustafa is indefinitely banned for harassment.

1. Support. Guy (help!) 22:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Hear, hear –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. Anyone who does this should be shown the door. —{ CrypticCanadian } 00:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support per Cbl and N57 above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. I haven't looked at the on-wiki stuff, but contacting someone's employer about a content dispute on Wikipedia is clear cut harassment and must not be tolerated. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Support. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Number 57 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support. Door. Backside. Don't let it hit on the way out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support. "You won't be seeing that guy again". ——Serial ^# 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Support Unacceptable behaviour.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. And if they're laughing at this, bans will also apply to every other IP they use and whatever named accounts they may create in future, so a ban is more than just 86'ing their IPs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 04:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arsi786

I have been watching editing of Arsi786 for sometime and there are issues that should be addressed because warnings have certainly not worked.

Problems include misrepresentation of sources,[111] edit warring,[112][113] removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries,[114] unexplained POV changes,[115] and extraordinarily outrageous edits like this.

Shashank5988 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have suppressed the last of those, as it accused the subject of a serious crime without evidence; adding that is almost sanction-worthy in and of itself. I do not have the time to investigate the other issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The edits warring have been dealt with and the madudi one was not a edit warring as I stopped. Arsi786 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Arunachalamp.jpg

Survived mass deletion of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 15 May 2020. Deletion bug? please check. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have deleted it. No idea why it had been left there for a week. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Devourcomm

Devourcomm has been making disruptive, unsourced and questionable edits (like changing dates and calorie count without any explanation) in a number of articles, marking all of them as minor. The user ignores all warnings and requests on their talk page, including a final warning. It is not entirely clear whether it's vandalism or just chronic disruptive editing and a strong case of WP:CIR and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I think that edits like [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123] etc. strongly suggest that this is almost certainly silly vandalism by a user who is just deliberately trolling for fun. But in either case, I think an indefinite block is the only option.—J. M. (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support block: this user is either not here to build an encyclopedia and just a troll, or if they are, they're not competent enough to build one. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 18:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is just a garden variety vandalism account. Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Floq! -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 19:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

LegacyVisual and a medley of issues

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

I am reporting this here as I am involved; I had hoped to not have to. The gist of the issue: LegacyVisual is an ethnic/religious POV pusher with a healthy dose of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. I first interacted last week when I answered a help request. The focus of their ire lies with the majority Muslim Tigre people of Eritrea, whom they think are being whitewashed by a concerted conspiracy of Wikipedians, see this rambling NOTFORUM screed. I tried to be helpful, and went out of my way to find some sources and correct info about the Tigre people, and to explain things to LegacyVisual. They either didn't answer my questions, heed what I said, or simply replied with more rambling political screeds, see this whole section. They have taken a very dim view of reliable sources, they may have been initially editing as an IP adding copyright vios [124], and as seen here they don't seem to care about reliable sources, and are incapable of listening. Last night I asked them to discuss issues with me in several different ways, but they have ignored me, and today gone on a spree of unfactual WP:RGW edits: [125], [126], [127], [128]. I tried to be overwhelmingly helpful and get them to edit productively, but alas they seem to be WP:NOTHERE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This narrative isn’t new. I have followed a trail of evidence on the Tigre people and other Muslim inhabitants indigenous to Eritrea, using trusted sources written by academics and scholars of history. This user has struggled to remain open to sources and made several personal attacks. User also exploited their platform by falsifying the origins and history of all Muslim Eritreans even when reliable references were used causing interruptions and rejecting written journals by academics backing our historical findings. User went on to deny Muslim existence and combined all Eritrean Diaspora into one ethnic group when they understand that we are not a monolithic set of people (which they denied at first but then fixed after a huge amount of persistence) Sharing knowledge should not be this difficult.

User only accepted ‘cia sources’ based in Eritrea (which by the checked and they don’t exist and are ‘Not found’) and are testament to the fact that they’re imposing only their political ideology and nothing else.

I tried show casing the diversity that has existed in Eritrea over the centuries because of its very strategic location on the Red Sea which again deleted many times by users denying all non cia materials even when written by trusted sources. Users continued being problematic and replicating their ideology using other accounts and references that simply don’t exist.

Another thing, user seems to have a history of making Islamophobic edits from different accounts, making sweeping opinions on the ‘Tigurat’ page which I fixed. Frequently reducing/changing population of Muslims from all demographics even when appropriate citations are used

Furthermore, included edits that suggested Tigre group were converted forcibly and were formerly Tigruat (another word for Tigrayan) the two groups are not analogous, and it is deeply ignorant to pretend not to mention patronising, to pretend otherwise or to try and impose a tigrai-centric view of history on Muslim majority groups inhabitants in Eritrea and elsewhere in the region not to mention the population number regularly changing with unexplained data, references and citations that don’t exist, while leaving Tigrayan to be untouched, clearly editing with an agenda. Forcibly imposing dishonest and offensive ideology causes more harm than you think, please stop. Seems to me that you want as little as Muslims as possible and your edits are a testament. Why should we subscribe to your opinions and ideology of things, what kind of chose is that? How about you start using reliable sources for your edits? And accept help. Your edits/statements are dangerous and will invoke divisions, doing immeasurable harm to the Muslim communities. All I’ve done is be clear in assertion and fixing any mythology that is being propagated by you and your marauding group. LegacyVisual (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@LegacyVisual: Please indent your posts using :s. Provide WP:DIFFs for evidence when you make claims about other users. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I've started with a 1 week partial block from mainspace. LegacyVisual is clearly frustrated, but the edits are often are badly sourced, unsourced, WP:OR or some combination. Maybe explaining on Talk first will help the penny to drop. Guy (help!) 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: No offense, but I highly doubt that. I'm usually the first to WP:AGF, but I just don't believe this is anything but WP:NOTHERE. This and this can give you a hint for what to expect when this user decides to utilize a talk page. LV just simply does not care for what a source actually says in making edits to Wikipedia.^{[129][130][131]} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MJL, I feel my block should contain the disclaimer "may contain WP:ROPE"... Guy (help!) 22:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Sounds good with me. I'm always perfectly fine with giving more rope out! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Smallpox

Hi, I would appreciate an uninvolved admin to intervene here please. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need an admin? I don't see behavioral problems, I see editors disagreeing with each other, which happens now and again on Wikipedia. Why not start an RfC about the lede image? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Umm, it's a never-ending "discussion" (starting in April 2017) about something that will never happen (smallpox is never going to be illustrated with a bowl of flowers). The who-cares response to a situation like that is to say that an RfC should be held, but there is no clear proposal other than that a small number of people do not want to see a picture of smallpox in the smallpox article (or perhaps not in the lead?). They should be told to make a firm proposal in an RfC. The problem is what to do if they don't follow that advice, but continue complaining. The matter would need ANI attention then. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

One confirmed user vandalising minority language page.

• Sylheti Nagri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I want to raise a complaint. About this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylheti_Nagri

Syloti Nagri or Sylheti is a language of minority community in Bangladesh, India and UK. Why only one confirmed user "Username" dominating the page, who hate the language, call it a dialect in several edits and doing whatever he wants. Discouraging all other contributors.

Only handful of community users use this script, known to them as "Syloti Nagri" who is trying to reintroduce the script. But this user who know nothing about the community dominating the page.

Please have a look at the name Syloti Nagri in our small community and resources and correct the spelling in the page name.

Syloti Nagri not Sylheti Nagri.

---

Community: https://sylhetilanguage.com/ https://www.endangeredalphabets.net/alphabets/syloti-nagri/ https://sylotinagri.com/ https://omniglot.com/writing/syloti.htm http://sylotilanguage.com/

International: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.unicode.unicoderanges.sylotinagri?view=netcore-3.1 https://www.google.com/get/noto/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coilsspit (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Coilsspit: Your concerns should be raised at the article's talk page. This page for is for matters that require administrative attention. I don't see anything in UserNumber's that requires administrative attention. A cursory look does suggest that Sylheti is a language, not a dialect—but again, that's a content matter for the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have also notified the user in question, since you did not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is curious, though, that a newly-created account has come straight to ANI with this, regarding a page that is protected due to sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputro.nagaland/Archive. The named socks were all active on Sylheti-related pages. The person being criticized above is most likely User:UserNumber who has added a lot of content, and identifies as a speaker of Sylheti. (This is the person criticized above as knowing nothing about the language). The disagreement (above) appears to be which script is the correct one to use for the language and how its name should be spelled in English. Whatever the issue may actually be, it has tenacious advocates (or possibly, one advocate with many socks). EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it is a very strong accusation to make that I know nothing of the Sylheti language or script. In fact, I have not only contributed immensely to these articles, I have created related follow-up pages such as: List of works written in Sylheti Nagri, Ashraf Hussain, History of Sylhet and Sadeq Ali, which show my enthusiasm for the topic.UserNumber (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy

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

---

Nableezy is an editor with a long and uninterrupted history of being an unpleasant fellow editor. Recently he reverted an edit of User:Sir Joseph with the edit summary rv nonsense edit. Since the edit was far from nonsense, I asked him to be more civil.[132][133] His reply was an unacceptable accusation of vandalism at the address of Sir Joseph, and a hint at my own incivility.[134] When I told him that Sir Joseph's edit really can't qualify as vandalism, and that in addition I didn't appreciate his hints,[135], he replied with a personal attack.[136] Please notice the repeated use of the word "nonsense". I removed his personal attack from the talkpage,[137] and he reinstalled it.[138] I'd much like to see that Nableezy receive a stern warning to stop his aggressive and unpleasant interactions with his fellow editors. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is obscene that Debresser is admonishing editors for posting about others personalizing a talk page while personalizing a talk page. Sort of like how he reports users for edit-warring while he is edit-warring. His argument here appears to be that because he complained about me personally on an articles talk page I should not discuss anything personal on that article talk page. Yes, the golden rule is not quite your thing. nableezy - 02:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another storm in a teacup. Zero^talk 03:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, no, not really because this is a continuing issue in the area. Nableezy has a long history of being an uncivil editor. If he doesn't like your edit, he responds with unpleasantly and oftentimes threats. Further, if a new editor joins, rather than NOBITE, he'll do the opposite and chase away with threats and accusations. It's less a storm in a tea cup but more the straw on a camel's back. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see any incivility here. You straight out admit a WP:POINT violation here (At least based on prior discussions we just had a few weeks ago in the Jordan occupation in the West Bank arena ie youre upset about how a different topic is treated so you seek to "equalize" it there, which WP:POINT actually gives as an explicit example of prohibited behavior). Yes, that was a nonsense edit, a violation of WP:POINT and a seemingly purposeful attempt to degrade an article. I fail to see where I have been uncivil in my description of it, and I maintain I was being charitable in calling it "nonsense". Im also unaware of biting any new editors. If you mean the socks of the banned editors whose edits you support then say that please. nableezy - 14:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

All other things aside, if there was some objection to the word "occupation", replacing it with the word "rule" feels pretty ridiculous and, well, like nonsense. I also don't find calling something a "nonsense edit" to be anything more than minor incivility, at most, and certainly not worth pecking at an editor to the point of opening an ANI thread. Grandpallama (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Unless there are objections from other uninvolved admins, I intend on closing this report with a referral to AE. That is not a comment on the content of the report, but my own view that ARBPIA matters do not belong on AN/ANI, where nothing gets decided and they are basically a huge timesink. El_C 17:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, I disagree. This isn't an ARBPIA issue. This is a conduct issue. Not everything needs to be referred to AE. This is about conduct and being civil, not about the IP conflict area, and as such we should be able to discuss it here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted, but I think there is an ARBPIA spillover here. At any case, if another uninvolved admin agrees with your assessment, I will defer to their discretion. El_C 17:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser is banned from AE per this sanction. nableezy - 21:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, if an editor is banned from AE, and ARBPIA actions require AE, is it fair to ban someone from AE? That seems to me that admins should not be allowed to ban someone from the only place you allow someone to bring an action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Andrewl1995 reported by Smuckola

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Andrewl1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This user is extremely abusive and I'd say WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE WP:CIR, having already been blocked for endlessly repeating the most basic disruptive editing akin to spam, as seen on his Talk page, and then made histrionic personal attacks here. The attack is the last straw, but the user says the same things repeatedly, over the same issues, repeating identical disruptions and making new ones of the same kind, claiming not to remember even doing any of it, half of which is arguing with a bot, and demonstrating no possibility of doing otherwise. Please kindly block this user for the sake of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 00:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ping: Trappist the monk, who had blocked the user for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535, who had wanted to get the user blocked and was then attacked. Sorry to bug ya, just in case, according to typical practice. — Smuckola(talk) 02:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in the last 4 weeks though? Or are there edits you don't like but you haven't bothered to mention to him? The editor is perhaps a bit clueless, as he's talking back to a bot on his talk page, but maybe he needs a little more coaching? Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this kind of response YOU MONGRELS HERE CAN GO 🖕🏻 YOURSELVES!!! Andrew Lieb (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC) warrants some kind of administrative action beyond coaching... JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That was four weeks ago. Admins don't punish, they just prevent continuing disruption. Do you see a continuing problem that needs admin intervention? Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I left them a final warning. Please notify me of any further problems, preferably by a ping from a talk page illustrating the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Pi.1415926535 for inappropriate behavior

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

---

• I am here to report User:Pi.1415926535 for inappropriate behavior over a content dispute. The user try to use sockpuppet investigations to get my changes censored.

Content dispute over list of routes. Pi.1415926535 should be topic ban from these topics for taking advantage of these nearly dead articles. Transit plannerL (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a content dispute, not a behavior issue. Take it up on the article talk page and see if you can arrive at a consensus of editors. Or if you're a sock as he claims, give it up. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Pi.1415926535 quickly used sock puppet investigations to address a content dispute? I think Pi.1415926535 knows users can get easily blocked from this sock thing. You can get the same IPv4 or IPv6 address or ISP and get blocked for sock. This is not appropriate behavior to resolve a content despite. Transit plannerL (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BusriderSF2015. Why don't you go there and explain whether or not you are the same person with a new account? He does seem to have a reasonable suspicion based on WP:DUCK. But see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims for other options. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535 quickly used sock puppet investigations to address a content dispute?

As opposed to you, who blanked the "list" part of a list article in a fit of pique when YOUR edits were challenged, and immediately ran to WP:ANI to get your opponent topic banned? You really don't have a leg to stand on here. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

*@Dicklyon: Thank you for helping, but Pi never used consensus to make big changes to that dead page. A good opportunity for people who does not want to go through it

*@Bbb23: request a speedy release of the outcome of the case. As a Santa Rosa essential cs information worker, I have no time to waste on fighting with someone that refuse to comply with other editors suggestions. Transit plannerL (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no time to waste on fighting with someone...

So maybe you should get back to work and leave Wikipedia editing to the "non-essential" people? --Calton | Talk 05:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Calton you are not getting ANI`d by the way. The comments are welcome, but you dont have to be obviously BIAS about it. Transit plannerL (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My "bias" is against obvious bad-faith actors. So too bad. And as for a "speedy release", here's a bulletin: nobody here works for you, and Wikipedia doesn't run on your timetable. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Transit plannerL, you're not likely to get much more sympathy here (and if you keep pushing, possibly a boomerang). Instead, go explain whether the sock accusation is right, or go to the relevant talk page for discussing the content dispute. Or just give it up. I know Pi isn't the easiest guy to deal with, but he's not exactly going overboard here, either. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Dick Lyon. I already request case process to be speed up on the comments above, because i wanna know if i a SOCK too. Transit plannerL (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying it here will have no effect at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BusriderSF2015. Go there, and say whether you are the same person who used the account BusriderSF2015, as hypothesized. Or if you are, just stop editing, since that account is indef blocked. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Biased User and Their Uncomfortable Language

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

---

Hi again. I recently posted about concerns I had about @Mikiesmonkey: on Wikipedia on the help desk and his close connection to a page I am currently cleaning up (Lynn Anderson). I definitely do not feel comfortable with the tone this user is using me or the threatening language this user is imposing on me. Other users spoke to him, which I appreciate. However, I am continuing to get hateful and rather threatening remarks from this user after he was talked to. Please see my talk page and Lynn Anderson's talk page for examples. I am starting to really feel uncomfortable editing lately feeling that I am potentially under attack. I would really appreciate if a Wiki administrator took further steps with this user. I am happy to answer any questions. Is there anything further that can be done? Thank you.

Please also see our discussion on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This user has outed himself as the former agent of Lynn Anderson and has been editing her page since 2008.

Here is an example from the latest post on Lynn Anderson's talk page:

Not necessary to flag the article, Chris. I'm not going to undo any of your work. I think you're doing an excellent job. I do hope you'll make it as "flowery" (and fairly accurate) as you did Crystal Gayle's (an obvious favorite). If I see any inaccuracies on Lynn Anderson's page, I'll merely point them out in the talk section and assume you will address them. If you purposely omit information or don't correct inaccuracies after being provided references, I'll professionally go further up the chain to get it corrected thru' Wikipedia. Again, flagging the article was unnecessary and actually silly. But I'll leave you with the control for now. I have a life outside of "W" and can't monitor it 24/7 but I'll check back. Additionally, I do donate quite a bit to Wikipedia each time their donation drive starts up, so I'm not going to have my factual knowledge disrespected by other contributors just because I was the agent of a now DEAD subject.

ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If there's anything either hateful or threatening in what I wrote above, I would certainly appreciate it being pointed out to me. I don't see it. What I am seeing/encountering is a contributor, to whom I've been extremely complimentary towards for his contributions, being consistent. What the contributor who filed the complaint seems to find problematic is, I'm merely asking "his rules" be consistent across the board. Some of the very things he's removed from Lynn Anderson's page (under the guise of non-objectivity) are glaring on the page of a subject where the complainant was a major contributor. I'm simply pointing out, if we're going to follow the rules, contributors shouldn't be able to pick & choose the subjects to which they apply those rules (based the contributor's partiality of a subject).  I've given this contributor information on Lynn Anderson which, with due diligence, can easily be sourced.  I've backed off editing Lynn Anderson's page, for now, giving him space to finish his work.  I think he doing a fine job.  The contributor (complainant) stated Lynn Anderson's page is a "work in progress" and any comments/suggestions should be posted in the 'Talk" section.  I'm simply stating, upon his completion, if he's either omitted info or if they're any inaccuracies, I'll point them out in the "Talk" section as he's requested.  I'm very knowledgeable as to the particulars of Lynn Anderson's career and there are many milestones & "Firsts" for which she was responsible.  Those can easily and accurately be sourced.  This contributor, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to deem them important when they've been mentioned in essentially every biographical article written on Lynn Anderson - even from the Country Music Hall of Fame & Museum / Billboard (both very reliable sources).  Yet, he makes mention of similar achievements on another subject's page without hesitation.  Despite my having had a relationship with the deceased subject, this does not affect my ability to remain objective.  As a consistent donor to Wikipedia during fundraisers, as I stated, I don't think I should be told not to contribute my (easily sourced) knowledge to Lynn Anderson's page.  As I explained to the complainant, I'm willing to let him finish his work but, again, I will make suggestions or changes if the finished product isn't all-inclusive when it comes to important facts. I'm sorry this contributor is easily intimidated, especially when unwarranted.  It seems more of a control issue with him.  I would like to work together.  As I explained, no one person OWNS Lynn Anderson's Wikipedia page - not me and certainly not him.  Thank you for listening to both sides of the story.  As I've stated repeatedly, I'm standing back and letting the complainant have free reign.  He does great work.  I just hope he will be fair and not ignore sourced info which is pertinent. @Mikiesmonkey:

This user was told not to be editing Lynn Anderson's page since he is technically a biased source. However, he continues to edit. User has told us he is the former agent of Lynn Anderson. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTofu11961 Why are you writing untruths? I have not edited the page in days - look at the history. Additionally, should I decide to edit it, I will. As I've previously stated, you do not own LYNN ANDERSON's page. However, I'm uncertain why you reported a total untruth by saying I "continue to edit." I understand you're probably not happy with my pointing out the double standard, but please check the history before you report inaccurate information. I'm not sure of your age, but I'm an adult. Thanks. @Mikiesmonkey:

@Mikiesmonkey: Once again, the disrespectful language is not appreciated. This is the discomfort I was referring to. This is a volunteer organization and I welcome any contributors to any page. However, when a user has a close connection to the subject, they should not be editing it. It is promotional unfairness, especially when you were in fact her agent. These are the guidelines set in place. You need to check the following link before making any assumptions: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also it is not your business to know my age or whereabouts. However, I am an adult I believe in having adult conversations here, not conversations that appear they are from a private messenger. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTofu11961 There's something very off with you and your accusations. First, you accuse me of "continuing to edit" (which the history clearly shows I haven't in days). Secondly, you accuse me of asking your age & whereabouts? I'm not at all interested in your age or your whereabouts nor did I, at any time, inquire about that information - not in the slightest. I merely said, I'm NOT SURE about you, but I'm an adult. There was no question posed in there anywhere about your age or whereabouts? This dialog with you is clearly going nowhere. Do your thing with Lynn's page. Should I feel the need to edit it at any time, YOU will not prevent me from doing so. Lastly, when Lynn was living, I never edited anything along the lines of "promotional," so I certainly wouldn't do it when she'd deceased. You do know Lynn Anderson is deceased, do you not? Just checking. Not going back and forth with you; however, YOU will not prevent me from adding or editing sourced information to her page. I will allow you the courtesy to finish your work, but please understand there is no conflict of interest when the subject is DEAD. I am NO longer an agent to anyone. I am a free, private citizen with the same right as you. If I were aware of a way to take this to a PM, I would. Since I'm not aware, this is the only way I know to communicate with you. The END. @Mikiesmonkey:

Mikiesmonkey You do have a conflict of interest and you should in general avoid directly editing the article in question; you may make edit requests on the article talk page. Death does not eliminate a COI. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of putting {{ping|Mikiesmoney}} you should sign with four tildes like this: ~~~~. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Y'all both do know that this is one of the most watched pages on WP, right? And we can all see this argument? And you're neither of you doing yourselves any favours? My suggestion: Drop it. Take it to a talk page: here, or here or here. Be polite. Work together. ChrisTofu11961, while the language may be "uncomfortable", i'm not seeing any real rudeness or incivility or anything else we'll deal with here. Mikiesmonkey, no one cares in the least if you've ever donated to a WP fundraiser; your language may be a bit forceful ~ "however, YOU will not prevent me from adding or editing sourced information to her page. I will allow you the courtesy to finish your work..." ~ so you might want to tone it down a bit. As for the COI question, there's a board for that; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Recreation of deleted page and other spam pages

Sumanrsb2, has been recreating deleted page Ashutosh Kumar and again. The talk page of the user is filled with such deletion tags for different pages. The user just keeps creating spam pages after several warnings. Zoodino (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Page salted, I'll let someone else decide whether this needs a block too. creffett (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by blocked editor

At [139] and [140] a temporarily blocked user casts aspersions about me. I suggest indeffing according to WP:NOTHERE. As I told that editor: Get a grip on reality: I did not revert your edits, nor I changed them in any way (except indentation).

He/she is a vexatious troll. If you want more evidence: [141]. Somehow he/she seems to think (contrary to reality) that I reverted his/her edits or blocked him/her from editing. It is a mystery why he/she thinks that I would have moderator privileges. Oh, yes, the editor should be checked for sleepers. Maybe I had reverted his/her edits in a previous incarnation as a Wikipedia editor (i.e. another username). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I think as many would say, a username like User:Truth lives here raises significant concerns in itself. But I wouldn't read too much into the moderator and other stuff. New and inexperienced editors get confused all the time. Since you were the most recently addressing them, there is a good chance they confused you with Materialscientist. Further the fact that the editor would refer to anyone as "moderator" is another sign that they don't understand how things work here, since we don't really have moderators. It's hardly uncommon that editors get confused and thinking anyone who reverts them is a "moderator", or anyone who can post on their talk page when they are blocked is an admin/"moderator", or anyone who can modify their edits even if to only add indentation is a "moderator" etc. Heck since we're at ANI, it's hardly uncommon that people assume anyone posting here must be an admin or should be an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: He/she wrote You have abused your privileges as a moderator as any moderator can not be biased due to the fact it leave no room for the truth or science only opinion before I have posted anything about him/her at WP:ANI.

@Nil Einne: I agree, passing creationism as objectively true or as equally valid with evolution is fundamentally against our policies or guidelines. I don't see how this editor could become a net positive if he/she is allowed to edit topics about creationism and evolution while still asserting their own POV. Either they quit asserting their POV, or they get topic banned from anything which has to do with evolution and/or the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoting myself. So, yeah, if his/her only purpose at Wikipedia is to WP:SOAPbox for creationism, he/she will have to be indeffed. Till now he/she WP:IDHT that he/she is not allowed to do that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I apologise for the confusion with my last comment. I wasn't intending to suggest that you posting at ANI had anything to do with why they assumed you were moderator. Rather is was just another example of how often new editors get confused, and therefore why it's silly to assume just because someone said something about you being a moderator or reverted their edit when you didn't, means they were a sock. And I stand by my point. It's a silly assumption. Anyone with even an inkling of experience here knows how often new editors get confused. If you want to propose an indef for NOTHERE, that's one thing. But don't make silly assumptions and expect to be unchallenged. Actually there is some irony here that you, an experienced editor here are calling for a block based on a silly assumption, when the likely problem is simply some new editor here making silly assumptions. If Truth here lives has brought you up before you had interacted with them you would have a point. But this is clearly not what happened therefore it's a silly assumption. New editors get confused all the time, and if we want to block them, we should block them for actual problems with their edits, not simply for some understandable under the circumstances, confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Further reading your comment more carefully, this discussion just gets more and more confusing. You said "passing creationism as objectively true" except how did creationism even come into this dispute? You mentioned it in your YESBIAS template, but the OP doesn't seems to have mentioned creationism AFAICT. Instead the dispute seems to be often this [142] over flood myths especially ones in the Torah or bible. AFAICT, there's no part of that edit which involves or explicitly refers creationism. It may be true that creationists often believe in flood myths, and especially those who believe in Noah's Ark tend to be creationists. But the fact remains, AFAICT, there is nothing in that edit which specifically referred to creationism. There are people who are not creationists who believe in flood myths just as there are people who are creationists who do not believe in flood myths. There are probably even some people who believe the story of Noah's Ark is literally true but rejected creationism, and more who accept Genesis creationism but reject the story of Noah's Ark. I agree that it's unacceptable to change our articles to imply pseudoscientific myths are factual, be they creationism or flood myths. However let us be clear what is actually going on and not conflate different things. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: As the practice of WP:SPI shows, editors just have to have legitimate hunches about editors being WP:SOCKS and the checkusers will reply with confirmed or unlikely. I don't have to be 100% right for a checkuser to perform a check, just a legitimate hunch will do.

Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. There is an organized group that wishes to replace science with religious pseudoscience on Wikipedia, and this page is one of their main targets. As for bias, Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a check is a CU feels it justified. But that would largely be based on the editing targets and the username. The fact they happened to call you a moderator or said that you reverted them, after you chose to engage with them is at best, only a very minor considerations because it's a silly assumption to make, since as I said anyone with even a small amount of experience here knows how often editors get confused. P.S. Although this is fairly off-topic, to ward of any nitpicking, I'd note that evolution combined with molecular biology provides strong evidence against flood myths, there's clearly no such population bottleneck, and indeed it's not plausible we would have the diversity of life we have if there was a worldwide deluge. So by that token, you could argue that claiming flood myths are true is challenging evolution (by which I mean our current understanding, not some wackadoodles idea of evolution which is consistent with their belief in flood myths). Hence why I was careful to concentrate on the creationism part since that's a separate issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove talk page access from..

blocked User talk:92.40.54.104. Adds advertisments on userpage. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I extended the block and disabled talk page access. I doubt anything useful is going to come from there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing tpa for Potato kid

Potato kid (talk · contribs) abusing tpa. Repeatedly blanking declined unblock requests for his current block. BTW if you have time WP:AIV is backlogged. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

TPA revoked. creffett (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated racism against ethnic Chinese

On behalf of many people. I want to report Bablos939 for his blatant racism and anti-Chinese behaviours that had been happening for several months. I've decided to intervened after reading a forum about Bablos939 and the contribution he made in wikipedia.I counted total of 170 contribution to wikipedia made by Bablos939 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bablos939&offset=20200529233528&limit=500&target=Bablos939

Every contribution/or edit made by Bablos939 to wikipedia targets only Chinese women and girls.You can in every prostitution in every country. It is offensive that wikipedia allows a anti-Chinese editor like him to roam around freely. All his contribution relates to nothing more but Chinese women being prostitutes oversea, Chinese women married with non-Chinese men, and removal of Chinese men married with foreign women. All country has it's own shares of prostitutes overseas and marriages to foreign men, but he only seems to target ethnic Chinese. Simply look at prostitution of Spain, New Zealand, Cambodia, Laos, Russia and every country and every edit are towards Chinese.. I'm sure wikipedia isn't a place where you can just target one ethnicity. If he is allowed to do this than wikipedia is a place where everyone can have a agenda to create anti-sentiments to any ethnicity.

Even in the Interracial marriage his was reverted multiple times because all his edits are about Chinese women and misinterpreted the source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interracial_marriage&action=history

His contribution since March are motivated by racism, anti-Chinese, nationalistic. I wish he get blocked for this type of offensive behaviours for several months. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@70.77.154.228: In future, please remember to always notify users if you start topics about them here. I've done so for you. To your actual issue, I've done some review of Bablos939's edits, and I'm actually somewhat sympathetic. They really do seem to mostly focus on adding the fact that specifically Chinese women are prostitutes (also) to articles, and a great deal of their editing indeed deals with this. I'm not yet ready to say that they're pushing a WP:POV, but it does seem a strange focus. Then again, I also have strange editing focuses, so cannot really judge. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I've had numerous disagreements with Bablos939 over their edits on various prostitution articles, but, as they haven't edited these articles since early April and all issues have been resolved on an article by article basis, it would seem that any admin intervention is now unnecessary for these articles. Bablos939 has been editing Interracial marriage since then, but the edits have been reverted by other editors. (Interracial marriage has been edited by various editors with their own focuses and, in my opinion, it now needs a rewrite to restore balance). There has been a vendetta against Bablos939 since early May, initially by sockpuppet Buzinezz [143], and latterly by the IP. Whilst I'm not posting to defend Bablos939, I feel this is being blown out of proportion by the IP and is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other, possibly down to Chinese/Korean rivalry. --John B123 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Thank you very much for this helpful context. Yes, I came to much the same conclusion; Bablos939 certainly has a focus on Chinese prostitutes, but they seem to respect consensus when it emerges, and some of their edits are genuinely constructive, for someone interested in these topics. I did not catch the fact that the IP editor 70.77.154.228 is possibly a sock, but that does make sense given the history. Yet another tempest in a teacup, it seems. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:Hello, esteemed administrator! I am interested in China's economy and women's issues in foreign country.

But I have nothing to say about the problem of the Chinese economy. Because Wikipedia is already complete. so I can only talk about the issue of Chinese women in Wikipedia. That's the only field I know. It is also true that Chinese women are frequently mentioned in the world, according to numerous academic sources.(ex) 'Trafficking in Persons Report' 'Major press'etc..) I only described it in proportion to its actual size and have no other intentions. I'm an ignorant person. I'm so ignorant that I don't even understand Wikipedia rules. So I got a lot of misunderstandings from other users in the beginning. But I had no malice and just worked hard I want to report to you about malicious users. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watersinfalls (I think I misunderstood 'Bamnamu') Related2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage/Archive_2#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige 'single-purpose account : Watersinfalls, 41.34.93.140 ,102.44.199.16 , 41.232.35.139 , Buzinezz and 70.77.154.228' He existed even before I was active. Maybe he is 'Rajmaan'. He has contributed his lies and delusions to Wikipedia for a long time. Sometimes no one has looked at the details, so false information is left unattended. (Interracial_marriage) Rather, he is simply blaspheming foreign women and telling all kinds of lies. I had held a debate to point it out. Then single-purpose account began to interfere with all sorts of things. In the debate, he repeated only the wrong words without answering the question. I wanted the debate to be concise.I argued that falsehood should be deleted and the truth should be listed. but He repeats a long sentence on a topic that is not related to debate. Eventually the whole debate becomes incomprehensible. Perhaps he intentionally interferes with the debate. It is natural for other users to be angry...He is constantly disturbing Wikipedia by Bypass IP. Please block him and normalize the documents.thank you.Bablos939 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• This argument has been going on all over Wikipedia (see this), includng my talk page. and counter-SPI reports. The dispute seems intractable to me, but maybe someone can straighten it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I believe many of the other wikipedia users that spoke out against Bablos939, had learned about his racist anti-Chinese behaviours through many different social media sites. For example one of them could be from here.

• https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/wikipedias-anti-chinese-racist-bablos939-chinese-prostitutes-chinese-women.286753/#post-3137596

Other users may have known him from a long time/or recent editors who suspected him because his actions were similar to previous socks such as Chinese-proti and Montalk123, both of them seem to target Chinese and edit negatively about them. Every edit Bablos939 made is negative towards Chinese men and Chinese women, that is so easy to see from his contribution history, especially when there are previously plenty of anti-Chinese socks editors that were banned or blocked doing similar things. I will not believe in something like Bablos939 saying "I am interested in China's economy and women's issues in foreign country. ". Not a single edit he made is about China's economy and not a single edit he made were about women that isn't related to China. Based on his contribution history, and everything he did, I have reason to think he is covering up the true agenda by saying he is interested in China's economy and women's issues in foreign country. I really don't know if this Bablos939 user is a Korean or someone who now hates Chinese for the coronavirus pandemic. Like it says from COVID-19 pandemic " There have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people". I believe this exactly what's happening in wikipedia. I kind of agree with the person who created this thread that this should reported. The spread and hatred against Chinese is insane, and neither the government nor the media support it. I don't support it either.

Wikipedia users Bamnamu, Watersinfalls and other IP numbers all either reported him for his anti-Chinese behaviours or believe he is a banned sock who previously did the same thing. I have no idea if anyone of them is a sock but there's already a sockpuppet investigation going on and so I don't understand why he keeps lying bout something he couldn't confirm yet. Also the only person accused of being single-purpose account is Bablos939. Mz7 says that " From what I understand, Maomao4321 for supporting Bablos939 and written the exact same thing, making the exact same points is so far a single-purpose account that has only participated in the discussion in support of Bablos939. On that basis, I checked Maomao123 and Bablos939, and they are Possible to each other. "

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti

I agree with the other users that had already disputed with Bablos939, there is no reason why the discussion should only be about Chinese women, Chinese men and foreign women. If we were to discuss again we should also include Korean women with foreign men or any women ( of race/ethnicity) with foreign men.with Mongol men, Manchus men, American men/soldiers, Japanese men/soldiers, Chinese men or Chinese/Korean men with Russian women, European women ect. Unlike Bablos939 claiming, that only a few Chinese men married the other editors (even supported by admin/or respected editor ) shows Chinese men did intermarried with many white, black, mullato population in Cuba, Peru where there so many sources that shows (from Peru's and Cuba's own government statistic and historical records) that shows there are massive number of descendants of many mixed Chinese Peruvians and Chinese Cubans due to marriage with Chinese, they all look mixed. And also about your Chinese women marrying muslim men, fact is historically evidence also shows Chinese men married muslim women. You keep saying Chinese are concealing information of Chinese women foreign men marriages, when there's no concealment. The others didn't even reject the idea that foreign men married Chinese women but rejected your exaggerations from a single book source. The others posted historical record and genetic evidence to show it isn't as exaggerated as you wanted to be. Like the other editors said we should also talk about Korean women marriages with foreign men.

So Bablos939 if you really want to discuss again, I will join in too this time, but I suggest wait for the other editors too, it wouldn't be fair since they are much better than me at this ( I've spend plenty of time reading and copying their edits). You can also wait for that Maomao123 single purpose account. If you don't want to discuss I'm fine with that, if you wait for another time or wait for the right time, in my opinion is the best choice. You can also continue disputing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miscegenation ( the discussions is hidden but allowed to continue, we can talk there) or you can discuss in my talk page and I wil answer your question, but don't just make this about Chinese women. By all means we must also Korean women and other women (like the other suggested ) married to foreign men, because that is correct. I'm not interested in Chinese/Korean rivarly. Chinese and Koreans shouldn't be the only ones targeted. First I'll prefer to wait for Sockpuppet investigation, is not over yet. I really don't know who is a sock or not. In case, a sockpuppet supported me or I was supporting a sock the whole time, you will take the chance to accuse me of being him. I rather that is sorted out first. In the mean time, you can come to my talk page or I come to your talk page. Maybe there are some things we can both agree. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Clear out the FRINGE accusations

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

---

• I don't know if it's the right place to write this. I have been having a discussion on Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology about including expert opinion to "not rule out the lab leak theory" in the page. It has been pretty intense but I think it was mostly relevant. The main argument is that it is WP:FRINGE. I don't believe it is for a series of reasons and I don't believe the lab leak subject is bound by WP:MEDRS. I was blocked a few weeks ago because I was not fully aware of the rules. I accepted it, and I significantly reduced the number of edits I make on COVID-19, instead prefering the talk pages of the articles. What happened now is that I was told to stop using the talk page for "general discussion" of the topic[144], even if I think the discussion was all along about the inclusion of a simple sentence saying that some scientists want "not to rule out the lab as a source".
• I looked around a bit and found that I was the subject of discussions on the matter.[145] [146] [147]. I really don't like the fact that no one warned me, or said they would bring this in front of admins, because I was genuinely involved in the discussion. Here is a few notable quotes talking about me: "This issue is still going on, with the above user continuing to push fringe POV claims into the article in what is now very clearly a RGW and NOTHERE manner" and being called an "exhaustingly intransigent problem" by JoelleJay (talk · contribs), "Thank you for continuing to keep the WIV page under control and free of NPOV/FRINGE/etc. conspiracy theories. There are a lot of us out here who really appreciate your work (and patience...)". I find this last quote to be very self-rightous. Where are we? Kindergarten?
• I really don't care about WP:BOOMERANG at this point, I believe I am being stonewalled, with admin involvement. I tried to act in good faith in everything I wrote. It might not look like it be it is. I will accept every "external" constructive comment on my behaviour by the way. Everything I proposed was immediately brushed aside and considered as fringe, even if I come up with a reliable quote from an expert[148] (though it is in the NYPost and other tabloids). I am tired of being called a conspiracy theorist! I am not alone believing that the "not be ruled out" reference should be added to the WIV page, Swood100 (talk · contribs) is an example. And I am not pushing forwards weird conspiracy theories websites like "wakeupsheeple.something", it's the NY POST and SKY NEWS! Come on, what the hell?
• What I ultimately want is for all the editors/admins involved in this case to come here and speak it out like adults. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• (EC) Hello, I apologize for soliciting the advice/attention of admins without notifying you, that was inappropriate of me. I have been very hesitant to get involved directly in this discussion because I do not feel I have the emotional endurance to keep up with the style of discussion in the WIV talk page. I only brought it up to Thucydides411 because I was impressed with how they were handling their responses throughout the Talk page and wanted to show support. My intention in notifying the admins was initially for more eyes on the page itself, considering the sanctions, although once I brought up specific suggestions for admin action and implicitly referred to you I should have brought it to your notice. It takes me a long time to write things, so more reasoning behind my requests for involvement will follow, but I wanted to put this prologue out there first. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I have a disclaimer on my page saying I can be intense sometimes and asking for people to talk it out with me before doing anything. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This was already discussed at the main topic article (see consensus item no. 14) and on the article talk page. ANI is not the place for content disputes, and WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are clear in any case. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: THANK YOU! No one thought it would be appropriate to point me to the right concensus (and section) just like you did? That's quite alarming actually! What is wrong with these people? No one thought to point that out to me? I feel some would have applied sanctions against me and I wouldn't have known why. Ok then, I WP:DROPTHESTICK, there is concensus. I don't agree, but I respect it. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Oh and I forgot to say that I came here because of an appearance of stonewalling, not because of the content. But the stonewalling was caused by the concensus, so it makes sense now. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: You don't need to continue, someone finally pointed out the concensus at the center of all this misunderstanding. The lab theory concensus is pretty new and the discussion on WIV page started before that. I believe that Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) could have helped with all this misunderstanding... He did not refer to the concensus even once... It's all done now. Let's move on. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian PhysiqueUL09 While that consensus provides important precedent, it is explicitly about the COVID-19 article itself, not about other articles. I also believe there are further issues that ought be discussed beyond strictly pushing for the lab leak hypothesis, although these are interrelated. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I think it is important to mention your behavior in response to the legitimate concerns brought up by other users. You have been exceptionally persistent in pushing sources supporting the lab leak theory into the article; even if you don't immediately put this content into the mainspace, starting these extremely lengthy and aggressive discussions on the Talk page still forces editors to engage with you out of concern you will interpret lack of response as a green light (like adding two different sources after no one immediately objected at the end of this RfC). Here are the discussion sections you have started or that specifically address your conduct on that page: 19 May: Concerns as source--resulting in a warning about discretionary sanctions and a temp ban on 21 May; 24 May: Genome sequencing in 3 days?; 25 May: Sampling timeline; 26 May: Removed section on international inquiry (started by Thucydides411 to explain why you were reverted); 31 May: Mobile position data; 1 June: General Request about Addition of Conspiracy-Theory Material (started by Thucydides about your edits); 4 June: Virus source.

My observations: Even after having been blocked for this before, you generate a constant barrage of synthetic inferences based on unreliable sources (not just non-MEDRS -- you've agitated for Falun Gong expert interviews and tabloids) and demand editors consider their plausibility. When they reject discussing this with you based on NOTFORUM, you double down and seem to take this as evidence they don't have a strong scientific argument against these theories--despite you yourself demonstrating very poor understanding of biology or medical publishing or protocols. You've even accused editors of pro-China censorship Impossible to prove or disprove But they still say that they don't believe it's plausible. Why is that? Because they don't want to be pinned as anti-china? As it seems to be a trend nowadays that being critical of the CCP is being critical of chinese people and, therefore, racist... this is BS and only an artefact of our over-politically correct society that the CCP is blatantly abusing. They know it's our weak point, they know that social media are another weak point. They have one of the worst human rights record in the world, yet they point everyone that disagrees with them as racists... this is really frustrating me. Will you stop saying it's fringe now? Ive got a Nature Medicine article that says it cannot be excluded. End of discussion. This behavior is what I found objectionable enough to bring up to admins, and the exhausting multi-thousand-word walls of text are the SOLE reason I have not gotten involved on that page. JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: "Even after having been blocked for this before" How long are people going to bring this back up? I was blocked 1-2 days after coming back here for editing, there's no way in the world I would have understood all the rules surrounding this!!! Read WP:ATONED what you just did is a WP:PA WP:WEAK. "This behavior is what I found objectionable enough to bring up to admins, and the exhausting multi-thousand-word walls of text are the SOLE reason I have not gotten involved on that page" what is that? With all your observations about me, did it even cross your mind that I could not be realizing what was happening? Wouldn't it have been a good idea to refer me to the specific concensus page? And I did not accuse anyone of anything! I was stating what I was observing! I was trying to explain to him why I wanted to add this stuff. There was never any clear answer from anyone, except simply dismissing it as fringe! 911 inside job is fringe, illuminaties is fringe, reptilian is fringe... And I don't think the lab leak theory to be anything close to those other subjects. The RFC was a mistake in my opinion, as this is an evolving situation and it might become very real, very soon. Now please, WP:DBO PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I bring up your block from 2 weeks ago because it was for the exact same behavior you have been demonstrating continuously since then. The consensus mentioned above was specifically for the COVID-19 page ("This should not be read as a consensus to keep the theory out of other articles, merely this one."), but regardless, the specific policies and guidelines that informed that consensus have been explicitly linked to you in the context of this article enough that it should be clear why your sourcing/edits are being rejected. Once MEDRS come out establishing a direct link between WIV and a lab leak, we will have no problem putting this in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I was actually about to come here and ask that you be more concise as well, as this section is already becoming filled with comments that are unnecessarily long. I think the characterization by JoelleJay of “walls of texts” being posted on the talk page is perfectly fair. And I think JoelleJay was also relatively fair in their assessment. I realize this is a subject you’re passionate about, but you have advocated for PROFRINGE material to be included, rather vociferously, though you did indeed drop that prospect when it was explained at length why it was inappropriate. There is no “taboo”. Scientific and BLP articles require solid sourcing, and not speculation from unreliable sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Yes, I dropped it. But I still don't understand any part of why it is considered as fringe. And I don't think I'm a conspiracy nut. This is what I find frustrating in all this. I am also a scientist, and I feel insulted when people say that what I find is conspiracy. I don't view it as conspiracy, and I can't because It's nowhere near the 911 inside job illuminaty conspiracies that exist. This is simply a statistically improbable event, for now. But you know... Alpha Decay in nuclear physics is caused by such events... so yeah, so much for scientific rigour. This is the whole reason for the walls of text as you and the other editor like to say. It could have stopped by explaining to me what was going on, but it did not. And in my case there is a pathology that causes this behaviour. I don't think intense people like me should be banned from editing wikipedia because of how their ideas flow in their heads. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am tired of the taboo surrounding covid 19. Everyone is hush hush and think the others have some kind of hidden agenda, or are blatantly judging them for their views on it and their decisions to include refs or not. I am a pretty intense no nonsense scientist and I hate when people refrain themselves to talk about a subject because of preconceived ideas. That's the reason for all the references I posted in the talk page, and my apparent insistance on it. I hated that talk by the way as it was never clear why it was considered a fringe theory. I believe some people need to do a conscience examination about the way they talk about stuff here. All this judging of others based on information they might not be aware of is toxic. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) As has been mentioned numerous times, editors here are unwilling to discuss their opinions on the various conspiracy theories because a) this is not a forum; b) editors are trying to reflect what the mainstream, reliably-sourced scientific understanding is, and because these theories have not been covered by MEDRS in ways that are not dependent on OR/SYNTH (as in, they are not explicitly conjecturing WIV was the source of a leak), they are not being included; c) you have admitted you are not an expert and many of us editors are also not experts (I'm just a PhD candidate in molecular biology, but even when I graduate and become a real scientist I will not consider myself qualified enough to comment on virology topics because that is not what I study), so in addition to our non-expert opinions being entirely inappropriate to discuss on article talk pages, our interpretations are also potentially dangerously un(der)informed. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay's summary above is accurate. I think that PhysiqueUL09 should be topic-banned from articles related to CoVID-19. PhysiqueUL09 has expressed interest in editing articles related to radiography, so I don't think they should be blocked altogether. I just think they're causing a lot of disruption at Wuhan Institute of Virology, and will likely cause disruption at related pages, as they continue to push the theory that CoVID-19 leaked from a lab. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: I got it, can't you read? "will likely cause disruption at related pages" what about WP:AGF? What about WP:ATONED? What is wrong with you? I just wrote that I got it now. This is exactly what I am talking about when I am saying the ambiance is toxic. I hate it. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no WP:AGF way of interpreting this statement you made after Thucydides "stonewalled" your proposal to add material sourced from the NY Post and National Review and SYNTH/OR extrapolations of a Nature article:

@Swood100: I think I will be moving this in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China in the Investigations of origins of the virus section. Where more people are bound to participate and if we get a concensus there it would be hard to overlook it here PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides, people in the RfC (including me), CowHouse, MarkH21, etc. have written thousands of words explaining in detail why you can't push for this kind of unverifiable content; and apparently have followed admins who have admonished you, like Boing! said Zebedee and Doug Weller, to their Talk pages pleading with them to explain these wiki policies you keep violating; and yet even after all this feedback you continued to promote the same fringe theories and poor/OR sourcing on the WIV. So personally I find it hard to believe that you will just drop the matter entirely now that "consensus has been pointed out to you", especially when you say below I will come back to you about it with yet another "told you so".JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay:

@Swood100: I think I will be moving this in COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China in the Investigations of origins of the virus section. Where more people are bound to participate and if we get a concensus there it would be hard to overlook it here PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

was an attempt at getting other editors involved into the discussion. It was done in good faith as I thought that was an appropriate way to get the talk going. When I said I will come back to you about it with yet another "told you so" I was referring to me getting out of it and if this theory becomes true coming back to say "I told you so". It was inconsiderate on my part to write that, I was angry. I am sorry. I will try to distance myself from this, again. I don't have an agenda going on, I just want the pages I edit to reflect reality. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Did any of you two realized at any point that I kept it to the talk pages and I thought it was the way to go? But now people are telling me that I can't go there anymore, I won't, simple as that. And JoelleJay (talk · contribs) well good for you! I am a Ph.D candidate in electrical engineering (x-ray inspection) and I still think there is a way to talk about anything! I don't censure myself because I don't know a field, I ask questions, I argue! The first thing I learned in my studies is how to learn. I did not simply learned stuff written in a book by heart, I had to come up with answers, and that's what I am doing in my research. Turning everything upside down and looking at the box with a telescope, because of how far of it I am. This is how science should be done, not scribbling in your notebook in one corner of the lab and being too afraid to do anything. This is why you thought I was coming too hard with this, because it's how I am. Sorry for being myself. Re-read this paragraph I changed it PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh good grief, not feeling qualified to publicly defend your interpretation of highly technical articles outside your expertise != not being intellectually curious. That implication is ridiculous and offensive. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: You opened the door to it. Bottom line: what is insulting is that the lab leak (read carefully here or handling incident of samples outside of the lab) is already, by concensus in WP, relegated to the WP:FRINGE, right beside the Illuminati/Reptilian/Flat Earth theories of this world. This is what is insulting because now you feel you have the moral high ground to say I'm a conspiracy nut. And now, since it was confirmed by the Chinese government that the virus didn't come from the seafood market, it's pretty much in the spotlight. But yeah, too late for that I guess because we already ruled it out even if some experts in the field said it should not be ruled out yet. This is the real problem I have with this. People in wikipedia decided to rule it out prematurely and sent it to the fringe, making anyone that points out references about it an idiot. Too often in my academic career I had "told you so" moments with old-mentality scientists that hate going on a walk with data, preferring incrementally dinosaurilly slow progress rather than science. This is exactly what I think will occur here. And I have a strong memory, I will come back to you about it with yet another "told you so"PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

PhysiqueUL09, this noticeboard does not resolve content disputes, but it does address problematic editor behavior. As for the content matter, we have various forms of dispute resolution available for you to discuss such issues. In my view, you are displaying some problematic behavior here and in those talk page discussions. Listen, nobody cares at all about your previous experiences with "old mentality" scientists and telling such unverifiable anecdotes does you no favors. It's not needed and is a waste of your typing time. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say now, not our guesses about the future. So, if coverage in reliable sources changes dramatically, that will not be the time to crow "I told you so" but rather to say, "it is now time to revise the article". So, I want to caution you against any disruptive behavior on this matter. Please be cautious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

User:DReifGalaxyM31 persistently adds unsourced material and avoids discussion

• DReifGalaxyM31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As far back as 2014, I've left notices for DReifGalaxyM31 (a few personalized) regarding the need to backup claims with reliable sources. Some of their edits are fine, involving a simple rephrasing of existing text and other forms of light copyediting. Others are even helpful at times, correcting specs and removing outdated information. The good tended to outweigh the bad, and it wasn't much work to sweep behind and keep things tidy over the years. However, the bad now tends to outweigh the good, and the frequency that myself and a few others have had to get involved is increasing. The editor hasn't responded to repeated requests and keeps marching on. Here are some recent examples...

Adding unsourced content:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6

Continuation after 6th notice:

• diff7
• diff8

There are other minor concerns with some edits, but right now lack of sourcing and ignoring pleas to discuss are the biggest issues. Perhaps a short-term block is needed (1 week) to get their attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 08:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

IP range WP:HOUNDING my contributions

The range 221.132.119.0/24 has been constantly going through my contributions list and reverting my additions of Urdu-language titles to articles on Pakistani entertainment with strong ties to the Urdu language. Here are some examples:

• "Per infobox and do not add urdu everywhere, Its ok in intro but why in infobox too?"
• "per my previous edit, Urdu POV"
• no edit summary
• dont push Urdu POV everywhere, its already written
• unsourced
• unsourced and dont add urdu for international films, what is the logic of adding urdu everywhere? Its english wikipidea if you have so much concern about Urdu then create Urdu articles. You have zero contribution in Pakistani entertainment and suddenly you are awake and editing in only yours area of interest which is only Urdu, Also please read WP:INDICSCRIPT

There are plenty of other examples littered through their contribution history, but hopefully this is enough to get the point across. In their latest wave in particular, I find it highly unlikely that they just happened to stumble upon Shareek-e-Hayat, Load Wedding, and Shehr-e-Ajnabi mere hours after I had edited them, particularly given that IPs don't have access to a watchlist...

I did try to communicate with them on their talk page once, to no avail.

Regardless of the content issue at hand, I really don't think this sort of WP:HOUNDING should be acceptable, and to bring some attention to it I am posting here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 09:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)