Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Historic Hotels of America

    I think we're done here with two proposals having gained consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I'm trying to convince User:Doncram that basing articles solely on promotional sources is not acceptable, but the message doesn't seem to have any effect. This is the umpteenth problem with Doncram and problematic article creations, and I don't see the point in trying to continue a one-on-one discussion about this. Basically, Doncram is creating a whole series of articles on "Historic Hotels of America", those listed in Draft:Historic Hotels of America. This page was in the mainspace, I moved it to draft because it was a working document containing visible text like "Any component specifically NRHP-listed?", "(doncram: the only Shingle Style one of all HHAs?)" or "Try Hilton Boston, Hilton Boston Downtown, Hilton Boston Downtown Faneuil Hall. " which are fine in project space or talk, but not in a mainspace article.

    The discussion is at User talk:Doncram#Historic Hotels of America, where I noticed that the articles are sourced solely to the HHA website, and that the texts on this websuite seem to be provided directly by the hotel owners, i.e. aren't independent or neutral at all. E.g. Hotel Bethlehem is sourced only to this, which is basically a hotel booking site, not a neutral historic site:

    • "Dining at this historic hotel is a pleasant experience with a casual elegant atmosphere and frequent live music accompaniment. Be on the lookout for any weird happenings, because with a hotel as old as Historic Hotel Bethlehem, there are sure to be some spooky, supernatural happenings."

    Other examples are e.g. the Omni Berkshire Place, New York City, where the sole link says things like "The event planning team and tech team will work together to make sure everything runs smoothly on the big day and even be available the day of, in case anything should go awry. Best of all, free WiFi is modernly available throughout the historic Manhattan hotel.", or Dunhill Hotel ("Known for its gracious, personalized service, The Dunhill Hotel offers a boutique hotel experience in the heart of Uptown Charlotte."[1]), or ...

    Note that the articles are neutrally written. My problem is that articles shouldn't be based on promotional, probably self-published sources (the HHA fronts these texts, but is unlikely to have edited or written them), and that such articles should be based on good, independent, factual sourcing. Doncram agrees that such sourcing exists ("HHA membership does indicate existence of substantial coverage and hence notability, and hence validity of Wikipedia article coverage of HHA places."), but argues that "It is nice to do so, but it is not immediately necessary to find additional other independent coverage about this place.", and when challenged about this states

    • "And it doesn't truly matter whether HHA website is itself a fully great independent reliable source or not. Actually, no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, as you know. Subject to some qualifications, such as when another editor credibly questions accuracy of something. At this point, I believe you have zero specific complaint about any fact asserted in any of this."

    They freely admit that their aim isn't even to be neutral and factual, but

    • "Fine, yes, there is an obvious point to be made, which I guess you are making, that articles about hotels can be promotional. Which is not unambiguously bad, either; frankly it is somewhat a motivation for me and many other Wikipedia writers about historic sites to be "promotional" about them, in terms of wanting to explain what is of general interest about the places. And I and others do not begrudge links to bed & breakfast inn's own websites, say. I think it is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, to kind of support the commercial enterprises indirectly, for their public value in preserving and presenting about history of general interest."

    Can some of you please make it clear to Doncram that no, we are not here to promote businesses, we should not use self-published or promotional sources as the main or only source for our articles, and all articles should indeed be sourced adequately right from the start. Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I just tagged a bunch of them with {{Thirdparty}}. The website used as a only source also mentions the membership of said hotel and is far from the kind of significant, independent coverage in independent sources Wikipedia requires. One might almost suspect a COI. Kleuske (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think Doncram has a COI, he just wants to write articles for all historic places, and doesn't seem to care about basic sourcing policies or guidelines as long as he can reach that goal. Fram (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re probably right. Kleuske (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a non-problem to me, if the articles are about notable subjects, then what's the issue? Different people at Wikipedia have different skill sets and different interests and it is what makes Wikipedia work so well. Some people just clean up grammar and spelling, some people are good at digging up references. Some people have an interest in beetles or renaissance musical instruments, or whatever. If his skill set is in finding article subjects and starting them, and then letting someone with a different skill set fill them out later, so what. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and demanding that someone is sanctioned at ANI because they don't have a skill set that you personally don't think is necessary is beyond arrogant. He's doing nothing wrong, IMHO, and should be left alone. I can't come up with a reason for us to block or ban him for anything based on the evidence presented here. --Jayron32 13:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe Fram is asking for a block or a ban, merely for Doncram to fix the issue. An article is that is purely sourced to promotional sources should not be in mainspace. If these hotels are genuinely notable it should not be difficult to find independent sources for them, it's simple laziness not to do so. It's not even difficult - look at this source that's in the Omni Berkshire article (obviously promotional), and then look at this one, from the worldwide version of the same website, that is 90% factual (and it's more detailed). Why not just use that one? I've fixed that one, which took me about 2 mins. However Dunhill Hotel looks more problematic. A few local newspaper stories, a jolly local TV story about a ghost, and that promotional HHA site. Is it notable? It's probably borderline. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it doesn't need a block or a ban, then this is not the correct place for it. This is not the "someone is doing something I don't like" page. This is the "someone needs a block or a ban" page. There is also no mechanism for asking someone to fix anything. This is a volunteer website, and Doncram is volunteering work that is within his interest and skill set. Doing so is not disruptive. --Jayron32 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather disingenuous to state that this is only "the 'someone needs a block or a ban' page". The honking big notice at the top of this page says that its remit includes "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which is what Fram's reporting. Whether it requires a block, a ban, or some other action is a matter to be decided by a consenus of responders. Deor (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Actually, no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, as you know." I for one didn't know that... Narky Blert (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "The chronic intractable behavior problem" of improving Wikipedia. Oh no, whatever shall we do! --Jayron32 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The intractable problem of continuing to believe that"pulling stuff of my ass is sufficient for an article" improves Wikipedia is what you should have meant. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Dunhill Hotel has been expanded. I do not see it as problematic. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I noticed. Yngvadottir is clearly better at these things than me :) Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles have also been troubling me. In one of them, I had to remove a block quotation that, as well as being unacceptably promotional, was certainly long enough to constitute a copyright violation. The Historic Hotels of America Web site seems to me to be clearly promotional (a marketing tool, with the text about each hotel written by the hotel's owner or staff), and I don't think any article sourced only to it (or only to it and to other promotional material) should remain. If any of these hotels are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, neutral articles could probably be written, referencing the listing and other reliable sources; but it's clear that most, if not all, of the stubs that Doncram's been creating are unacceptable. Deor (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the articles are being created without basis in reliable sources due to a mistaken understanding that no sourcing at all is required in Wikipedia articles, then all of these articles have massive WP:V issues. — MarkH21talk 15:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia articles should have sources. No one person is required to provide them, however. You can't punish someone for simply not doing something. --Jayron32 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated additions of unreferenced/poorly referenced content, despite requests to stop, constitutes disruptive editing though. — MarkH21talk 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Let's have a look at WP:V, the relevant policy - 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. An advertorial for a hotel is not a reliable source. We get people creating articles sourced like this - especially about businesses - all the time. They usually get deleted. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ::I agree that the site uses promotional language to describe the properties. It does have criteria though (a hotel must be at least 50 years old; has been designated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior as a National Historic Landmark or listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; and recognized as having historic significance.) and the website is "the official program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation". So not a pay-to-play site, at least. Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let's be clear on one thing here: HHA is a trade and marketing association, nothing more. Whereas some owner-members may have an honest interest in historic preservation, the association's purpose is marketing. We should not be sourcing anything to them, nor should we link them in EL sections. That being said, Jayron hit the nail on the head. There's nothing wrong with making stubs. I've noticed that some long-term content creators like Doncram don't seem to grasp the depth of the promotional editing issues here. My suggestion would be close this with an admonishment to be aware of potential promotional content in sources. And Doncram, I for one will be happy to assist you if needed in that area. John from Idegon (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's nothing wrong with making stubs (I've done so myself on occasion). The problem here is that many of the stubby articles in question contain no sources other than HHA (and perhaps the hotels' own websites). It's not just that Doncram needs "to be aware of potential promotional content in sources"; it's that he has no business creating a massive series of stubs based only on a list of the members of "a trade and marketing association". In many cases, the only claim of notability is that they're members of that organization (example, example, example). Some soi-disant article creators are so eager to bomb Wikipedia with articles that they have little regard for WP:V, WP:N, or other policies. Who's going to clean up this mess? Is Doncram going to do it (perhaps by tagging many of the articles for G7 speedy deletion), or are other editors supposed to start cluttering up AFD with them? Deor (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not notability, but rather sourcing. For example, one of the articles Fram found objectionable was Omni Berkshire Place, New York City. With about 10 minutes effort, I found additional sourcing which has now been added to the article. While it is always best to have more/better sourcing, Doncram's starting stubs verified by by the HHA history profile for each property does not seem terribly problematic to me. And if it is a problem, it's one rather easily solved by simply searching for another source or two. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue might actually be notability as well for some of them. The single sentence "X is a hotel in Y which is a member of the HHA" doesn't provide that. I've looked at sources for a couple and can find little apart from the hotel chain's own websites, advertorials, booking sites, review sites, travel guides and the odd local news story about events at that hotel. Also, for example, Haywood Park Hotel is a former department store which we already have an article for - The Bon Marché Building of Asheville, North Carolina. It should just be merged into that. Boston Transit Commission Building and XV Beacon are the same building as well. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that we generally have one article on a historic building. Subsequent uses/redevelopment can typically be addressed in the main article. I noted the same issue at Talk:Haywood Park Hotel. Cbl62 (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, y'all, in my work I had identified a number of cases where a site was covered under a different name, and had merged most of them. For a very few, I added value already by identifying the overlap, but had not merged them. Right, and in very many but perhaps not all, i had searched hard and found photos, and i figured out locations and inserted coordinates, and so on. Wikipedia is not finished, right, but it is definitely further along for the contributions in this area that I have already made. --Doncram (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recall the past discussions of Doncram's article creations, and IIRC Arbcom lifted sanctions on him not long ago. Doncram's heart is in the right place, but he really needs to put more effort into each article. I agree that there is an issue of notability with these recent articles, since the Historic Hotels of America site itself is insufficient to establish notability (while the NRHP is). But the underlying problem is the rapid-fire creation without providing more than a bare claim to notability based on the one source. I just did some work on Hotel Bethlehem, where the HHA site provided useful info—murals by a named artist—that Doncram had not put in. Then I worked on Dunhill Hotel, where I agree with Black Kite, notability is hard to demonstrate, but it was easy to say more about its original identity as an apartment hotel. And I'm shaken that an editor who worked so long and hard on NRHP properties, even to the extent of insisting that Wikipedia use the same titles as the NRHP listings, would double-create articles on historic buildings based on a list of hotels. I've merged Haywood Park Hotel and I hope someone else does XV Beacon, thanks to bl62 as well as Black Kite. Stub creation per se isn't wrong in my view, but creating articles based on a list that doesn't even confer notability without checking and either adding a supporting source or putting the hotel info into a pre-existing article is just asking for deletion, which is a sad waste. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, this is Doncram, and I experience this ANI proceeding as very unfair and mean-spirited and wrong.
    • ANI is about asking for an editor to be blocked or banned for "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", neither of which is present here. To the contrary, I have been properly collaborating with others (about 10 editors have contributed to Historic Hotels of America (HHA) or Talk:Historic Hotels of America, where several issues have been brought up civilly and resolved (a page move) or otherwise addressed (work done towards identifying/describing the nature of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (a very reputable organization)'s role vis-a-vis the listed hotels). The list-article has been developed in about 200 edits, mostly by me but also by User:Imzadi1979 and User:Bubba73 and User:Andrew Jameson, and it follows on work done by User:Thierry Caro years ago which was consolidated by User:DannyS712 into the list-article's earlier version, developed up to this version in April 2019, which was agreed to be merged into the current list.
    • User:Fram arrived at my Talk page this morning, with sort of a huge case of IDONTLIKEIT. I replied to their challenges, and, before I indicated I could not do more at that time, I pointed them towards where issues had already been discussed and invited them to participate. I expected they would open a wp:RSN discussion about the quality of the HHA pages, and I (helpfully, I think) advised them that would not be necessary or productive. I have before and today acknowledged the promotional air of HHA webpages about the individual hotels, but have done nothing wrong. As Fram acknowledges above, what I have written in mainspace is "neutrally written", not promotional. No error of fact in any article has been indicated. No editing issue has been raised by Fram at my Talk page or here in ANI that is not more appropriately discussed at the Talk page of the list-article. Fram stated "I'll take a look at the HHA discussion" but apparently did not. Neither Fram nor anyone here has posted anything there.
    • Instead, Fram opened this ANI and has proceeded to CAST ASPERSIONS which are unjustified and not supported by diffs, and succeeded to incite others to be concerned unnecessarily, about good work that I have done as a cooperative, productive, content-producing editor. Fram stated this is "the umpteenth problem with Doncram and problematic article creations", I think alluding to a past arbitration but without diffs, and unfairly. As I recall it, the arbitration proceeding years ago actually found no fault with my article creations back then, but rather found fault with my interactions with editors who I perceived had harrassed me, and advised that the NRHP wikiproject or a larger community could/should have an RFC or whatever to come to some judgment about creation of short stub articles, which never happened. Since then, I have expanded literally thousands of short stub NRHP articles by me and others, because, well, I am on board about developing with sources. Fram literally states that they "don't see the point in trying to continue a one-on-one discussion about this" with me, when the obvious point would be to communicate and clear up several misunderstandings that have been constructed. That have been inflamed by selective quoting above...leading some, apparently, to believe that I have been spouting promotional stuff in mainspace (not so) and creating articles that are not justified (not so). They quote promotional text which I did _not_ use or rely upon in any way. Hey, look at the Talk page, where there is some fairly intelligent discussion about the issue of promotion in sources and what might be done, including about developing context about this hotel association vs. others.
    • And Fram is literally inciting others: "Can some of you please make it clear to Doncram that" whatever, instead of discussing the issues. They quote me out of context about several matters, including about where I point out the fact that I and other editors do not begrudge including an external link to a b&b website, where no one actually would judge it inappropriate, which I was mentioning in passing, relating to what motivates editors about writing about historic preservation. It is a fact that wp:RS and wp:OR go on about information must be verifiable but does not necessarily have to be already verified by inline citations, where the assertions are factual, ordinary, unchallenged, as can hypothetically happen (but did not happen anywhere here; everything I wrote is in fact supported directly by inline citations!). I have indeed used inline citations from the promotionally worded sources, as is completely justified for factual statements such as addresses and number of rooms and so on. Hotel Bethlehem in particular is called into question, in which I had in fact established that the building was within a NRHP historic district, but where I could not access the extensive NRHP document online. User:Yngvadottir developed it with a different source, apparently easily they assert, which is fine, and User:Cbl62 removed a negative tag. There is absolutely nothing wrong here. Oh, right, there were a few bits of editorial questions or notes left in the list-article, which bore a big "Under construction" template upon it. What, do you think an ANI is necessary to convince me that these bits, which I have been clearly addressing, should not be left permanently in mainspace? I would surely have agreed to Fram removing those bits to the Talk page, say, or would have done it myself if they would have asked.

    I was surprised to see this all, and it all seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia collaborative process guidelines and guidelines for ANI. Fram and some others here have more power here at ANI, i.e. they have more following and are more likely than me to get others to agree to what they might want, I suppose. But the only remotely justifiable outcome that I see here would be for a boomerang, an admonishment, i guess that is what would be appropriate, upon Fram for inciting this dramatically and unnecessarily. Thank you, User:Jayron32 for providing a voice of reason through the above, and thank you to some others too. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Pointing out the sourcing of the articles you created is wholly inadequate is not a “huge case of IDONTLIKEIT” but a very legitimate concern. Bringing that to ANI in apparent exasperation is a legitimate action. The wall of text above in response to those concerns comes across as WP:IDHT. I do not think you should be requesting boomerangs. Kleuske (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A few things: I read, but didn't reply at the HHA talk page, because the articles I'm discussing here were created and edited by you alone and are separate from the issues with the general HHA article. I came to ANI because this was a rather urgent situation; an editor creating many (more than 20 in the last week alone) articles based solely on a promo site, and who didn't see a problem with this and showed no indication that they would change their approach.
    "As I recall it, the arbitration proceeding years ago actually found no fault with my article creations back then": well, the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Findings of fact accepted 11 / 2 the following: "Problems with articles: " Doncram (talk · contribs) has a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant. ", so your memory is faulty here. Fram (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There will be no boomerang or anything else, because we do not sanction editors for bringing up legitimate concerns. The reason that a number of people have agreed with Fram above is not because they are some sort of a cabal, but because they understand the proper sourcing of articles. Let's be clear about this - you were previously banned from creating articles for three years because, according to Arbcom, you had "a history of repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant" And with some of these articles, you're now doing this again, except this time it's worse because they're often not NRHP locations, which means there is no presumption of notability at all. These are how some of these looked when you created them [2] [3] [4], and some of them are still stubs with no obvious notability. I mean, that's pretty much "placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context for an outside observer to easily understand why the topic is considered significant", isn't it? Obviously I'm not saying that all of them are like this, but far too many are. My suggestion is simple - that you not create any more hotel stubs based purely on sourcing from the HHA and that such stubs clearly explain why they're notable buildings. Then we won't be back here again. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Black Kite: The problems also seems to be that this user is autopatrolled and that their articles are therefore not subject to review by NPP, which is why many of these articles are not either tagged or nominated for deletion. --MrClog (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a salient point. I don't want to run around with a pitchfork here, but I do not believe that someone with a demonstrated penchant for producing undersourced -to-functionally-unsourced stubs should be autopatrolled. At least Cork Factory Hotel and Skytop Lodge would (well, should) not have made it through NPP without someone bringing up the sourcing problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae: Both Cork Factory Hotel and Skytop Lodge have now been improved with third-party sourcing. Both are notable properties. These examples seem to me to show the merits of the Wikipedia process -- a notable topic begins as a stub and is improved by collaboration among multiple editors. Seems to me that much is being made of a normal, productive, and healthy process initiated by Doncram. Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cbl62: Regardless of whether an article happens to be improved later on, editors that create articles that are not properly sourced in order to establish notability should not have their pages autopatrolled. --MrClog (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrClog: If Doncram was creating a mass of stubs on non-notable topics, I might agree with you. That is not the case. The articles he has created concern notable historic properties. There is nothing inappropriate about creating these articles in a form that begins as a stub with a primary source. Each editor contributes according to his time and talents, and others add on, as we are seeing here. That is the genius of the Wikipedia system. Far from being disruptive, I believe Doncram's efforts have made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cbl62: Such articles at least need to be tagged, which is why we have the NPP process. --MrClog (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I really really need to do real life stuff, not continue here for a while. But, I sense the possibility of maybe a fun and constructive way to deal with disagreement here. Basically, Fram thinks I have damaged Wikipedia by bad behaviors on my part (my editing about HHA stuff, I guess) and that I deserve to be punished (including by subjecting me to an ANI roasting which could lead to me being blocked, banned, or restricted in some way) while I think Fram has damaged Wikipedia more, by their bad behaviors that tend to hurt people and destroy community fabric (including by opening this ANI instead of discussing or pursuing dispute resolution etc, as is required by reasonable interpretation of stated ANI requirements, and by their making substantially false or misleading or unnecessarily hurtful statements when there exist clearly better, more constructive ways of engaging). And I think they should be punished, say by admonishment here requiring them to apologize meaningfully for their crimes. This is basis for a competition or game or something!
    Fram basically is stating that 20 articles created by me in the last week are bad behaviors on my part; I think they are all fine; there is some uncertainty whether the topics are really valid or not. Validity could be resolved by going further into each case. There could be a sort of game requiring a judge or panel of judge to make judgments about the set of articles and statements by me and by Fram. Like how there are evaluations of truthfulness of statements made by politicians, done by judges awarding "pinocchios" or whatever. Yikes, i really have to go, but Fram, could you possibly entertain engaging in some such joust, with winner getting something and loser having to do something they wouldn't usually be willing to do? I really have to go now though. --Doncram (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doncram: I get it, I really do. I also want us to have an article on every notable building (and not just in North America either). I see the HHA started off under NRHP auspices. But those blurbs don't establish notability all on their own, like NRHP listing does. Not only do the criteria include eligibility for future listing—fudge factor right there—and being a contributing property—does not confer automatic notability, and the building could have been substantially altered in the decades since its inclusion in the application—but Fram's right, the blurbs are promotional. Functionally, it's an advertising vehicle for the hotels, they write their own blurbs, and you yourself have demonstrated that some don't meet the criteria as originally set out. So these places need a search for at least one other source to show notability. And you haven't even been using the blurbs to say what you can about the building, and to find another source. In contrast NRHP applications, when one can access them, are marvelous, but the NRHP just isn't getting them digitized fast enough. So yes, it takes a bit of time to look for sources on the building's previous name, or using the name of an artist mentioned in the blurb. It also takes a bit of time to check for connected articles here, but you really owe it to the historic building (and the other editors who have started NRHP building articles; you aren't the only one!) to make sure we don't already have an article on the building. Just making a new article about the fact it's an HHA hotel is promotion of the HHA, especially in the instances where we already have an article that sets the hotel in the proper context: as just the latest use. I'm sorry I used the term "rapid-fire" if we are really talking about 20 articles a week, but expecting other editors, such as me, to establish notability for your articles, to chase down necessary context like Boyes Hot Springs, California (for an article you mentioned you'd created anew; and you're not the only one not following up obvious leads readers should be able to expect us to have followed up on—Boyes Springs was pretty much destroyed in September 1923 by a big wildfire, and we weren't mentioning that in the article), even to add information about teh building itself that was in your source&nsbsp;... well, I'm hurt. I have other things I need to do off-wiki. At least when I had to drop everything to render a Google-translated article into comprehensible English, or even translate it out of a foreign language, in order to save a notable topic, I could say the article creator was new, or didn't know any better. You have already been subjected to a requirement to create your articles through AfC. I was thrilled when you succeeded in getting that lifted. With apologies to Elmidae, no, the solution here is not for Doncram's articles to be added to the NPP burden. It's for Doncram to always search for an existing article, and to always make sure the assertion of notability is supported, which for anything except the NRHP or its equivalent in other countries means at least two sources. And those are the minimum Wikipedia requirements for new articles on historic buildings. The stub thing is actually a further point: if there's more information easily to hand (like in the 10-line source you started out with), put it in, both to inform the reader and as a grab handle for those who do expand articles. But the other two are minimal. Otherwise it gets deleted, and that is to cry over. So now I will have my coffee, damnit. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question: I just read through Doncram's arb case and a bunch of prior AN(/I)threads. It seems to me like history is repeating itself, at least with respect to article problems. Have there been recent-ish instances of the behavioral issues (NPA, move/edit warring, etc.)? Taking a broader view would probably help in determining if action is warranted. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t have time to fully assess this case, but I will just note that my expectation in granting autopatrolled is for the user to remain 100% policy compliant in their creations and have absolutely zero benefit from the review process. Mistakes and shortcomings are acceptable but the user needs to be 100% accountable for them and rectify them immediately and without incident. If any administrator feels the user has fallen short of this standard, do feel free to revoke Autopatrolled with my full support. It’s not about punishment or sanctioning the editor, nor does it imply that the editor is untrustworthy, disruptive, or not a net positive. It simply means the NPP process will serve a purpose and will not just be a waste of time. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've revoked it given the consent above and the concerns raised here. Just noting for clarity that the restoration of rights in 2017 was entirely proper. DrKay (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note that I did not intend to imply that Swarm's re-granting of the right in 2017 was in any way improper or unjustified, given the circumstances at that moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Doncram just taking the piss now?

    OR does he really not understand the issues? Today, he created Mayflower Park Hotel with four sources and one external link. The sources are:

    The EL is the official site of the hotel, which is fine of course.

    So, instead of using one promotional source, we now have 4 of these, and still not a single neutral, reliable, independent source about the actual hotel. Why not use, oh I don't know, the complete book on "Seattle'Historic Hotels"[5] instead? Really, how hard is it to use good sources instead of this shit? Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He has been here long enough to know how we operate. The fact he continues to edit in this manner shows a blatant disregard for that. GiantSnowman 07:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that this is a problem in an autopatrolled editor. Put it this way - if someone applied for autopatrolled, and their history showed they were creating articles like that, there's no chance they'd be given it. I create a lot of articles about historic buildings - I create them in userspace drafts, and I don't publish them until they have enough sourcing to demonstrate a clear GNG pass. I've got no problem with the creation of stubs, but publishing them while they are sourced only to promotional or affiliated sources just isn't what we should be doing, even if we hope that someone else is going to finish them. I'd be happiest if Doncram said something along the lines of "OK, I'm hearing you, I'll stop putting articles into main space until I've put multiple independent, secondary and reliable sources into them." If Doncram isn't willing to do that, then as a minimum the autopatrolled perm needs to be pulled, because these stubs clearly need to be reviewed and improved (or deleted, if sourcing can't be found). GirthSummit (blether) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • DrKay has already removed Doncram's autopatrolled rights. [6] Mysticdan (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a couple of sources to Mayflower Park Hotel - there are more out there, it's definitely a notable building. GirthSummit (blether) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the frustrating part, isn't it? These articles could easily have been created with proper sources in the first place, with a modicum of additional effort. BD2412 T 04:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Doncram is subject to an indefinite ban from creating new articles in mainspace or moving articles he has written to mainspace. He may submit draft articles to Articles for Creation for review by an independent editor. He is also warned that further creation of articles based on directory-style resource may lead to other sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    1. Doncram is subject to an indefinite ban from creating new articles in mainspace. Articles created in Draft space must be reviewed by an independent editor prior to moving to mainspace.
    2. Doncram is warned that creation of large numbers of candidate articles based solely on directory-style resources may lead to an extension to this restriction, banning all article creation.
    • Support as proposer. This is clearly a long-standing failure to accept WP:NOTDIR. Guy (help!) 09:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The creating of the Mayflower Park Hotel noted above is a slap in the face of people who have brought concerns to Doncram. These concerns seem to have been utterly ignored, and Doncram can appeal these sanctions whey they understand what the problems are. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Taking APP away is enough, let them have enough WP:ROPE to seal this deal themselves. I do not support a ban on article creation outright, but AFC might be the way to go if the problem is severe enough. Doncram writes nice articles for the most part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That essay clearly lists the user ... is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong as a situation in which it should not be used. Doncram clearly feels that they are above the rules (see also their recent feud with BHG), and we simply cannot assume that this will change when they themselves have neither announced nor implied any such intentions. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hiab here, I had a name change the response below does not inspire confidence. I'm hoping they climb off the drama cliff before they do permenant damage to themselves. Unbroken Chain (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We shouldn't be in this situation. Doncram, I'm not going to insult you by giving links to guidelines that you've already read - I'm certain you already understand notability and the importance of independent sources, just as I'm certain that you are capable of writing excellent, properly sourced articles. Please would you undertake to stop creating articles that are referenced only to sources that are affiliated with the subject? You're more than capable of doing that, it's not like you need hand holding over this. It's not like there is a deadline by which all of these hotels need to have an article - just take your time and add independent sources that demonstrate a clear GNG pass before publishing them in main space. If you give such an assurance, this proposal would not be necessary; I don't want to find myself supporting it, but I fear that might happen if you intend to carry on creating articles like this. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - unfortunate but necessary. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Their stubborn refusal to admit they have done anything wrong, even now, means this unfortunately has to be forced upon them.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as necessary given Doncram's history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This thread has already resulted in removal of Doncram's autopatrolled status. That is a sufficient remedy IMO. The further sanction proposed here might be appropriate if Doncram were creating masses of stubs on non-notable topics. But that's not the case. The new articles Doncram has created in the last two weeks relate to notable historic properties. His initiative in creating these articles has led to a collaborative effort among several editors. See, e.g., Omni Berkshire Place (now nominated to be featured on the Main Page), Dunhill Hotel, La Posada de Santa Fe, Cork Factory Hotel, Hilton Santa Fe Historic Plaza, Morris Inn at Notre Dame, Skytop Lodge. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "collaborative effort" was not Doncram's doing, more credit for that should be given to Fram for bringing the situation to light. Without that, the articles you cite would most probably have stayed as they were when Doncram created them. In any case, the efforts of other editors to improve the articles does not reflect on Doncram, and should not be used as a reason to negate possible sanctions against him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Mayflower Park Hotel also now substantially improved (by User:Girth Summit). And I do not agree with the idea that Doncram deserves no credit for the collaboration. He has come up with the kernel of an idea to start articles on historic hotels. It was a good idea, as evidenced by the fact that multiple users have now jumped in to develop the articles further. Doncram's style and walls of words may rub many the wrong way, but when you look at the substance of his effort, it's clearly a net positive to the encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cbl62, yes, I spent a bit of time to find sources that I think demonstrate a GNG pass (and those sources themselves have sources - I'm confident now that this would survive a trip to AfD). However, I actually agree with BMK - these articles have lots of eyes on them just now due in large part to this ANI thread. I don't think that we should host articles sourced purely to promotional material published by the subject and/or a marketing organisation - I know that Doncram is more than capable of finding and adding better sources, but I can't get my head around why they seem to think it's not important to do so. GirthSummit (blether) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Of course, I would prefer, too, that the articles be better developed (and that is happening), but do you really think that Doncram's initiative in starting articles on these historic properties is a net negative to Wikipedia? I do not. BTW, I am now digging now into the Fairmont Sonoma Mission Inn & Spa and finding a trove of information on this property. How is it that nobody bothered to create an article on this property for the past 15 years? I am grateful that Doncram finally did so that it can now be developed. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cbl62, a net negative? I'm not sure I'd go that far, but an article written entirely around promotional, affiliated sources isn't unambiguously better than nothing in my mind. You're right, it can be a jumping off point if someone else notices that it's there, but I don't think that hosting them in that state does our reputation for reliability much good, and they encourage the many spam merchants who come here every day making OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about why their hotel/company/cousin's band should be allowed to have an article based entirely on promo. I think that experienced, capable editors who understand our guidelines about notability and sourcing have a responsibility to set an example, and to make sure that they don't put stuff like that in mainspace. Sure, knock up a draft and post at a relevant project page encouraging others to contribute, but don't publish the thing until it has at least some decentish independent sourcing. GirthSummit (blether) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I agree that Doncram should be encouraged to add an independent source to his new articles. That has been done, and we will see if he takes that to heart. I also don't disagree with removal of his autopatrolled status -- an extra set of eyes is a good thing. I just don't think a ban on new article creation is warranted or helpful to the encyclopedia. Everyone's talents are different. Doncram has proven to be very good at coming up with overall structures and ideas in the realm of historic sites. Once he comes up with a concept, as he has with historic hotels, he is quite tenacious in developing it, and we should not be quashing that initiative. Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose losing autopatrolled status is enough, and bringing in not directory is misleading - the problem is one promotional source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is much too reductive, as the problem is a number of things: creating articles based on nothing but promotional material, failing to look for other sources, creating new articles when there are already existing articles to which the information could be added, and on. Take another look at Fram's opening comment for a better idea of what's involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This would allow Doncram to continue to create articles, but avoid the issue of potentially inappropriate articles being deleted en masse, since they'd be in draftspace and anyone who felt they were salvagable could add sources at leisure. Looking at the numbers of articles involved, the alternative would be a Neelix-style cull, which would benefit neither Wikipedia (since it would waste a huge amount of time), nor Doncram (who would have the unpleasant experience of creating articles and seeing them promptly deleted). ‑ Iridescent 17:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request. I know the consensus supports this additional sanction, but I am worried that this is having a very negative impact on Doncram. His edits today have been worrisome, most recently with his blanking his talk page with the edit note "it's happening. game over?". Also a note to Jimbo Wales that "This is depressing, crushing, awful for me." Can we please just close this without a stern warning but no further sanctions? If problems persist, this can be revisited. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doncram's diva behavior is no justification for not considering necessary sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: "Diva behavior" strikes me as unnecessarily harsh. Doncram has devoted years of work to this project, and he feels like he's under attack. Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Everyone has DIVA fits and we support sanctions or oppose regardless.... but having read his posts on Jimbos page I cannot support such heavy restrictions, Maybe there's issues we're unaware of or maybe it's all BS but given the current pandemic and whatnot I simply cannot support heavy restrictions, That being said he's been here long enough to know what is and what aren't reliable sources. –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never said it was, I simply have a heart and I don't agree with coming down like a ton of bricks on someone who may be having a hard time in RL right now, You support this proposal and that's great however I don't and no amount of Policy throwing is going to change that. –Davey2010Talk 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly agree with the general sentiment that we need to be protective of each other, and make allowances in the current circumstances, but as Iridescent points out, the overall behavior pattern exhibited by Doncram -- including the diva behaviors -- is not specific to these times, it's been going on for many years. A read of the arbitration case is instructive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Iridescent, Thanks for making me aware of this, Unfortunately I didn't realise he did this when things didn't go his way, As stupid as this may sound I genuinely thought there were RL issues such as maybe virus related or more and when something like that happens obviously the last thing anyone wants or needs is this thread .... Anyway thanks for making me aware of this, I've since struck my original oppose and will be supporting. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bear in mind, too, that almost all of the links provided above as evidence of Doncram's problematic behavior date from the 2011-2012 time period. From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems, edited productively, and was not sanctioned. Given the long period of sanction-free behavior, it's not entirely fair to portray him as someone who has been a persistent source of disruption. The historic hotel issue is relatively new and, while sourcing is an issue, relates to an area where notability does not appear to be in doubt. Cbl62 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't take into account that from March 2013 to November 2016 Doncram was, as a result of the ArbCom case, under sanctions and could not create new articles, so your staement that "From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems..." is really not accurate. You might want to amend it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't take into account that from 2016 until last month's historic hotels campaign, Doncram has not been under such sanctions and his article creation in that time period does not appear to have been problematic. ... Stepping back for a moment to make some broader observation: Doncram has clearly rubbed some people here the wrong way. Heck, he can be inflexible and verbose, and he's rubbed me the wrong way at times. That said, when I look at the big picture, I see an editor who is generally civil and helpful, even mentoring with new users. I see someone who's clearly dedicated to improving/expanding Wikipedia's coverage of historic sites. I also see someone who's sensitive and is hurting as a result of the piling on here. I also see a piling on that appears excessive in relation to the most recent incident and worrisome in light of Doncram's recent edits, noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not disagree more. Doncram could have easily nipped this problem in the bud when Fram first brought it to his attention by saying something on the order of "You're right, those articles are not as robust as they should be, I'll go over them and add some sources, and combine them with existing articles where that is appropriate." The whole thing would be over, and it would never have been brought to AN/I. In short, Doncram has brought this upon himself by stonewalling, and now by drowning us in bushel-baskets of words. Instead of acknowledging the problem and working to fix it, he's blaming "bullying" editors and running in tears to Jimbo to say how oppressed he is. That doesn't deserve our sympathy and a free pass, that's completely non-collaborative behavior, and his deficient articles actively harms the encyclopedia, the most basic Wiki-crime of all. He is, essentially, out of control, and our response to it cannot be a hand wave and a pat on the back. His behavior is sanctionable, and Guy's suggestions are both justified and reasonable, about the minimum that could be expected under the circumstances.
    I would ask you to consider dropping this line of discussion. I don't think it's helping Doncram in the least, and the matter is simply not going to dropped by the looks of the !voting at this point. What point is there in continuing along these lines? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "What point is there in continuing along these lines?" I've spoken up because I believe (a) Doncram, while imperfect, is a significant net positive to Wikipedia, (b) the removal of autopatrolling and "Proposal 2" below are adequate remedies, (c) Proposal 1 is excessive, (d) Doncram is clearly hurting based on his posts earlier today and (e) I perceive there is some unnecessary piling on here. Simple as that. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also more recent disruptive editing issues/sanctions: a lengthy March 2020 ANI thread, a January 2020 block, and a November 2018 block. — MarkH21talk 21:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those two brief blocks seems to have anything to do with content creation. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're related to the claim that

    From 2013 to 2020, Doncram largely (not entirely) avoided problems, edited productively, and was not sanctioned. Given the long period of sanction-free behavior, it's not entirely fair to portray him as someone who has been a persistent source of disruption.

    — MarkH21talk 23:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it was clearly a violation of WP:Canvassing -- perhaps the most blatant violation I've seen in 15 years of editing here -- I have reverted Doncram's non-neutral plea for help from the WikiProject NRHP talk page, and notified him on his talk page that I have done so. He can, of course, post a neutral pointer to that page, without pleading his case or suggesting what kind of response he wants from the members there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doncram has now posted a neutral non-canvassing pointer to this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. In the middle of a controversy in which he should probably be engaging with the complaints about his behavior, he takes the time to update his stats. Whatever his motivation, it simply doesn't look good, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Beyond My Ken, I'm no fan of Doncram at all—in the previous installment of the never-ending series of "Doncram treating Wikipedia as his personal sandbox" threads I described him as a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else) and I've yet to see anything to make me think I was wrong—but I see no issue with that edit. I'd imagine he's anticipating the possibility that this situation could lead to a site ban and just ensuring his userpage is up to date in case he's unable to amend it in future. ‑ Iridescent 18:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Articles should be based on reliable sources at their foundation, not merely written based on promotional materials and then patched over with better sources later when other editors try to fix the problem. The discussion above makes clear that this has not been happening in this case and will continue not happening unless we impose sanctions. So this is not about punishing Doncram for misbehavior, but about protecting the encyclopedia from foundationally-unsound content. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support AfC is not a particularly onerous requirement, and in essence requires all new articles to be peer reviewed. A wholly promotional draft should not in theory make it from AfC to mainspace. Considering my recent interaction with Doncram was a suggestion they pull out travel guides to prove an old building's notability at AfD, I think both the user and the community would benefit from this restriction. I also know at least a couple other editors who enjoy creating articles who have been subject to this restriction and have continued to use AfC after the restriction was lifted. I also think the peer review leads to better articles generally. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Doncram's recent comments, attibuting this fair pushback to "bullying", shows they are not willing to accept the feedback. Having him create drafts first prevents further incomplete stubs from entering the mainspace. --MrClog (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Doncram has done good work on NRHP places, but while such listing has been conferred automatic notability, this has not been extended elsewhere. The below explanations for HHA articles is not satisfactory, and while this organization links 'old' to 'historic', that is not linked to 'notable'. HHA membership criteria is far lower than that of NRHP: register eligibility and notability of other members cannot be equated to notability of all members. Doncram should please better consider significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources before creating articles, not basing it on some characteristic. Articles should be created with a modicum of assertion of notability with sources establishing that, not a hand-wave that HHA listing is enough. Reywas92Talk 20:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - seems to be a case of recidivism. Oculi (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with great sadness. I'd hoped to help avoid his losing Autopatrol, let alone going back to the AfC requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, Doncram seems to be a very civil editor, with the attitude that he knows better than others. I'd like it to be a warning, but....this has been going on for a long time, and he hasn't changed his ways. I wish he would, he does a lot of good work and is more congenial than many. Jacona (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as we can see below, Doncram still isn't getting the message. --WMSR (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with a personal note to Doncram that I have created hundreds of articles in draft space, and either moved them or had them moved to mainspace when they were ready. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact it is a great way to get all of your content together without being rushed to generate something that will avoid negative responses. BD2412 T 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Proposal #1 is effectively in action: Any article Doncram creates must go thru NPP; if at that point he still can't create articles of satisfactory quality, forcing him to submit his work in draftspace is only delaying the inevitable. Proposal #2 is moot: if Doncram hasn't gotten the message after all this time that there is a problem with his articles, I doubt he ever will. In short, if NPP review doesn't solve the problem, blocking him indefinitely on the basis of WP:COMPETENCE may be the only solution. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference between sanction #1 as proposed and the removal of Doncram's autopatrolled status is simply that any admin at any time can restore the autopatrolled right -- which would probably only happen if they were unaware of his history, but still is possible -- while the community sanction could only be lifted after community discussion. I think that's a worthwhile difference to preserve, and could help to get through to Doncram that there's a problem with the way he goes about things (although I think that's unlikely). As to sanction #2, I don't understand what you mean by its being "moot". It's a clear warning that the next step is an indefinite ban from article creation. Given their past history, I don't think we can rely on Doncram's taking that in without it being forcefully spelled out for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to #2... Just how many times does it take a Wikipedian to be dragged to AN/I before he realizes there is a problem? If losing Autopatrolled status -- or being blocked from article creation -- doesn't send a message, then I doubt one more warning, no matter how it is worded, will be make a difference at this point. Except maybe to incite him into doing something foolish. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Side discussion not relevant to the proposal at hand.
    @Beyond My Ken: The consensus is going your way. Is it really necessary for you to badger each of the four editors who have initially voted against this sanction? Cbl62 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Badger"? They raised some points, and I responded. I would call that "a discussion", not "badgering". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Out of four oppose votes, you responded challenging each editor's basis for opposing. Just not necessary. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Challenging"? No. I disagreed and said why. In any case, wouldn't you say that you and I are are brothers under the skin in this respect, considering that I have 14 comments in this thread, and you're right behind me with 10, and you don;t seem to be able to let a comment of mine go by without responding to it? Sound familiar? Glass houses, etc.? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal 2

    Proposal passed and implemented. Primefac (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. That the articles created by Doncram and based solely on HHA and the hotels' own websites, be moved to draft.
    • Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 09:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This one I already support - an article sourced only to the subject's website and/or a marketing organisation is a draft, and shouldn't be in main space until someone has replaced the promo sources with proper ones. GirthSummit (blether) 13:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Agree with Girth Summit above. Deor (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - yes, it's embarrassing having these still in main space. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Also necessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support These articles, while possibly notable and expandable, are not fit for mainspace in their current states. — MarkH21talk 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I was going to add that they should be checked for new sources before moving, but on second thought, I really think Doncram should be responsible for that if he wants the articles to be moved into mainspace. Cleaning up his own mess, in other words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comments in the section above. This would allow anyone who felt any given article was salvageable (whether Doncram or anyone else) to find reliable sources at their leisure, without potentially large volumes of spam cluttering the article space. ‑ Iridescent 17:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per MarkH21. ~ HAL333 19:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per above. –Davey2010Talk 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Qualified support. Given the efforts of multiple editors, most of Doncram's recent historic hotel articles now have at least some independent sourcing, and those should remain in main space. That said, I'm fine with the proposal for the small number of articles that still need independent sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The cleanest solution to the existing problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with a thank you to the editors who have helped clean up the promotional stubs to date. An article can pass WP:GNG but still fail WP:PROMO, so any promotional articles should indeed be draftified, hopefully with an index so they can be restored. SportingFlyer T·C 09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - very reasonable. --MrClog (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query. Would it be too early to start implementing this proposal? There seems to me to be a clear snow consensus, and I'll have some free time today to begin to work on it. (I'd keep a list of the draftified articles in my sandbox that could be copied to wherever it's needed.) Deor (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Deor, looks like there would be no objections at this point. Worst case, some get reviewed and moved back. Guy (help!) 08:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deor: Note that articles that have been expanded with independent sourcing are outside the scope of the proposal and should not be moved to draft space. These include: Boar's Head Resort, Colony Hotel & Cabaña Club, Cork Factory Hotel, Dunhill Hotel, Hilton Santa Fe Historic Plaza, Hotel Bethlehem, Hotel Saranac, La Posada de Santa Fe, Mayflower Park Hotel, Morris Inn at Notre Dame, Omni Berkshire Place, Omni San Francisco Hotel, Skytop Lodge, and Sonoma Mission Inn. Cbl62 (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've started on these, though I'm only through Florida in the list at Historic Hotels of America. A list of the ones I've draftified is at User:Deor/Sandbox. Some of these are necessarily judgment calls; I've not draftified any NRHP-designated buildings, but if the place (like Draft:Kings Courtyard Inn) is said to be within a NRHP-designated historic district but is not specifically mentioned in the nomination form for the district, I've gone ahead and moved it to draft. I'll be continuing with this throughout the day, but if anyone wants to help out, I won't gripe. As always, anyone is welcome to revert any mistakes of mine, but I'd appreciate a note on my talk page notifying me of such an action. Deor (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, I think. If I've missed any, please let me know or take care of them yourself. In any case, I'll leave it to someone else to hat this proposal if doing so seems advisable. Deor (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - very reasonable. An experienced editor ought to be capable of producing a draft that would sail into article space. Oculi (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    some responding

    Hi, this is Doncram, briefly. Though this will be completely dismissed in part as being too long (proving Doncram didn't hear that), what I am posting now is way too short to actually respond, because, well, ANI is that way. And I don't have time for more. I am sorry to come back and see what's further gone on, though I do appreciate what several editors have done. Been thinking about what's same and different between big horrible 2012 situation and proceedings, vs. this 2020 situation, which someone asked about. Most briefly:

    • I am different. Much else is same.
    • Short stub articles in NRHP area are similar but different to short stub articles on HHAs. It would be reasonable to have discussion to consensus among NRHP then and HHA editors now about what practices should be. HHA discussion going on productively at its Talk page, about what practices should be, has overcome several difficult issues. But also there are only about 60 out of 300 or so HHA articles to be developed. It is hard to gain experience about what is reasonable for HHA articles in advance of just starting them all. Quite reasonable to continue discussion on local consensus, like has been going on.
    • Venue choice, timing choice again absurdly given over to the wrong parties. ANI is horrible for this; the environment is poisonous. Participants seem easily incited/inflamed by most dramatic assertions, however wrong. Division to extremes rather than compromise is what happens (like U.S. politics). Unfairness and viciousness drive out reasonable discussion, make it hard for me to advance offers or assurances that could be generated, would be appreciated by some, in a less polarized forum (like the Talk page of HHA list-article).
    • Then as again now, for real I am a reasonable, good, friendly, productive person, who likes finding good sources and ways to improve articles, it is what I do. I am not the inexplicably evil person projected by aspersions/falsehoods etc. here, which pretty much rule out cooperative discussion. What happened to "assume good faith"; this trial, like ANI usually, is all about casting aspersions, making accusations, inviting misunderstanding, inciting mob rule. All in general violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines about personal attacks, casting aspersions, etc., but weirdly Wikipedia lets anything go on, at ANI.
    • Then as now, where original or early incorrect assertions are cleared up, new accusations are manufactured. Not fair. There is ongoing invitation to audit me and find anything that could possibly superficially look bad, which would work for review of anyone else, too. Open season on target (me). Moving target for me to reply to. Generally incomprehension about how difficult, damaging, demoralizing to me to be put in this situation. Any statement I make can/will be seized upon and criticized, generating more accusations, etc.
    • (Aside: just one of many cognitive errors going on is miss-perception of extent of negative consensus present, not accounting for contradictions of criticisms. Another sad fact is ANI gives equal weight to those with relevant experience and knowledge and vs. those uninformed and wrong in their assumptions. Not worth considering more, now, of course.)
    • Short stub articles, even without any source, absolutely are allowed by Wikipedia then and now, per wp:OR and wp:RS directly.
    • Nonsense, truly rubbish, to run on with allegations about that. By the way, no occurrence of any unsourced statements in any HHA article, AFAIK. Or if there is some minor problem, would easily be fixed by regular editing problem.
      • the 2012 arbitration is misunderstood, of course, by (all?) readers now. I think i remembered it correctly. Just reviewing one "finding" linked there, approximately that "Doncram has created many articles which are too short to achieve adequacy somehow" is misleading. Need to see their remand to the community to come to any consensus on short articles (never happened), for a start. Situation was inflamed by harrassment; one most constructive decision then was an interaction ban.
      • I personally would welcome a proper RFC to increase minimum standards for articles in some ways, by the way. It is not reasonable for people to get enraged about what I did in complete compliance with all rules and above and beyond what is accepted elsewhere, though.
    • Then as now: If challenged, though, I do believe there is obligation to respond to general concern of reasonable others in a working forum. Espclly to opinions of fellow editors participating in development in the area already or newly (e.g. Cbl62 for one). There is in fact some room for me to make some accommodation(s), but facts of matter remain that I have done nothing wrong, this forum is unfair/unreasonable, and it is just hard to discuss any accommodation in this atmosphere.
    • Wikipedia rules and practices are mostly the same, have not been improved in addressing bullying and unfairness. Some advance of editors on average, perhaps, but not enough. Pathetic lack of intelligence about design of this eco-system.
    • Then and now the unfairness, vilification, hatred, has real damaging impact upon the target, me. Then as now I perceive real malevolence and/or reckless disregard for truth and fairness on part of some, real concern and misunderstanding on part of others. The nominator of this ANI and some others truly, appear to me to act as if they deeply do not care about human impact. Nor, actually, about impact upon development of the encyclopedia.

    It seems important to me now both:

    • to respect the community voice expressed here, to some extent, and in ways that are feasible and reasonable (more later)
    • to try to communicate/educate/make assertions about what has gone wrong this time, to some extent, even though ANI is patently not the discussion forum that will achieve understanding about ANI
    • to really resist, in ways that I was not able to in 2012, some things
    • to appreciate and thank several good persons who have done some HHA editing and/or participated here

    I see that my user rights were changed so that new articles will be reviewed(?); it was simply done, whether justified and fair or not, and there can't be any different decision. As before that is acceptable and has some good aspects, is a change that actually sort of will likely have an impact as intended. Further proposition to ban my creating articles is unjustifiable. Note, again, not one article has been found to be invalid as a topic. And note my recent single article creation did suffice to convey enough about the topic to interest other(s) in developing further, which is fine. And note that despite suggestions that I am running wild against consensus, note I did respond to this ANI by stopping creating HHA articles, with that one exception. I also note ANI initiator did not respond, is apparently not accepting my genuine offer somewhere above.

    I apologize to each of you for failing to concentrate on the one matter which you personally think is most important. Everything else I say is demonstration of deceit/misdirection on my part. Probably i should not push the Publish button, but will anyhow. Okay, please compete to get in the quickest, snappiest dismissals. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Your thoughtful response here is genuinely appreciated, really. However, the few sarcastic comments and assumptions of bad faith mixed in here aren't. We get it, this is stressful and some aspects could be very unfair. The snippiness doesn't help anyone though, and is unnecessary. — MarkH21talk 20:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can’t you just agree to use proper sourcing when creating new articles, like everybody else has to? That would entirely solve these issues, regardless of what the current year is. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice in the future if you could make your points succinctly and without using walls of text. Ironically, your comments are far larger than the stubs you create. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's baiting? Doncram's comments here are all TL;DNR, and I was hoping that if he were to write with more brevity, it would be easier to determine what his salient points are. As it is, they're lost in the walls of text. You may have all the time in the world to read his comments, but many others, myself included, do not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doncram I understand your problem: I write a lot of articles on Roman Imperial figures based on prosopographical works -- which in themselves do not satisfy the criteria of notability because their intent is to be inclusive in their category, thus will include any number of people who are not notable. Then there is the issue they include only basic facts (dates of offices, known genealogical relationships), often omitting mention of the context these details appear in (that is, narratives about them), thus these sources are comparable to the ones you are using. However, I have been able to avoid the problems you are encountering (assuming that anyone reads these articles) by following an old Wikipedia guideline: write the article to satisfy those who disagree with you. In our case, this means provide the information to prove to the skeptical these subjects are notable. Other Wikipedians have objected to your articles because that information is missing; it needs to be more than a terse entry in a database or material created by the building's owners. Independent reliable sources that help persuade the subject is notable are what is needed. Which I try to find & cite, & I believe you should too. -- llywrch (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    judgment about HHA and NTHP

    The HHA is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The NTHP garners annual fees from HHA members and also fees from its hotel bookings website, which has promotional language in describing the member hotels. It is being assumed that HHA is non-credible as a source, that it has been compromised ("HHA is a trade and marketing association, nothing more. Whereas some owner-members may have an honest interest in historic preservation, the association's purpose is marketing.") I myself had questions (see Talk:Historic Hotels of America), but I came to the judgment that the HHA is credible and not compromised, for reasons:

    • The NTHP is a 70 year old 501c3 charitable nonprofit organization, with many programs, dedicated to furthering historic preservation by operating 27 National Historic Sites (such as James Monroe's Monticello), by issuing "Save Historic Places" grants to directly fund historic preservation (e.g. $4.5 million in 2017 for items like $45,000 for the Lower East Side Tenament Museum in 2017, say). It consults directly with property owners to support historic preservation. The NTHP does take positions (its "11 Most Endangered Historic Places" program, its lobbying on issues such as changes to tax credit programs), as a 501c3 it cannot be overtly political/cannot endorse political candidates. It seeks "win-win solutions".
    • It is governed by a 25 member board, all unpaid, which happens to include Laura Bush, and includes representation from the Attorney General of the United States, and other ex officios. I expect the board is very conservative and protective about the reputation of the NTHP (partly from my direct experience with the board of a different, comparable organization).
    • The HHA program, while seemingly a good example of a win-win type program, in which independent historic hotels are supported and benefit from NTHP association, and which derives some proceeds for the NTHP (apparently dedicated further historic preservation, sometimes restricted to the same area as the hotel providing proceeds) is apparently a small part, too small to be discussed in NTHP's annual report for the public or in its IRS 990 filings. In 2016 (latest available 990) the NTSP, with $266 million net assets and annual revenue of $45 million has only about $3 million revenue from membership dues, the item which I think includes any HHA proceeds.
    • The HHA states that member hotels must have historic merit, including being explicitly listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, which is a different thing, whose creation in late 1960s was supported by the NTHP) or being deemed eligible for listing.
    • It seems highly unlikely to me that the board would allow the HHA program to be compromised, to allow association of hotels not meeting its stated requirements.
    • It seems to me that the hotels' participation is genuine and so is the HHA's.

    I also came to judgment that HHA membership is a signal of Wikipedia notability, for reasons:

    • explicit NRHP listing of some
    • obvious high notability of many
    • NRHP-eligibility requirement
    • facts stated in HHA sources
    • I worked first developing out missing articles about the HHA's founding member hotels, which all seemed very notable, including by photos I could find, and by my seeing them in Google streetview, and also by NRHP and other sources.
    • Continuing on others, perhaps lesser, I found when I tried that I could round up NRHP sources and other separate sources immediately, in many cases
    • I found HHA sources to be consistent with NRHP and other sources (besides one apparent discrepancy, to be investigated)

    Based on these judgments, and no opposition from editors participating or invited, I further judged it acceptable/good to push ahead in developing articles, even without locating non-HHA sources first. In order to collect information and establish more, including shaking out more about the nature/extent of HHA payments, wherever I did find additional sources.

    I don't think my judgment was bad about choice to rely upon HHA source alone in many cases, though others now disagree and believe the articles are embarrassing. But was my judgment so bad, that I must be over-ruled and punished?

    I do see, obviously, that there is now community concern about the HHA source and the HHA member notability. I did immediately stop creating HHA articles, except later creating one using HHA sources plus primary source plus local interview-type source to add a bit more, which I thought would be acceptable, not embarrassing. I have been given further feedback of concern about that one (although it is agreed that it is notable, I am at fault for not finding an available "Historic Hotels in Seattle" source). I have stopped completely, now, and it would be crazy for me to do more; it would make sense for me to allow other editors now in the area to go on to develop the remaining ones (about 60 out of 300). There is no urgent problem.

    This ANI forum definitely does have the right to impose anything, now, whether I would perceive it as fair or not. Either proposal is very damaging to me, seems humiliating, equivalent to desysopping an administrator. This is very depressing, and seems to be happening, and to me it seems there's nothing I can do. I have received some messages of support, which is nice, but if this is done then I don't see any way forward for me. Is this really good for Wikipedia? --Doncram (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NRHP stubs in 2012 vs. HHA articles in 2020

    Then as now a major problem, almost all of the problem in my view, was the fact of bullying-type editors following me. Back then, others observed that in many contentions opened by one of the worst offenders back then, was that he was following me and interrupting and opening AFDs and ANIs and so in. Often opening an ANI or the like, instead of discussing, meanwhile I was continuing improving an article; his point was that it temporarily had some redlinks or whatever other deficiencies, some of which I had already fixed, because that was what I was doing, before the ANI opened. If he hadn't there would have been no problem. But this succeeded in getting random others riled up, outraged. And many times i tried to discuss stuff and he simply would not, rudely, deeply incivilly.

    Back then, there were more NRHP editors and production, and it was possible to think that I had created a short stub, just before someone else would have created a bigger article perhaps, within a month or year or so. I was happy to go completely far away, e.g. to do North Dakota where there never ever has been any NRHP editor, but he and others followed there and contended. The problem for some other NRHP editors was the contention itself. They didn't want to see it, it was unpleasant, they didn't want to be involved, didn't care who was more at fault or not, didn't care to consider any argument. Sort of fairly, it was their home area; they had standing; I actually did care about what they (not intruders just following) wanted. When I was eventually banned from NRHP or from creating new NRHP articles or whatever, for a year, I chose to stay away much longer (someone above stated I was banned for three years, not true). Partly because I did want to give them a rest, partly to let the worst contending intruders drift away. Which they did, because they were there for the contention. They would only edit NRHP articles that I had started to prove they could do better, and I suppose sometimes they did some separately from me, but really they were not interested, so left when contention stopped. The arbitration process and ruling was in fact deeply unfair to me, but it did work.

    Same thing now, there would be no problem if, just now User:Fram had not identified they could cause a stink, and confronted me rudely so in part i reacted badly, then they acted further rudely by openig this ANI instead of following available regular procedures. Here in HHA area in 2020, I pioneered the area, and there were only a few editors contributing, coming from NRHP because I invited them and they were willing to edit a bit on their states (Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin). There was/is no one with any disagreement. I invited discussion about category and promotional nature of sources at the Talk page, and two sorta difficult problems were solved, civilly. Since this stink started up, Cbl62 and some others have chipped in to contribute more. No one complaining here has any reason to care. I and others were going to develop the area, and partly do it in layers (e.g. start all, come back to add proper categories later, come back exploiting any new big source that might be found, etc.). Anyhow there would be no HHA area if I did not take it up, and IMO it was embarrassing that there was nothing. Intruding to shut it down serves no content-producing editors anywhere.

    I am asking NRHP editors now to come comment here. This will reach some longterm editors who never liked me, I suppose, but have the decency to say the proposals are not needed, I hope. The proposals would actually further stymie NRHP development, which has slowed, is barely above rate of new NRHP listings. During 2015 to late 2019 i expanded a few thousand stubs, created similar number new ones, generally without contention and in fact with pleasant collaboration with several editors. (BTW, I walked away from new NRHP article development after a non-NRHP editor created issue about redlink categories; I was expecting to return to NRHP after finding forum, perhaps an RFC, other consensus process about that topic.) If anyone thinks these proposals help NRHP area, I think they are wrong. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, a more succinct statement of your views would have been helpful. Am I wrong in summarizing your position as being that you are essentially not at fault, and that the problems reported here stem from other editors "bullying" you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit-warring POV on EverQuote by IP pushing same POV since 2018

    ((moving report here from WP:AN, where I mistakenly posted it yesterday))

    This person edits from a shifting IP address, but these recent edits[20][21] are likely from the same shifting-IP person [22] reported by @Ponyo: in the past.

    If you semi-protect the article for a few weeks, the edit-warring on the article can be replaced by discussion on the talk page. I will notify the talk pages of those two IPs though I doubt the person in question will see my messages. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is back today inserting the same material with edit summary "WP:BRD is a guideline while WP:OWN is policy. Then on talk page argues that it doesn't matter what RS say because Online marketplace says something different. I don't want to revert his change a third time, but can somebody here take a look please? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin, but I reverted and chimed in on the talkpage; the edits are obviously in violation of what the sources clearly and explicitly state. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For any admins that want to look at this, disruptive editing by various Virginia-based IPs, likely the same person, focused on the removal of the term "marketplace" goes back to November 2018. Grandpallama (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Grandpallama for taking a look at this IP, who is probably also this IP and this IP. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ((restart indent)) the comedy continues at the article as IP makes same edit for 4th time. I just copy-pasted this entire discussion here from WP:AN, where I mistakenly had put it. Apologies!! @Grandpallama: thanks for trying to help. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kuru:, Ponyo says you are the admin who dealt with this IP in 2018 incident re the same article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been protected, but only for a week. Given the persistence of this IP, and the continued nonsense on the talkpage, I'd think another block of the range might be in order. Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is protected but the trolling continues on Talk page, 9 from him since 10 p.m. last night, latest claim is "Hate to break it to you, but no one from WP:ANI is even paying attention," so we should change article to what he wants so that he will stop trolling. Please some admin...help if possible, or even just advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could probably put an end to the talk page trolling by opting not to respond further. It isn't as though the user keeps introducing substantially new insights that merit a response. Largoplazo (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or I don't know, maybe you could give some consideration to improving the neutrality of the article by removing a claim that is only sourced from media outlets repeating the same promotional wording provided by the subject of the article? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If multiple bylined articles in RS use the word "marketplace" to describe a company's business model, that means multiple RS have vetted that metaphor used in company PR as an accurate shorthand to describe the company. Also, the article clearly describes (based on RS) how EverQuote connects insurance shoppers to multiple insurance vendors. (No insurance policies are displayed on wooden tables in a town square.) Also, the word "marketplace" is not a promotional term. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are putting way too much faith in the sources provided. None of them would have even mentioned the subject without a press release and they are just copying the company description from the press release without giving it a second thought. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes no sense. WP:RS is not over-ruled by vague guesses and claims that some reporters are lazy. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it important to you that Everquote be described as a "marketplace" when "lead generator" [23] is a much more precise and accurate term for the service Everquote provides and that also appears in less potentially biased sources? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:F9C0:5EF4:6552:69A1 (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the one negative 2018 stock analysis you cite specifically describes EverQuote as "an insurance comparison website." From 2017 WSJ to 2020 Motley Fool 99.7% of news articles call it an "insurance marketplace." The Motley Fool piece, which ends by teasing 10 other stocks they like better than EverQuote, is hardly a reprint of anybody's press release. You are asking for Wikipedia's voice to contradict RS. IMO it shouldn't. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the S&P Global Market Intelligence article as "negative" analysis. It is objective and neutral. Also, if you read the article, the only time the author uses the word "marketplace", he clearly indicates that is how Everquote describes themselves and then goes on to provide his own professional analysis describing them as a "lead generator". You have repeatedly avoided answering why it is important to you that the word "marketplace" appear in the description. Could you answer that question please? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds more like it's very important to you that the term not be included. Demanding others adhere to standards you do not isn't going to win any favors. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite the contrary. I am attempting dispute resolution and have called what I consider to be a misrepresentation of Everquote into question as well as the quality of the sources presented because I do not think that "marketplace" accurately describes their business model which consists of the collection and sale of personal information to third parties. I have clearly disclosed this. I have asked those who disagree with me to plainly explain why. Wikipedia policy does not require all information from reliable sources be repeated verbatim and encourages the removal of potentially inaccurate information if it cannot be sufficiently verified. So, just saying it is in RS, does not demand that it appear in the article, especially when the quality of the source is in question. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (restart indent) Back in January 2019, you were trying to remove a different description (also from RS) "insurance matchmaker."[24] I am not in love with the word "marketplace" or the word "matchmaker," but I object to SPAs trying to use Wikipedia to "correct" what RS say -- in your case, to hide the fact that EverQuote is a (some metaphor here) where insurance seekers can get competitive quotes from multiple insurance providers who have in the past sold insurance to people like them. Also, I don't see how EverQuote could be a "lead generator" if insurance shoppers who went to EverQuote did not, in fact, get insurance quotes they liked enough to buy from one. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why must any metaphor be used at all when there is a plain language alternative available to clearly describe what Everquote does? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is vague and inaccurate to hide from our readers the fact (however you express it, and RS say "marketplace") that insurance shoppers go to EverQuote to get connected to sellers of insurance. Most RS call it a "marketplace" first and many never bother to mention lead generation at all, because just about every website that asks you for information is ALSO making money from "lead generation." It is hard for me to understand that in a universe with Google, Facebook, and Amazon, you are so shocked and irate about a tiny Internet company few people have heard of that you need to spend two years trying to get Wikipedia to contradict the way RS describe it. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just it. Calling Everquote a "lead generator" isn't hiding anything, but rather telling readers exactly how Everquote connects perspective buyers to prospective sellers. Amazon is accurately described as a marketplace. Facebook runs a marketplace amongst providing other services. Google is not a marketplace although they do provide Google shopping search services. The difference is that none of them sell personally identifying information under the guise of claiming to provide a different experience. I am not shocked or irate about this but according to the Better Business Bureau and other ratings/review websites which are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, many people (both perspective buyers and sellers) are irate with Everquote once they find out what really happens when someone requests a quote. Rather than focusing on those poorly sourced negative reports, I am only suggesting taking a more neutral approach of describing exactly what Everquote does, as reported in reliable sources, without using any colorful metaphors that may carry additional connotations and disguise what service Everquote offers. That is exactly what Wikipedia NPOV policies say must be done. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is already in the lead paragraph of the article that Everquote is "an online insurance marketplace and lead generation service." (By the way, "lead generation service" was your own choice of wording in early 2019.) The article already explains clearly "what really happens when someone requests a quote." People who are unhappy with "what really happens" complain to rating/review sites. People who are happy to get a bunch of quotes from different insurance companies buy insurance from one of them. According to one recent article, those insurance buyers saved money as well as time. Wikipedia need not reflect the POV of either the happy customers or the angry ones (presumably a smaller group, given the success of Everquote) but it should reflect its predominant description by reliable sources. If we want to describe "exactly what EverQuote does, as reported in reliable sources," removing accurate and well-attested material does not make things clearer for our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources provided define what a "marketplace" is or is not. The fact that you and I have different ideas about the possible definition or it's usage as a metaphor should be an indication that one is required and that the sources are lacking in that regard.2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Having read the talk page and looked at the edit history, I'll extend DeltaQuad's protection for a bit; there is no indication that this will go away. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    With enormous thanks to Drmies, I think this problem has been solved now -- at least until May 2021. If somebody wants to close this discussion, I'm good with that. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    HouseOfChange, thanks but I'm only following DeltaQuad's lead. The question I have is at which point we block 2600:1003:b84d:c995:adc2:271f:4a32:b3ab/64, or 2601:5c2:200:46:c0b1:65b8:4759:7330/64. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: You are welcome to block both plus the larger subnets they are part of if you think doing that will 'prevent' anything. 174.226.131.46 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Change to all our welcome templates

    RESOLVED
    Sdkb's probationary template editor rights removed, templates rolled back. Guy (help!) 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Aside from the obvious blunder here, I'm confused as to what possible benefit granting sdkb TPE has for the project...this right should be yanked until they explain this mess and you know...the need. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae, good shout, I have done this. It was probationary anyway - I think we can consider this as evidence that the user is not ready for this right. Courtesy ping Primefac, who granted the right. This is a WP:AGF thing I think: an excess of enthusiasm on Sdkb's part but nonetheless incompatible with the initial temporary grant of template editor rights. Guy (help!) 14:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking care of that Guy. As you say, this was largely an AGF thing - I had actually written out a rather large post at their initial application detailing why I felt they should not receive the right, but I felt that my personal opinions were getting too much in the way of a good faith request, so in self-reflection I opted to grant it temporarily to (if anything) prove myself wrong. I should have listened to my gut, I guess. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Primefac, I think you did right, because the problem doesn't appear to have been that hard to fix. Guy (help!) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy, so revert it and discuss at an appropriate venue. Guy (help!) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I would revert all...but since I have had the same conflict with them over the main template and a few others ....think its best a third party do all the reverts. I got an email this morning asking WTF is going on by someone who cant revert because of the protection level involved.--Moxy 🍁 13:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moxy, OK, done then. Guy (help!) 14:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree; significant changes to templates should be vetted, or at the very least proposed first before being mass-implemented. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree here too! -- Alexf(talk) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Hello all — this was obviously rather unpleasant to wake up to. There seems to be a large misunderstanding here that I was making edits with "ZERO talk" or consensus. That is not true. Some context: At the widely-attended Village Pump discussion on the standard welcome template that was closed last month, there was strong consensus in favor of the general changes proposed (reducing links, making the template more personal, and better visual design), and a rough consensus in favor of the specific proposed template. It's important to note that, while I respect much of the work Moxy has done, they were the primary dissenter, and have strenuously resisted implementation at several turns since. The main welcome template was subsequently updated, and at Template:Welcome-anon, we established with the closer over Moxy's lone objection that the changes carry to other welcome templates with the same basic structure as Template:Welcome. Prior to this change, I posted at Template talk:Welcome to see if anyone objected to adding the parameters that would be needed for the change, and no one replied (the welcome templates are a notoriously neglected area), so I went ahead and added them.
    Regarding the merits of the change to wrappers, there is a clear need for consolidation among the welcome templates to help make them easier to maintain, within the spirit of WP:CONSOLIDATE. Many of them claimed to be e.g. "the same as the standard welcome, just with [variation]", when in fact they had drifted out of alignment not just years but many years ago. Thus, as an implementation of the VPR consensus, I had been updating them to bring them back into alignment and set them up to stay synced to the main welcome via use of a wrapper. I rolled out cautiously, starting with Template:Welcome-autosign a month ago (converting to a module on the 6th) and then Template:Welcome cookie on May 3. I also asked a brief question at the technical pump that didn't hide what I was working on. There were no objections raised, and I did extensive sandbox and testcase testing and confirmed that Twinkle still functioned properly. Given all that, I saw fit to roll out the change to other welcomes that had a very similar format to the standard welcome. It's important to note that most of them are very low use compared to the main welcome; only two or so were template-protected, and most allowed edits by all users. During implementation, I studiously took care not to make any radical changes to the wording (despite plenty of instances where it could really use a refresh—again, this is a neglected area where it's hard to have big discussions), and I preserved formatting at templates like {{Welcome-vandalism-fighter}}. I did not wrapperify templates that differed substantially from the format of the main welcome (e.g. {{Welcome screen}}, {{W-FAQ}}; my only recent edit at the latter is fixing an unambiguous copy error that has now been reintroduced), as was agreed here.
    I am not surprised to see Moxy disgruntled, but I'm disappointed to see that this was already closed so quickly by the single sysop out of any on Wikipedia I'd consider most WP:INVOLVED with me (due to a recent unrelated matter), and that that sysop has subsequently reverted not just the changes I made turning the welcomes into wrappers, but what looks like it may be my entire history of template edits, including many from months or years ago that appear to have zero connection here (e.g. [25]). Given my extensive backlog, I have no clue what sort of errors or downgrades that might be reintroducing, but I'd expect that there will be plenty. There was no need to revert on such a massive scale so hastily given that nothing was broken, and the rollbacks are unquestionably doing more damage than whatever objections there might be to the wrapperification. I hope that it will be possible to fix this all up without too much effort.
    Overall, it looks like I did move too quickly on this, and I certainly erred in using only a basic edit summary ("turning into a wrapper template to keep synced with main welcome") that didn't include a link to the discussions. I'm happy to open up a larger discussion on wrapperification, but I think the immediate pressing need here is to undo the damage from the far too blunt rollback (restoring everything prior to this edit apart from the {{Welcome cookie}} test should be sufficient). Apologies that this has ended up here, and my thanks to those of you putting in effort to review everything. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy pinging prior participants and others involved: @L235, Moxy, Praxidicae, Primefac, JzG, Ohnoitsjamie, Alexf, and Naypta: thanks for your attention{{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of transparency, disclosing that I noticed on my watchlist Pppery undoing some of the individual rollback edits that broke things. I left a message on their talk page about cleaning up the damage from the rollback, and there is some discussion beginning there on that topic. I won't be making any direct edits to live templates while this thread is active. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without comment as to the merits of granting or revoking the template editor role, I am very disappointed in the conduct of the user filing this ANI thread. Bringing a non-conduct dispute to ANI and, critically, withholding relevant context from the thread is misrepresenting the situation to the community. The filer failed to link to the relevant VPR discussion or to previous discussion at another welcome template talk page or to another one (all of which he vigorously participated in and knew were relevant). I understand that the filer and others feel strongly about this template, but this comes across as a trick designed to make Sdkb look more culpable. I also understand the filer's position that the consensus at VPR only applies to the {{welcome}} template and not to the others, and I think he's partially right about that, but it's really unfair to imply that all of these changes were entirely made without discussion and to neglect to mention Sdkb's likely position that the consensus covered the other templates. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They were fully aware that this would be contentious and have out right lied that I am the only one that contested the changes (very disappointing to see this). What we have is an overzealous new editor that is all over the place trying to make changes and getting into conflicts in many placed over their persistent approach.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So there's a lot to unwrap here. I'm in no position to be qualified to opine on the template editor role, so much like Kevin I won't even try and get into that. The discussion I had with Sdkb over at Template talk:Welcome-delete may be of interest; I asked in particular about whether consensus had been established, and Sdkb told me All of these templates started out as variations of the standard welcome template (you can find lots of old references to "same as the standard welcome but with..." for templates that are no longer actually the same), but they just drifted out of sync over time, so yeah, I think it can be assumed that the consensus ideal practice is to keep them synced, and converting to a wrapper will help with that in the future (it should have been done when these were created, but either people didn't know how or the functionality didn't exist back then).

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

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

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

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

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

    Yup still agree it was a very bad close. As stated in the close no consensus on links to use.... no consensus to use action buttons and definitely no consensus to change every template to the same thing whatever that is. Only consensus was to trim links. Because of this horrible close with little direction we are now here dealing with this over talking about how to retain the thousands of potential editor's that are losing interest about learning how to edit with the new format.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a bit early to be making claims like "we might be losing thousands of editors to this". If you look at that same graph over a longer period, the story is quite different. And that's not to mention, of course, the fact that "clicks on this help article in particular" are not the same as "new wiki users coming along and learning". Whilst I do appreciate your genuinely-held concern for ensuring new editors know what they're doing, I'm not sure this is the venue for it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The link your saying shows better stats shows me that it's even worse than I thought.....more the 80 percent give up on the first page....that page has zero data to help add a reference. We should be learing from our past mistakes...not trying them again for the 4th time.Wikipedia:Adventure was once a preferred link til the same type of data came up.--Moxy 🍁 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Naypta, my take: the tempalte editor right was granted in good faith, Sdkb acted in good faith, Moxy reported in good faith, several uninvolved editors and admins commented in good faith, and now we have a good faith fight about what to do with the aftermath :-)
    I am happy to help fix whatever mess remains, of course. If only I knew what the consensus view is of "mess". Guy (help!) 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Wikipedia. Never change. The only place where this discussion isn't just a food fight I agree with you, JzG. I'd like to suggest that part of the solution to this is a full and formal RfC process, notwithstanding the previously closed discussion at VPR: I think there's now separate issues which have been raised, which need separate discussion, not just of the main welcome template but also of now all the other ones. In terms of the immediate aftermath - do we know if any welcome templates are currently in an unusable state? They might well have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they're currently usable, it might be best to leave them how they are now until a stronger consensus is obtained. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Naypta, an RfC makes perfect sense. Guy (help!) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If Sdkb and Moxy are happy with that, I'm happy to go and write one up in neutral text seeing as I'm only tangentially involved in any of this, probably on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates (unless anyone has any better suggestions for a venue). And no, I didn't just accidentally transclude the entire article for the letter P onto the Incidents page briefly before fixing it, what are you talking about... Facepalm Facepalm Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naypta: I'd be happy with you opening an RfC at that page. Regarding timing, there's a lot of cleanup that needs to be done to reverse the damage caused by the mass rollback. That and addressing the conduct issues raised here is going to preoccupy myself and others in this area for a bit, so I think things may go smoother if we wait for this thread to settle and be closed before launching that, so that we can devote our attention to one thing at a time. But the decision is up to you. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me.....now that we have raw data and guideline updates about accessibility the outcome should be more definitive in nature. I believe all those involved in one RFC should be notified and the 8 or so editors involved in talks at the individual templates should get a wider say. We currently have an odd problem that people are creating new welcome templates because of how upset they are about the changes.--Moxy 🍁 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I now use User:Johnuniq/Welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note for closer: A previous reclose of this conversation was undone by the closer following discussion here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lilipo25 bullying through unsupported edits

    I have been attempting to maintain balance and accuracy on the article Graham Linehan. There have been a small number of editors working alongside, who are also doing good work and are supportive of mine (I've received thanks for a number of edits). Unfortunately, the user Lilipo25 has been consistently edit-warring with all other editors and single-handedly pushing the article in one direction. In the talk page, they have been overtly hostile, freely throwing insults and allegations against other users, which already seems to have had the effect of pushing editors away from bothering with the article, and bullying through material which isn't supported by the wider editorial community. This previously led to mediated disputes with other editors, but is a more ongoing and general problem. Any help would be appreciated, and if I've not posted this to the right place then sorry!Wikiditm (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I have done so for you. Mysticdan (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'll make sure to do that in future if something like this happens again.Wikiditm (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikiditm Could you be specific (with diffs) about where you see them throwing insults and allegations against other users? That's a long discussion, and I can see that there is more tension than would be ideal, but from a skim over it I'm not seeing anything approaching a personal attack - perhaps I've missed something? GirthSummit (blether) 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. So the main tactic is allegations of bad faith against every other editor. Despite the fact that it is generally Lilipo25 edit-warring against a succession of other editors (they put the number at 10 in their response below), it is these other editors who are consistently accused of having agendas, ulterior motives, hounding, trying to intimidate, stalking etc. I think this can be seen on the talk page and edit history - what is meant by diffs?Wikiditm (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiditm, this is a diff - it allows the reader to see exactly which comment you meant. If you are accusing someone of making inappropriate comments, it allows us to see precisely which comment you thought was inappropriate. I see a point where they ask you whether you have a COI, I don't see any direct allegations or insults - but perhaps I've overlooked something, which is why I was asking you to be specific. GirthSummit (blether) 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm going to look up how to do that in future. Example comments from the talk page: "As you do not even have a Wikipedia account" "unlike you to wait weeks to post a Pink News smear job" "you're now just going to follow me around Wikipedia and harass me" "your bullying on another page" "You are WP: HOUNDING" "I figured you'd be along to join in" "trans activists who want this page to be as negative as possible" "The bias against Linehan in this entire article by people with an agenda is out of control" "stop deleting any edit that isn't entirely yours" "there is no way those angry at him will allow this article to be edited as an encyclopedia article rather than a tool of revenge on someone with whom they ideologically disagree" "are you a member of Stonewall or in any way involved with their organization?" "it makes sense to ask if they are a member of Stonewall editing on the organization's behalf" "I'm not here for faux outrage from any of you" <- If this kind of conduct is acceptable on wikipedia, then that's a shame, but I guess it can't be helped.Wikiditm (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for notifying me, Mysticdan. I can't imagine how Wikiditm missed that big yellow warning about notifying other users when you start a discussion about them. Wikiditm is offended that I asked if they have a WP:COI and has also claimed that I accused them of stalking my private social media page to issue warnings that I stop editing the Linehan page. I have no idea which editor on that page it is who tracked down my private account and made the threats (although they were clear that they also edit there) and so never accused Wikiditm or anyone else of it. I merely stated that I will not be intimidated into not editing by it, whoever it is.

      The Linehan page is a mess and has been for over a year. A number of other editors have attempted to make it neutral and balanced, only to be overwhelmed by a group of about 10 people who are promoting an agenda rather than trying to write an unbiased encyclopedia article, and be bullied off the page. At one point, another editor assumed my sexual orientation and declared it a reason why I am "too involved' with the subject to edit a page about an Irish comedian. Every attempt to balance the article is reverted until anyone even trying to stop it from reading like a massive hit piece on a WP:BLP gives up. Ceoil, who has been regularly editing Wikipedia for at least 15 years, tried just hours ago to make it more balanced, but was promptly reverted, as always happens. The article only has "one direction", which is to give far too much weight to Linehan's views on a controversial issue and cast them entirely in a negative light. My pushing back has barely even made a tiny dent. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm inclined to agree with Lilipo. There is a very bitter history here, the subject is at pains to state he is a "Self-identification sceptic", which is a very different thing to "Anti-transgender activist". Also the article contains a number of unfounded allegations, mostly gathered on twitter and then fed through news feeds; I'm not so sure wiki is best served by becoming a collection for the like. To be clear, I don't particularly support Linehan's views (frankly I think he has dug himself into a hole), but I think they are being willyfully mis-represented here. That the revert warrior and blp avoiding complainant is pleading that they are attempting to maintain "balance and accuracy", is rich to say the least. My opinion...content issue, not for AN/I. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In all of my edits I have made sure to cite relevant sources and give equal weight to both sides where possible, using quotation marks to most accurate summarise the views being expressed. This is surely the definition of balance and accuracy. If he has been misrepresented in some way, then it would make sense to have a discussion about this on the talk page surely?Wikiditm (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Patently false as you are both cherry picking and coatracking. You definition of "balance and accuracy" is frankly deluded, and though we cant fish, I suspect there s wholesale socking also at play. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. From my perspective I have indeed been trying to maintain an article which is readable, accurate and balanced.Wikiditm (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Re coatracking, would be in fovour to trimming the section down to facts, and not having quotes from every blogger ever. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If people feel the section needs to be trimmed down then I'd be very happy to do some of that work. It is entirely true that my mindset throughout, though, has been to maintain a balanced and accurate page. It seems very wrong to imply that I'm acting in bad faith when I'm just not.Wikiditm (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors have attempted to "have discussions about this" with you on the talk page, Wikiditm. You simply refuse to answer for months if you are asked for proof of claims you make (such as your claim that a "consensus was reached" on using the biased "Anti-transgender activism" as a subject heading to represent his views), and when we begin a discussion without you, you ignore it and edit the page the way you want anyway, then revert anyone who tries to make it even slightly more neutral. Pretending now that you merely want to talk about it on the discussion page is disingenuous, to say the very least. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there can be a civil discussion on this topic on the talk page that would be great. The claim that "many editors have attempted to have discussions about this" with me is false. There haven't been any such attempts. The talk sections on specific edits all just dissolve into abuse and allegations from yourself against any editor who disagrees.Wikiditm (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have sabotaged every civil discussion by bypassing it and simply making the changes you want before any consensus is reached. You know this. And if you were genuinely trying to make the article neutral and balanced, you would stop doing things like using a tabloid web site that is engaged in numerous legal disputes with the article subject as your main source, and then deleting information from legitimate newspapers like The Spectator on the basis that they lean 'conservative' and you don't like that. Or including negative comments about him from transgender people who disagree with him but deleting any mention of sourced newspaper articles by transgender people who agree with his views and saying they can't be included because they are his supporters. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of this is misplaced grievance, and a lot of it is untrue. I hardly ever use PinkNews as a source - that's an ongoing argument you have with one of the other editors of the page. I have never deleted information because it came from The Spectator - I merely cut down the number of citations for a statement from an unwieldy 4 to a more appropriate 2, and happened to favour The Times sources over The Spectator. I have, in no instance, kept one viewpoint and deleted the opposite. I always make sure to include both sides, where possible, using quotations where I can to accurately summarise their views. Finally, I have never said that his supporters cannot be included - I've quoted his supporters in a number of relevant places!Wikiditm (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For context this is an article with massive longstanding issues including WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:ATP and WP:NPOV. Frankly, some of the editors piling up these tendentious, garbage sources just to bash Linehan are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. So I am not surprised that Lilipo25 has run into aggression and petulance while trying hard to keep things on an even keel. I tried hard to improve it myself a while ago but ultimately had to self impose a sort of topic ban, deeming it a "lost cause". It's a shame because the article subject is a very notable comedy writer. That he sometimes debunks trans lobby extremism on Twitter probably merits a couple of lines at most. When high quality sources are out there it's ridiculous we shun them to crowbar in fringe blogs from the very shrieking loonies who fueled much of the nonsense and bad feeling in the first place! Yes, I'm looking at you, 'PinkNews'. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is accurate. If you view Linehan's television writing as his main claim to notability, and his anti-trans activism as just something he occasionally does, then I can understand why the article would appear to be a coatrack (it gives roughly equal coverage to these topics). However, the writing he did way back really isn't why he is notable today. If I google Graham Linehan the first page brings up 2 results relating to his writing work, 2 results which are neutral (such as his wiki article) and a full 6 results related to his activism relating to trans people. When he is interviewed on radio or television, there are frequently no questions about his writing work, with the entire interview devoted to his views on this issue. If someone hears about Linehan and wants to find out more, it is almost definite that they heard his name in relation to the transgender debate and wish to find out more. The article is right to reflect that. That said, this feels like a content issue which would be better discussed on the talk page of the article.Wikiditm (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This response is full of your personal bias about the subject and not encyclopedia-worthy facts. Trying to prove that he's mostly notable for this controversy because "If I Google Graham Linehan, the first page brings up..." , for example, ignores the fact that the Google algorithm tailors search results according to each user's search history and page visits. What comes up for you when you google his name is at least partially reflective of what you spend time reading and searching for; it isn't what comes up for everyone. And saying "if someone hears about Linehan, it is almost definite they heard his name in relation to the transgender debate and are looking him up to find out more about that" is clear evidence of your editing bias here: you in fact have no idea how or why people hear about Linehan or why they might visit his Wikipedia article, and using your personal opinion of why they must have heard of him to make the article mostly about that is simply not good encyclopedia editing. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This example was from a clean google search. It has nothing to do with my previous search history, and I never really search for related topics like this. It seems you are still assuming bad faith and hidden agendas when there are none - please stop! Yes there will be an element of subjectivity around what is considered notable, but the examples I gave above are good a reason as any - google searches for Linehan lean heavily towards his views on the transgender debate, his media appearances give almost total coverage to his views on this topic, his twitter account is devoted to it. This isn't my personal bias it's just reality. Every metric you might reasonably look at ties his name to the transgender debate first and his former job as a comedy writer second. Even despite this, I have actually cut a lot of material from the article over time, and kept it reasonably concise, a shorter length than is given to his writing work. This is why I don't consider it a coatrack.Wikiditm (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Wikiditm, you are impossible. Dramatically crying out for me to "please stop!" as if you have been deeply wounded by my pointing out the simple fact that Google searches do not yield the same results for everyone? Declaring that to be "assuming hidden agendas"? Would Google be part of this deep conspiracy, then? Honestly, this is more textbook gaslighting and so typical of what you do whenever you are challenged. You have not been hurt here. You are not under attack. You are not a victim. If you can't handle someone pointing out any facts that contradict your claims without these dramatics, perhaps you need to take a breather from editing. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, this is from a clean google search. If you do the same search incognito you will get the exact same results. I'm not gaslighting you. If you have a fact that contradicts something I've said above then please, by all means, share that! That would be much preferred to endless accusations of bias, agendas, etc. which are not productive in any sense.Wikiditm (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You use this endless cycle of declaring that you have been attacked when you have not and then playing the deeply wounded victim as a means of bullying other editors into giving you your way. I have given in to it repeatedly because it is so difficult to reason with you when simple facts cause you to declare that you have been "accused' of things that have not been said and put on these silly "oh, please stop! please!" performances in hopes an admin will see it and think you're being picked on. Honestly, it's just exasperating. Your google searches do not yield the same results as everyone else. It doesn't matter if you claim they are "clean" searches: everyone else does not start from the same place you do. I realize I am now asking for another round of you swooning in agony over that fact, but there it is. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you log out of google, bring up an incognito tab, and search for Graham Linehan, you'll get the exact same results I got (with possible variation due to location differences). These are twitter, wiki, spiked, imdb, guardian, daily mail, irish times, independent and pink news.Wikiditm (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again: everyone else does not start from the same place you do. Enough. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point being that this is, in no way, biased. It is not affected by my search history, as claimed. The constant allegations of bias, even about something as clearly neutral as this, hampers any attempt to establish what our approach should be.Wikiditm (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone else does not start from the same place you do. when googling. They therefore do not get the same results you do. You have no way of knowing what they have seen about Linehan or why they are looking him up on Wikipedia and shouldn't be making assumptions that it is "almost definite' that they are there to read about his views on transgender issues. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think characterising me living in a different location to you as bias is pretty absurd. Of course I don't know why someone may hear about Linehan, but what I've suggested is a number of neutral ways to assess that. A clean google search of his name gives mostly results relating to the transgender debate. Interviews and media appearances with Linehan over the last few years have been almost entirely devoted to this issue. If you look at his twitter feed it is entirely about this issue. For these reasons, I think it's reasonable for this issue to be given a decent amount of space in the article. Your response to this has, once again, just been to accuse me of bias, make allegations about my search history, and not offer anything constructive. If you have an alternative, reasonable way of determining that this coverage is undue, then say it! Just pouring on allegations of bias obviously isn't going to convince anyone.Wikiditm (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Characterising me living in a different location from you as bias" - HUH? What new gaslighting nonsense is this? I don't know where you live, nor do I care. That has nothing to do with the search history/kinds of pages used in the past that other people have on their computers which affect their google searches and give them different results from you. And I have made no "allegations about your search history", either. Not one. Oh, you know all that. You don't think I said any of that at all. You're just hoping an admin won't read the whole thread and will just see your comment and think it happened. Just more performing as a victim. You are relentless. Honestly, I hope some admin *does* read this whole mess and for once, someone can see how you use gaslighting and fake claims of abuse to bully other editors into giving you your way. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, clean google searches are not affected by search history or pages used in the past. That's why they are called clean. To do such a search, you can log out of google, open an incognito tab, and search for "Graham Linehan." You'll get the same results I got.Wikiditm (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I responded above three times: everyone does not start from the same place you do. Despite pretending that this meant I was accusing you of bias for for not personally living with me (sigh), you know quite well that it means everyone else is not doing a 'clean search' from an incognito page. In fact, almost no one is. And as I also explained repeatedly, this means they would not get the same result you would get doing a search from an incognito page, since the google algorithms would be affected by their individual search histories and page use. And this means that you cannot extrapolate what information everyone else would see in a google search of Linehan's name from your own incognito search. And no, I am not asking you to live with me. I promise. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anything stated here makes google search a bad measure of notability. I'm not saying that everyone will see the same results when casually searching for Graham Linehan. I'm saying that a clean google search for him produces an abundance of coverage of his contribution to the transgender debate. This is one of the reasons I give to show that the section on this topic has due weight within the article.Wikiditm (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as a "clean" google search at all: "It’s not possible even for logged out users of Google search, who are also browsing in Incognito mode, to prevent their online activity from being used by Google to program — and thus shape — the results they see. Duck Duck Goose says it found significant variation in Google search results, with most of the participants in the study seeing results that were unique to them — and some seeing links others simply did not." https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/google-incognito-search-results-still-vary-from-person-to-person-ddg-study-finds/ OK? Can you please just let this go, finally? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really struggling to see what your point is here. You began by saying that my arguments were full of personal bias, and still haven't really said why or what is wrong with them, now linking to Duck Duck Go advocacy articles which isn't really relevant at all. If you are truly saying that I should have searched with Duck Duck Go instead of Google then I'm happy to do that. In fact, the argument is even stronger then as DDG brings up even more articles on the transgender debate than google does! https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graham+linehan Wikiditm (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just don't know how to respond any more. I really don't. You've just spent hours and hours making this "clean google search" argument at me over and over, insisting that in incognito mode, your browser history has no effect upon results and therefore your search on Linehan's name is unbiased and so making the article mostly about his views on one controversy isn't negatively slanting it. So I show you a study that proved that isn't true at all, and you pretend you can't understand what the point is and that I wanted you to use Duck Duck Go instead and that I never said what was wrong with your negative slant on the article at all and this is just so irrelevant you can't even see why I would bring such a thing up. I recognize every one of these tactics from Gamer Gate - deflect, act pained and wounded, pretend not to understand what the woman with facts is saying and make it sound like she just makes no sense, then say she never made the argument that you've just spent the last day arguing against at all and shake your head like she's crazy. It's gaslighting in the extreme. I know that you're trying to goad me into losing my temper so you can cry victim and get me banned. Here, Wikiditm - here's a different study from Vanderbilt University, not involving DDG, that found the same thing, that Google still links to your browser history in incognito mode: https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/ OK? Please stop now. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If the issue is that clean google searches aren't really clean, then just replace the word google in my argument with DDG or whatever search you do consider clean.Wikiditm (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And with that, I officially give up once again.Girth Summit I hope you will at least be able to skim this mess. As usual, Wikiditm has worn me down with their usual cycle of pretending I have abused and accused them, then crying out pitifully for it to "please stop!" in hopes of appearing the bullied victim. And I give in because such gaslighting is impossible to reason with.If you find that I have in fact abused Wikiditm, do what you will. I have tried to make the Linehan article slightly less of a hatchet job, but I have largely failed. I don't have time in my life to spend all day every day defending myself against Wikiditm's claims. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's certainly some evidence of whitewashing in this article. Linehan is not a "self-identification sceptic" however much he'd like to call himself that (also, it's a term with practically zero hits, so it's WP:OR anyway). He's definitely an anti-transgender activist though, he's even described himself as running on online campaign "against trans activists". The Stephanie Hayden section that is being removed repeatedly is probably the most notable of his escapades - it was the first ever deadnaming lawsuit and was far more widely covered in the mainstream press that most of the others in that section - it also resulted in him having a police warning. Indeed, since most production people don't want to touch him because of his views, it's probably the most notable thing that has happened to him in the last few years, so it's certainly not undue. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Black Kite, no indeed. He's a TERF, though, and adjacent to a few TERFs in the UK and Ireland skeptical movement. Guy (help!) 20:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. I think I mis-read that he was actively "anti-trans", rather than anti trans-activism. Either way, not a part of the page I will be revisiting, though I am very much interested his his comedy career. So maybe will limit myself to the first half of the article. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saying he is "against trans activists" and leaving out the rest of what he has said is exactly the sort of biasing of the article that is the problem. He has repeatedly said that his problem is not with trans people, but with trans activists who he feels bully women and shut down debate whenever they try to raise issues like trans inclusion in women's sports or women's changing rooms. The mention of the Stephanie Hayden lawsuit is another example: you do not mention that Hayden dropped all charges against Linehan, or that he disputes that he ever received any police warning at all (he has stated he spoke on the phone with an officer who asked him to block Hayden online after he already had, but was never given any official citation). Putting these things in the article without the rest of the information is creating bias with half-truths.Lilipo25 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • We go by what reliable sources say. In the case of the police warning, it was reported that he had received one (telling him not to contact her at all) by the BBC, ITV, The Times, The Guardian, etc. Indeed, he even managed to call her a "misogynist" again in the statement he gave to the BBC confirming it. Yes, she did drop the charges, but that was later. If you want to find another heading for the "anti-transgender activism" section, please suggest it, but "self-identification sceptic" is an unsourceable nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know why "that was later" has anything to do with leaving that out; it has already happened now. Reliable sources have also reported, since the lawsuit was dropped and the gag order lifted, that there is no record of a legal citation being given to Linehan over the incident with Hayden, but that keeps being removed from the article.A number of editors have indeed suggested many neutral alternatives to "anti-transgender activism" but they are immediately reverted every time by Wikiditm with a note saying there was "consensus" that 'anti-transgender activism' is right. However, I have asked repeatedly to be shown the discussion where this consensus was reached, as I can find no evidence of it, but Wikiditm will never respond to that. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Could you show the version of the article with those reliable sources in, please? I did try to look, but it's difficult to find with you and others persistently inserting and removing material. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest a quick skim of the page would show plenty of evidence of what Wikidtm has outlined, Girth Summit. Here are some recent diffs: incivility; accusing Newimpartial of wikistalking; accusation of bias; allegation of off-wiki stalking/threats; accusing Wikidtm of removing part of my edit (they hadn't). Not sure what the solution is - I see 1RR is being discussed below, but I don't see how that will solve anything. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Bastun, thanks for providing the diffs - that certainly makes things easier. I think that Lilipo25 would be well advised to make sure that they keep their talk page comments focussed on the content, not the contributors or their motives. If they feel they're being harassed or stalked, that should be brought up here, with diffs presented as evidence; accusing people of abusive behaviour in a talk page discussion isn't on. Having said all that, I'm not sure it is quite as bad as Wikidtm has presented it - it's far from ideal behaviour in what is clearly a tense discussion, but I'm not sure I'd characterise it as 'freely throwing insults', or as bullying. Moving forward - Lilipo25 seems to be saying above that they intend to step away from the subject, perhaps if there are more eyes on the discussion and more editors getting involved in the page, it might be possible to move forward slowly? GirthSummit (blether) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this sounds positive. There are a decent number of editors on the page currently (I think?) but more would always be welcome!Wikiditm (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Girth Summit Sorry for the confusion - I was saying I give up trying to defend myself on this page, not that I will stop editing the Linehan page. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Girth Summit my earlier ping to you didn't send, so sending again. I don't plan to stop editing the Linehan page; I meant only that I gave up trying to defend myself from the accusations here.. As I said, I received messages on my private social media days ago from someone identifying themselves as another of the page's editors and warning me to stop editing there or they would see I was banned permanently. I have not accused anyone of being the person who did it, as they refused to reveal their Wikipedia user name. I said I wouldn't be intimidated off the page, and I meant it. If I leave now, that tells whoever did it that stalking and threatening any editor who disagrees with the negative slant of the article is effective. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Lilipo25, OK, understood. I'm sorry that has happened to you, it is reprehensible behaviour to attempt to intimidate somebody off-wiki. Please be aware that there are steps you can take to report that sort of thing privately, these are outlined at WP:Harassment. If you are going to continue to engage on the talk page, please be sure to keep your comments focussed on the content that is under dispute, and avoid commenting on what you perceive other editors' motives to be. GirthSummit (blether) 13:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Girth Summit, I thank you for your comments. You have been kind, so this isn't aimed at you and I know I probably shouldn't say it at all but I'm going to anyway because it should be said somewhere: there have been a great many tactics recycled from Gamer Gate (gaslighting, tagteaming, men pretending they just can't understand women's arguments at all, etc.) still in use on Wikipedia, and I wish that there was some recognition of that instead of just telling us to be nicer. It has been exceedingly difficult for female editors on Wikipedia to make any headway whatsoever even on articles that concern women's rights or its supporters, as we are constantly told that we must be more accommodating and deferential to the perspective of others, while they must never be expected to consider the perspective of women on women's issues because that means women aren't being inclusive. Being scolded and treated like you're crazy by a group of men who just ignore your facts and point of view and revert any edit you make can be maddening, but speaking too harshly in reply means more gaslighting, scolding and reporting while they throw their hands up in the air and act like they just can't understand why you aren't being nicer. We are badly outnumbered and more so all the time and it is beyond disheartening. It is incredibly hard not to join most of the other women editors and just quit.Lilipo25 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Lilipo25, just to be clear, I didn't know until just now that you were a woman - I see that you have declared that on your userpage, I'm afraid I hadn't looked at that. I don't know the gender of any of the other people participating in this discussion. If I have given the impression of scolding you and telling you to be nicer, I hope you can believe that I wasn't doing that because you are a woman. I do appreciate your frustration, but I do think that if everyone made a determined effort to stay focussed on the content, discussions would be less unpleasant all round. GirthSummit (blether) 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Girth Summit You didn't at all give that impression. As I said, it wasn't aimed at you. The complainant has continued this same behavior on this page for nearly 24 hours now, though, without being told to stop by anyone. It's the same thing women deal with on the Linehan page (and others) constantly from him and other male editors and that leads to finally snapping back, even though we know that's exactly what it's designed to get us to do: extreme gaslighting, first proclaiming to everyone they can that we've made false accusations we haven't, followed by impassioned pleas to us to "Please stop!" what we haven't even done and sorrowful declarations to each other that 'nothing can be done', then when we try to say that we never said that at all, pretending to misunderstand again and replying to something else we haven't said and arguing that, then shaking their heads and pretending we're just crazy and they just can't understand what we want at all, if only we'd just say what the problem is, and then starting all over. It's the Gamer Gate Playbook, designed for men to bully women off a site/out of a group while skating clear of any violations themselves. And it would be great if admins would begin to recognize its use, because it's both very vicious and very effective. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was an unexpected turn, for sure. I guess for the record, I should say that I'm not a man? I also didn't know that Lilipo25 was a woman, which is why I used "they" to refer to her previously. My complaint has nothing to do with gender though, and is entirely to do with conduct.Wikiditm (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I've been so careful to use the neutral "they" for so long just in case and I didn't realize I hadn't in that comment. I tried to fix it so you wouldn't feel misgendered, but NewImpartial put it back. Mea culpa. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added strikethrough to reflect your intent, per the guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (I have no idea how to do proper indenting when there's a mix of asterisks and colons being used. This is a reply to Lilipo's comment of 15:49). Wow. I'm... at a loss. I don't think I've ever edited anything related to Gamergate. I don't think I've ever revealed my gender on here, but I could well be wrong about that. If I had edited anything related to gamergate, I'd hope that - like on the Lenihan article - my contributions would be WP:DUE, verifiable to reliable sources, and would satisfy WP:NPOV. When I am accused of bias on here, it's generally me being accused of left-wing liberal bias. Accusations such as those you've laid above - gaslighting, conversations about you, and so on, really need to be backed by diffs. I've seen one example in Lenihan-related discussion where an editor was accused of doing something they hadn't, and I supplied the diff here earlier. It was you accusing Wikidtm, so... I guess there's that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment from my perspective, there are three, quite distinct, issues:
    • Harassment, especially off-wiki harassment, is a serious matter, and should be handled according to the procedure set out at WP:Harassment.
    • We all need to try to be WP:CIVIL; inpugning the motives of others, unfounded accusations of stalking, and accusing others of uncivil behaviour without the support of diffs are all serious violations of civility.
    • The main issue I see specific to Lilipo25's edit history (not limited to my interactions with them) is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, seemingly originating in a failure to recognize the perspectives of others and resulting in a strong conviction that they have a uniquely correct take on article NPOV and the correllary belief that editors who disagree with them are motivated by bias, along with an unwillingness to accept consensus in talk page discussions.
    • My preference under these circumstances would be for Lilipo25 to have additional opportunities to practice taking the perspectives of others and to learn to contribute constructively to WP. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have to take issue with "uniquely" - the talk page shows plenty of us agree with Lilipo25 but gave up after being harangued by edit-warring ideologues. The rest of your comment is opinion-based and resembles pretty much what you are accusing Lilipo25 of! Namely incivility not backed by any diffs. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am careful when (rarely) I refer to the actions of specific editors and when (more often) I make comments of general application, and would advise you to do the same. The only specific comment I have made here about Lilipo25 concerns BATTLEGROUND tendencies, which I think are illustrated well enough here at ANI. If it is necessary to provide additional diffs, however, I could certainly oblige.
        • As far as the number of editors supporting Lilipo25's positions is concerned, I know it can be more than one editor at a time, but the number of supporters and opponents doesn't seem to affect their own sense of self-certainty. Your own position hasn't been expressed on the Talk page since the middle of last year, so I'm not sure how germane that is to the most recent discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a diff is needed about BATTLEGROUND escalation and inCIVILity, I propose this diff, which says It's the same thing women deal with on the Linehan page (and others) constantly from him and other male editors and that leads to finally snapping back, even though we know that's exactly what it's designed to get us to do: extreme gaslighting, first proclaiming to everyone they can that we've made false accusations we haven't, followed by impassioned pleas to us to "Please stop!" what we haven't even done and sorrowful declarations to each other that 'nothing can be done', then when we try to say that we never said that at all, pretending to misunderstand again and replying to something else we haven't said and arguing that, then shaking their heads and pretending we're just crazy and they just can't understand what we want at all, if only we'd just say what the problem is, and then starting all over. Lilipo25's willingness to say this about the behaviour of editors on the Linehan page - who were mostly not men and none of whom have engaged in any "gaslighting" that I can see - is a perfect example of why this editor has to stop making such distorting, hostile, and unCIVIL assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that Lilipo25 is refactoring their comments. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first I've heard of refactoring. I wasn't aware we couldn't edit our own comments and didn't want Wikiditm to feel misgendered. Sorry, won't happen again. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • NewImpartial, I tried to not even respond to your attacks on me here because I know from experience that you will just keep escalating, even following me to other pages, but you just kept escalating against me anyway even when I didn't even respond to you at all! Let me just say that I'm not sure you want to make this a battle of the BATTLEGROUND escalation diffs (or of undeserved 'self-certainty', for that matter), because you have at least as many as I do that could be added here. I would prefer not to have to deal with more of this from you at all, thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your response here to my (rather mild) commentary on your lengthy diff rather illustrated my point, I should think. That is a lot of BATTLE in your fairly terse quip. And I don't think I've escalated in responding to you, even once. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1RR Proposal

    • I propose a one revert rule on the article for 3 months. One revert, per editor, per day to encourage discussion.--v/r - TP 16:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely support this, though I don't know how often this rule is "broken" currently (it is a relatively slow-moving article). I also fear the issue around the talk page being so abusive currently would remain.Wikiditm (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Indeed, it appears it would be broken not at all. The problem isn't with speed of reversion. This is just a content dispute with guidelines implications, in line with Black Kite's observations. The solution lies elsewhere than XRR. --Bsherr (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a conduct dispute, not a content one. I feel if the conduct was improved then any content disputes could be adequately addressed on the talk page, but at the moment this is impossible.Wikiditm (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this is necessary, wouldn't it be easier for an uninvolved admin (can this be you User:TParis?) to just go ahead and place 1RR on the article rather than us !voting here? Unless I'm confused, this is already possible by following the WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page norms i.e. placing {{Ds/editnotice}} either for GG or BLP, and one of the purposes of having DS is to make it easier to get things under control by removing the need to establish community consensus for a restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In any case, I have given Wikiditm, Lilipo25 and Newimpartial discretionary sanctions alerts for the GG area. So 1RR aside, the discretionary sanctions process can be used for any concerns over these editors editing if it is needed in the future. As always, this alert was not issued because of any identified problems with their editing, but solely because they seemed fairly active in the article talk page recently. I did not alert Bastun the other one I identified as fairly active, since they still have an active BLP alert which seems sufficient for this article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I do? What's an active BLP alert, and how do I know I have one? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an active BLP alert, and you know you've revceived one because it's on your talk page. ‑ Iridescent 14:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best. But for clarity I mean that you meet the 'awareness' requirement under the WP:AC/DS#aware.aware system for BLP discretionary sanctions, as you were alerted within the last 12 months. (It was July 2019 IIRC.) BLP discretionary sanctions would cover the Graham Linehan article. For these others, they did not seem to meet any of the awareness criteria AFAICT. Any alerts or participation at AE were too old. I therefore gave alerts for GamerGate discretionary sanctions, as this also covers gender-related disputes or controversies and people related to it, as per the header on Talk:Graham Linehan, and also it seemed to better deal with what generally resulted in dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Forgive my confusion - that alert is in last year's talk page archive. Also, given who had placed it there, I have to confess I almost certainly didn't follow the links at the time. I'm aware of the BLP discretionary sanctions, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to agree with Bsherr that it won't make much difference if a one revert rule is put on the article, as the problem is a content dispute and not speed of revision. However, I am not strictly opposed to the rule and if an Admin thinks it will help, don't have any strenuous objections. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I also think this is a blunt tool. But can't think of a solution either. From reading in dept in the last few days I am now inclined to think both sides were acting from good faith positions, ie Wikiditm, I am now sympathetic to your views, but still with Lilipo25 overall. I wouldn't be sanctioning, but would certainly remind all that antagonism will get no one anywhere. To note I realise I am not innocent here, but stopped following Leninan on twiter about two years ago in exasperation, and now basically agree with Black Kite above. And will heed my own advice. This is a content dispute, though a fugazi if ever there was one. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also not seeing the benefit, really, of 1RR, for reasons stated above. This is a content dispute, but there hasn't been multiple quick reversions. If Lilipo25 is willing to accept that coverage of the subject's anti-transgender activism is warranted, that we can cover what is reported in multiple reliable sources, and that pinknews is not regarded by the community as an unreliable source, then I think we can just move on? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I'm more than happy to move on, but I have not stated anywhere that I believe PinkNews is regarded by the community as a reliable source (I'm not really sure why any of this belongs here in a comment about a possible 1RR, but I guess this is where I should respond?). I'm afraid that I cannot state that, since the reliability of PinkNews was in fact discussed just last month on the Reliable Sources page without any of us who edit the Linehan page participating, and the conclusion of the community was that it is unreliable "for anything except direct quotes of living people who have self-identified their sexual preference" (Redacted) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_292 (link replaced, see below), which would make it an unreliable source for most of the Linehan article where it is used.
    I also have not stated that I believe Linehan's views should be called "anti-transgender activism" by Wikipedia, as this is a very subjective characterization, although of course I agree that his views on this issue should be covered in the article, if not given the preponderance of weight over the rest of his life and career.Lilipo25 (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, first, I'd be grateful if you didn't use easter egg links to be bring me off Wikipedia to an unsecure external site. I have no clue who or what the domain "nd.ax" is and have no desire to accidentally end up on a site that looks like WP but isn't. We have a perfectly functioning archive right here. Second, I've re-checked the WP:RSPSOURCES page and you're correct, PinkNews has been listed as "Generally unreliable" since 8 May. It was not so listed when you were insisting on the Linehan talk page a couple of weeks ago that it couldn't be used, or last year when you were saying that it promoted rape of lesbians. It's there now, though, so I therefore withdraw the request that you accept its use on the article. That said, I don't think it's currently used for anything on the article that is especially controversial, isn't a direct quote, or that can't be replaced over time. Thirdly, I didn't ask you to state anything, and didn't claim you did, I'm just requesting that you accept others can include such material. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UT
          • I do not know what an "easter egg link" is and as far as I was aware, I was in the Wikipedia archive, but if I somehow linked it incorrectly, I apologize. PinkNews has always been an extremely unreliable source, whether that was added five years or five minutes ago, and I stand by the opinion of it that I have always had and which has now been agreed with by the community. And I am afraid that I'm not going to be able to agree with your opinion on biased language like "anti-transgender activism" in a BLP article, either. Sorry. I don't think it's required that either of us acquiesce to the other's point of view here in order to move on, which is good, because I can't see it happening. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • People who agitate against the recognition or rights of transgender people are engaged in anti-transgender activism. To say so is purely descriptive and is not "biased language" so long as it is documented in reliable sources. What I have just stated is supported by broad consensus on WP - there are a set of labels that are considered contentious and to which special considerations apply, but "anti-transgender activism" is not one of them. Nor is this a matter where anyone needs to "acquiesce" to the view of those who would whitewash references to anti-transgender activism from any encyclopedia that is supposed to be WP:NOTCENSORED. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards the alternative to this which is posted sometimes, I view "anti-transgender controversy" as possibly being biased against Linehan, unnecessarily highlighting the fact that his actions here are highly controversial. He has consistently spoken out on this topic, pushing a certain viewpoint, and so is definitely an activist though. This wording is also up against wordings with clear value judgments such as "transphobia," and wordings which make it appear like Linehan himself is transgender, such as "transgender controversy." I think among all options, the current one is clearly the best. It is unbiased, accurate, and difficult to misinterpret. This is a content issue though - if someone has issue with the wording they should post as such in the talk page.Wikiditm (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • From his point of view and that of those who agree with him, he is not agitating against any rights for transgender people at all, but advocating for the rights of women to have fair competition in their sports and the rights of women and girls to single-sex spaces like locker rooms, etc. Everyone is free to disagree with him and as this is a highly controversial issue, many do, but calling it "Anti-Transgender activism" is choosing a side; using a neutral subject heading like "Transgender Controversy" (no one has ever advocated for "Anti-Transgender Controversy", as far as I can recall) is not censorship. It is WP:NPOV.The same problem exists with calling the lesbian activists at Pride "anti-transgender activists": from their point of view, they were advocating for lesbian's rights. It simply isn't up to Wikipedia to take sides in the issue: neutral language should be used. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have converted/replaced the link that was directed at wikipedia.nd .ax/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_292 (a wikipedia mirror) into an internal link. I consider this justified under WP:TPO as the link to wikipedia.nd.ax is potentially harmful as confused editors may try to login there and I have no idea if they are storing login credentials, and per the above discussion the intent was to link here rather than to wikipedia.nd.ax. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Nil Einne. Sorry about the mistake: I didn't know about Wikipedia mirrors. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Nil Einne. Apology accepted, Lilipo25. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just so that we are clear, we do not impose WP:FALSEBALANCE on Wikipedia. If the most reliable sources describe "Anti-Transgender activism" then that is what Wikipedia says, even if a BLP subject describes themselves differently, just as we describe "white supremacists" as such and not according the terms many of them prefer, "white nationalist" or "race realist". Nor do we take the POV of the small minority who hold the FRINGE view - in disagreement with most RS, most women and most feminist organizations - that trans women are somehow not women and that the exclusion of trans women from women's spaces and organizations protects women in some poorly defined way. Certainly there are individuals - mostly on the right and far right of the political spectrum - who hold this FRINGE view, and WP certainly reports the views of anti-trans activists when RS do so - but we do not impose FALSEBALANCE on these topics. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And we are back to the same debate: editors imposing their own views and declaring anyone who disagrees to be FRINGE and equivalent to "white supremacists". Sigh. As I have said, this is a highly controversial and hotly debated topic. I realize that people on both sides have strong opinions on it. But it is not Wikipedia's job to choose one side and cast the other in a negative light. There are indeed many reliable sources that support Linehan's views as being pro-women's and lesbian's rights. Please note that UK newspapers including the Times, the Guardian, the Spectator and the Scotsman have all published editorials which state views on the issue which agree with his - it is unlikely that any of those newspapers would ever post an editorial supporting white supremacy. Only using sources that disagree with him does not make his views FRINGE. My own view is simple: I support including those who disagree with him in the article as long as they are WP:RS. I also support including those who agree, with the same caveat. And Wikipedia needs to use impartial and unbiased language, particularly in a BLP.Lilipo25 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Le sigh, indeed. Have you actually read WP:FALSEBALANCE? When eight people protest against transgender people participating in a Pride march of thousands, and receive equal coverage, that is WP:FALSEBALANCE. TERF activism such as Linehan's is newsworthy, has been commented on by multiple reliable mainstream news sources, including some of the publishers you list, and is covered in a reasonably balanced and NPOV manner in his bio. If you're unwilling to accept that, as appears to be the case, then what? Do we look at a topic ban? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Once again, you completely misrepresent my view. I have stated repeatedly that I think his views on this topic SHOULD be included in the article and that those who disagree with him SHOULD be represented as long as they are WP:RS, but you suggest that I am advocating that they are not newsworthy and should not be in there at all. That is the opposite of what I said. I believe that BOTH sides should be represented in a fair and impartial manner with neutral language. Declaring the side we disagree with to be the equivalent of white supremacy is not helpful to the debate.Lilipo25 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Also, I did not suggest that the lesbian protesters should receive "equal coverage" anywhere, but stating that they were there "protesting against transgender people" is the same bias: from their point of view and those who support that view, they were protesting lesbian erasure. Our personal views on it are not relevant: if they are going to be included in the article, they must be referred to using WP:NPOV language. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Please note that UK newspapers including the Times, the Guardian, the Spectator and the Scotsman have all published editorials which state views on the issue which agree with his I know that you didn't answer my question on reliable sources above, but I would be interested to read the Times, Guardian and Scotsman editorials, could you link to them? Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I was not aware that you had asked me anything before but looking back through this section, I see that you did ask me a question some days back and I apologize for missing it in the general melee. As for UK newspaper editorials that agree with various views on this issue expressed by Linehan that have been condemned as 'transphobia' by those who disagree with him, I can give you a few of them but don't have the time to do extensive research (I should note, however, that I was mistaken about the Scotsman - It was the Herald Scotland that ran the editorial I was thinking of). I'm sure I'm not linking them properly, but here are some:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/as-a-trans-labour-party-supporter-i-m-exasperated-a4362306.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/02/women-must-have-the-right-to-organise-we-will-not-be-silenced

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/questioning-gender-self-id-is-not-heresy-8qlqlgf7f

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/16997263.iain-macwhirter-transgender-rights-great-but-dont-tell-women-what-makes-a-woman-they-were-born-that-way/https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18279092.iain-macwhirter-nicola-sturgeon-must-defend-womens-rights-lose-next-election/

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-march-of-trans-rights

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-are-women-who-discuss-gender-getting-bomb-threats- Lilipo25 (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • As you can see, the views expressed by Linehan that editors are equating to white supremacy (supporting Woman's Place UK, arguing against self-ID and reforming the GRA and against puberty blockers for children, etc) have also been expressed by major newspapers and reliable sources in the UK over the past few years. This indicates that these views cannot just be dismissed as WP:FRINGE, whether we agree with them personally or not. It is also incorrect for editors to state that only those on the "right and far-right of the political spectrum" hold those views - certainly, neither Suzanne Moore nor Debbie Hayton, who wrote two of the editorials above, fit that description - although even if it were a view held only by conservatives, that wouldn't qualify it as FRINGE.
    To be clear, the opposing views have of course also been expressed by UK newspapers. The issue is controversial and contentious and there is much passionate debate from both sides, but as I have stated all along, it is simply not Wikipedia editors' job to take one side of the issue and declare the other FRINGE undeserving of WP:NPOV according to WP:FALSEBALANCE. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (completely uninvolved nonadmin outside view) The Suzanne Moore opinion piece [26] says they were uncomfortable with people being able to self-declare as a man or a woman – whatever their biological sex. This is what is causing this very bitter controversy and division in the gay community and feminist movement, the quite recent orthodoxy in certain circles that being a woman, or a man, has nothing to do with biology, it is purely a matter of self-identification. "Trans woman" is now used by large numbers of activists to include people who are purely biologically male, have male sex organs, male hormones, have not undergone any medical transition from male to female and may not plan to do so. By declaring they self-identify as women, it is argued, they are women and it is insisted with vehemence that everyone must accept that and that these purely biological males are women as much as any other woman and therefore must be admitted to women only spaces. Some feminists, lesbians and others including gay and straight men insist with equal passion that they don't accept that and are not going to. I don't know if it would help in the articles involving this issue to clarify that it is actually the"self-declare" idea that is being argued about. Just a suggestion from an outsider, I do not plan to get involved in editing articles on the matter.Smeat75 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I have not, as Lilopo25 suggested above, equated anti-Trans activists to White supremacists. What I said was that WP uses the correct NPOV terms for controversial political movements rather than referring to the labels preferred by the protagonists of those movements. White supremacists are not, by NPOV, to be referred to as "white nationalists" in Wikivoice, and anti-trans activists are not to be referred to as whatever Linehan's expressed personal label would be.
    I would also point out that, by and large, Lilipo25 has assembled a large number of UK newspaper op-eds offering varying degrees of support for trans-exclusionary positions. For WP editors,op-eds are only RS for the opinions of the individuals signing them. They do not reflect the viewpoints of the news outlets publishing them, nor are they reliable sources on the topics they discuss. Newspapers worldwide have published lots of OP-eds disputing the global consensus on climate change, promoting various conspiracy theories and endorsing FRINGE Gamergate and incel positions in the culture wars. No number of op-eds will make the "deep state" or "cultural Marxist" conspiracy theories either (a) true or (b) other than FRINGE, and the same is true for the exclusion of Trans women.
    My own view is that Smeat75 is introducing a red herring here (following perhaps some of the op-eds), because none of the recent wave of legal protections for Trans people or feminist organizing to include Trans women in "women's spaces" has been promoting a purely nominal self-declaration as the relevant criterion for gender identity. This is a straw man, introduced by fellow travellers with the far right to ignite bathroom pogroms and other such shenanigans, IMO. The secular state and the feminist establishment have simply never endorsed this largely imaginary version of "inclusion". Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, what you personally consider to be the "correct" terms is a matter of opinion. For example, many (possibly even most) people would consider the expression "bathroom pogroms", which you just used, to be offensive: using a word that has historically been used to describe the organized massacre of Jews to describe the idea of separating bathrooms by biological sex could certainly be seen as stunningly insensitive.
    The "feminist establishment" is sharply divided on this issue and there is no widespread agreement among feminists, despite your continued claim that there is. Your statement that the views of Linehan and many others (who include among their numbers academics, doctors and scientists) are FRINGE and therefore uncovered by WP:NPOV, remains opinion and not fact. The Linehan article contains a number of opinions criticizing his views; allowing those while excluding the support of those who agree with him on the basis that their agreement makes them FRINGE is simply bias, and exactly what we should be avoiding in an encyclopedia article. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure, Lilipo25, that you are really cognizant of what counts as a matter of "opinion". Obviously in using the expression "bathroom pogroms" I am being deliberately provocative, though the death rates among Trans people within transphobic populations have certainly run parallel to death rates among Jews within antisemitic populations, and the intention to exclude trans women from women's spaces on the basis of imagined biology is not essentially any different from excluding Jews from "white" spaces on the basis of imagined biology, from a logical point of view. But I digress - and what is more, I recognize that I am expressing an opinion; to add any of what I just wrote to an article would be OR and not allowed.
    On the other hand, we have the views of mainstream LGBTQ and feminist organizations, of mainstream journalism, of academic institutions and of OECD governments. It is not "my opinion" that the consensus view agrees that Trans women are women and that gender identity is "real" - it is the view of essentially all relevant academic specialties and the vast majority of Western governments and feminist organizations. This is sourced. (There are holdouts, notably among US state governments and UK newspapers, but they are clearly minoritatian.) What makes "gender skepticism" FRINGE is not that I happen to disagree with that position (hell, I disagree with Capitalism, and on that point I myself am FRINGE), but that "gender skeptics" are in disagreement with consensus reality and essentially all relevant authorities. Similar to the "gender skeptics", you can amass sources that dissent from the scientific consensus on climate change - but like the flat earthers, their views are FRINGE and, like the flat earthers, they are a loose coalition of Christian fundamentalists, libertarians, far right activists and other ideosyncrats. Op-eds, in whatever number, cannot make any of these positions less FRINGE for WP purposes unless consensus reality itself were to change. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, stating that "the intention to exclude trans women from women's spaces on the basis of imagined biology is not essentially any different" from the pogroms (which were not a matter of "excluding Jews from white spaces on the basis of imagined biology" as you describe them, but were in fact 150 years of the cossacks and other military rounding up millions of Jews, burning down their homes, raping the women, beating the men and murdering them by the hundreds of thousands in an effort to exterminate and eliminate them from Eastern Europe) and then saying that your "bathroom pogroms" expression is merely "provocative" and a "logical point of view", is so deeply offensive that even having to point out how wrong it is makes me feel ill. I cannot debate this with you. I won't. Moving on.
    Nor is there much point in continuing to list the academics, scientists, doctors and feminists (who number many) who agree with Linehan's views in an attempt to prove that they are not the tiny minority you claim, nor are they merely a "loose collection of Christian fundamentalists, far right activists, etc". Your opinion is clear. You consider it fact. I continue to feel that it is not the editors' business to impose our opinions on articles, but to maintain impartiality. We are getting nowhere. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, Lilipo25, that pogroms were not simply exercises in "exclusion from white spaces", nor did I suggest that they were. But if you find attempts to kill, rape and eliminate Jews a matter of deep moral outrage, while attempts to kill, rape and eliminate trans people are of no consequence, then you are right that we have reached a point at which reasoned discourse is no longer possible.
    As far as NPOV is concerned, the difference between us is simply that I understand that WP needs to follow the best of the independent RS to achieve NPOV, while you prefer to edit towards your own POV and to defer your the self-descriptions of BLP subjects (diffs available on request). Which is a policy matter, not a difference "of opinion". Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    New Impartial: I have not, at any time, in any manner, stated or suggested that I in any way find "attempts to kill, rape and eliminate trans people [to be] of no consequence", and that is yet another deeply offensive fabrication. At no time have I made any statement at all on any crimes against any transgender people.
    In addition, you did indeed define the pogroms in precisely the terms I stated above while defending your use of the term "bathroom pogroms" to describe those who want single-sex spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms: the intention to exclude trans women from women's spaces on the basis of imagined biology is not essentially any different from excluding Jews from "white" spaces on the basis of imagined biology.
    You have brought the discourse in this debate to a level that is neither constructive nor civil. As nothing is being accomplished in our continued debate over the content of the article except for you making false accusations that I then have to defend myself against, I would suggest that we should just let the admins make a ruling on this complaint and move on. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me.

    And by creating the expression "bathroom pogroms" I have not thereby said that excluding trans women from bathrooms is somehow the same as excluding Jewish people from Poland. You can allege that, but it isn't what I am saying. I am pointing out, however, that (a) both operations are coercive, (b) both cloak themselves in imaginary "science" and (c) both motivate followers by conjuring up fear of a demonized other. I'm not asking you to agree with this term (that I just made up), and be offended if you like, but please don't make unfounded accusations against me and I will continue to grant you the same courtesy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbelievable. "You object to me using the 150-year-long campaign to exterminate Jews as a comparison for single-sex bathrooms? How dare you say that the rape and murder of trans people is of no consequence! Oh, you didn't say anything about the rape and murder of trans people? AHA! THAT PROVES MY POINT EXACTLY! If you cared, you would have!"
    The gaslighting would be comical at this point, if only it weren't so utterly exasperating, and the subject so horrible. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit If you feel I should be sanctioned over this complaint, please do so. I can't keep defending myself forever against the same people from the Linehan page and this is exhausting. I have argued for the article to use impartial NPOV language, and I have shown why I think that's right and I don't know what else to say. We are going in circles, and nothing is being accomplished. There is no way to make my point when someone accuses me of wanting trans people raped and murdered because I didn't say anything about trans people being raped and murdered in a discussion that had nothing to do with crimes against trans people. Whatever you want to do, I'll accept it. I just need this to end already, please. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure "gaslighting" means what you think it does, Lilipo25. Normally gaslighting occurs when the gaslighter says something happened that didn't happen, or that something didn't happen that happened, or mischaracterized things in some deeply hurtful way.
    I of course recognize that antisemitism was a cancerous, hateful well in Europe and that one expression of that, over more than 150 years, was "pogroms". I do not in any way suggest that the harm that has come to trans people over the last 25, or 50, or 500 years consists importantly of rioting, rape or public execution (though the rapes have been fairly important). And as I already said, you are entirely free to object to my borrowing a term among those two phenomena. (In fact, were you to insist that I had denied your right to object to the comparison, you would be "gaslighting" me. You see how that works?)
    At the same time, you have had many opportunities to recognize that the category of Trans people includes many who are vulnerable and historically marginalized, that campaigns for Trans rights are in part a response to violence and discrimination against Trans people, or even that campaigns to limit Trans rights can have (presumably unintended) effects that harm Trans people. You can recognize those things, and still see 'gender identity' as an ideology or see lesbians as in danger of erasure by Trans women. But you opt not to recognize any of those things, so Occam's razor suggests that you do not deem those matters either relevant or consequential. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is division, absolutely. But it is far from an equal division. Trans-exclusionary feminists are a small minority of feminists. This is not the place to debate the numbers, though the argument being made above is illustrative of the problem on the article. I agree with Newimpartial that a strawman is being introduced above. Linehan's activism as outlined in his BLP takes in a lot more than just opposition to self-identification. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, opinion declared as fact. I agree this is not the place to debate the numbers. We are getting nowhere, and could continue this for months while coming no closer to an agreement. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidently this is a content dispute. Sure, there's been flack flying in both directions but if anything the target of this dubious report has been more sinned against than sinning. I've been dragged to ANI a handful of times in the past, sometimes deservedly and sometimes I've wriggled off the hook, so I've got a decent handle on where the bar is set. There is nothing 'actionable' here, it is a storm in a teacup. Maybe a slightly underhand tactic to try and break the impasse on the talk page? I know it's frustrating when you get these sorts of intractable deadlocks, but all the same it's not what ANI is for. Hopefully if nothing else this report will get some more eyes on the talk page. It would be good to have some wikipedians there, instead of wokesters or activists looking to disparage the article subject! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a conduct dispute, not a content dispute. Many examples of the conduct in question were given above. When a member is continually behaving in this fashion, then it is worth ANI.Wikiditm (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm responding here because I was pinged a few posted up by Lilipo25. To answer her question directly - no, I don't think that her arguing her position deserves a sanction. I haven't been following this thread as it has developed, but from skimming it now, I'll make a few observations, and a suggestion.
    • This is not the place to determine the rights and wrongs of the actual issue. I don't just mean that ANI isn't, I mean that Wikipedia isn't. We have a diverse community of editors, and you have to expect to be working with people who disagree with you - sometimes about issues that are important to you.
    • In terms of conduct, I repeat my earlier observation that this is a tense discussion. If Lilipo25 has put a foot over the line in the past by commenting on contributors rather than content, I have to say that she has been the target of some rather unsavoury forms of opposition above. It's never nice to put words into someone else's mouth - unless someone has actually said that they think that the rape and murder of trans people is of no consequence (which I would indef anyone for saying on the spot), then implying that different things they have said equates to that is rather a low blow, rhetorically speaking.
    • TBH, I think this boils down to a content dispute, which has reached something of an impasse. I wonder whether an RfC might be a way forward? Knock up some drafts of how each of you think that the section ought to be worded and referenced, and then allow consensus to decide which one is chosen.
    I'd be interested to know how each of you think that sounds as a possible way forward. I am not an RfC expert - I've participated in a few, but never actually started one - but I imagine we could enlist an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to help frame the way it should be worded and to help put it together. GirthSummit (blether) 18:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never done an Rfc before, but looking it up, it appears that we would each write the section the way we think it should be and then let the community decide, and that sounds fine by me. Anything to end this.Lilipo25 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm being asked, my sense is that the recurring issue isn't really about the Linehan page, but about how Anti-Trans activists (and activism) should be discussed on Wikipedia. There have been RfCs and CfD discussions that have resulted in fairly clear (and limiting) restrictions on how the term TERF can be used, which isn't where I would have drawn the line but which I certainly respect as an outcome - and that clear outcome has saved some ink spilled for the project, for sure. Perhaps something on NPOVN or something about the term "Anti-transgender activism", to delineate circumstances where it makes sense to use the term in Wikivoice, using this case as an example? Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, you're using the Linehan article to carry on a proxy war over perceived injustices to do with wider 'transsexual' issues. All becomes clear as to your motives/agenda here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, I have no objection to that. As far as I'm concerned, opening this out to a wider audience and getting some fresh perspectives on a dispute like this can only be a good thing. GirthSummit (blether) 18:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit Am I correct that the conduct aspect of this ANI has been ruled upon and we are going to move forward with Wikiditm and I each writing a version of the section of the Linehan article that is in dispute? I will write one up tomorrow if that's what we're doing, in an effort to resolve this. I am not interested in participating any further in debate over this article beyond that, as I feel there's nothing more to say at this point that hasn't already been said a dozen times and the discussion, in particular between New Impartial and me, does seem to have eroded well below the threshold where it is likely to prove at all fruitful. I have other articles to work on, including an original one I am attempting to finish, and would rather put my efforts there for now, as it is significantly less stressful. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo25, as far as I'm concerned, yes - I see no need to sanction anybody at this point, or for this thread to continue. Discussion of the content of the article should continue on the relevant talk page - if you were to write a draft of what you think the section should say, that could be proposed as an alternative wording in an RfC. Everyone should observe normal civility rules going forward - no more casting aspersions about other people's intentions, putting words into other peoples' mouths, etc., please. GirthSummit (blether) 10:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This ANI is a conduct dispute. See the numerous quotes I gave above, diffs that another user gave, or indeed conduct in this thread. I don't feel that someone being the recipient of incivility gives them a free pass to incivility themselves from then on.Wikiditm (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you keep saying. With all due respect we're experienced editors and know an over spill from a mundane content dispute when we see one. These claims of non-specific bullying are considered desperado tactics here at ANI. It's a bit like shouting "burn the witch!": swallow the accusations and sink or if you float we'll portray you as argumentative and you'll burn. Yawn. What do you expect Lilipo25 to do? Shut up and go away? How convenient that would be. It feels like you're trying to dominate and control this discussion, maybe dial it down a notch or we'll end with a WP:BOOMERANG situation, which none of us want to see. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that this is non-specific. Many specific examples have been given. Indeed, there are more in this thread, such as the gamergate comments above, and the immediate accusations of bias in response to good faith discussion. In terms of what I want, I don't want sanctions or for the user to go away. I want them to act with civility, and in the spirit of cooperation. This means comments should be focused on content, not contributors, and not in a hostile fashion. This isn't unreasonable, controlling, or dominating. It's what is needed in order for the relevant sections to become productive and pleasant.Wikiditm (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute ultimately boils down to a disagreement over how to describe Linehan's stance. Once we establish that (via RFC), then any further attempts to push a contrary view will become a conduct issue that ANI can handle. Right now though, it's a dispute where both sides have made valid arguments. I know which one I agree with, but that doesn't make it a conduct issue yet. 15:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

    Grudge by Admin User:Buckshot06

    This is a content dispute by two editors. That one of them is an admin has no bearing on the dispute. Please attempt to resolve on the article talk page, or failing that, launch any dispute resolution request you see fit. Thanks, Bison X, for the cogent summary. El_C 17:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum upon further consideration, I think Buckshot06 needs to limit themselves to noticeboards with regards to any claims of misconduct on the part of Mztourist. They are free to participate in content-related discussions with or involving them, but are cautioned against drive-by accusations. These should be avoided. El_C 11:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    By this edit: [27] User:Buckshot06 demonstrates that he continues to hold a grudge against me, presumably for this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Block and unblock of Mztourist, this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06 and this: Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam#Move of DAO section to Embassy of the United States, Saigon. Is this acceptable behaviour from an Admin? Mztourist (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou for your note, Mztourist. My 'grudge' is your repeated unwillingness to accept in any form or fashion that North Vietnamese sources are able to be reliably used for any casualties/numbers purposes, as far as I can tell, whatsoever. It was their war as well, and after 55 years I believe that at least some of what they write consitutes reliable sources.
    Yes, I believe you are unacceptably WP:OWNing the Vietnam War articles, biasing them against acceptable and reasonable use of assessments from Vietnamese sources *half a century* after the war ended; yes, I believe you're far too biased toward a very U.S.-military centric view; and yes, I will happily provide further examples of your WP:OWNing behaviour at any appropriate forum.
    The only reason why I have not filed an WP:RFC against your behaviour is that I do not have the energy to fight with you on this.
    Trust this makes my grudge or grievance against your behaviour over Vietnam War related articles clear.
    The Embassy/DAO business is closed. Reliable sources back enough of your side of the argument, though, as always anywhere, the Ambassador is the personal representative of the President and the head of the Country Team (see [28]). Buckshot06 (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow that's a very frank admission that after 2 years you continue to hold a grudge/hound me. I have said before that you are unfit to be an Admin and the diff above and your comments reconfirm that. Mztourist (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, section 15 above on this same page, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_doesn't_care_about_MOS_edits,_but_reverts_them_on_the_basis_of_being_"unnecessary_changes", regarding your WP:OWNERSHIP, has just been closed with the verdict that Mark21H was rightly frustrated with your behaviour. He and I have the exact same issue with you, something along the lines of WP:STONEWALL. This frustration both of us feel is completely legitimate given that WP operates by WP:CONSENSUS. Do you not see that? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As an Admin your behaviour should be beyond reproach, rather than trying to solicit support from MarkH21 in your grudge against me. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) There is no requirement that admins (or other users) like you. Holding a grudge is not, in any way shape or form, actionable. Bringing non-issues to ANI, however, can easily be seen as disruptive behavior, which is actionable. I strongly suggest you drop the stick. Kleuske (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that the diff, unresolved earlier ANI and User's statements above indicate a "chronic, intractable behavioral problem" and ANI is the appropriate forum. Mztourist (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to believe that. Kleuske (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kleuske: Holding a grudge is, in fact, disruptive per WP:GRUDGE and WP:HOUND. Now, I'm not at all familiar with this particular situation and have no opinion of who is in the right here, but I would caution against assuming innocence just because someone has adminststor status. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but it does happen. DarkKnight2149 17:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t want to nitpick, but those do not actually address holding grudges, but the incivility, harrassment and unwillingness to compromise resulting from it. You can hold grudges all you want, just don’t act on it. Kleuske (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)I read thru the the AN, ANI & TP links provided by the OP. The AN link (from 2018) is good background, showing Buckshot made a block that was undone and they should now consider themselves involved w/ Mztourist. The ANI link (also from 2018) is really a wash: some editors dug into Mz's background, found nothing, while nothing really came of Buckshot hounding anyone. The TP link shows two editors in a contentious debate, some changes were made, sources were requested but now they have been provided on the talk page.
    I don't see anything unbecoming of Buckshot, they seem to be showing restraint and not using the tools at all (i.e., they are acting in an editor capacity only). I see Mztourist being forward with their actions, and, as in a recent ANI, it is looked upon unfavorably. This particular instance seemed to be working itself out on the TP, no? The requested refs were provided, can the discussion continue there? If not, maybe request a WP:3O or have someone from the Wikiproject mediate. I don't see what can come from this report being on ANI right now. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I just re-visited this from the BN request, and wanted to put on record that I misread the TP time stamp of May 9 and assumed it was current; really it was May 9 of last year (2019). If I had realized that at the time, I would have thought the grudge was on the other foot, so to speak, and would have suggested a BOOMERANG close as a frivolous report. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ufology sprawling edit war

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

    The articles (that I know of) are:

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

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

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

    I object to any lengthy topic bans imposed on me. I have also been of the opinion that there might be a couple of socks in amongst us miscreants listed here. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say I feel all parties bare some blame here. So I would agree any sanction must be applied to all of them with out prejudice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should add Steven to the group of miscreants, and apply some sanctions without prejudice to him. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What? When was the last time I edited that article? Talk about tit for tat.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact my biggest crime (and I am gonna do it again) is to ask for full page protection and a reset to before this kicked off.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, you haven't been edit warring. Neither have I. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No in the sense of breaching 3RR no, but you have reverted back to a version that is contentious, that does not have consensus despite the fact the page had been locked over it. What did I do?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies I was looking at this [[29]] which was of course before the page was reset, and looks like the current version that has been edit warred back in [[30]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now what have I done?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean...this reaction by Roxy is a disgrace. Steelpillow has attempted to mediate all the time and (although we have often disagreed) he is the only participant in this mess (besides me, but WP:MRDA) that has consistently attempted to de-escalate, compromise and contribute positively to discussion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Involved comment: Thank you for opening this report Steelpillow. Your attempts at mediation have been very much appreciated. I am afraid this is beyond mediation though so I agree it was time to open a report (just look at the shameful attack by Roxy the dog above...what a disgrace).
    I think the situation is untenable and denotes a systemic issue. I have been dedicating substantial time to editing those pages and the process has been extenuating. Never had anything similar in over 10 years of editing various wiki projects. I'm afraid dealing with the incessant warring requires an unjustifiable amount of time and patience. If I wasn't in quarantine those users would just degrade those articles unabated and no other users have the maniacal patience required to deal with them. At this point I'm only occasionally editing and most of the time pushing back against constantly unsourced WP:POVPUSHing with no respect for the WP:5P.
    Those users are ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mostly), Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (never edits and just reverts and attacks) and LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (much less aggressive and reasonable than the other two users). With constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting. Almost 90% of my edits is reverted by those users. That's when I start a discussion on the talk page and mayhem ensues. Sometimes a third party arrives and is able to bring the discussion back to reason. But usually the discussion is so sprawling and filled with WP:PA that no-one bothers with it. In the mean time the page remains defaced as I consciously try to avert more warring by waiting for more editors to step in.
    Some of those user's ban logs prove they are serially unable to contribute to Wikipedia in a WP:CIVIL way. [Link to off-Wikipedia harassment of opponent removed. Gtoffoletto, have some sense, don't post links like that again. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).]. This must stop.[reply]
    There have been several recent ANI reports against those users: [31] [32]
    I have raised those issues myself once already and asked for admin advice/help on how to handle this. I was blocked for WP:FORUMSHOPping and asked to never ask for help regarding those users again [33]. I've tried collaborating with those users but I believe it is impossible.
    Honestly I could go on for hours as this is spectacularly widespread and documented but I think I've made my case. If more is needed just ask and I will provide it.
    A couple more pages that show this unstoppable tendency to turn wikipedia into a WP:BATTLE (this list could be much longer):
    This is a colossal waste of time and effort by multiple editors and is degrading the encyclopedia. The discussions are never regarding sources. This is always just a revert competition with no respect for others and guidelines at all. Some Admin must unfortunately take the time to review in depth this situation. It is the only way to fix this once and for all. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see one editor was a sockpuppet. I would recommend using whatever tools admins have to verify all users in this discussion. Some of them have been accused of "sockpuppeteering" in the past and their alignment in space-time across wiki is highly suspect to me (just a hunch). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose SPI is not a fishing expedition, and while there may be an element of tag teaming it is only to the degree of users who agree on certain topics will tend to edit the same way (as Ironically me and guy are at the moment on certain topics).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gtoffoletto: Thank you for the additional page links. Unfortunately, being for the most part reasonable is no excuse for warring behaviour on the articles themselves. My suggestion of a temporary topic ban is so that you can cool down and reflect on that lesson, I have no wish to see you disappear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Nimitz and TR articles are very close to hoaxes. There were no "incidents", just three videos (called "Gimbal", "Go fast", and "FLIR") from airplane radars. The History channel got a hold of them in 2017 and made one of those stupid TV specials with retired pilots saying silly things like "There is no known aircraft that can stay aloft without generating a heat signature" (uhh it's called a helium balloon duh). The videos that purport to show "unexplained" phenomenon have all been very well explained years ago. Now that the Navy has "officially" released the videos in 2020, interest is renewed. This is a topic where we need to be careful to stick to real science sources and avoid pop science and primary sources. As it is now, these articles come dangerously close to perpetuating a hoax. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Levivich and am very tempted to topic ban Gtoffoletto from all UFO-related articles for persistent tendentious editing. AFAICS, jps is defending real science, while Roxy only seems marginally involved in these wars — not sure why he's listed above, unless I've missed something. Also, Gtoffoletto, linking to ANI reports on your opponents, and even to off-Wikipedia attacks on them (!), as you do above, does not show you in a shining light. Are you aware that anybody can open an ANI report? Everybody who edits controversial articles, and everybody who has been here a long time, is likely to have some ANI reports against them. Both the discussions of Roxy that you link to [34][35] were quickly closed without action, one of them with the comment that the report "was an astoundingly bad idea". Please don't poison the well with such stuff. It won't work. Bishonen | tålk 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Bishonen, regarding applying a topic ban to Gtoffoletto — I was thinking the same thing. Too much pro-WP:FRINGE promotion, to say the least. El_C 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I unfortunately must agree with El_C and Bishonen that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO topics, broadly construed, is likely in order. Such a topic ban would prevent both continued disruption on the listed pages and, if this "style" of editing was to continue, harsher sanctions. This editor has consistently displayed a clear pro-fringe WP:CPP, as mentioned elsewhere in this report a lack of WP:AGF, and it has all come with a strong dose of WP:BLUDGEON (for example, here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of hours ago I thought I'd edited here to agree that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO related topics is a good idea. Unfortunately something happened and all that I left was an edit summary (and I presume a space or it wouldn't have saved at all). Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting possible paranormal or extraterrestrial activity may be at work? Maybe a government coverup? EEng 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually governmental activity and an extraterrestrial coverup. Or is that a distinction without a difference?) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    • Levivich and others you are all invited to edit those pages. I understand some of you don't like those topics. But those pages are not my opinions. My opinions are irrelevant as well as yours. We only report sources. And I am very careful in my sourcing given the delicate topic. If you don't like what the sources say that's not my problem. I am not perfect and sometimes the sources I present are disputed. That's how wikipedia works. If the sources I use are not appropriate you are invited to dispute them in a civil way. Saying those pages are "hoaxes" is your opinion and that is also irrelevant to wikipedia. I have personally started and written most of the Theodore Roosevelt page. It has 29 reputable sources. Please tell me which of them are not appropriate for Wikipedia and I will be the one to remove it immediately. I also would like to ask what other editors that have participated in editing those pages think regarding the fact that the "blame" for this should be placed exclusively on me Steelpillow Slatersteven and others? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I never looked before, but now that I look and I see that both these articles have one editor as a primary author, it all makes more sense how we got here. I don't want to argue the content dispute at ANI, but, just as one example, the "GOFAST" video mentioned in USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents shows a helium weather balloon. One can use the information on the video (altitude, airspeed, etc.), and do some basic trigonometry, and determine that the object on the video, despite the name "GOFAST", is actually moving at wind speed (20-40 knots), and the only reason it appears to go fast is because of parallax effect. Yet, in our article, none of this is mentioned. The words "balloon" and "parallax" aren't even in the article. The articles present the controversy without at all presenting the explanation, making it seem like these are UFOs, when they're not.
      Here are some sources explaining these three videos: [36] [37] [38] [39]
      These two articles should be merged into one, because they are not reported in RSes as two separate incidents; rather, RSes cover the three videos as one topic. I have no idea what we should name that one article ("Pentagon UFO videos"?). Then they need to be rewritten to remove all of the primary sources and all of the "so-and-so speculated that..." speculation reported in the popular press. And the debunking content needs to be added in. All of that is content dispute stuff to be discussed elsewhere. I will go tag the articles and start a talk page discussion. I'll leave the conduct issues to others to discuss. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Update: I've tagged both articles {{fringe}} and {{merge}} and started a discussion at Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents#Combine and rewrite to avoid fringe. Also, I find comments like "I understand some of you don't like those topics." and "You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco" un-collegial; we shouldn't speculate on other editor's motivations or knowledge. Focus on edits not editors and all that. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither "side" had (to my mind) adhered to policy and both sides have edit warred. I was not aware wP:fringe was a justification for edit warring, but nor is wp:npov (which also does not trump fringe, but then fringe does not trump it). This is a case of too may people thinking their view is the only right view. As to mergers and content discussion, this is not the place for that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Slatersteven that we should not be taking sides in a content dispute. Being right does not justify edit warring. Check out the many edits and associated discussions and you will see that ජපස has been blatantly pushing their own particular skeptical PoV on the grounds that they are an WP:EXPERT, for example writing"Speaking as someone who professionally studies UFOs and is not a ufologist", while simultaneously trying to impose overly-pedantic and faintly tortured content such as qualifying "Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)" with "...by people who believe they are worthy of study" and then trying to stick with it in the face of a clear consensus against, as in this example restoration. So please let's not go demonising or exonerating editors based on their content PoV but judge them all equally on their editorial behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit conflict: @Levivich: You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco. It's a complicated situation that requires careful review of what happened and no gut reactions. I'm sorry but hasty comments like yours without reviewing the material fully are not helpful and may be used to distort this process.
    In any case, this is not the place to discuss the article content. I welcome your sources (CNET is not much of a source but it's fine) and would gladly add them to the article. However please do not include your original research but only statements supported by sources. I also think GOFAST could be the first of the three videos to be explained. But that's irrelevant. That's how wikipedia works. Sources. Not original research. I'm glad you want to participate in editing this. I've been trying to "recruit" more editors for months. See you on the article page! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gtoffoletto, you won't if you're topic banned, which is what I am weighing right now. Some of your responses above do not inspire confidence that you understand what the problem is — that you even understand that there is a problem. Which is not a good sign. El_C 19:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment, I am very aware of Mick West's analysis and am talking with him on Metabunk on the flaws with his explanations. Please join us there if you are interested in the subject!, is concerning. Metabunk is a website where these videos have been analyzed/debunked, and Mick West is one of the leading debunkers, and is interviewed in each of the four sources I posted above. I'm not sure exactly why arguing with our sources' sources concerns me, but it just seems inappropriate for an editor to edit an article while simultaneously trying to influence the RSes that the article is based on. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I have topic banned Gtoffoletto indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to UFOs and ufology, broadly construed, with an invitation to appeal the ban in three months' time. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    This is so profoundly wrong that I won't even appeal it. I'm abandoning Wikipedia indefinitely. I have lost faith in the project. No wonder the number of users is constantly declining. What an utter disappointment. This Kangaroo court is a disgrace. I will wear this ban as a badge of honour. Goodbye. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited my page with a full statement and placed this ban as the first item. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Best of luck in your future endeavors. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Bishonen. I'm glad to have missed this but FWIW I endorse that action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Gtoffoletto: this ban is not about consensus. The sanction I placed was my own decision per the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience that you were alerted to in February.[40] You may want to reread the alert, where it is explained that "Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic." They're called discretionary because any administrator may impose them at their sole discretion. That's what I did, impose your topic ban at my discretion, not per consensus here on ANI. (If consensus had been in question, it would have been a "community sanction" instead of an ArbCom discretionary sanction, and I would have waited for a stronger and clearer consensus — for instance, waited for El C to speak more strongly.) I was indeed encouraged to see El C, Doug Weller, JoJo Anthrax, and Johnuniq agreeing with me and adding their own points (that's three admins and an experienced editor). I'm a little surprised to see you imply that I should have paid more heed to editors involved on the UFO pages (Steelpillow and Slatersteven) than to uninvolved admins/editors. Usually, at ANI, uninvolved experienced users who cast a critical eye on the situation are of more help than are the involved editors who continue their original dispute. The purpose of bringing a dispute to ANI would normally be precisely to get the benefit of those uninvolved critical eyes — not so much to see a continuation of article talkpage disagreements.
    I'm very sorry the ban has upset and hurt you, Gtoffoletto. Of course I'm not surprised — it's very natural. :-( But I felt I should do it nevertheless, to protect article quality and to protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors. That time and patience is IMO Wikipedia's most precious resource, and I've seen too many editors burn out and leave when it runs out. Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: thank you for clearing up the type of ban and for expressing your sympathy. It gives me hope for your future work on Wikipedia.
    In this case my opinion is your suggestion and application of asymmetrical punishment construes a grave injustice and reflects poorly on your judgement as an admin.
    While my opinion is easily discredited by the fact that I am the interested party I would point out that the complete lack of discussion regarding the other users' behaviour (despite the report being primarily about them - as evident by the fact that I am but one in a list of users and not the first in order) while not unexpected (quite the opposite given past events) is reason for concern.
    Although consensus was not needed you have clearly received it by several other admins and I respect that (consensus is a terrible way of handling justice. Bias is inevitable, this is why effective judicial systems have removed or abolished Jury trial, but I digress). So I would like those Admins that have expressed their opinions to state clearly and for the record that they believe the other users should not be treated equally as me and that their behaviour is above reproach.
    Also: your reconstruction of Slatersteven and Steelpillow's involvement in the discussions is incorrect and shows your continued misunderstanding of the facts at hand. Of course they shouldn't be the judges here. But they are primary witnesses in a complicated matter and for the most part have just observed the mayhem unleashed by the users, so they are as neutral an observer as we can expect here. They are also very experienced editors (they also appear on the list of most edits in the history of Wiki).
    I believe you didn't take the time to review this case appropriately, as I was afraid would have happened when I asked an admin to take the time to review in depth this situation. This story with me has been going on for months (as you and others know) but those behaviours have been documented for years. Those users are not rookies that make naive and obvious mistakes. They are very prominent and experienced users that know very well how to disguise their edit warring and POV pushing behaviour. I know you are well aware of their ban logs as some of those blocks were made/removed by you. This required a thorough review and a cool headed decision. Not a hasty and partisan judgement by admins that clearly like and support their friends.
    Your statement protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors is exactly the issue here and the reason I have now lost faith in the long term prospects of Wikipedia. It goes against Wikipedia's foundational philosophy in such an astonishing way I wonder how an admin could ever say something of the sort. It should exactly be the other way around. WP:NEWBIES should be awarded much more leeway than highly experienced editors and admins who have a responsibility to steer the project responsibly. This bias towards sanctions every time someone dares to raise an issue with an experienced users and their friends is worrisome. As I have reported, several AN/I reports have been made about those users in the last period alone. They have all been quickly dismissed. I am sure dozens would emerge if not hundreds if we reviewed the archives. Those users are damaging the project and their unconditional defence without reviewing the facts by Wikipedia's admins is a disgrace and is causing long term harm. I've never been involved in Wikipedia's conflict resolution before (in over 10 years). I hope this is an isolated case or no wonder the number of editors is declining and the project is dying.
    As always: I don't care about myself. My ego is sufficiently huge already so I don't need to be right here. I have been trying to handle the abusive behaviours of those users as best I could. I have certainly made mistakes and accept it (I totally agree with the assessment by a user above that I tend to WP:BLUDGEON the process sometimes and this doesn't help). I make mistakes. Like everyone. I've wasted my time to argue with those users in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I tried everything. I asked for help and was reprimanded and blocked for it. Apparently I still failed. No big deal. But my involvement in Wikipedia is not about me. It is driven by my belief that this project can contribute positively to the world.
    Allowing once again such active editors to continue their work unabated and emboldened by their clear support by so many admins will damage this project in the long term. Maybe it is already too late (I believe so unfortunately and hence my stament on my Wiki page). But we will see by the replies by the admins to this thread and their statements for the record regarding the other users. I hope I am wrong. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    P.s. on a final note: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.. I remember a time when this pillar of Wikipedia was important. Apparently not so much anymore. Apparently it is fine for those users to just edit articles as they see fit with their insane opinions with no sourcing since they are "defending science". Whatever that means... science is not an opinion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gtoffoletto, if I thought it fitting, I would have topic banned you myself for the reasons I outlined above. But at the event, Bishonen used her discretion to do so immediately. I can't say I disagree with that decision, but myself, I would have waited for your reply to my comment — even if the likelihood for the needed introspection on your part seemed low, as it has been absent throughout this discussion. Which again, was not a good sign, I'm sorry to say. El_C 10:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Gtoffoletto. I've received e-mails pointing out that you are violating your topic ban by continuing to attack opponents here at ANI. They're not wrong, but I have felt, so far, that you're entitled to some venting after what must have been a shock (the topic ban). After your long post above, with further attacks, I think it needs to be enough, though. You are allowed to appeal your ban, and to ask questions about how to do that. Not to vent and go on the attack any more. I strongly advise you to post any requests or questions related to an appeal on your own page, as they don't really belong on ANI. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I am not appealing the ban. I don't care that I am banned. My quarantine ends tomorrow and I don't have this much time to loose. I am proud of my work and think it is an incorrect assessment. I created one page on en.wiki USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. 70% was written by me [41] and it has resisted rigorous reviews by other users I assure you. I will watch the page and be curious of what changes will be made there in my absence. I will use that to learn how to improve my work but so far users have not edited it and the page has a B assessment. Apparently those contributions are to be avoided and are disruptive: so be it.
    But this discussion is now not about any of my work. I am not editing any page regarding the topic ban you have just imposed. I have no idea of who you are personally in contact with via email but that is worrisome (why the secrecy?). Do not attempt to frame my comments as what they are not. I am requesting that this discussion is carried out as an equal investigation of the conduct of ALL USERS involved. Not just a witch hunt against me. The report states clearly that (emphasis mine):
    Involved editors, on one or more articles, and broadly in order of aggression and deafness, are:
    Since I am now topic banned and the other users have received no attention in this discussion (on the contrary: they were praised as defenders of science) I wish to have a clear statement by the admins involved that the behaviour of the other users is justified and encouraged. This report was not about me. So until that is done this judgement is incomplete and I will follow it closely. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I suggest you step away from ANI and ignore it entirely. If you have no interest in appealing your topic ban, continued interaction here will likely be looked on as tendentious, and could result in a block. Also ANI looks into all participants, not just the ones being accused, so saying the report "wasn't about [you]" is irrelevant. Just walk away and leave it be. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These must be some frustrating articles to work on, due in no small part to shoddy and sensationalist reporting, Times and Post in particular. Nimitz was listed on the fringe noticeboard four or five times, but it's really just a topic that WP is not going to be able to cover well. Something to keep in mind if handing out sanctions. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Ufology proposal

    As this is 6 of one half a dozen of the other I suggest setting the page back to this [[42]] (and resetting back to pre-edit war days on the other affected articles), No edits without consensus (on all the affected pages), and a firm warning to all users to play nice in the topic area. I am not sure I would want to see anything more right now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This was tried and Ufology locked for a period. It failed. Why would it work better this time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say locked I said No edits without consensus. It of course would also have to be enforced. No lock just a strict DS which means if you do not get consensus you get a sanction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was reverted by the locking admin. See also clear warnings such as this. Nothing like that works on these guys, they just sneak back to whatever they convince themselves they can get away with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gtoffoletto, do not try to cast aspersions by linking to off-Wikipedia harassment of editors, such as you did here. I have removed it. If you do something like that again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen I apologise I wasn't aware it was not appropriate to link to outside resources. Is there a relevant guideline regarding this? It didn't seem "harassment" to me and I found it curious that such a source existed regarding a user. In any case I am not casting any aspersions. I am directly stating that those editors are not constructive editors as I have stated above. I think their block logs and frequent AN/I reports are sufficient proof of long term disruption. But I am not the one that should judge this in a fair way. This is just my personal opinion from personally interacting with them for months. If this is what wikipedia is and the level of civility you accept then so be it. I disagree, but I will continue my work patiently and interface with them in accordance with my more stringent interpretation of the five pillars of wikipedia. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, Gtoffoletto, you've been here twelve years, IMO you should know better all by yourself. But if you need a special guideline for not bringing outside harassment into Wikipedia, you can read Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. I'm going to charitably assume that when you call a blog devoted to attacking jps a "resource" [sic], it's because you were writing in a hurry and not weighing your words. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen:: the blog isn't "devoted to attacking jps". It's devoted to cold fusion http://coldfusioncommunity.net/about/ That's one article about him and I think it makes valid points and proves this user has been disruptive for a while. I didn't see any egregious attack or harassment but if you think otherwise the case is closed for me and I apologise. It was not my intention to publish harassment in any way. I will also read the guidelines you linked to educate myself better. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gtoffoletto: If you think that blog by Abd ulRahman Lomax is in any way trustworthy for documenting anything that might or might not have happened on or relating to Wikipedia, then your judgment is very very faulty. It's not really devoted to cold fusion at all, it's devoted to Lomax, and Lomax's claims should never be taken as trustworthy reliable, about anything. Oh, and the "Infusion Institute, Inc" is essentially just Lomax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gtoffoletto: I'm sorry, I misspoke. It's only the page you linked to that's devoted to attacking jps. Do you have any comment on having referred to it as a "resource" (and a "source", to boot)? Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    The actual reason for the blog post was failure to promote fringe theories on Wikipedia, jps having been one of the editors in the way. This is unfortunately similar to the complaint posted on Gtoffoletto's user page about Wikipedia and its reputation. The policies are more to blame than the editors and that's not a bad thing: it's what permits Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information (which has often been praised, so not a threat to its reputation)... It is true that Wikipedia had a previous explosion, in users and articles and that more attention eventually shifted to quality when coverage existed in many areas. The bar is higher than in 2005 in relation to reliable sources and verifiability and coverage of biographies, politics and pseudoscience. In this case, from a WP:WIKIPROPHET POV, an eventual topic ban unfortunately seemed unevitable to me (a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude was obvious since the first WP:FTN noticeboard discussion and this persisted). Leaving Wikipedia for good in the face of the ban is your choice, but only asserts a disinterest in the encyclopedia in general (fine, but a topic ban at least preserves editing privileges to allow other opportunities; I've seen some edits in relation to the Covid crisis for instance). —PaleoNeonate – 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaleoNeonate: thank you for your interest. I am extremely interested in seeing Wikipedia succeed. Or I wouldn't be participating in it and dedicating time and effort to it. However I don't think what I have witnessed here and in the last few months will lead to the long term success of this project. It will die off and only obsessive users like the ones reported above will contribute to the project with their unsourced opinions. It won't be an encyclopaedia for many by the many. And I am not interested in that. I won't be associated with whitewashed garbage and with a community that treats people without respect. I have observed admins do this and joke about it with their friends. And once that happens: the project is lost. You realise how many people have access to wikipedia and the internet nowadays compared to 2005? Global Internet usage. The fact user counts are stagnating is an obvious sign of failure and decline. I'm a management engineer and entrepreneur. I work with online services and startups. I read this data all day. This project is dying. I always wondered, but now I know why. I had never seen such a dark side of Wikipedia in over 10 years.
    My edits are always thoroughly researched and sourced. I have NEVER in my Wikipedia history posted a single sentence that was unsupported by sources. I challenge anyone to dispute that. That is because I believe strongly in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sometimes those sources are disputed which is fine and the content is removed. Sometimes my summary of what the source says is disputed which is also fine and it is corrected. This is what wikipedia should be about. Not personal opinions or bullshit crusades by some users to promote their personal ideals whatever they may be and however widespread they may be. The introduction of special rules regarding WP:FRINGE is totally understandable. There is no official Wikipedia policy I am in disaccord with and that I don't strive to comply with. Or I would have proposed to change it. But the SAME STANDARDS must be applied to all. Sources are still needed and not opinions. Calling out FRINGE has become a trump card in all discussions to silence the other side and to justify any behaviour. This is madness and what the admins above are allowing with their actions.
    Some users and admins are falsely depicting my editing style and beliefs in an attempt to protect their friends. This is also unacceptable to me. There is a lot of talk and little WP:DIFFing in this witch-hunt against me. I have consciously done all in my powers to prevent edit warring in the face of chronically disruptive and bullying editors. I started almost all the discussions on those pages as anyone can see. I don't believe sufficient proof has been presented that I should be topic banned apart from this confirmation bias by several users. But I don't care. I won't appeal. If my contributions are not valued and discounted so easily. If nobody defends my contributions. Then they have no value. I don't expect anyone to rush in my defence. But I would have preferred a fair trial. I don't think I got that. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been topic banned from all pages and discussions related to UFOs. This discussion is related to UFOs. Please do not post here again. You will need to find another website to express your thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat regarding libel at the BLP noticeboard

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

    lblocked. El_C 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DOLT. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLT: Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. I was recently criticized by several admins because of my tendency to apply uw-nlt to some legal threats, even blatant ones, rather than immediately block. And this is a blatant legal threat. The user can still address and query their talk page, if they so wish. El_C 20:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I have no criticism of El_C's block. But on the wider subject, and not in reply to El_C, instead of reaching for the block and telling people to send an email to a volunteer mailing list, it can sometimes be fruitful to look at the article. They have made their complaint, quite clearly and specifically. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, zzuuzz, I see now that I have misread the indent. El_C 20:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, good block. Guy (help!) 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per DOLT, has the issue actually been reviewed (obviously the block itself is fine)? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion

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

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

    Use of Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard for personal attacks.

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

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

    The user was not "seeking our help" they threatened legal action, which is a clear violation of the WP:No legal threats policy for which they were promptly blocked, so NatGertler's characterisation is disingenuous. I asked Nat Gertler to WP:drop the stick, and said in retrospect that I would not write the sentence again. I agreed with both Piers Robinsons issues with his article over at Talk:Piers Robinson, which I will quote: (For his occupation in the infobox being described as a consipracy theorist) "Even Alex Jones occupation is not described as a conspiracy theorist [in the article infobox], so it's probably not appropriate." "I don't think it's wise to make that leap [that he was fired for promoting conspiracy theories] . While he left the university after that controversy, theres no explicit evidence that this is the direct cause, which is crucial for BLP, even if inference suggests this is likely the case." In retrospect I might change "is likely" to "might be" if I had written the sentence again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, asking for inappropriate material to be removed from one's page is seeking help, even if one includes threats of legal action if it is not done. You told me that I should WP:drop the stick because I was the only one who chimed in.... but when someone else chimed in to support my concerns, you didn't drop any stick yourself, but repeated your attack (at the same time that you were saying that you would not do it again.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of your point of view that it was inappropriate. The reason I asked you to drop the stick is that I didn't think there was anything more productive to be said between us, you had made your opinion clear and I had mine, and it was necessary for other contributors to share their opinions. I responded to the other user because I felt that the person deserved an answer, which I had already given you. Piers Robinson isn't exactly some falsely accused angel either, he has suggested that COVID-19 is a biological weapon, which is described by The Times as a conspiracy theory[1] so this claim is backed up by reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so now you're using ANI to irrelevantly attack him as well. Got it. (Could we have some admin input please?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that no administrator has chimed in is because this isn't a serious incident, no defamatory statement was made. The administrators noticeboard is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.", which this is not. Ultimately I stated that I wouldn't have made the comment again and that should've been the end of it. I had cordial interactions with you editing the Alan J. Cooper page with BLP concerns, and it disappoints me that you are behaving like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    to be fair, he has been pushing conspiracy theories

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

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

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

    That has naught to do with your bizarre and inappropriate BPN discussion which was the issue that was brought here. --Nat Gertler (talk)
    Of course it does, those comments are also arguably BLP violating, but go way further than mine did. But you'll hold your tongue because Guy's an admin. I think I am owed an apology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think that because someone else did something you think is worse than what you did, that makes what you did okay? Wow. If you wish to make a case against Guy, feel free, I shall not stop you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Editor, Dominic Kennedy, Investigations. "British academics sharing coronavirus conspiracy theories online". ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2020-05-11. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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

    time for a break?

    Some editors are struggling to edit properly on this article. In the section above, Nat Gertler highlights some actions by Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) that need attention. I'd like to add the following edit for consideration: [43], wherein I am considered a "dumbass". I've been called worse, no big deal, except that I think it might be time for Hemiauchenia to take an enforced break. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that this has been on the noticeboard for nearly a week with no significant response shows that this isn't a serious issue. If you read my comments on the talk page you'll find my views on the topic to be more nuanced than simply removing the source. My response was for you telling me to "oh do knock it off -- you're not making any contribution to the talk page about this, and there's obviously no problem with WP:RS or WP:V" [44], which made no sense as I had not removed the passage previously and had extensively discussed the issue on the talk page, in fact I had earlier reinserted the statement after it was removed (In retrospect I think re-instating the passage was uncivil and a violation of BRD and ONUS). The edit summary arguing for me to knock it off was apparently confusing me with Kashmiri. I was annoyed with being confused with somebody else and said something which I am not proud of, and retract the "dumbass" remark, no hard feelings. Issues with the article are better discussed on the talk page, Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Eshaan11

    Eshaan11 has a history of bad page moves (full log), some of which include:

    • Deafblindness → Being Deaf And Blind
    • Color photography → Colour Photography (they were warned about US/UK spelling stuff after this one)
    • Color → Colour (Color)
    • Kim Jong-un bibliography → Kim Jong-un biography (the article really was a bibliography, not a biography)
    • Jay Sadguru Swami → Page deleted (and a couple others along with this, a misguided attempt to delete a page out of process (and permissions), causing a bit of a mess to clean up after)
    • ABACABA pattern → Abacabadabacaba pattern (I gave them yet another warning after this one and asked that they use WP:RM for any further moves they wanted to perform due to the ongoing disruption)
    • Fan labor → Fan labour (but just yesterday, this was done, another US to UK spelling one, no indication of the request to use WP:RM instead)

    At the very least, I think a WP:TBAN from page moves is warranted at this point. There's been no indication from the user that they understand the issues involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The deleted edits are not very promising. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I think we should create a new version of Wikipedia in British English at https://gb.wikipedia.org (mobile at https://gb.m.wikipedia.org) where people will read and write Wikipedia Articles in British English.Eshaan11 (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Eshaan11 Regardless of the merits of that idea (which I think is a poor idea, but that's for another place) you must follow guidelines on this version. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are serious WP:CIR issues here. "Available" is spelled "available" in every national variety of English of which I'm aware, and WP:SENTENCECASE is similarly not WP:ENGVAR-specific. I dislike being snarky but if a user is going to take a position of orthodoxy regarding particular spelling/grammar conventions, moving pages to "Page Not Availible" or "Being Deaf And Blind" (or referring to "Wikipedia Articles") doesn't bolster the cause. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Even before I got as far as the above post I was thinking CIR as well. Could be a young person. EEng 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Call me by my genitals

    IBAN carried, this has gone on for long enough signed, Rosguill talk 07:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is just getting pathetic. But since user Davey2010 implied that he wants to take it here to this forum, I’m more than petty enough to oblige. I know he is upset that he didn’t get the obsequious appreciation he wanted so badly from me. My opinion on the article is the same as it was from the beginning. I’m sure we can disagree on it. Oh well. If I have struck such a nerve then maybe they need time out. What’s next? “Cunt”? Trillfendi (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your section heading is not a bad song title. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK Trillfendi, I'd drop this if I were you. That AfD is indeed headed for a keep, and Davey2010 did some good work; your behavior there is less than collegial, to put it mildly, and is saturated with bad faith. One can fault Davey2010 for "speedy keep" and for the (ubiquitous) "BEFORE wasn't done" (I've heard that one a thousand times), but you blew this way out of proportion. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don’t care whether the article is kept or deleted in the end. What I do expect is the same equilateral plane. People would trip over themselves racing to my talk page if I called someone a dickhead. So all this because I didn’t bow down and kiss their boots for finding an off brand IMDb? The 8 people who view the page aren’t missing anything. Trillfendi (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quiet reminder of what one comment using "Cunt" can do. Multiple editors banned, restricted and bad press for everyone on wikipedia. Davey has to do better in expressing himself and Trillfendu should go about their way too. It's not worth the angst, just saying. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • When writing the heated response I did actually write cunt .... but then felt that was a bit much and knew it would get me blocked, Also Trillfendi no I wasn't looking for any appreciation, I was simply stating the work I did and that I wanted people to actually look at the work that was put in before randomly coming to the AFD and !voting Delete. –Davey2010Talk 14:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly why there are countless think pieces on why Wikipedia is a sexist sewer system and why women don’t bother getting involved. Trillfendi (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Trillfendi, I'm sorry this happened to you and I don't mean my comment as a criticism to you. It was inappropriate for Davey to post it, I was just suggesting you don't associate yourself around people that have that mindset. It may have been spur of the moment, it also could be a reflection of true sexism but best to not declare the gender wars is all I was saying. People get next level nuts and it wasn't a fun experience to experience or watch. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Davey2010, when you're in a hole, stop digging. "Twat" already is not OK, and now you just sound like a **** who calculated their insult so as not to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, That didn't come out the way I wanted - I was actually expecting to be blocked for the twat comment alone, –Davey2010Talk 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm - I'm not sure that calling someone a twat is any better than calling them a cunt - they're equally offensive to my ear (in other words, I'd say either of them to a friend in jest, and I'd expect a punch in the mouth if I called someone either of them with a straight face). That was about as uncollegiate an AfD discussion as I've ever seen, and it doesn't reflect very well on either of them, but at least Trillfendi was commenting on the content when they said the article still looks like shit. Davie went straight from there to a direct, foul-mouthed personal attack - I think that taking a (brief) moment to think about that, before offering a fulsome apology, might be a good step. GirthSummit (blether) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to get into the AfD dispute, but I'm disappointed by that comment, Davey2010. That you say "I was actually expecting to be blocked for the twat comment alone" means you knew you shouldn't have said it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At that time I was deeply hurt and offended over essentially being told my work was shit ... that's how I perceived it so in that moment I wanted to say something equally offensive back, I wished I hadn't called her that but at that moment as I said I was so hurt and offended over that comment, –Davey2010Talk 15:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest just apologizing without the rationale. Your feelings are legitimate too but the best way to make this better is a mea culpa. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously inappropriate but mitigated by Davey removing the comments 10 min later before anyone responded to it. special:Diff/956092070 Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot of needless condescension in this comment. Sure, there aren't any insulting names, but the effect was still to insult and infuriate the target. Seems totally uncalled for and we shouldn't be surprised by the response it elicited. Mind you, that doesn't excuse Davey, but I feel like's he getting too much of the focus here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Said condescension wouldn’t have happened without Davey 2010 persistently claiming I never did a “Before” and that I should have “saved” the article myself, smiley face. Since he so-called watched the article so long, he could’ve done it years ago (and if this is the result, it still would’ve warranted a deletion proposal in my opinion). Trillfendi (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that is the kind of thing that bothers me too. That's not to excuse what Davey2010 said, but there are better ways to start a mitigation process than ANI, especially if one's hands aren't clean either. Davey, I really don't understand what you were thinking. Saying something in anger while expecting to be blocked, that's a zero-sum type rationale. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I sort of didn't want to be blocked and at the same time I didn't care .... Yeah it doesn't make much sense to me either..... –Davey2010Talk 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The meaning of such words varies enormously according to the culture and the context. The context here is that Davey2010 and Trillfendi are seemingly not personal friends and come from cultures where swearing is treated rather differently. I remember in the 1990s when the American CEO of the organisation that I worked for in London visited and simply couldn't bring himself to utter the name of the play that he wanted to see one evening (it was "Shopping and Fucking") so had to get a very young worker to take the phone from him and say what he wanted a ticket for. While I'm on anecdotes I'll mention the co-worker that I once had (whose previous job had been as a marine engineer at a Glasgow shipyard), who would address everyone, including his boss's boss, as "cunt" - if he didn't then you knew were very much in his bad books. The point of this all is that people should recognise that some words that may not be quite so offensive to them are extremely offensive to others, and so should be avoided when addressing anyone directly unless you know the person very well. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      What Phil says is true - Brits don't use these words as gendered insults. I don't tend to call many people cunts or twats, but if I did I would be far more likely to use them against a man than a woman. It's not like bitch or cow, which would be used exclusively against women - cunt/twat are general purpose insults. I think Davey was being obnoxious, and reckless given that he's in an international environment where words like that have subtly different connotations, but I don't think he was being intentionally sexist. GirthSummit (blether) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW When I celled her that word I was actually calling her stupid/an idiot which still doesn't make it okay, I genuinely did forget it means something else, There was certainly and absolutely no sexist intentions at all on my part none at all, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep, Phil's right about usage in many parts of the UK, and until relatively recently I didn't realise that these are words that are used as very offensive gendered insults in the USA. But, once I learn that words or actions can be grossly insulting in a different culture, I don't use them in the presence of those of that culture (or anywhere, ideally, lest I slip up and grossly insult someone inadvertantly). I don't insist that *my* culture and usage is the right one. (I mean this generally, not just with regard to this specific incident.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before anyone else attempts to use the cultural differences excuse, I'm going to K.O. that argument. Davey2010 is an experienced editor, he knows English Wikipedia users come from all over and that his words could be perceived differently. If he really "did forget it means something else" then why did he also say he knew it would get him blocked? Anyway FWIW Davey, you're not the only one who has had unpleasant interactions with this user. Despite the baiting, you're still responsible for your actions and what you say, so own them, don't try to blame it on someone or something else. Best to avoid and ignore this type of person as much as possible. Sro23 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I called someone a dipshit once before and nearly got blocked over it so I knew twat (in the idiot sense) was 10x worse, I completely agree with that we're all responsible for what we say and do but at that time having my work basically called shit deeply hurt me and so I wanted to offend that person back, It may sound stupid or childish but at that time that was my mechanism for dealing with it, I regret using that word but unfortunately the damage has been done and alls I can do is learn from this and deal with it in a much better way that doesn't involve expletives. –Davey2010Talk
    • Sro23, I agree, and Davey2010 should be blocked for such vile conduct. The fact that some people here, admins included are defending his words are strange to say the least. He even says he knew the words are bad, to quote "I was actually calling her stupid/an idiot which still doesn't make it okay" forget an IBAN, but that when an editor brings this to the community's attention, the first post is from an admin making light of the situation is not the way Wikipedia should be seen and I think looks really bad for CIVIL concerns and for those female editors who may think their concerns about editing here aren't taken seriously. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for the record, he was blocked on May 6th for personal attack violations. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir Joseph, please don't misuse inflammatory overstatements such as 'vile'. You aren't helping. Trillfendi dished it out but couldn't take it, so she came here. It's not appropriate for you or anyone else to make this a gender issue. Also, I don't see anyone defending Davey's words; some of us are simply trying to see the situation from all angles. It's called fairness. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Lepricavark, I'm not misusing inflammatory overstatements. I think calling someone a "cunt" or "twat" is vile. It's a personal attack. Calling someone an "asshole" is also a personal attack, telling someone to "fuck off" is also a personal attack, but I don't think it's vile and we shouldn't tolerate it. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Different cultural standards. I see no difference in calling someone a dick, a twat, a cunt , or an asshole, nor are those gendered insults around here either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ivanvector, this is starting to look like harassment. I'm pretty sure there are other things you could be doing. But while I'm here, genuine question, re the "twat" comment being said to a female... what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? We are happy to link to WP:DICK when the occasion arises, regardless of gender. CassiantoTalk 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      "Dick" isn't as offensive as "twat" for the same reason that "cracker" isn't as offensive as "nigger". Insults directed towards underprivileged/oppressed groups are worse than insults directed towards privileged/oppressor groups, because the former is "punching down" and the latter is "punching up". - Dangit "Crackerdick" Levivich [dubious – discuss] Esq. 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      A racial slur and someone calling someone "a twat" is not a valid comparison. Racism is wrong on all levels. Calling someone a twat, is no where near as bad as racism. CassiantoTalk 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Er...in your opinion. "Dick", to me, is more offensive than "twat". Are you now going to tell me I'm wrong and you're right? CassiantoTalk 19:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, for aforementioned reasons. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously telling me what I should and shouldn't be "offended" by, based on what you find more or less offensive? CassiantoTalk 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm answering your questions (what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? and Are you now going to tell me I'm wrong and you're right?). Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm wrong for thinking "dick" is worse that "twat"? Who the hell are you to tell me what I should and shouldn't be finding offensive? CassiantoTalk 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cassianto, you seem to be operating under moral relativism, under the notion that "offense" is simply a matter of someone's reaction to something. Hence your oft-repeated statement that offense is taken and not given. You are wrong. Wrong in an objectively-provable way. What makes something "offensive" isn't the moral sensibilities of the listener. Something is offensive because the meaning behind it is morally wrong, in an objective way--that's what makes it an "offense". Why is calling someone a "twat" offensive but not a "dick"? Because of the meaning behind those words.
    When we say someone is a "twat", a "cunt", a "pussy", or any word that refers to female genitalia, we are comparing that person to a woman. A "twat" is someone who acts stupid, like a woman; a "cunt"is someone who is unpleasant like a woman; and a "pussy" is a coward, like a woman. And it's the "like a woman" part that is offensive. Because not only are you calling the other person a twat, but you're implying that women are twats, or cunts, or pussies--i.e., that they're stupid, unpleasant, and cowardly. This is offensive. It's morally wrong.
    It's especially morally wrong when a man calls a woman any of these words. Why? Because men subjugate women, and have subjugated women for all of human history, right up to the present day. A man using a synonym for vagina to mean (any of) stupid, unpleasant, or cowardly, is a continuation of that subjugation. Hence, it's morally wrong. Hence, it's offensive. And if you don't think it's offensive, that is, itself, a continuation of the subjugation. You should be sensitive enough to realize that using a synonym for vagina like "twat" to mean "idiot" is an offense to women--all women--and you should not do that.
    Why isn't "dick" equally offensive? Because men have not been subjugated by women for all of human history. We say "dick" to mean that someone is unpleasant, usually in an aggressive way, like a man. We're saying men are aggressive and unpleasant. And guess what? They are! Women are not stupid, unpleasant, or cowardly, as a group of people. But men are aggressive and unpleasant. Men are the ones who subjugate women. Men are the ones who start all the wars in this world. Men are the ones who use synonyms for vagina to mean various character flaws. All of this is dickish.
    And it's also dickish for you not to realize it. I hope you do now. So don't be a dick, and realize that insulting someone by comparing them to a woman, is offensive. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so you're virtue signalling to the gender gap issue. Thought as much. Just so you know, misandry is not a substitute for misogyny. All prejudice is wrong. And it's people like you, Levivich, who make twatish comments like that, who increase this divide. CassiantoTalk 06:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "And think of the donkeys!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    • Ivanvector, re the below, this is starting to look like harassment. I'm pretty sure there are other things you could be doing. But while I'm here, genuine question, re the "twat" comment being said to a female... what's the difference in it being said to a woman compared to a man? We are happy to link to WP:DICK, when the occasion arises, regardless of gender. CassiantoTalk 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a rough day? PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you? CassiantoTalk 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nah, it has been pretty nice out and thinking about going for a walk soon. PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • What a great idea. CassiantoTalk 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              Just a quick follow up. The walk was indeed lovely. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              Good for you. CassiantoTalk 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              Cassianto, just to answer your question, some people find words which target them for some intrinsic part of their identity to be more offensive than general-purpose insults. I'm sure you can think of words that are used to target black people, homosexual people, etc. Twat can, in some circles, be broadly synonymous with fuckwit, arsehole or whatever, but in different circles it would be a gendered insult, intended to belittle someone because of their sex, making it more offensive. I don't think that Davey was using it in that sense (which is not to say that I think it's in any way OK that he used it at all). GirthSummit (blether) 18:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • What about "Dick" being ok to direct at males? Nobody seems to want to answer this. CassiantoTalk 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                Cassianto, for myriad reasons surrounding swearing culture, it's pretty broadly understood, at least in North American dialects of English, that "dick" is a much lighter swear word than "twat", "cunt" etc. (and even in British and other dialects, my impression is that while certain slurs involving female genitalia are considered less obscene than in North America, they're still considered more obscene than their male counterparts). You can find many a research paper that tries to untangle why this is the case if you search for "misogyny and slurs" on Google Scholar (most guesses are long the lines of "due to power imbalances in society"), but for our purposes it's enough to understand that they simply are by virtue of usage a more severe insult, the same way that "fuck" is understood to be more severe than "damn", which in turn is more severe than "dang", and the same way that all of these terms are less severe than the n-word that you can't even get me to type out for the purpose of this explanation, despite there being nothing in the immediate semantic value of these words that inherently makes getting fucked worse than being damned. signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                Your forensic explanation is all very impressive, but it still all boils down to subjectiveness. It you play with fire, you get burnt. And that's what happened here with Davey. Someone called his writing "shit", so they are fair game when it comes to an equally offensive retort. CassiantoTalk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Rosguill, I typed out an answer, but you said it better, so I'll ditch it, except for this bit. Cassianto: you are welcome to call me a silly dick (or cunt) any time you like, because I like and respect you, I will understand what you're saying (and what you're not), and it won't cause any tension. They aren't inherently problematic. If they're used in a different context, between people in dispute, or with folk who genuinely find them offensive, then they become a problem. So, if one doesn't know the other person well enough to know how they'll respond, they should be off the table. GirthSummit (blether) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've said it before and I'll say it again: offence is not given, it is taken. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones...". CassiantoTalk 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  Cassianto, offence can be offered. I've seen some offers it would be hard to refuse. GirthSummit (blether) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  No it can't be offered, and that's not even what I said. I said offence can't be given, only taken. It's about time people owned their self-made offence and not made it everybody else's problem other than their own. CassiantoTalk 06:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Davey2010 removed the offensive comment after 10 minutes and before anybody replied.[46] That makes it really superfluous for Trillfendi to make an ANI song and dance about it. I'm glad Trillfendi's report brought out the charming "Shopping and Fucking" anecdote from Phil Bridger, but that's the only advantage of it. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Just dropping in here from the American South, never knew that "twat" had that connotation. ~ HAL333 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm from the U.S. West Coast and Northeast and everyone I know, including my elderly mother, knows that twat refers to a women's genitals. And in a negative way. But I know in the UK it can mean "idiot". If someone directed the word at me, in either meaning, I would find that an insult. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recognize "cunt" as much more vulgar and a reference to female genitalia. ~ HAL333 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m guessing not many people here saw Easy A. Trillfendi (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, but I do like Emma Stone. ~ HAL333 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Davey2010 and Trillfendi: interaction ban proposal

    Davey also went to my talk page an hour or so ago to explain the "twat" comment, but I was up to no good IRL and couldn't respond right away. I give him credit for owning up to how awful that comment was especially as it was directed at a user who identifies as female. If he was here trying to defend that comment he'd be blocked right now and some of you would be griping at me instead. Nonetheless, both of these editors were just blocked for a disruptive argument on an article not at all related to this one; the thread is still on this page. Now, mere days later, they're dragging their drama around the project with them. Separating them with a sanction will be better for everyone than piling on more blocks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, stop it at this level and level the Iban. Strongly warn Davey about continued personal attacks, sexist or otherwise. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at the moment. I don't know Trillfendi at all, but I think I know Davey2010 reasonably well from his contributions over the years - and I think the recent unfortunate interactions are out of character. I'd prefer to resolve this specific incident and then leave the two of them to reflect on how they could interact better in future, with an interaction ban a future option if that doesn't work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was tried, less than a week ago and here we are. PackMecEng (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • A week isn't long - still part of the same stress event. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it is not. I suspect if we try it your way we will be back here again in another week. PackMecEng (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe, but I see no great tragedy in that. We should be after the best result, not the fastest one. (Anyway, the likely outcome seems clear, so you really have nothing to gain by badgering the very small minority opposition.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Over there on Talk:Billie Eilish, all I said was a third RfC was unnecessary Instead of doing 3 RfCs on this in 5 months, why don't we just leave the image alone. Now just yesterday, he made a discussion saying the same thing.... So I was told to “fuck off” (twice) over something he came to the same realization on (common sense) 4 days later. The problem is himself. Should I have not called it idiocy in the edit summary? Sure, but it pales in comparison. Who’s fault is it that he feels the need to behave like this? His. And if he felt editing that show’s article was a waste of his own free time he could’ve waited. But I’m the twat or “that other word he planned to call me then acknowledge how ridiculous this is before settling on twat”? Why would or should I be “grateful” over his contribution to an article I initially proposed for deletion? I’m supposed to just acquiesce? On both occasions, if it were the other way around I would expect an ANI on myself too. What happened to standards. Trillfendi (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    If you don't call editors work shit they don't react with anger and frustration - You could've said "The article is still poor" or failing that said nothing at all. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take Wikipedia so seriously that you get upset that you weren’t given a cookie, medal or some flowers for edits, that’s for you to unpack. If you were secure enough in your own abilities you wouldn’t care either way what I think anyway. Copying and pasting edit summaries and leaving a table half empty is not groundbreaking. If you want me to withdraw that AfD, withdraw that pointless RfC while you’re at it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL are you for real ? ..... i never asked for a cookie or a medal, I simply object to having you call my work shit, I never give a toss what people think unless it's someone calling my work shit when I've spent 2 hours on it ... then I care quite a lot. Then again you've probably never sourced an article in your life so it's no wonder you seem to think it's preposterous that I give a shit about that comment, Nah the RFC can stay thanks .... it's a procedure thing. –Davey2010Talk 18:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir you’ve been here 9 years, yet I’m the 6 (going on 7 this month) Good Articles just in 1 year... but I can’t source? You just sound bitter. Trillfendi (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I guess you two should get it all out of your system before this closes? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support They were both swapping provocative taunts back and forth -- calling someone a "twat" is uncivil -- using ANI as your private toy weapon is a big waste of everybody's time. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve probably been called over here for worse. Trillfendi (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, that's what I thought ANI was for. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I feel it'll only be a week before we end up here again, Not saying I'd make the same mistake but given the squabbling with the Billie Eilish RFC I feel this is something that's going to crop up again and again so setting an IBAN should hopefully stop all of this squabbling. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as this has gone on too long. GiantSnowman 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support seems like the best outcome for all concerned parties. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, they've convinced me. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support They need it. -- puddleglum2.0 19:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, (all the rage at the moment), only in the absence of old fashioned "mutual public apology", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, I hate ibans and regard them as gotcha traps. Please don't let's have one over this storm in a teacup. These are troubled times. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support, but I don’t think it’s enough. Comments like this by Davey are such an egregious violation of NPA that I can’t believe there’s even room for debate. I don’t care how much you’re baited or taunted, there’s no excuse for crap like this. Get ahold of yourself. I’d have blocked you had I observed this in the wild. (I don’t say this as a threat, but as how I handle this when I come across situations like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I see the benefit of an IBAN here. I'd rather just give Davey2010 a short-term block for gross incivility, especially since they expected to receive one in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe this is even controversial. Davey called a woman by a totally unacceptable, female-specific insult, in both the edit and the edit summary. I can't believe Davey wasn't immediately given a short block for a personal attack. I can't believe the edit and edit summary haven't even been revdel'ed yet. What is wrong with us?-- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't disagree that Davey's actions were unacceptable, but I don't think he necessarily intended it that way. If I were to be in the mood to call someone a twat, I wouldn't bother to check if they were female. -- a lad insane (channel two) 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Davey can't pretend he doesn't know she is female. He was "in the mood" to call her by the second-ugliest female-specific insult he could think of, hoping he might get away with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Wrong, I didn't call her "the second-ugliest female-specific insult" ... I called her an idiot. –Davey2010Talk 01:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As the choices here were literally “cunt” or “twat”, one could have just sufficed at idiot. Trillfendi (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh for fucks sake, knock it off and quit digging.--v/r - TP 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I say this as someone who isn't exactly predisposed to liking Davey, but I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. From my experience of Brits using "twat" (mostly BBC television shows), they don't use it as an attack on women. Shame on him if he was making a sexist insult, but I don't think that was his intent. ~ HAL333 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict x2) And Davey can't pretend he didn't call her what he called her. In both the edit and the edit summary. This is Wikipedia, we don't buy the "alternative facts" defense here. We don’t buy the “but Mommy, I didn’t know it was a bad word” defense either. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      A lot of swear words are distanced from their literal meaning. I don't think he's saying it wasn't a bad word, it was and that's not a great thing to say on Wikipedia. But I don't typically consider the literal meaning in a cuss-storm. Is calling a guy a bellend, or a dickwad, sexist? -- a lad insane (channel two) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And still more men rush to his defense. All I can say is, if a male editor here can call a female editor an “ungrateful twat” and totally get away with it, it’s no wonder we have so few female editors here. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you just assume my gender? ~ HAL333 01:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, with a name like "Hal", I did assume your gender. Same for a user calling himself a "lad". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The username is a reference to HAL 9000 (as in Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer). By default computers don't have a gender. ~ HAL333 04:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @HAL333: The "I'm Brit so it's okay" defense is weak and pathetic. He'd have to live in a box to not know what he's saying. And if that's the case, WP:CIR. Really, really, fucking tired of hearing that excuse on this project. It's a global project. Get your shit together or get off (the generic "you", not you specifically).--v/r - TP 03:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an unduly harsh response to someone who is simply attempting to assume good faith. Those of us who don't believe Davey had sexist intentions are quite understandably pushing back against that interpretation of his words. I appreciate that you disagree with our interpretation, but please don't misquote us as claiming that what Davey said was 'okay'. It was still a personal attack and thus not okay. It's just that there is a clear difference between a PA and a sexist PA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Like I said: global encyclopedia, box.--v/r - TP 03:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine, I'll lay it on the line. I don't use the word in question and don't know anyone who does. Before this thread blew up, I did not know the specific definition of the term, although I did know that it was used an insult. I've been editing here constructively for several years. Are you going to CIR block me? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Who is this 'we' that you speak of? Some of us believe Davey is telling the truth, some of us don't. There's no unanimity of opinion on the matter. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, in what sense is this a matter of whether we "believe he is telling the truth" or not? Do some of us believe him when he claims he didn't say it? Is that now one of those "post-truth" statements? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's a matter of whether he's telling the truth regarding the intention underlying his usage of the word. As in, some of us believe he was intentionally using it as a gender-specific insult. Some of us believe he was using it as a synonym for 'idiot'. Given that the latter usage is common in the UK, which is where Davey resides, I am inclined to believe that he was using the term in that fashion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, there are several words in this category which are highly offensive female-specific insults in American English, like Cunt and Twat, but more commonly used for males and a bit weaker (and even used endearingly among one's "mates", in the former case) in British English. But regardless, Wikipedia has no place for personal attacks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I’m half of this proposal I can’t delegate in an unbiased way, but if this were to take place it should be one-sided as he is the one who finds a reason to lash out. I don’t go rummaging and foraging through his page contributions (we know it’s vice versa) nor actively go looking for trouble. Yet I’m convinced he even watches(d) my talk page. Trillfendi (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • As someone born in the United States, I legitimately had never connected "twat" as being female-specific. Regardless, it is NPA, and thus entirely unacceptable, as are, unfortunately, many of the comments said here about this issue. Vermont (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, and a 31-hour block for the offending conduct, because, c'mon man. BD2412 T 01:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if it'll cool things down. ~ HAL333 01:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I didn't have an opinion when I first read this earlier today, but the bickering that's gone back and forth between the two of them since this has started just leads to this logical conclusion. The only reason question is, what's the over/under on when we're back here for one of them breaking it? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and also support everyone calming down. After all, it's not as though he called anyone a cunt, surely. serial # 04:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - After seeing the personal attacks, I'm tempted to support a one-way IBAN. But those are rarely workable and I think I'll leave the proposals to those who have followed the conflict from the beginning. But seriously, "I don't give a flying toss what you think you ungrateful twat"? @Davey2010: I have seen enough of your contributions in the past to know that you are better than this. Both of you, please move on. DarkKnight2149 05:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if the two users continue to take advantage of the IBAN not being instated yet by attacking each other here (as seen under "Extended content" above), then I think a temporary block should be instated on both parties until this thread has closed. DarkKnight2149 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In each context, it’s he overreacting. Completely overreacting to me (politely!) stating the pointlessness 3rd RfC in 5 months then turning around to agree that we need to stop making those. It’s psychotic. Overreacting to the derelict article. Frankly I’m more-so offended at the idea of Wikipedia including such leftovers than the sexist ribaldry itself which will inevitably go unpunished. And then resorting to inanity like Then again you've probably never sourced an article in your life so it's no wonder you seem to think it's preposterous that I give a shit about that comment. because I simply explained how it got here? So I should be blocked for responding? I was initially blocked, understandably, for calling his behavior idiocy in an edit summary. User Boing! said Zebedee claims this is out of character for him so why is he now acting like IPs? Trillfendi (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, this is exactly what I meant when I mentioned "continue to take advantage of the IBAN not being instated yet by attacking each other here". Davey's comments were absolutely unacceptable, but fighting incivility with more incivility is not the way to handle it. I believe you two should just stop engaging with one another. DarkKnight2149 06:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Apology

    Hi, Having reflected on my actions as well as the thread, the comment and even more so the word was unacceptable and regardless of what way It was meant in it still should never have been used so I wanted to take the time to sincerely and unreservedly apologise to Trillfendi not only for the comment but for the word used too,

    I was offended massively at what was said and so I wanted to offend back but at the end of the day the content was commented on not me as an individual so I should not of reacted the way I did,

    FWIW not that it's an excuse but given the current climate I've remained in the house for well over a month which mentally isn't good for anyone, I'm not usually an argumentative person nor do I usually fire cheap shots like that,

    I'm aware this breaks the IBAN but feel an apology is due and should be given,

    Anyway I again sincerely and unreservedly apologise to Trillfendi and to the community for the comment and word which won't be repeated again,

    (I'm pinging everyone who participated as I know not everyone patrols ANI daily. @Drmies, Boing! said Zebedee, Unbroken Chain, Girth Summit, Levivich, Lepricavark, Phil Bridger, Sro23, Cassianto, PackMecEng, Bishonen, HAL333, Liz, Ivanvector, HouseOfChange, GiantSnowman, Puddleglum2.0, Sergecross73, SportingFlyer, MelanieN, TParis, BD2412, Jauerback, Serial Number 54129, and Darkknight2149:

    Thanks,

    Kind Regards,

    –Davey2010Talk 12:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Although an IBAN is in place, I believe this should be the one and only time the community overlooks it. Thank you for apologising. DarkKnight2149 15:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the apology. GiantSnowman 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thanks; it was the right thing to do. Stay safe. -- puddleglum2.0 16:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your apology was in good taste. ~ HAL333 18:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My participation was minimal and (as usual) almost wholly facetious. But I warmly applaud your gesture here Davey and sincerely hope that it sets a good precedent for any similar threads by others here in the future. I personally don't see why IBANs should not be sometimes broken to offer an apology. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, Davey, that helps a lot. This whole discussion (not just your part) left such a bad taste in my mouth, I went away thinking "If the WMF wonders why there aren't more women editors here, they need only look at this discussion." Your apology goes a long way to moderate that. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I was hoping for earlier, and is why I didn't add my support for the IBan - thank you for taking the time to reflect and for offering an apology, I think that was the right thing to do. GirthSummit (blether) 19:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nicely said. And see, I told you all it was an out-of-character aberration! :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R koiwai

    No examples of actual personal attacks were found, and the filer has now retired from Wikipedia. Closing. Yunshui 雲水 06:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has been making disruptive edits then not assuming good faith and being uncivil to other users, accusing me of hounding for just a simple civility reminder. Ed6767 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, English is not my first language, so please excuse me if some of my messages are hard to understand. Please refer to my talk page to see what happened. The gist of it is I was making good faith edits, when other users started to revert mine with no explanation. I told them to look at my comments.
    1: TheImaCow claims not to have seen my comments on the talk page of the article before reverting my edits. Fair enough.
    2: TheImaCow left a warning on my talk page AFTER I replied to the previous warning by User:Muffin of the English who first reverted the article, explaining my edits, actively choosing to ignore what I said there. I also engaged User:Muffin of the English on their talk page and they admitted that they were wrong in the matter, so no problem there.
    3: AFTER the comments on User:Muffin of the English's talk page where they and I were discussing the changes, which led to a suitable resolution, TheImaCow put up a barnstar commending User:Muffin of the English for "fighting vandalism" clearly referring to me.
    4: I replied to 3 and TheImaCow also ignored this.
    5: I engaged TheImaCow in the same way that I did the other two who were reverting my edits. The other two were civil and we easily reached resolutions. It speaks volumes that TheImaCow is the one exception, where they say I was "wasting their time", and I somehow ended up being hounded by User:Ed6767, who was not even involved with the article to begin with. As such I voiced and would like to again voice my suspicioun that User:Ed6767 might be a meat puppet of User:TheImaCow.
    Also see things User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you! which like Barnstar User:TheImaCow put on User:Muffin of the English's talk page obviously refers to me. Both User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767 seem to be using this sort of thing to game the system and indirectly attack targets by not actually naming them, but it is obvious what they mean (Barnstar came immediately after reverting my edits, this thing coming now).
    User:Ed6767 is now also attacking me by accusing me of "disruptive edits" here and so I would like to request that you look how I changed the article in question, as well as other articles to see if this is founded or a personal attack against me.
    User:TheImaCow seems to be very proud of fighting vandals, judging by the things they have on their user page, and I would like to voice my concern that they might be over-zealous and be attacking innocent editors. I doubt that I am the first person to have been subjected to this sort of behaviour.
    In regards to User:Ed6767's claims on this noticeboard above:
    1: I never made disruptive edits, this was something I was being subjected to. I was trying to edit the article, but every time I tried to make an edit I would get a notification that someone else had reverted it. I am new to Wikipedia and was first not aware of how to get my edits back (I thought the part on top was mine) and I ended up losing a very large amount that I had written (that would have made the article twice as long as it was) as a result. I hope you understand how frustrating this is.
    2: Not assuming good faith is something that, again, I was being subjected to. I explained my edits to begin with, but they were still reverted. I then posted further explanations in the talk page of the article and other places, but they still reverted my edits with no explanation, ignoring my comments in multiple places.
    3: Ed6767 is accusing me of "being uncivil" for saying they are hounding me, but they have indeed been hounding me, on User:TheImaCow's talk page, on my talk page, and now here.
    In any case this affair has left me very sick and I shall no longer be editing on Wikipedia. I put the admin notice up on my talk page because it seems fair to assume that others might have been subjected to similar mistreatment from User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767 in the past, and you might want to investigate. To be honest, they feel like trolls.
    User:Ed6767 also tried to flaunt admin status as a way to bully me into silence: By starting this post with fake accusations on this noticeboard, and by previously using statements such as "you've already accused an admin" on my talk page. Is being an admin a free pass to harassing innocent parties for no reason?
    Furthermore, it feels like starting this post on the admin noticeboard was also an attempt by User:Ed6767 to intimidate me into silence, but when I spoke up instead, he tried to close the discussion instead (see below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R koiwai (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The only explanation User:TheImaCow has offered after the fact regarding their accusing me of vandalism is "every time I see someone undo vandalism, I give them a Barnstar. So I rarely read what's on the talk page" and that he used a tool to accuse me and did not actually look. In other words he is admitting that he does not bother to look before accusing others of vandalism.
    All of this is easily verifiable, so I can only assume that User:Ed6767 is hoping that nobody would look too closely. All of the claims starting the post on this noticeboard are blatantly false.
    I had originally intended to work on Kyoei Toshi (the article where this whole affair started) the way I had on The Next Generation: Patlabor but my time and willpower to do so was taken away by these people, and they have even seen fit to make a big deal out of it here, probably because they want to get me banned or something. This really is nothing short of harassment. And I should like to point out that after disrupting my edits, they have done nothing to contribute to the article in question.
    I would like third parties to assess this incident and judge if TheImaCow and Ed6767's actions are the sort that are to be condoned by Wikipedia. R koiwai (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting TheImaCow below Ed6767 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I hate to say it, but slowly, I feel fooled.
    • 1: On this page. That's definitely not an attack when I speak my mind and it doesn't match yours.
    • 2: The warning on your page. What does it have to do with this? I can explain it again. I've seen your edit with the"See Talk Page" summary. Then I went to the talk page of the article and there was nothing. Then I reversed your edit. If you had just written... I don't know... "See your talk page," then I probably would have gotten to go to the muffin page. But you didn't, and then how would I know?
    • 3 "timestamps on the other two clearly place your's after." What do you mean? Which edits?
    • 4 I acted in "bad faith"? It's bullshit, I promise you. (as well as me "attacking you", and doing "meatpuppetry".)
    And now: Thanks for wasting my time. TheImaCow (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lmao, since when was I a meatpuppet here? Nuts claims. I was simply reminding you to be civil after seeing your comments in recent changes. Ed6767 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I'd like to clear up a few things.
    On the second point, I didn't even see your talkpage when I issued the warning. I used a tool called Huggle to undo your changes, so one click there undoes the displayed edit, and the user who made the edit gets a warning. (here's how it looks like)
    On point 3: Almost every time I see someone undo vandalism, I give them a Barnstar. So I rarely read what's on the talk page.
    On point 5: I didn't tell you this was a waste of time until you said you were done discussing it. That @Ed6767: is a sock puppet of mine? Why, what makes you think that? It's stupid. And that's "secretly attacking targets." That's also bullshit. He gave me this goat because he liked the way I handled the problem (I think). Stop throwing around your random theories now.
    If anyone says anything to you, it's always "he attacked me!11!1!" That's just bullshit, nobody attacks you here. That I can't improve the article, well, I don't know anything about the article. [ATTENTION! My opinion comes now] I feel sorry for you that you don't want to go on Wikipedia anymore, but I think you have only yourself to blame. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheImaCow: Think this is getting a bit silly now, should I close this discussion? User already said no longer going to edit so not completely sure what could come out of this. Ed6767 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ed6767: I have no problem with that. TheImaCow (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheImaCow: Ok, thanks. Ed6767 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see the harassment of me by Ed6767 and TheImaCow addressed by third parties, in particular Ed6767's actions on this noticeboard. The reason I said that I am no longer editing articles is because I do not feel safe doing so on Wikipedia after being harassed to this degree. R koiwai (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @R koiwai: Due to your blatent and groundless accusations, TheImaCow and I are not going to address this further. This is now a matter for the admins, any further action will be addressed by them. Thank you. Ed6767 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I listed TheImaCow's actions above, and Ed6767's fake accusations on this noticeboard above. Everything I listed is easily verifiable. R koiwai (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @R koiwai: Do you mind if you stop refactoring your previous comments? I am sorry you interpretted my message that way, however, you did leave a message on ZimZalaBim's page calling their decision "very disruptive", the same message you copied and pasted many times. Leave this, and drop the stick. 19:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    ^ This statement is another blatant lie. I used that message twice, on the two users who reverted my edits AFTER I started discourse with User:Muffin_of_the_English, and as you can see clearly, the messages request that the person look at the discourse instead of disrupting my edits. User:ZimZalaBim immediately said that he would. There were no problems at all in reaching that conclusion. R koiwai (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is just plain silly now, I'm out. Admins, ping me if anything acutally comes out of this. Thanks. Ed6767 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out again that Ed6767 has failed to address a single thing I have stated, all of which are easily verifiable as fact, choosing to instead to dismiss everything with statements like "this is silly", despite being the instigator of harassment against me. R koiwai (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed6767, TheImaCow, R koiwai, Muffin of the English, ZimZalaBim The problem with trying to deal with reports like this is that there is a lot of text, and very few diffs - either in the original report, or in the statements that follow it. In order to work out whether there has been any behaviour that needs administrative attention, an admin has to read all of the text above (which, with all the bolding, is difficult), and trawl through multiple user talk pages, article talk pages and article histories to work out what has been happening. I've made some attempt to do that, but I probably missed some stuff. Here's my take on it:
    • R koiwai appears to have been editing in good faith at the article Kyoei Toshi (previously known as City Shrouded in Shadow), which involved removing material they viewed as being poorly sourced. They used edit summaries, albeit not very fulsome ones.
    • Muffin of the English and TheImaCow reverted their changes (because they looked like blanking).
    • R koiwai reacted angrily to being reverted.
    • People were then angry with each other for being angry with each other, at various talk pages.
    Is that a fair summary? If there are diffs of anything more serious, please present them. Otherwise, here's what I'd say to each of you.
    • R koiwai - you don't need to retire from editing Wikipedia. I'm sorry that people were reverting you, I can see that you were making sincere efforts to improve the article. Don't be intimidated by those messages, nobody is about to block your account. To be fair though, if you say 'see talk page' in an edit summary when you're removing thousands of bytes of text, people are likely to assume you mean the article talk page, rather than another user's - descriptive edit summaries, or a note on the article talk page, are helpful to other people.
    • Everybody else - perhaps a little bit more checking and AGF before issuing vandalism warnings? I see two vandalism warnings and an 'unexplained blanking' warning on R koiwai's talk page, but they were editing constructively and using edit summaries (which could perhaps have been a bit more fulsome).
    I don't think there's anything more to see here; again, if I've missed anything let me know, but if that's it, I suggest anyone still feeling angry goes for a bit of a walk? GirthSummit (blether) 16:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for replying. However, User:Ed6767 attacked me, attempted to intimidate me into silence by flaunting admin status and making fake accusations on this noticeboard (see my first post in this noticeboard). This user had nothing to do with the article but started one-sidedly attacking and hounding me at the same time as when I tried to converse with User:TheImaCow. This is why I stated that I suspected them of being User:TheImaCow's meat puppet, and still do.
    User:Ed6767 also engaged in personal attacks, refer to the goat. They also engaged in this noticeboard in bad faith, see how they ignore every single thing I raise, which is verifiable, saying it is "silly".
    Also, I did mean the article talk page. I do not know why User:TheImaCow say they did not see it, but maybe they were mistaken. But even if they were mistaken that time, they also accused me of vandalism after my comments explaining the edits were made on the other talk pages. They made vandalism accusations on talk pages where I already explained my edits.
    I will also like to point out that I conversed with the other two users who reverted my edits, and it was settled smoothly with them admitting that they were wrong. However User:TheImaCow continued saying they were correct in accusing me of vandalism multiple times, and then I started being attacked by User:Ed6767.
    I want to point out that I did not start this post on this noticeboard. User:Ed6767 did, with lies, probably to get me banned. When I listed the facts, he ignored the facts and tried to close the discussion.
    I feel that just like User:Ed6767 who was unrelated suddenly started attacking me, someone else secretly affiliated with them might disrupt my edits and attack me again. So I cannot feel safe editing on Wikipedia until I know for certain that User:TheImaCow and User:Ed6767's behaviour is not condoned. R koiwai (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    R koiwai, for real, I have bigger problems. I apologise that you are interpereting my actions in that way. I didn't attack you personally - I saw an edit on recent changes on another editors talk page w/ the subject "your edits were very disruptive" and simply reminded you to be civil and not accuse editors of disruptive editing per WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. My message was in an attempt to resolve the situation, via a civility reminder so that a huge shouting war (such as the one above) didn't have to occur. And as a reminder, you did place an admin help tag on your userpage, however, I opened a thread here due to action being needed to taken sooner due to the severity of the accusations. An admin has already responded to your claims, so please, just drop the stick and everyone can walk away unscathed, as there is unlikely to be anything good out of this. Ed6767 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ed6767 makes these claims that they started the top post in good faith, but in the top post they begins with the one-sided fake accusations "User has been making disruptive edits then not assuming good faith and being uncivil to other users" contrary to fact. This is clearly malicious and an attempt to get me banned for disruptive edits and being uncivil and to intimidate me.
    I have also listed further actions by them below where they engaged in personal attacks and harassment of me. They say "drop the stick", but I would like to point out that they are the one who escalated to this notice board, and they are the one who was unrelated to the matter, but suddenly started attacking me. Now still they continue to engage in bad faith, saying "this is silly", "I have bigger problems", despite being the instigator of harassment. They are like a bully who accuses the other party of starting the fight when they find that they cannot one-sidedly beat them into submission.
    I cannot feel safe until I know that they will not perform such actions again. R koiwai (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a very fair analysis to me. Muffin of the English (talk)
    I agree. My role in this was simply seeing the comments in recent changes and asking user to be civil - that's it - so as I wasn't involved further than that, that's all from me in this matter. Thank you Girth Summit for taking time to read that massive wall of text. Ed6767 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a list of User:Ed6767's actions.
    1: User:Ed6767 one-sidedly attacked me on User_talk:TheImaCow, making false accusations of not being civil, making nonsense personal attacks like "do not scream".
    2: User:Ed6767 did the same on User talk:R koiwai
    3: User:Ed6767 made another personal attack via User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you!
    4: User:Ed6767 flaunted admin status to threaten me on User_talk:R_koiwai
    5: User:Ed6767 started this post on this administrator's noticeboard, with clear lies (refer to my above posts where I refute these lies), trying to get me banned.
    6: User:Ed6767 engaged in this post on this board in bad faith, ignoring the facts I listed, calling them "silly", and attempting to close the discussion when I did not simply be intimidated by the lies.
    These are clearly attacks on me and very abusive, and I cannot feel safe until I know that User:Ed6767 cannot perform such actions again.
    They keep saying "drop the stick" and telling me to stop commenting, but I would like to point out again that they are the one who was unrelated but started attacking me one-sidedly for no reason, multiple times, and then escalated to this notice board.
    I would like to point out that all the time and effort I have spent responding to their attacks and refuting their lies in their attempt to get me banned is time and effort I would have been spent on improving the article I was working on before I was disrupted, and yet they accuse me of disruptive edits while never once contributing to the article.
    The two users in question have not acknowledged any fault in their harassment of me which leads me to believe they may be emboldened to continue, possibly indirectly or through meat puppets, the reasoning for which I have highlighted in previous comments. R koiwai (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not my intention. As there are a lot of details, there is a lot of text, and so I bold the parts that are important to highlight them. I felt that this was important to get the point through, especially since despite my previously doing so in the comment at the top, the harassment and attacks on me have not been addressed. R koiwai (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    R koiwai, hi again. MJL is right - as I said before, this is hard to read, and you have not provided diffs so it's also hard to investigate. Look, I'm really sorry these people acted towards you the way that they did - it started out with a misunderstanding, and then quite a few people did not behave ideally, probably because they were angry. A few points:
    • Ed6767 hasn't flaunted admin status at you - indeed, Ed6767 is not an admin. They gave you some user warnings, which I agree were not very helpful, but you don't need to be intimidated by that.
    • I don't think anyone is trying to get you banned - from the comments they've left, I think they're all happy to drop this.
    • Saying "do not scream" isn't a personal attack. Again, I don't think it's very helpful - asking you politely not to bold your text so much would be much better, but it's not a personal attack.
    While I don't think they have behaved in a very collegiate manner towards you, given that they have agreed to drop it, I don't think any further action is necessary. I hope that everyone will be able to reflect on this and consider whether there's anything they could have done better to avoid getting to this point. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 06:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The original "do not scream" is from User_talk:TheImaCow where I did not bold text, it was part of a personal attack.
    The other personal attacks on User_talk:TheImaCow and User_talk:Muffin_of_the_English remain up.
    They have never once agreed to drop it, if you look, they are constantly asking me to drop it, acting as if I am the one at fault, when they are the instigators of harassment.
    The original post on this board was intended to get me banned and intimidate me, but when I listed facts on this post they tried to close the discussion.
    Even if they are not an admin, it remains true that they used admin status as a threat on User_talk:R_koiwai, and then used this post on the administrator's noticeboard to attack me.
    As I said before, I am new, and so I do not understand how to use the "diffs". However, I have linked to the pages where the attacks are.
    I cannot feel safe to edit until I am assured that they cannot conduct this sort of behaviour, especially since User:Ed6767 was originally unrelated to the article but started attacking me after I engaged User:TheImaCow on the talk page, which leads me to suspect they are a meat puppet. If nothing is done, I feel that they will engage more meat puppets to attack me in future.
    I have been subjected to no less than six separate attacks, which I have listed above. I was of the impression that Wikipedia does not condone personal attacks and harassment. Is that not the case? R koiwai (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    R koiwai, I linked above to DIFF, which explains how to add diffs.
    I've looked again at those pages however, and I don't see any personal attacks: I see some tetchy comments, but nothing that I am going to start blocking anyone's accounts for. I do see some warnings on your talk page which were not warranted, and I have already told the people who put them there that they weren't warranted, and asked them to be a bit more careful when investigating recent changes and placing warnings. Ed6767 has apologised above; Muffin of the English and TheImaCow also seem willing to let things lie. I don't believe any of them will engage with further over this, you can go remove all the stuff from your talk page and go about editing as normal.
    Is there anything else you want to happen at this point? GirthSummit (blether) 10:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any apology from Ed6767 above. In fact, their comments on this post have been rude and dismissive to me, and it is why I am troubled that they might attack me indirectly in further. I am sorry, I am still not sure how to use "diff", so I shall list their attacks on me again.
    1: User:Ed6767 one-sidedly attacked me on User_talk:TheImaCow, making false accusations of not being civil, with the personal attack "No need to scream at them just because you didn't get what you want.". If you look at the page, I did not use bold text, and this was an unwarranted personal attack with no basis.
    2: User:Ed6767 did the same uncivil attack on User talk:R koiwai
    3: User:Ed6767 made another personal attack via User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you!. This is clearly referring to me, like the Barnstar on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muffin_of_the_English&oldid=955996973#A_barnstar_for_you! made by User:TheImaCow. The two users clearly use this sort of thing as indirect personal attacks, and User:TheImaCow acknowledged above that the Barnstar was directed at me.
    4: User:Ed6767 flaunted admin status to threaten me on User_talk:R_koiwai, saying "You've already accused an admin and loads of other editors of being disruptive". Even if they are not admin, that they brought up admin status to intimidate me is a fact. The second accusation is also false, I ony requested the three users who were disrupting my edits to stop, and the this was concluded easily with two. Only User:TheImaCow continued saying that they were justified in their accusations, and I would like to point out that even in this noticeboard, they have not once acknowledged their fault.
    5: User:Ed6767 started this post on this administrator's noticeboard, with clear lies (refer to my above posts where I refute these lies), trying to get me banned.
    6: User:Ed6767 engaged in this post on this board in bad faith, ignoring the facts I listed, calling them "silly", dismissing my comments when I list facts, and attempting to close the discussion when I did not simply be intimidated by the lies.
    You say that User:Ed6767 and User:TheImaCow are willing to let this go, but they are bullies who instigated harassment against me and tried to close the discussion when I listed the facts on this noticeboard. Their "let this go" is trying to escape culpability. They were warned for the reverting but not the harassment and I am not asking that they be blocked, but I cannot feel safe unless it is acknowledged that their harassment, especially [User:Ed6767]]'s, is not condoned, and that they will not do this again.
    To that end I would like them to be officially warned for personal attacks/harassment, and for the personal attacks on User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you! and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muffin_of_the_English&oldid=955996973#A_barnstar_for_you! to be removed. I also would like to have reassurance that action will be taken if they continue to harass me, whether directly or indirectly (like User_talk:TheImaCow#A_goat_for_you! or via meat puppets)
    I would like to add that User:Muffin_of_the_English is the only one involved in this affair has acted in a proper civil manner toward me, and User:Ed6767 and User:TheImaCow's actions, where they never acknowledge fault and simply kept attacking me stands out in contrast. R koiwai (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    R koiwai, what do you want me to say? Like, for real, I nearly forgot about this until I got pinged again, and it's unlikely we'll ever run into eachother again as my edit patrols are only for IPs and unconfirmed users? I agreed to leave it out of civility as everyone was all mad and at that point none of us could handle it civily. To reitterate, I sincerely apologise you mistook my internet comments as personal attacks. I meant no offence, especially when many other editors in the past have responded constructively to similar reminders. I am still fairly new here too, so if I made a mistake, I'd rather it be pointed out, which it has been, so I feel no need to continue this - especially in this manner - and we should both just all go on our merry ways. Ed6767 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I apologise you mistook" is not an apology, and I mistook nothing, as documented in the list of personal attacks above. R koiwai (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To make things clear I have given a full apology on R koiwai's talk page admitting my fault [47] and also agreed to stop editing the article once I learned that my original conclusions were false, see on my talk page here [48]. My issue was that I automatically assumed that anything that was from the forbes.com website was considered WP:RS, not realizing that the article in question was an opinion piece, and thus reverted R koiwai's edits as section blanking. If there is anything else that I need to do to help resolve this conflict please tell me. The only reason I came to this discussion page is that my name has been brought up quite a bit and I have not said anything substantial on this page up to this point. Muffin of the English (talk)
    Thanks for that clarification Muffin of the English. For future reference, take a look at this page. Forbes.com articles written by staff writers are generally reliable, but they also host lots of stuff from 'contributors' which is generally unreliable. I think acknowledging your mistake and offering an apology is all anyone could expect you to do to resolve the situation. GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! That page has been bookmarked for future reference, since it is a excellent guide for sourcing. Muffin of the English (talk)
    • R koiwai I have already told you that I see no personal attacks on those pages. The closest thing to a personal attack is the accusation of vandalism; that was quickly withdrawn. I do see you accusing other people of bad faith, and of meat puppetry, accusations which are themselves rather problematic. I don't believe that any of these users have any intention of following you or harassing you - if they do, report it here, but I am confident that they won't. GirthSummit (blether) 06:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is very disappointing that you would say that. I have documented multiple personal attacks, multiple accusations of vandalism which took place after I explained my edits which is why I concluded that they were made in bad faith, and I did not accuse meat puppeting, but say that I suspected it, and I still do, because it was someone who was unrelated who started attacking me one-sidedly, including the escalation to this notice board with more false accusations which was clearly yet another attack and also clearly done in bad faith. I should point out again that Ed6767 never withdrew anything and was constantly rude, dismissive, and acting in an insulting manner even on this noticeboard as well as on my talk page ("Sure, if you say so"). You said that they apologised, but they only said sorry that I "mistook" which is not an apology, it is a further accusation that I am at fault. That after all this you would say that there were no attacks feels very unreasonable, and gives me the impression that Wikipedia condones harassments and sides with bullies who attack innocents who are trying to improve articles. Is that the official stance? R koiwai (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    R koiwai, I'm sorry you feel that way. It seems to me that you are looking for justice, and I'm afraid that isn't what this noticeboard, or admins in general, are here to provide. We are given tools to stop disruption to the project; we're not a court where people are tried and punished for wrong-doing. I have told these editors that I think their warnings were unwarranted and hasty; they all know what happens to editors who persistently give other people unwarranted warnings. There are no outstanding accusations of vandalism against you, and I am confident that they will leave you alone in the future. That being the case, the disruption has stopped - I have no grounds for any further action. If you are subject to any harassment in future, report it here and I assure you that it will be dealt with, but this is the end of the matter for now. GirthSummit (blether) 18:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that harassment and personal attacks was not condoned on Wikipedia. I believe I have sufficiently documented that I was subjected to a degree of it where there is no doubt to what it was, particularly in the case of Ed6767 attacking me multiple times, starting this post on this noticeboard with obviously false accusations, and being rude and dismissive to me whenever I listed facts throughout. If there are no actions to be taken against the instigators, then that is very regrettable. R koiwai (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kleuske

    WP:BOOMERANG
    Reported indeffed by El C. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This guy seems to be harassing me, reverting without comment or sufficient reason,[1] and using inappropriate language.[2] Also, I'd like some oversight on these articles. Thanks in advance, Kolyvansky (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regulatory_capture&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada_Drugs&action=history

    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kleuske#Canada_Drugs

    • What I see is your carrying on an edit war against multiple editors on Canada Drugs, and Kleuske losing their cool on your talk page out of frustration. It was not a personal attack and was only mildly uncivil, so I doubt any admin is going to sanction them for it, but your edit war does seem to be a problem. I suggest you stop immediately and open a discussion on the article talk page. It seems to me that other editors are telling you that you're misunderstanding the subject of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Kolyvansky's edits, there are severe competence issues here. Many of their edits over the last year or so have been reverted by other editors, on most articles they've edited. Maybe a failure of WP:CIR going on here. It's clear they don't understand that Canada Drugs is about a company and isn't a coatrack to hang spam to other onling pharmacies. They keep slow burning edit warring on multiple articles. Looks like we need to question are they taking too much time here? Canterbury Tail talk 01:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying people you report, big red banner at the top of this page, yada, yada, yada... I tend to agree there’s a CIR issue, but Kolyvansky is capable of making useful contributions. They are just very stubborn and do not like to take no for an answer. Kleuske (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the reason I reverted you in regulatory capture is that I think your example is not intended to clarify anything, but is you riding an anti-government hobby horse, because of this screed. Kleuske (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see concerted POV-pushing (at best: actually indistinguishable from spamming) by Kolyvansky going back to at least January 2019. That is... problematic. Partial block maybe? Guy (help!) 08:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we should make some kind of decision, one way or another, as the editor's editing pattern has them only showing up once a month or so. So I don't expect them to respond to this, and it's possible they'll return and we'll start again. Canterbury Tail talk 01:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the pattern of disruptive editing has gone on long enough to warrant a indefinite block. They have wasted enough time, already. If they want to edit again, they can appeal the block. Kleuske (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. El_C 11:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IPv6 user with problems

    Blocked /64 range for 48 hours. That range was previous blocked for 3 months as part of a CU block, so might be worth keeping an eye on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At four articles I am dealing with a problematic IPv6 editor, who seems to be hellbent on removing certain information from a few connected articles. I am talking about Top Gun: Maverick and articles about actors who are cast in that film: List of Ed Harris performances, Jon Hamm and Charles Parnell (actor). The editor is 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:BC11:256:7FD2:FFC, 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:60C9:C6A4:8D10:C791, 2600:8800:4A80:44EF:1C02:3881:8C4E:847C. First this editor claimed that the information is not sourced, although this type of information is usually not sourced. Then when I added sources, about five of them, although I admit they are not the best of sources, they reverted because the sources "never even cited where they got their information from". This is an interesting reasoning, but one that has no end. In short, they are trying to be smart about it, but it remains edit warring or even vandalism to repeatedly trivial and now remove sourced information from Wikipedia. Something complicating the issue is that this IPv6 is almost certainly User:Dibol, who has made similar edits to these same articles, and used at least in one instance precisely the same edit summary as the IPv6 user, as can be seen here. Using two accounts is a bit of a problem on Wikipedia, and Dibol has been around since 2006, so should be aware of this. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update User:Dibol was blocked for edit warring, but the IPv6 editors weren't. The sock-puppetry suspicion has also not been investigated, to the best of my knowledge. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent addition of unsourced content, non-notable residents to Wah Fu Estate

    An IP-hopping editor keeps adding a list of uncited "notable residents", some of whom are not so notable, to Wah Fu Estate. I posted a warning about adding unsourced content to his/her talk page some time ago, but no specific references have been provided. I have made several requests for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but they told me to come here instead. Citobun (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You've only made one level-one user warning, and not to the most recent IP address. You've also not notified the anonymous editor of this discussion. I'd suggest making another user warning and notifying the user of this discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: In spite of the level-2 warning and notification of ANI discussion, the user has silently re-added the info (from yet another IP address). Can someone please help resolve this? Citobun (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If they're doing this from multple IPs, you should probably hit up Request for Page Protection to at least get the page blocked from IP editing for a time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term behaviour

    Hi! This user Sangitha rani111 have been warned for violating Wikipedia's terms in the past for numerous times including level 3 warning and recently by this [[49]] but the user deleted the discussion and not responded to the problem properly. There have been multiple issues addressed in the warning message and the user never responded to the issues. This user occasionally uses Wikipedia and there seems to be less motive of building Wikipedia. There is some strong case to show that this user has some conflict of interest in South Asian social groups. The last warning message was sent by me so I request the general community to take decision in this matter whether to block or ban the user. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Category Coronavirus created with love poem

    USER BLOCKED AND EDITS REVERTED
    (non-admin closure) I presume "love poem" is coronavirus, regardless, the user has been blocked and edits reverted. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Monocure for goronavirus Special:Contributions/Monocure_for_goronavirus created a category with love poem and starts to link the category to dozens of places. KittenKlub (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Illegitimate Barrister Infobox template codes/ parameters in articles

    User:Illegitimate Barrister has been editing the code of unprotected infobox templates in regards to images / image layout at the top of the infobox. Instead of writing code specific for the infobox, the user has been copying code from other infoboxes. The user copied code from Template:Infobox country for sub template Template:Infobox country/imagetable and applied that to the following infoboxes:

    The copied code was written for two flag |image_flag= |image_flag2= parameters and a coat of arms/symbol parameter |image_coat= |image_symbol=. The infoboxes had existing code for images at the top which was not changed by the user edits:

    • Infobox law enforcement agency had a parameter for a flag |flag= and all images had a default image size.
    • Infobox fire department had a parameter for a flag |flag=.
    • Infobox national military had a parameter that is used for flags |image= and a second image parameter |image2= which can be used if there are two images such as a symbol or logo. Not sure if this relevant as I am a newbie to infobox coding, the infobox uses Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style with seems to have specific styles for images.

    The infobox template code now has duplicate parameters. I thought an issue could arise if the subtemplate code was changed which would be only tested for the parent template and not other infoboxes using it.

    The user subsequently edited several articles after changing the code, examples:

    I posted on the users talk page a disruptive editing warning diff. I have now asked the user to revert the infobox code changes / subsequent article infobox changes diff the user replying that I can revert them.

    In the warning, I raised not updating the infobox documentation following editing. The user attempted to apply the same code to two protected templates with User:MSGJ asking for a rationale and if there was consensus:

    An issue occurred in February with the user copying code from another infobox - code from subtemplate Template:Infobox settlement/columns applied to:

    • Infobox law enforcement agency diff which was roll backed by user FOX 52 diff
    • Infobox fire department diff which FOX 52 roll backed diff

    It was discussed on:

    • talk:Infobox law enforcement agency diff (I didn't ping the user - I used [[User:Illegitimate_Barrister|Illegitimate Barrister]] - so not sure if user was aware of the issues)
    • user's talk page - FOX 52 posted had roll backed law enforcement agency diff and I later posted FOX 52 had roll backed fire department the same time diff.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor should take responsibility for their actions. When it is explained to them why their actions are disruptive, it is their duty to revert these edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They already lost the Template Editor right in January 2019 because "concerns about misuse of TE, and lack of accountability" (right taken away by MSGJ). Seems like the same issues persist at unprotected templates then. Fram (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Manifestation

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

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

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

    Hi everyone. Verywell is a family of four websites, three of which are unjustly banned. I tried to get them removed from the blacklist, but no one listens to me. Short summary:
    • I should note that I have never been involved with Wikipedia's spamlist, and only in this thread, I realised how LinkReports work. Turned out there are four of them:
    • The above LinkReports provide no evidence of spamming.
    For the past few weeks, it feels like I've been talking to a brick wall, especially when it comes to User:Beetstra. Beetstra cherry picks the facts that support his opinion, stonewalls the debates, and twists around evidence to have it say something it doesn't say. He insists that Verywell has been spammed, but provides no evidence of it, planting huge walls of texts to drone the discussion out. It has been exhausting to deal with him, and I suspect this is exactly what he wants: wearing me out and even reporting me to ANI, hoping that I would drop the case. I think he *knows* that the sites were never spammed, but he says they were as an excuse to keep them banned, simply because he doesn't like these particular kind of popular press sources (e.g. Psychology Today, ScienceDaily, Men's Health, Woman's Day, etc).
    The Verywell sites offer articles on a wide variety of topics, written in simple, plain English, aimed at a wide audience. It is obvious that Verywell will never be the best source ever, but the sites have many visitors, and the LinkReports show that many users (me included) have tried to use them as a source, but couldn't. The Verywell sites have review teams featuring board-certified physicians, and have been certified by the Health On the Net Foundation (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). As a source, Verywell should never be used primarily, but it could be used as an ancillary reference. I have yet to be presented with a Verywell article that demonstrably contains lies. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, please stop misinterpreting my comments, and we are here for your blatant personal attack, not to rehash your hammering of the same comments over and over. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, it is *you* who have been hammering your point, and I have certainly not misinterpreted anything. - Manifestation (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, can you give me a diff where I insist that the site was spammed, and can you show that I am the only one with that opinion? Can you show me a diff where I express that I do not like these sites? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, when I first brought this to the RS Noticeboard, you literally told me "this was blacklisted because it was spammed". You also cited copyvios (copy-paste jobs), incorrectly stating this a reason to blacklist a site. As the situation unfolded, you gradually loosened up your position, and you later stated: "maybe there wasn’t any spamming, maybe there was". Admittedly, you never directly said that you do not like Verywell, but it is obvious from your completely unhelpful attitude that you don't. Sure, Verywell will never be on the same level as The New York Times or something, but it may still harbor useful information for Wikipedia. Who are you to decide that such websites should be banished from all use? - Manifestation (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeed changed the comment regarding direct spamming from my first one, but I am still not sure whether the edits by Sri Lankan users and/or Ethiopian IPs are NOT spamming per sé (it is not a glomarization, it is just that we can not always convey the intention of other editors through the edits they perform, it is more a assessment based on years long experience in seeing spammers on Wikipedia). That is in line with comments by User:JzG and User:Praxidicae. However, persistent abuse like in cases of sock puppetry with copyvio concerns (and again, which may be spamming) is a reason to blacklist to stop said abuse (those are techniques also used by spammers on a regular basis). It is not necessarily a first choice, but we have done this regularly. The possibility of spamming does not make me comfortable to remove it, especially since this is, also in your own words, a marginally reliable site. You also here say 'it may harbor useful information. My suggestion, hence, has been consistently been to go through some whitelisting of this site to see if it is of general use. Score is now 1 decline and 1 (self-)grant for whitelisting. But now we re-hash the same discussion as on WT:SBL, and that was not why we came here.
    So, where did I tell a blatant lie? Or is that a similar slip of the tongue as the (now withdrawn) remark regarding the Ethiopian editor? And how am I stonewalling if you just blatantly dismissed the remark from Praxidicae when he was supporting my evaluation and suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You know Beetstra, if you wouldn't have idiotically brought this to ANI, you would have 'won', because I actually would have dropped this, as it is emotionally exhausting to deal with your bullshit. Then again, I hope other people will take a good look at this, and that they see through the games you are playing. This may be important, because you and JzG play big roles in the RS Noticeboard and at the Spam-blacklist, so users who go there have no other choice than to deal with you. I cannot imagine this is the first time your behavior has antagonized people. I wish I could scrutinize your past, but I won't, since I can imagine we both have better things to do than butting heads.
    As for the Verywell sites... I could file an RfC, but right now, I am too tired of this drama to do so. - Manifestation (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, and so you reply with yet another insult. And you keep personalizing this, as if I am the only person who has concerns, just completely dismissing User:JzG and User:Praxidicae. And no, this is not about winning. Thanks. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, and you did not tell me where I told a blatant lie, nor did you withdraw it. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, calm down, my friend. Manifestation is frustrated, and he's taking it out on you a bit. That's not a good look. Let's think about the underlying problem and how we might resolve it for this and similar cases? Guy (help!) 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, well, that is how we generally do this. If we have a case of possible abuse on the blacklist, and we have concerns regarding reliability/appropriateness, we send it to the whitelist for some time. That has, for long, been an accepted solution to that. Or we have a discussion on another board where there is overwhelming support for general use, and we delist it. The latter we don't have (that is not how I read the thread at RSN at least), so we go with what has been suggested over and over: lets see some whitelisting and discussion on individual appropriateness. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, you know that, I know that. Manifestation seems in danger of climbing the Reichstag. Which would be a shame. Guy (help!) 12:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I do feel that I tried to explain early on that that was our common practice of things. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, I have an idea: try assuming good faith. You need to bear in mind that we see a lot of link abuse, and a lot of people demanding that such-and-such a site is WP:USEFUL so should be removed from the blacklist.
    For me, I'd like some concrete examples of where you think these sites would be usable as sources, and the content they'd support. Show me what the change you advocate would actually look like in practice. Is that such a big ask?
    I'm familiar with your arguments, but they are generic and not specific. I have seen a batshit insane homeopath get a HON code, so that's not compelling to me. Input from MEDRS regulars might be, but better still, some examples of Wikipedia articles and additional content you think would be valid uses of these sites. Maybe you already did that and I missed it. Guy (help!) 12:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manifestation wants to enable links to a pop-medical site,. Beetstra wants to see what that might look like because of past issues, but Manifestation doesn't seem to want to do that. I would like to see specifics of where the site would be used (I am skeptical that we should use it as it doesn't seem to be a MEDRS, but whatever). I don't see the rush. I do see the frustration, in that there's no obvious single venue where we can address the trifecta of abuse, reliability, and appropriateness for given content. Guy (help!) 10:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You are grossly misrepresenting what I, as well as Diannaa did. Both were copyvio removals where we pasted the link into the edit summary. MER-C 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MER-C: Ok, thanks for clarifying, but how am I supposed to know that? The diffs are revdeleted, and I am not an administrator, meaning that I would have had to manually look up in the history if a link is in an edit summary (here and here). - Manifestation (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that would have taken you less than thirty seconds - click on "500 edits", then use your browser's find functionality to look for my username. The edit summaries used made it clear that both edits were copyvio removals. MER-C 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not clear on what mess I've walked in to here, but I remember clearly what I was trying to do with that link last February; it was the best information I could find explaining the difference between a resident and an intern, which I was looking for in terms of Georges Gilles de la Tourette as Charcot's <something> for Tourette syndrome. When I couldn't use that link, I had to go to a French-language source, and solved the problem that way. I have not read this whole discussion so do not know if this helps or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, just out of curiosity: did you consider to get it whitelisted? Dirk Beetstra T C 18:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:, on technical stuff, I'm dumber than I look :) I actually went on to find information that was more relevant to the precise situation of Charcot and Tourette in France vis-a-vis resident or intern (Tourette was both Charcot's resident and intern, it turns out), so I didn't give that site a second thought. If I did need to try to get something whitelisted, I am not sure I would know how or where. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, thanks. Just for next time: it is linked from the message you get when you hit the blacklist. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be grateful if someone would whitelist the usage at Health care provider and remove that page from Category:Pages with URL errors, or cite a respected academic journal article written by a PhD that answers that complex technical question, LOL. I sympathize with Manifestation's point as I from personal experience, found the blacklisting/whitelisting process one of the most unpleasant areas of Wikipedia to work in. I feel that the handful of editors who own that part of the project just generally form a local consensus. I don't know much about the Verywell site, but it seems pretty harmless to me. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
      • Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
    Perhaps keeping both the "pop culture site" reference and the primary source is the best solution for now, until a better secondary source interpreting the law is found? wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wbm1058, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources, it totally depends on their use. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018#verywellmind.com that this site was reported by Jytdog, an indefinitely banned editor per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog, and less than 24 hours later JzG added the site to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That strikes me as a too-speedy addition based on a two-editor local consensus. Given that one of those two has since been banned, it seems reasonable to just remove it from the blacklist and see whether the spamming issue comes back again or not. We don't indefinitely protect articles after short-term vandalism, why should we indefinitely blacklist sites after short-term spamming? – wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Wbm1058, the case was copyvio, we indeed blacklist fast then. Administrators don’t need first to get a broad consensus to block or protect, those are often a report->action, like here, report->blacklist And yes, we do indef block editors. The comparison with page protection is not a fair one, page protection avoids all editing, a block disables all editing by a person.
      Then there is e.g. the case of the Ethiopian IP hammering, doing that later through a French proxy. Then the case of what user:MER-C reverted, yet another case of copyvio from verywell. Coincidence? Or continuous attempts to spam? Your guess is as good as mine. My experience makes me bit worried. I’d play it safe, also because this is not a site that is an important reliable source, rather it is a site of ‘marginal reliability’ (quoting editors in the last RSN thread). And to me, the link I presented to you sounds much more authoritative than Verywell.
      So no, this blacklisting does not have to be forever, but my suggestion first is to see whether we need to take the risk. I just blacklisted a link that was the subject of 5 years of spam. If it is spammed, it will not stop, popularity pays bills. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Wbm1058, come and join the blacklist posse. We need more admins. Speed is not unusual (spam usually needs to be controlled quickly). Guy (help!) 20:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above statement by Beetstra is exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about. Misleading statements, twisting around the evidence, and making up excuses. The nasty thing about this is that Beetstra's statement *appears* to be very reasonable at face value. It is only when you investigate his claims further that his statement falls apart. But not everyone feels like spending time doing that, and they know Beetstra is a highly experienced guy, so they'll simply assume he must be right. I can only hope enough people lay bare his behavior, and that they see Beetstra for who he really is. - Manifestation (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, what is misleading? Dirk Beetstra T C 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, May I lend you some binoculars, so you can see the ground fromrup there on your high horse?
    Those logs do not show the content. What I asked was: what content would be sourced to these sites. Guy (help!) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: What do you want from me?! To get a migraine attack?! I did exactly what you asked. You want to know on what occasions people try to use Verywell, well, there you go. I felt extremely annoyed even posting those 20 attempts, because if I can look at COIBot's LinkReports, so can you. In these situations, the logs by the COIBot provide the core evidence. You commented a number of times on my second thread about Verywell, but you never even seemed interested in the LinkReports. Now you're blaming the drama on me, because you're covering up for Beetstra. And you know what the craziest thing about this whole ordeal is? Beetstra created the COIBot! He runs it! Dare I say it, few Wikipedians know more of spam than he does. But now he suddenly pretends not to know how to read the LinkReports which his own bot produces. And he pretends to think blacklisting a website will stop copyvios. How stupid does he think I am? - Manifestation (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, I read those reports. Failed attempts are often there. You can see people trying to use it but you don’t know why. I don't know why. Sometimes you can dig through other edits at that time to see what happened. You will need to get individual discussions. That is why I ask for more. JzG asked the same, individual use. Examples of people trying it is not enough, you get the whole spectrum: people pointing to copyvio to genuine use to cases which may not be the best in the first place to spam.
    Manifestation, I wrote COIBot, I have it making these reports for years. I know what the data in them means. And I very much agree that this may be a case to remove, but I see, with others, the risks and I am, with others, concerned over its real use. Get a clear endorsement through RSN/MEDRS/RfC, or we discuss some cases at the whitelist.
    I don’t think you are stupid, your edits speak for you. Blacklisting may not always prevent copyvio, the reporting editor, the executioner, and now me clearly think that it helps (or at least deters). But I am not sure whether we only talk about copyvio. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: You can see when and where people used it or attempted to use it when you open the LinkReports and scroll down (verywell.com, verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com, verywellfamily.com). After 2 December 2018, the uses become attempted uses, because JzG added the sites to the banlist. You of course know this, yet you confusingly ask for more examples and for "individual discussions". This is why I suspect that you intentionally are making no sense, to stonewall the discussion. Especially the last two sentences of your comment are difficult to make sense of.
    Yes, I could try to file an RfC, or ask at WT:MED, but right now, I am too tired to do so. I really want to drop this. - Manifestation (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Oh, and by the way: your bot has a bug. Sometimes it forgets to print "User:". For example, "w:en:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B" should be w:en:User:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, nobody's stopping you from dropping it any time you like. Just saying. Guy (help!) 10:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to drop it, but then Beetstra reported me to this board, so I decided to hang around a little longer, hoping that someone in this forum would step in to help me. But I'm afraid that is not the case. - Manifestation (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, thanks, yes, that is indeed something that needs fixing. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, no, I have, consistently asked for discussions, not for random attempts where we do not know the intention of the edit. Yes, they want to use the link, but for what / what reason? That needs individual discussion to assert that. E.g. at the whitelist to discuss individual cases, or in general at RSN, MEDRS or an RfC. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, no, what I want is really extremely simple. Some examples of articles and content you think might be appropriately sourced to these websites. You assert, at enormous length, that they are valuable sources of information, but you have yet to provide any concrete examples of what that might look like in practice. Guy (help!) 10:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Enormous length? This entire thread would not have happened in the first place if you and Beetstra would have listened to me on WP:RSN and WT:SBL. Don't forget that you originally banned Verywell, meaning that the burden of evidence lies upon you, not me. If you want to see concrete examples of Verywell's use or attempted use, you can look at the LinkReports. They show many edits, both good and poor, to multiple wikis, on a variety of subjects. Verywell is a pop med source and certainly not the best reference ever, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. - Manifestation (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Manifestation, yes, enormous length. "We would not be here if you just gave me what I want" has never been any kind of justification for walls of text (see m:MPOV).
    Now, back to the topic: what articles and content do you think might be reasonably based on these sites, please? What would the change you advocate, look like in practice? Guy (help!) 10:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop striking the deceased equine

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

    Aargh, not you too! Do you actually understand what this is about? "Manifestation is unwilling to provide specific articles as examples". What do you want me to do? Post the entire LinkReport? It shows various articles on which Verywell was (attempted to be) cited. I have myself tried to cite Verywell, and I previously wrote about this. But regardless of its quality and usefullness, Verywell is currently listed on the *Spam*-blacklist. As the name suggests, this is to prevent *spamming*. Let me be as clear as I can be: Verywell has not been spammed. It wasn't spammed, it isn't spammed, and it most likely will not be spammed when unbanned. Why would Dotdash, the owner of the Verywell brand, be so stupid to start a spam campaign on Wikipedia and risk PR damage?
    This is THE LAST COMMENT I will make on this. Feel free to close this discussion. You are right, HandThatFeeds, this is a dead pony. But it is not me who killed it. - Manifestation (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand perfectly well what this is about. The problem is that you seem to have fixated on a single method for supporting your argument and, when other people have stated they do not find it convincing, you... repeat the same method of argument. That is not going to get you anywhere. Focusing on "this many people have tried to add links to the site" is not an effective argument. That just tells us multiple people are trying to use the source, but not that it's an appropriate source. Your argument is an appeal to popularity, not quality, and that's why you're getting pushback for relying on it.
    Why would Dotdash, the owner of the Verywell brand, be so stupid to start a spam campaign on Wikipedia and risk PR damage?
    This clarifies one of your issues that I think was unclear before. "Spam" does not have to originate from the source. In Wikipedia's view, if any number of people are inappropriately linking to a site whose value is questionable, it is treated as spamming. It doesn't have to be self-promotion to qualify as spam. If many people are linking to a questionable source, especially if the target articles don't support the claimed statements, sites go on the spam blacklist because it appears people are trying to promote the site regardless of its merit.
    So, that's where we're at. The site might have some value, but users are reluctant to take it off the blacklist without some specific examples of appropriate citations, due to the large number of apparently inappropriate ones being added before. Some editors asked you for better examples. Since they didn't get any, right now, that leaves us at the status quo. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sun Yang

    The page Sun Yang is subject to an ongoing edit war. Users are blanking content referenced to reliable sources South China Morning Post and Seven News; diff. I opened a talk page discussion, to which Swazzer30 made the baseless personal attack, "It is so glaringly obvious that Citobun and FobTown are Wikipedians who have a grudge against anything Chinese on Wikipedia." and resolved to "continue to monitor this page and make sure no sensationalist/unproven material is published". The content in question is referenced to reliable sources so I don't see what the issue is. Citobun (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I see a 16-revert edit war between four editors (Swazzer30, Lvhis, Citobun, and FobTown) who know better. The first editor is new and made a personal attack in the quote above, the latter three editors have been blocked for edit warring before, and the fourth was also been given a final warning at AN3 less than two weeks ago. — MarkH21talk 01:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I made two reverts and don't intend to revert again. I brought the issue here to resolve it, since taking it to the article talk page merely resulted in a personal attack and a promise, in essence, to continue reverting. Citobun (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s also ridiculous that this edit war started just days after El_C semi-protected the article against edit-warring. — MarkH21talk 02:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 02:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr. Samerkov

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

    The Dewan Rakyat, or Malaysian Parliament, is currently in a period of flux, and this seems to be drawing some controversy to the article. Both ChioBu and Mr. Samerkov have been edit warring on Dewan Rakyat for a few days. I warned both a couple of days ago when 3RR was violated. Both editors seem relatively new, and other editors and IPs have also been involved. However, the edit warring has restarted since my warning, and there has been no attempt by any party to use the article talkpage. CMD (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified Mr. Samerkov of this discussion, as this had not yet been done. CMD (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't blame me for this. I just help the other editors what's the right. Sir Don't get tricked by User Chio Bu. I wanted to do right thing and revent the User Chio Bu did. He's a RBA who keep making Faking Propaganda against current goverment. Some MPs has Lost Trust on Previous PM and Mazlee Malik dosen't support mahathir side. Since you have revent. I would rather not to bother dewan rakyat's Article.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost Forgot, Im not good in english but User Chio Bu is Unaccaptable to agree with my previous Edits. He also Trying to Revent The Kedah State Assamblely since The PH Goverment Has Collepes. Please stop Accucing me.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As it's obvious from above, Mr Samerkov continues to make baseless accusations towards me, yet he claims that I am accusing him. He has failed to provide any source to backup any of the statements he made. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ChioBu (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, I would better know about this if i would. User Sisusiva and User Quidtul itself remove what you did. All i know is you have a simillar account like 2001:D08:1284:81E3:F42C:DF48:40AF:A6C7 if i was right. You also clearly WP:NOTTHERE Too. You keep accusing me from the start. I had enough revent on dewan rakyat and you still repeating the same thing. Still You Look like a RBA to me and Don't lie on me because you still trying to revent again like kedah state assambley and Perikatan nasional. Can we End talk Dicussion ?.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP address does NOT belong to me. No, I didn't accuse you at all. Everything I said about you on this page are the truth and I have the proof. Now, you are the one who is accusing me. You claimed that I am a RBA, what proof do you have for that? Besides, Wikipedia is NOT a place to talk about our political beliefs. You, for whatever reasons, have been busy reverting me and a few other users' edits on those pages, and you have never provided any reliable source or proper explanation for those reverts. This clearly shows that you are WP:NOTHERE. ChioBu (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was also You are keep accusing me that You keep Repeting the same thing. Come on dude i know everyone style. Firstly You Keep Revent on Kedah State Assamblely. Then you revent on Dewan Rakyat that You think GPS is a Allies Parties on Perikatan Nasional. I just Trying to follow and Fixed the error, Revent something wrong on Article like what Other Real Malaysian Wikis did. Until you did revent just like others. Like i Said before, i will not touch Dewan Rakyat's Article since you involve me here. I don't know what's Wrong with you. You keep revent and Revent the SAME Thing i make a good statement. It is better we end this. This also shows you are really WP:NOTHERE and Lier. I saw that Article about Mazlee but He Still didn't Support mahathir but rather Support Muhyddin Side. If you keep blaming me on this. It was Your Fault who remove my statement. This ends right here, Right now. Please !.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep claiming that Maszlee Malik supports Muhyiddin. Let me ask you again, where's your source for that? Here, I have a few sources which clearly state that Maszlee does NOT support Muhyiddin's government. [1] [2] [3] Next, with regards to the Kedah State Legislative Assembly, it is a fact that only the Sultan of Kedah can decide who gets to be the Chief Minister. Since the Sultan of Kedah hasn't made any announcement now, Mukhriz Mahathir is legally still the Chief Minister and Pakatan Harapan is still the government of Kedah. Both you and User:Qaidul are wrong in this matter. I see that you continue to edit war with another user on the Mukhriz Mahathir article over this issue as well. Please stop that. ChioBu (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me add that Gabungan Parti Sarawak is NOT actually part of Perikatan Nasional, it is just supporting Perikatan Nasional. [4] [5] [6] Therefore, Gabungan Parti Sarawak's status in the Dewan Rakyat is Confidence & Supply, not Government. ChioBu (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/05/09/maszlee-turns-down-appointment-as-chairman-of-mara-advisory-task-force/
    2. ^ https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/05/13/maszlee-questions-bersatus-morals-promise-of-new-political-culture-without/1865739
    3. ^ https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/525880
    4. ^ https://www.theborneopost.com/2020/02/29/cmo-gps-not-a-member-of-perikatan-nasional-will-support-muhyiddin-regardless/
    5. ^ https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/02/29/sarawak-cm-gps-only-backing-muhyiddin-as-pm-not-part-of-his-perikatan-nasio/1842246
    6. ^ https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/03/02/gps-backs-muhyiddin-not-part-of-perikatan-says-dcm/
    I knew you keep repeat and repeat again. Just stop ok. Your Sources Cannot be Trust anymore. Just Chill out eh ?. I feel had Enough Talking to you or revent everything.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow edit war at Lorraine Kelly

    Greggers224 has reverted repeatedly, but has not made any comments on the talk page despite being asked to do so. This is now becoming stubborn behaviour.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ianmacm, blocked 31h for now. Does this need a longer partial block? Or a ban from changing countries to UK or vice-versa? Guy (help!) 12:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the old favourite issue of WP:UKNATIONALS again. The usual way round this is to get a consensus on the talk page. Andy Murray is perhaps the Guinness world record holder for arguments over this issue, and the infobox says "Glasgow, Scotland, UK", perhaps in an attempt to keep everyone happy. He is described as a "British professional tennis player from Scotland" because he plays for Britain in the Davis cup team. Meanwhile, Andy Stewart (musician) describes him as a Scottish singer, and the infobox says "Glasgow, Scotland". I've more or less given up trying to keep everyone happy on this issue, but there should be discussion on the talk page if WP:UKNATIONALS is involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ”British professional tennis player from Scotland”? Someone needs to be shown a Venn diagram. Brunton (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very simple: in the English press, Murray is a British player if he wins and a Scottish player if he loses. The same is and has been true of other Scottish athletes and sportsmen. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Resumption of Disruptive Editing by sock due to weak measure

    The out come of the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barind/Archive led to only 3 day ban now the sock is back with another ip [50] and is blanking the article Politics of Bangladesh with no appropriate reason at all. Proof its all the same ip, geo locate the ips that were banned and all locations are the same, not to mention the exact same behavior, targeting the same article, the tone in edit summary, the edit history is sufficient. Requesting urgent and harsher actions for this behavior. 43.245.120.94 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I requested semin protection for page [51], appears the vandal has a dynamic ip, [52] and had blanked the page again, please take urgent action. I myself have dynamic ip, thats not the issue, I already mentioned the problem on first para, geo location and behavior of the previously blocked sock is the same. Please stop the vandal form repeatedly blanking the page. 43.245.123.21 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Users User:Hamish Gary and User:Bargyman

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

    Nevermind, this is the wrong section sam1370 (talk / contribs) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a WP:GOCE member, I've been concerned about Hamish Gary's edits; "grammar fixes" have removed chunks of content. I've notified them. Miniapolis 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Miniapolis: Thanks. I went through all their edits recently and I think I’ve reverted the problematic ones. Some went unnoticed for a month or two. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vala keep

    User:Vala keep is repeatedly adding incorrect information to articles, and sending people inappropriate messages on their talk pages (User talk:Typhoon2013). When Typhoon2013 sent me a message on my talk page about these repeated problems, I knew this had to stop. The previous day, I gave Vala keep a warning (level 2) for vandalism, but Vala keep hasn't been really doing vandalism, it's more disruptive editing. Next thing I know, Vala keep will probably be sending me a message saying something inappropriate (User talk:Chicdat#Please read, User talk:Chicdat#Please reply. I repeat, This Is CRAZY! 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wjrz nj forecast repeated addition of WP:OR WP:CBALL

    Wjrz nj forecast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Repeated WP:DE mass changes adding WP:OR WP:CBALL content.

    long list of evidence diffs

    Unsourced "production on Broadway was haunted" dates:

    Unsourced production stoppage dates:

    Changes to dates based upon previously linked sourced information:

    Unsourced changes to WP:BLP:

    Conversations in which user has participated re: adding unsourced content:

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

    Note that Wjrz nj forecast's responses to being warned about adding unsourced content were Why would I be blocked from editing? You’re deleting my edits. My edits are not controversial and do not require sources. Your deletions are disruptive as they are deleting facts. If you really want a source, do your own research and add them. (here) and Yikes, y’all are getting so upset. I’ll leave it up to you to do the research, come up with your own wording, and add the citation if that’s what you want. (here). Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked him for 31 hours. I was going to warn him, but his talk page is full of warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, thanks, hopefully that will nudge him into adding sources. Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a TV editor, good block; mentioning the shooting situation regarding their physical studios (when they are in production, albeit remotely) gives an article an unneeded smack of WP:RECENT, and at this point 'we don't know when they'll be back in the studio' is obvious information that doesn't need to be pointed out, nor will it need mention down the line once the shows are back to 'normal' (in the relative sense). Also...Lilly Singh has not, and has no plans to, do a remote episode and pretty much had her full season in the can when everything went down, so that edit was 100% wrong and spec. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lebanese Eagle A29 threats

    BLOCKED PER WP:NLT
    (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This new account is attempting to get changes done to Lebanese Air Force that would change the inventory to indicate things not supported by the provided reliable sources in the article now. For all I know, the editor might be right about the inventory. But, it doesn't matter, as the editor refuses to provide a reliable source to support their changes, despite many, many requests to do so across multiple accounts (see also: the section above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Official Lebanese Air Force - Making threats and legal threats). Under this new account, the editor was polite enough in asking for the changes [53][54]. I noted on their talk page that such changes wouldn't happen without a reliable source [55] and I posted a new SPI report about this account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elie El Hajj that hasn't been acted on as yet. He responded to my note, once again asking for the changes to be done without providing a reliable source [56]. I then told him, once again, about the need for reliable sources, even translated it to Arabic for him to try to get through, and noted our policy on sockpuppets and that he needed to go back to his original account and appeal the block [57]. After this, they went ballistic and returned to making threats of jail and maybe implying physical harm and saying we have three days to comply [58] (see similar threats at User talk:HajjKop Skills Lebanon).

    The threats of course are not credible. Whether this is a case of WP:TROLL or WP:CIR, I don't know and really don't care. This needs to stop. Requesting indefinite block, at least until the threats are lifted. Editor has been informed about this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Rechtsstreitigkeiten disruptive editing

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

    This is absolutely untrue and unfair. I'll start with one point. I don't dare edit this case in my real name and I'd be a fool to do it: journalists and others have been threatened over this case. So yes, this is a SPA (special purpose account) but it's that for my own protection. The Radack case has a protection order for witnesses in the case, because both Radack and her friends on twitter ( group of people) have threatened anyone who write about the case. Fitzgibbon has been threatened with having his jaw broken (I can't publish it on this page which doesn't take twitter links - but it's on twitter) by Radack's twitter supporters . That's just one example of a threat of violence (that person was reported to the Police). For this reason, Fitzgibbon requested a protection-order from the judge for the witness in the trial (the trial is in July). The protection order came in about two weeks ago, here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376.79.0.pdf
    Radack (who is very famous and able to communicate widely) has been vociferous in abusing anyone who writes any aspects of the facts of the case. She's done everything from random accusations to threats. She continued this kind of behavior in 2018-2019 and was cited for contempt of court for doing so by the judge, at the time of the settlement in April. She only got fined 500 dollars, but she could have gone to jail. One journalist who wrote about the case 2019 was told that some personal information about her was going to be published online ("doxxed"), if she wrote another article, and this was enough to silence her. Some of her twitter supporters have threatened violence, threatened hacking, threatened doxxing. So it's a very ugly situation. And it's why I'm using a SPA. And I have not at all been abusive in the slightest here. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted that progressive journalists are avoidant of the case because of the threats (to reputations, even of bodily harm) for writing the facts of the case. The actual settlement did not get press, because journalists who had been covering it, had been threatened. That's just a comment. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm in-trouble for here, is writing the facts of the original case, which was for malicious prosecution. I'm really sorry if they were too salacious for an edit summary, but they happened, and there is a text-message history to follow-up on it. Basically someone organized an "assignation" (look up the word if you don't know it) with a long paper-trail, including plans for what would happen, and where, etc. Then after the "assignation" made statements positive about said-assignation (some of them lurid and graphic). Then one month later, the person went to the D.C. Prosecutor and claimed they had been the object of first-degree sexual assault (rape). Prosecutors refused to press-charges, after they saw the message-trail. A civil suit was opened, not for defamation, but for malicious prosecutoin and defamation, during which time the media printed that the rape happened. It took sixteen months, and a pending jury trial for malicious prosecution (with evidence of perfidy) for her to withdraw the accusation and pay-out 110,000 dollars compensation, with a promise to no longer make the accusation. That was the settlement.
    I am deeply sorry that this offends people, but it's the facts of the first case. They are in the court record. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265.10.0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That revdeleted edit summary is so beyond the pale, I have partially blocked the user from both Jesselyn Radack and Talk:Jesselyn Radack until such time that they can convincingly explain why they should still be allowed to edit that article. El_C 20:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just a link to the complaint. El_C 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWN by Freeknowledgecreator

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

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

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

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

    I have reverted edits - for example, by you - that I have every right to regard as poor and harmful edits, and I am not sorry for doing so. You seem to be obsessed by pictures of Freud and have attributed an utterly unwarranted importance to them. That the images are "inappropriate" and "convey a false impression of legitimacy" is your baseless assertion. They are entirely appropriate images in articles related to psychoanalysis and you are wrong to remove them. Anyone who reviews the revision history of those articles will note that you have also edit warred. Your comment that the image caption at one of the articles makes "a false claim made about Freud's views on homosexuality" is itself false. The image caption is about how one person interprets or understand's Freud's views; it is not about Freud's views themselves. JzG's claim that "everyone else who has commented to date" agrees that the image of Freud is "inappropriate" is also factually wrong. No one but him supported his position at one of those articles, at the other article, (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality), Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate. I could go on to dispute JzG's claims, but it would be pointless. The bottom line is, the whole thing is a content dispute that can be resolved by discussion. Wikipedia has standard dispute resolution procedures, and they can be allowed to do their work. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2020
    JzG's statement above about Rod Dreher is a BLP violation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that it is, if "according to the linked article" he is described on those terms. But beyond that, it seems that participants do not favour your version, so why are you edit warring to include it, anyway? El_C 20:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Rod Dreher does not describe Dreher using either of the terms JzG used to describe him. If you are "not sure", then presumably the comment by JzG should be removed, to err on the side of caution and protecting living people. As for the Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality article, you are right that most of the editors who have commented do not support the image, so I have removed it for the time being. The reasons given for opposing it have been spurious, of course. Where other issues are concerned we simply need more time to work things out and establish consensus. JzG's aggressive editing approach has not helped. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure because I was still checking. Now having checked, I suppose it's open to interpretation, but probably ought to have been phrased less sharply. El_C 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, it is a BLP violation. Let's not deny that for the sake of not hurting JzG's feelings. He is guilty of doing the same thing at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. I won't repeat the comment he made about Dreher there, but you can see it for yourself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have redacted it. El_C 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, the article describes Dreher as promoting a racist book, this [59] makes rather a nicely nuanced case for him trying and failing not to be racist. The fact that he's anti LGBTQ is not in the least controversial: he has a history of tweets against gay marriage and trans people.
    But I don't care that much: the issue is that he's a right-wing commentator writing an opinion piece in a right-wing journal, he has precisely zero expertise on the subject of conversion therapy, so the inclusion of his diatribe with its, yes, bigoted title ("homintern", a clear reference to the "homosexual agenda"), from the primary source with no secondary source discussing it, is WP:UNDUE. As are the queer voices in QNews and Daniel Newhauser in Vice. We don't include contentious primary opinion pieces in low-quality sources from people who are not subject matter experts, especially when we have reliable secondary mainstream sources that cover the essential facts. Guy (help!) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly reasonable for an article dealing with a controversy to state what people, rightly or wrongly, said about that controversy. If something controversial becomes a matter of public debate, it is not only permissible, but necessary, to state what people said about it whether they happen to be experts or not. The controversy is not directly about conversion therapy, but rather concerns the rightness or wrongness of a bookseller selling a particular book - no one can really claim to be an "expert" about such an inherently contentious ethical issue. Your position is indefensible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, have you read WP:RS at all? Reliable, Independent, Secondary is the Wikipedia trifecta. Primary opinionated sources in opinionated publications fail at least two and usually all three arms (e.g. the Washington Times is generally considered a source to avoid).
    You keep making these statements of opinion-as-fact. My position is not "indefensible". It is absolutely defensible. You might not agree with it, but the idea that extremist non-expert opinions should not be quoted direct from controversial primary sources is hardly indefensible. Guy (help!) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is 100% reasonable to use these sources for statements about opinions that appeared in them, which is the only way they are being used. The opinions of the writers of those publications are being presented only as such, not as statements of objective fact. Your complaint that the writers are "non-experts" shows a misunderstanding of the issue. The controversy was over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one is an "expert" on that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, no it's not. Primary sourced opinions from non-experts are rarely considered appropriate unless there is evidence from secondary sources that they are considered significant. There is an old saying that opinions are like arse holes: everybody has one. Reliable, independent, secondary. Otherwise every single article could be overwhelmed by POV-pushers mining the internet for quotes they like. Guy (help!) 22:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely and utterly, even willfully, missing the point. The controversy is over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one can claim to be an "expert" on such a subject, making the "expert" status of the writers irrelevant. Your position is ludicrous. It would mean that Wikipedia would simply be unable to discuss an important public controversy, over an issue which no one can claim to be an expert about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, the facts give the lie to this. For example, you reverted content on the scientific status of conversion therapy three times within 24 hours, [60], [61], [62] despite unambiguous consensus on Talk that this was appropriate and necessary for NPOV, but left it in after I added one minor formatting change [63]. The RfC that produced consensus for inclusion was started, it appears, because you kept reverting Markworthen e.g. [64], [65], who was adding the scientific status of conversion therapy. Edit summaries such as "Restore previous; thank you, but I do not consider any of your changes improvements" are representative. While it is absolutely clear from these and your comment above that you don't consider anyone else's edits to be an improvement, it looks very much from the Talk page as if you are in a minority of one. The same applies to your cllaim of a "baseless assertion" about the image which you consider "entirely appropriate" - again, every other editor who has commented to date disagrees with you. Guy (help!) 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim about the image is factually false, as already noted ("Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate"). The RFC is ongoing. Despite what you claim, it has not produced consensus in favor of your specific edits. You should simply be patient and let the RFC and talk page discussion proceed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I have found the comment to which you refer. You are correct: Bilorv was not against inclusion. So that is 5:2 against. In particular, Muboshgu, an admin and a psychologist, and Markworthen, also a PhD psychologist, both support my "indefensible" interpretation of how the image is likely to be viewed and the inappropriateness of its inclusion. Maybe you'd like to change "indefensible" to a word that more accurately reflects the fact that my opinion is in the majority and supported by two subject matter experts? Guy (help!) 22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, there's an RfC? Where? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Wikipedia does not give any special status or authority to people who either are, or claim to be, credentialed experts. I am not moved by statements unsupported by evidence whether they come from credentialed experts or from the man in the street. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, are you "moved" by the content of Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality? He didn't believe homosexuality could be "changed". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason for me to answer pointless, vexatious, or presumptuous questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you won't be moved by statements unsupported by evidence, so I point out the evidence on Wiki and you have nothing to say? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will of course not answer irrelevant personal questions. You should not ask them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, "irrelevant"? This whole thing started because you're trying to tie Freud to conversion therapy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not answer irrelevant or inappropriate questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, good thing I haven't asked any of those. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, the RfC is about inclusion of the scientific status of conversion therapy, at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality
    What I hadn't realised is that when Freeknowledgecreator argues for the stable version, what he means is the version he himself wrote from whole cloth. This goes a long way to explaining the WP:OWN issue. Looking at the history, the first substantive edits by anyone else were by Markworthen in April, and were promptly reverted by Freeknowledgecreator, leading to that RfC.
    Freeknowledgecreator doesn't just have a dog in the fight, he is the dog. Guy (help!) 22:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring the point that I might actually have good reasons for reverting other people's edits. Markworthen is definitely editing the article in good faith and trying to be constructive. Unfortunately his very first edit to the article introduced a major factual error - as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I get the sense that you overrepresenting WP:FRINGE views well outside the scope of mainstream due weight. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That has never been my intention and you present no evidence that I have done any such thing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of Freud [66], as stated above, is an example of that, I would challenge. I'm sorry, but that comes across as tendentious editing. El_C 23:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All I did in that edit was restore an image caption that was, in fact, perfectly correct. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am of the opinion that it was a highly WP:UNDUE and borderline tendentious. El_C 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be undue and tendentious to restore a factually accurate statement? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly. El_C 23:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A factually accurate statement is a factually accurate statement. If you believe a factually accurate statement "distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly", the burden is on you to explain how. In my view, a factually accurate statement about what Nicolosi writes in his book is not a way of "invoking Freud's authority", and it is unclear to me what "authority" you believe Freud could have. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really just ask how the founder of psychoanalysis could be an authority? Anyway, the image of Freud with that caption serves to editorialize. Its usage as such is, at best, highly unusual. El_C 00:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All this discussion has come down to is you insinuating that the content I have added to the article is somehow biased and providing nothing of substance to back up your accusations. You cannot plausibly claim that a caption that you actually admit is a factually accurate statement is a form of editorializing. That is simply a baseless claim on your part. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not baseless. You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption. As an uninvolved admin, who may choose to invoke WP:ARBPS, that isn't an so much an insinuation as it is an evaluation. El_C 00:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption" is an assertion that you need to justify and provide evidence for. You have provided no justification and no evidence. I believe there is none you could provide (the image and the caption are not even in the article at this time). You are, it appears, proposing sanctioning me on the basis of claims you have made that you cannot support. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have substantiated my position amply, I challenge. If I were to propose sanctioning you, it would be more so because you appear to be seemingly oblivious to your borderline tendentious editing. Continuing to ask for "evidence" when I have addressed the matter already, does not do you credit, I also challenge. El_C 00:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have not substantiated your position. You have made a series of baseless or unsupported claims (such as that a factually accurate statement is biased editorializing), which you apparently want or expect me to accept automatically, in the absence of any evidence or any justification for them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are entitled to think that I failed to substantiate. I obviously disagree. But regardless of that impasse, I may still use my discretion as an uninvolved admin. El_C 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, the same issue with FKC has been addressed by multiple editors(including me) in Christchurch mosque shootings article i.e [67] by Netoholic. It sure tells you something that another editor from another article made the same complaint against this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, you're wasting your time to make an "I don't like you" comment. Find something better to do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SharabSalam, it's worth noting that the number of times when you and I agree on something is rather small, so this may indeed be significant. Guy (help!) 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue started when I removed a content from a section called "Background". The content was clearly original research. The sources were from 2014 and 2013 and they are all not related to the topic of the article, WP:OR To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. It included this In 2014 and 2015, local press reported an allegation that a congregation member had been radicalised at the mosque.[1][2][3]". This was in the background section of an incident of a shooting by a white superamist who killed 50 muslims in the mosques. However, I got reverted by this editor who said Undid revision 947758337 by SharabSalam (talk) seems both relevant and helpful for readers in terms of putting events in context. When I started a talk page discussion about this, I added a synthesis tag to the section but I got reverted by the editor FKC and everyone who tried to add that tag was reverted by the editor FKC. Another issue, in the same article, and after everyone agreed to change "Islam is practised by over 57,000 New Zealanders, around 1.2% of the population" to "Based on 2018 census information, over 57,000 New Zealand residents affiliated with Islam, around 1.00% of the total population." FKC reverted saying "Thank you, but it is unclear, vague, and ambiguous what "affiliated with Islam" is supposed to mean; it is much more helpful to readers to use language people can actually understand". The other editor just reverted FKC disruptive revert without an edit summary because it was clear that this editor is just reverting any edit in that section. FKC then reverted saying "No. That is not good enough. You cannot make unexplained reverts. That is rude and of no use to other editors. You must give a reason for your edits and you must discuss disputed edits on the talk page - stop being so rude". Although this has been discussed and agreed on in the talk page. Another editor comes and revert FKC [68] without any edit summary. And as I said above, he didnt let anyone put "orginial research" tag to that section [69]. There is no question that the content in that section was original research. Yet, FKC was always saying that there is no evidence. I dont know what "evidence" he wanted. The editor who should bring the evidence is the one who is claiming that the content is related. I saw this discussion in my watchlist and I was surprised that FKC is also making troubles in other articles. Also, this is not a "I dont like you" comment. I dont have any like or dislike feelings towards this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Wall, Tony; Ensor, Blair; Vance, Andrea (27 July 2014). "A Kiwi Lad's Death by Drone". Sunday Star-Times. Auckland. Retrieved 2 August 2019. [Daryl] Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch. Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place.
    2. ^ "Christchurch Mosque Linked to al-Qaida Suspect". Newshub. Auckland. 4 June 2014. His parents … say their son told them he was first taught radical Islam at the Al Noor mosque…. '[He was] no different than other people,' says mosque president Mohamed Jama. 'He was a normal man.'
    3. ^ Matthewson, Nicole (3 December 2015). "Fighting, Killing 'Not the Muslim Way'". The Press. Christchurch, NZ. Retrieved 20 March 2019. Jackson, of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies … said … 'Just because they were attending a mosque at the time, doesn't mean the mosque was connected.' … Morris, a specialist in world religions, said … 'It creates an opportunity for these issues to be raised and addressed.'
    • There is no ongoing disagreement at the Christchurch mosque shootings article. Your lengthy, self-important comments serve no purpose. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It demonstrates the WP:OWN issue with your edits that I'm aware of which has been noted by multiple editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It demonstrates that I at times disagree with other editors, which is true of nearly all active editors. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      So you kept removing the original research tag from a section that was full of original research and multiple editors have said in the talk page that it contains originial research [70][71][72][73][74] and reverting any attempt to remove the original research? [75][76][77][78]. This is just a dispute? Im not the only one who noted your WP:OWN issue. There is also Netoholic [79].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Since there is no ongoing dispute at that article your comments appear to serve no purpose except to abuse me for having disagreed with you in the past about a long-since-resolved issue. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This thread is about your WP:OWN issue. You actually made me leave that discussion because I was upset of how you reverts all the edits that were intented to improve that section. Can you tell me how is this information in the background of the Christchurch mosque shootings that is sourced to irrelevant sources from 2014 "In 2014 and 2015, local press reported an allegation that a congregation member had been radicalised at the mosque" is "both relevant and helpful for readers in terms of putting events in context"?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not interested in discussing irrelevant past issues. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may also notice that FKC usually says "no evidence", "what evidence do you have?" and "there is no evidence" when the fact is not disputable. For example, someone says this is original research because sources that are used are not related to the topic of the article, FKC would say "what evidence do you have" or "no evidence for what you are saying". Imagine if someone in the morning said "it's morning" and the other asked "what evidence do you have that it is the morning", what FKC does is the same.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Proposal

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

    • Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 10:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as being unnecessary, and based on false and unsupported accusations by the proposer. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - is this more of a content issue than a behavioral issue? Has anyone tried Wikipedia:Dispute resolution with FKC yet? BOZ (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      BOZ, no it's not. Read the above: FKC not only rejects any edits other than his own, but also rejects, out of hand, the possibility that any view other than his is defensible, even when (as is the case every time thus far) he is in a minority, sometimes a minority of one. Edit warring, misleading content and WP:OWN. Guy (help!) 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Your claim that I reject "any edits" other than my own is false. I definitely consider some of Markworthen's edits at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality helpful. I can give specific examples if needed. You are trying to support a topic ban on me using claims that are outright false. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Boz. More of a content dispute and edit-warring by both parties. Be careful of any boomerangs. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I can't see any justification for that. It's just a question of finding the right balance between describing the content of these books and the current position. It would help if the arguing would stop. And if images and captions seem to be contributing to the problem, it would make sense to remove them. SarahSV (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WTF does that have to do with anything I said? Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned an accusation against me. It seems pertinent to respond that the accusation is false. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mentioned any accusation that you "promoted conversion therapy". Please read what I wrote more carefully. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "From what I can tell, the concerns surrounding your use of images relates to concerning you appear to be using them to promote conversion therapy." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongest apologies, you are right. I should never have said that. I tried to make my response as general as possible to avoid issues like this but forgot I had said that at the beginning. I also should have checked my comment more carefully before responding to avoid this confusion and my false accusation against you. Again I can't apologise enough for these mistakes. What I should have said is "appear to be using them in a manner which misleads readers about conversion therapy". What I was trying to convey, but failed to, is that the concerns over your editing related to whether they are sufficiently neutral in the subject area of conversion therapy. They don't relate to how you use images per se, but how you used images in this particular instance because they seem to indicate a problem with your editing in the subject area of conversion therapy. Therefore a topic ban on conversion therapy is logical, whether it's justified and whether it's too broad. A topic ban on images is not particularly logical because the reason for your editing problems seems to be because of how you edit in the subject area, rather than because of how you handle images. As I've now uncovered, it was a fool's errand anyway. Despite your misleading claim, this isn't just about images. Concerns have been raised about your editing in those articles beyond simply images. I should have looked more carefully from the get go rather than take you at your word this was just about images when it's quite clearly not. (Although I do stand by comment on the logics of topic bans if they was just about images.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the dispute was just about images. Obviously there are other disagreements as well (the disagreement was apparently only an image-related one at one of the articles). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) The more I look into it, the sillier your response is. According to the opening statement "reverting all attempts to improve the articles <removed> He's also fighting a one-man battle against all comers at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality". When I visit that talk page I see extensive comments by Freeknowledgecreator. Again, I make no judgment on whether the opening comment is accurate, and especially not whether Freeknowledgecreator is causing sufficient problems to merit a topic ban. But the idea that this is just about images and their captions seems false. The suggestion that a topic ban on images would be a better alternative is just completely silly. Again, I'm not sure if I can be bothered to look into this enough to support or oppose a topic ban, but my current view is a full hearted supported based nearly totally on the utter nonsense responses in this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal that I be banned from the topic area of conversion therapy misses the point that I am not even interested in the two articles where there have been disagreements primarily because they relate to conversion therapy, rather I am primarily interested in them because they are book-related articles. Try to avoid making overly long wall-of-text comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don'r really give a flying flip why you're interested in the article. If you are unable to edit acceptable in the set of articles for some reason, then that is a problem we may need to deal with. It doesn't matter why you got interested in those articles. Again, if someone is causing problems in he 5AR and scientific consensus articles, it doesn't matter if they're interested in those articles because of an interest in the concept of scientific consensus, if the problems they're causing indicate they cannot edit acceptably in the global warming subject area and so should be topic banned from it. Your response on wall-of-text comments is noted however fairly ironic considering this existing ANI which is full of such comments by you, and checking out that article talk page shows more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) continued from edit of my comment at 03:22 above. This obviously isn't enough to actually support the topic ban, hence why despite this view I make no judgement on the actual merits of a topic ban. But I can't emphasise strongly enough to Freeknowledgecreator that their responses here are basically the opposite of a boomerang. They're basically trying very, very hard to talk themselves into a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have caused no problems at Conversion therapy, or most other conversion therapy articles, it is completely unfair to suggest I should be banned from them. In the case of the two book-related articles under dispute, the problem has been caused by edit-warring between myself and JzG, and I obviously am not solely to blame; JzG's behavior has also been a problem. I understand that the way forward is through patient discussion and building of consensus. Again, the proposal of a topic ban is unfair. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my involvement in this discussion is at an end unless I can be bothered looking more into the dispute to figure out if there is sufficient justification for a topic ban. It's clear I'm not getting through to you. But let me repeat one final time, that if you continue to ignore the good faith concerns others have expressed with your editing, and especially whether you are able to edit acceptably in the subject area considering the way you have edited so far, and refuse to take onboard such concerns and improve your editing then don't be surprised if you're topic banned or worse, now or sometime in the future. Note that not being solely to blame doesn't mean your editing is acceptable, or that a topic ban is not justified. Also I never brought up edit-warring, because I didn't know it was a concern and frankly it doesn't seem that important in the grand scheme of things. The primary concern over your editing doesn't seem to be about edit-warring and the fact you think it is, is likely further indication of why your editing could be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has done anything to show that I cannot edit responsibly in conversion therapy articles per se. JzG obviously did think that edit warring was a major problem, despite the fact that he was edit warring himself and contributing to the problem, as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Drassow

    I am raising concern about personal abuse directed at me by User:Drassow. On 5 May Drassow wrote the following on a user talk page: "Sounds like you're the different side of the same coin for atheism. You're acting like a manchild over Slugger being in favor of a synonymous term that makes sense contextually." [[80]]. They used the term "petty manchild" again against an administrator User:JzG [[81]]. I asked Drassow to explain or apologise but they blanker their talk page with the words "Still don't care dude" [[82]] Can someone advise on how I proceed please? Thank you in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP-hopping WP:SPA at Nathan Coulter-Nile

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

    This is what happens when the media starts throwing the word "all-rounder" left and right... M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cricket Australia describes him as an all-rounder. Would it solve the issue if I just added that as a source for the IP's claim? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a batting average of under 20 in all formats of the game isn't exactly stellar (that's my opinion, disregard if you so like); and cricinfo still has him as a bowler, but that could work (it's such a minor detail I certainly wouldn't fuss too much about it). In any case, I still stand by my assessment that the IP is not particularly constructive in their editing... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but I can understand the IP's frustration and even Adil Rashid is considered an all-rounder by some. I've tried to make a compromise with my latest edit, but it's subject to WP:BRD, obviously. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at least his first-class average appears respectable for an England player (considering their sometimes less than stellar performances in the recent past)... Anyway, had a decent laugh. Case solved for now. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 04:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue began when he made a single score of 92 in an ODI at the World Cup in June 2019. That score, apparently, instantly made him an all-rounder in people's eyes. And a slew of edits began - often focussed around times Australia were playing Test matches it seems. These involved blanking the article talk page on a number of occasions, on this article as well as two or three others (Ryan Harris (cricketer) certainly and another the name of which escapes me) - Lugnuts has pointed out that a similar pattern has occurred at Mark Steketee (here over a nickname, but also featuring adding an OLINK to Australia multiple times and talk page blanking). I've tried engaging on talk pages and it hasn't worked and clearly dynamic IP addresses are being used. Pending changes has had a somewhat positive effect, although if those accepting changes had read the talk page it might have helped matters.
    The initial edits to Coulter-Nile were certainly original research. If Cricket Australia consider him an international all-rounder then, well, I suppose we have a source for that at least. Personally I think they're having a laugh based on that 92 - his only international half-century - but there you go: we have one source at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if a range-block can be done without any collateral damage, but in the short term the related articles have protection. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The range appears to be 1.128.0.0/11, but apparently that's too large of a range for us to be able to inspect the contributions for potential collateral damage. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    GaryColemanFan

    The situation is deescalating, on both ends. starship.paint (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pro wrestling, everyone's favourite topic, yeah. Honestly, I understand every admin hating pro wrestling in wikipedia. However...

    yesterday, I opened a GAR for Ken Anderson (wrestler), since the article didn't meet the GA criteria (several problems, like unsourced sections, overdetailed storylines, in-universe). I told the project. His answer was to told me I'm wrong, critiziced my GAR edit summary:ugh. I answered. He answered posting his same post. Edit summary:ugh. Another user improved the article. I told him, in his talk page, the article is better, but he complained but didn't edited or contributed to the article. Also, I explained how I ask for help several times and no one helped me with the articles. His answer, delete my post. Edit summay: nah. In the project talk page, he told me I'm wrong and forced me to "Shut up." "You chose wrong" and "Don't do it this way again." edit summary: ugh. full stop. For me, this is a very uncivil, insulting way to discuss with no respect for me, even if it's pro wrestling related. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    But I have done nothing against any guidelines or policy. You may not like me or my viewpoint, but you have no right to delete my posts from a project talk page. They do not contain personal attacks. I suppose the closest I came was urging you to shut up--as in, stop with the knee-jerk reaction, and take a minute to consider why starting a GAR without notifying the wikiproject first--your own wikiproject, I might add--might not look good for you. However, in the edit summary, you also told me to shut up (or, at least, attempted to do so). Anyhow, this should be dealt with in the appropriate location. Since I haven't done anything that would warrant consequences (and had even expressed my desire to move on, saying that I was done discussing the topic), this should instead be dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, where I posted a notice about your edit warring (following which, I followed proper protocol by placing a notice on your talk page). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not because you disagree with me. Because your toxic, insulting behaviour. You "expressed my intention to move on from a disagreement" telling me Shut up, You chose wrong and Don't do it this way again, your edit summary : ugh (remember, your summaries during the process were "ugh", "ugh", "nah" and "ugh"). It's pretty insulting, even I left a message on your talk page explaining my actions. For example, i explained how I have asked for help several times but no other user appeared to help me. However, you just deleted it. I don't see any kind of good faith in your editions or your discussion, just excuses to attack me because I opened a very common process in Wikipedia. Two other users have told you your attitude is wrong. During the whole process, you just took me as your punching ball, but you didn't focused on the main topic, Ken Anderson didn't meet the GA criteria. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly suggest you withdraw this and grow a thicker skin. There are no personal attacks or "toxicity" here, and extremely mild incivility at best. In fact, once one digs beyond the selective quoting you provided, there was context for the things that were said. This is clearly a retaliatory filing after you were reported for inappropriately removing talkpage comments, and not worth the boomerang-risk in which you are engaging. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't withdraw. I went to the ANI first, but he ended his edit before me, but it was not a revenge. As I said, I opened a very common process for a GA that doesn't meet the criteria. Instead of help, he decided to attack me. Instead of improving an article (he said "ask for collaboration", but he didn't help), he just complained. One user edited the article in just one day and he said a GAR it's the normal process for this case. Every time I answer Gary, I recieved childish behaviour, bad attitude, uncivil comments and agressive answers. I explained why I opened the GAR instead asking for help, but he deleted my message. The edition I removed crossed the line, instead of a civil discussion, he said "shut up" and forced me to "never open a GAR again". Can't I open a GAR if one article doesn't meet the criteria? I didn't see good faith in his editions or answers. Also, it's a very different reaction when FAR was opened for CM Punk, where he just said "preferred way of going about this", not "you did wrong, never do it again" or "I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority". When I said toxic behaviour, it's because he is always complaining about decisions the project made with no helpful editions, like the project changing the In wrestling section. 4 users agree his attitude was wrong and I did nothing wrong opening the GAR because the subject is unsourced since 2014, he was the one who choose to take as a personal attack and caliming I was causing issues. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I retract my comment about a retaliatory filing; the timestamps don't support that. Everything else I said stands. You weren't attacked, you shouldn't have removed talkpage comments just because you don't like them (which you should only ever do if they are egregious personal attacks, and maybe not even then), none of the language you have provided crosses any lines, and you should really drop this. Grandpallama (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okey, I drop this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weather_Underground_Organization/Terrorism_RfC#Discussion_of_Noroton's_proposal_#2 MiasmaEternalTALK 05:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) It's "User:Tarl N." with a period at the end;
    (2) Tarl N. is not an admin;
    (3) The big orange box at the top of the page says you're supposed to notify an editor when you start a thread about them on AN/I;
    (4) I haven't read your comments on Tarl N.'s talk page in full, but I did note "Who do you think you are" and "You are a lunatic".
    Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified Tarl N. I've struck the "Who do you think you are" remark from my comment above, because it was posted by an IP and not you -- unless, perhaps, that IP is you?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't understand why Tarl N. removed "domestic terrorist organization" when the source (the FBI) says exactly that, and it's hard for anyone -- even those who might agree with their ultimate goals -- who lived through that era to argue with the fact that bombing things is an act of domestic terrorism, whether it's done by a far-left group or a far-right group. I'd like to see Tarl N.'s justification for the removal, but you (Bswastek) failed to take the issue to the talk page, as you should have, so we don't know what the reasoning is. While you were there, you could have read the previous discussion on whether the WU should be called a terrorist group or not. That discussion took place iin 2016, and since WP:Consensus can change, I see no reason why a new discussion -- perhaps in the form of an RfC -- couldn't be held to see if people's ideas have changed since then. Those are better ideas than opening this report, which is just going to be closed as a content dispute, which it is, and which are not dealt with on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The personal attacks in this and this edit summary are out of line. The OP might want to read WP:BOOMERANG. There is no discussion on the talk page for the article. FWIW the attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP this has been removed. MarnetteD|Talk 05:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I think this calls for a potential WP:BOOMERANG block. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "You are a lunatic" comment is pretty close to being a PA as well "You are incompetent at this and have zero business having any say in anything. I am looking into a way to report this disgusting, manipulative BS." Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think the IP and Bswastek are different people. At least, different pages being edited, albeit somewhat similar talk page styles. I think our talk pages can do most of our talking. I removed the "domestic terrorist organization" edit because it was an obvious end-run around not being able to label Ayers "terrorist". Tarl N. (discuss) 05:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that argument, but I'm not sure I agree - it would depend on Ayer's relationship with the WU. In any case, that discussion is for the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to the original filer's report: This issue of labeling Ayers a terrorist has been dealt with many times in the past, I pointed Bswastek at the RFC I knew of. As to my extremely threatening message, I'll note it was 1st and 2nd level BLP templates that he regarded as so threatening. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Cross-wiki image ownership issue

    Sorry to have to bring this here, but attempts at getting input from two requests at WikiProjects has failed. If admin action isn't needed, at least I hope to get some outside input.

    An apparent case of WP:OWN has arisen over this file in the infobox of Mtanes Shehadeh. The creator of the image (בר (talk · contribs) ('Bar')) regrets creating the file (a crop from a larger group image) and has repeatedly attempted to remove it both on English Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia (where he has removed it from the article on nine occasions so far) and Wikidata (three removals, which has had the effect of removing it from ar.wiki, where has been added/removed by bots following the changes on Wikidata).

    The image was initially added to en.wiki by an IP on 27 April.[83] Shortly afterwards, Bar started a deletion discussion on Commons, claiming the file was unused. Later in the day he removed it from en.wiki. I reinstated it on the basis that, while not a great image, it's certainly not unusable. He then replaced it with the group photo. This was later repeated with the claim that the group photo "has to be shown" and referring to the fact that he created the image.[84]

    After receiving no response to my comments on the talk page about why the image was good enough to use for five days, I reinstated the image. It was removed again with the comment that "There is no majority for your opinion on the talk page"[85] Having received no input from one WikiProject that I had previously left a message at following the initial discussion on the talk page, I tried another.[86] This produced one comment, which agreed the image was adequate to be used.[87] After waiting for six days, there were no further comments, so on the basis that this was effectively a third opinion received, I reinstated the image. It was subsequently removed again, with Bar moving the goalposts, now claiming "2 vs. 1 is accidental."[88] Unfortunately it later emerged that the editor commenting was a sock, so the comment was struck and Bar returned to remove the image yet again (two-thirds of their edits at en.wiki since this began have been related to removing this image).

    There is also a 2 v 1 situation on the he.wiki talkpage, with the additional problem that Bar has replaced the image on he.wiki with a "No free image" placeholder, which is simply untrue.

    Given that two attempts to attract input from relevant WikiProjects has resulted in only a single comment (which was later struck), I'm seeking additional intervention, either in the form of additional comments to break the deadlock, or about the WP:OWN-type behaviour. Cheers, Number 57 08:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Number 57, and what's the actual problem with the image? I think we should err on the side of removing images that article subjects genuinely dislike. Guy (help!) 10:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: I don't think there is a problem with the image – I'm in favour of using it. It's not the best photo in the world, but it's not unusable, and as far as I'm aware the only person objecting to its use is Bar. Number 57 11:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Number 57, I agree with you that the cropped image is better than the group one. I read the Hebrew talk page and, while Bar is indeed the image creator, I don't subscribe to their view that it should be removed for being generally unflattering. Seems fine enough for me, in any case. Needless to say, any consensus reached on the Hebrew Wikipedia's respective entry has no bearing on the English Wikipedia. We can note the discussion there, but that's about it. El_C 13:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument for WP:OWN is simply false and Number 57 knows it. Not only I already explained him that this is not the case, but also I provided the exact reasons why I think otherwise. You can see it on the talk page. He uses it as the main argument just to raise a fuss. Why talk about the relevant claims when he can arguing for "WP:OWN"? After all, it sounds far more severe.
    The arguments relating to Hebrew Wikipedia are totally wrong. The problem lies in the fact that Number 57 simply don't understand Hebrew, even though he claims he does. This can also be understood from his comment there which is unreadable. There is no majority on the talk page there either. Anyway, Hebrew Wikipedia is an independent project that is not related here and is not relevant. Number 57 Turned there, though he don't understand the language, in order to, once again, raise a fuss
    So He opened the discussion here, though he knows the other supporter is a sockpuppet, So simply no one supports his side. Although he aware that, he keep insisting, and strated this discussion against me. Accordingly, I demand this will be stopped. Not only is this not an acceptable way to raise support - personally I find it very disrespectful behavior. Bar (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had actually read my statement above, you'd have seen that I said "Unfortunately it later emerged that the editor commenting was a sock". And if you'd have read El_C's, you'd have seen that he supports using the image. And please stop making incorrect accusations about my Hebrew-speaking ability. Number 57 14:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, colour me invisible. Because I continue to agree with Number 57 about the image, whereas Bar's position does not make sense to me. I could see why Number 57 would feel puzzled, even to the point of starting this ANI report. Although a dispute resolution request, like 3rd opinion might have been better than bringing this to ANI, I don't think Number 57 was being disrespectful. And Bar's continuing to bring up Number 57's purportedly poor Hebrew skills, does not seem helpful, either. El_C 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider 3O, but when I saw that he'd also been repeatedly removing it on Wikidata as well as he.wiki, I thought it might be something requiring wider intervention. Number 57 14:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, understood. Well, at any event, you have your 3rd opinion now: me. And I think I am as confused as you are about the grounds for removing the image. But perhaps Bar has changed their mind now that I have also opined...? El_C 14:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Number 57 Too bad you didn't read what I wrote. You raised the discussion here - when no one supported your position. This is unacceptable. This disscution was born in sin and El_C has nothing to do with it. You had no right to start the discussion here because you already realized that your support came from a sockpuppet. In the summary you wrote that you would open a discussion on ANI because you have a majority on the talk page. It turned out you didn't have a majority - but you opened a complaint anyway! This is your working method - moving from one mess to another. Moving to Hebrew Wikipedia even though you don't speak the language was just a small example.This time you wrote that I was claiming ownership, which is definitely a lie. (1) I have never claimed ownership (2) I made explicit statements that I do not claim ownership (3) I presented complete logical arguments which is not related to ownership; And yet you still chose that as your main argument.
    So you opened a complaint even though you do not have a majority. You have moved to Hebrew Wikipedia even though you do not speak Hebrew. You complained that I claim to own it ​​even though it is clear to everyone, including you, that I am not. You are just looking to create more and more quarrels. So being disrespectful is just an understatement. Bar (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring all the crap above: That is a terrible image for a biography. Its in profile, so recognisability is at best limited. He aint Alfred Hitchcock. It adds nothing to the article. An image of the subject in a biography infobox has one purpose - to give you a good idea of what they look like. That does not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the only alternative is the same image but in a group setting — which is not an improvement. El_C 16:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of thoughts:
      • We do not care what is happening at he.wiki or wikidata. We don't use "votes" at he.wiki to claim consensus here. If there is misbehavior there, they will address it there.
      • If there was no consensus at the Wikiproject, start an RFC.
      • We don't have content discussions here at ANI.
      • WP:OWN is the new WP:NOTHERE. People should stop using it all the time.
    When we strip out all these things, we're left with edit warring. By both parties. I've fully protected the article for a week, in order for an RFC to start and see if there's a consensus for (a) none, (b) group photo, (c) the crop, or (d) some other option that comes out of a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware that we don't have content discussions here; the reason I brought it here in the end is because I believe there is also a behavioural problem. And related to that, what is happening on other language versions and Wikidata is a relevant concern if there is a pattern of disruption. Number 57 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User misrepresenting RFC

    The other day, I posted an RFC to WT:CATHOLIC#Post-nominals RFC. It has six options as "checkboxes". This user created a "participation guide" that misrepresents the RFC as "support/oppose" and is now casting aspersions on me for disliking it. I further dislike that he has placed my name in the leaderboard, and he is edit-warring to keep it out. I would like my name taken out because it is misrepresenting my opinion and I feel that is my right, no matter who is hosting the material. Furthermore I feel that the RFC is not "support/oppose" and it is the job of the editor closing the RFC to determine consensus, not a biased participant such as Bloom6132 (or me!) Elizium23 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No misrepresentation was made here on my part. The Participation Guide specifically says "re. post-nominals in list of bishops" in its title. That corresponds to option #3 of the RFC (not the entire RFC). Elizium23 wrote that he supported only options "1, 2, 4 (only in bio subject's infobox)." I could only reasonably interpret that as him not supporting option #3. He even elaborates right afterwards that, "This excludes e.g. lists of bishops in an article about a diocese." This is precisely the topic that my Participation Guide refers to. He had earlier deleted the post-nominals in three lists of bishops [89][90][91] (the first two are currently FLCs nominated by me). So please tell me again, how is my Participation Guide not representative of the opinion that he has publicly stated on record and backed up with his edits? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Elizium23: So what? You don't own the RFC. Bloom6132 can write whatever kind of guide they want and call the moon an alien planet if they wanted to. Not your job to police the RFC.--v/r - TP 14:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP adding uncited and improbably precise casualty figures to battle articles

    2601:440:C080:36F0:C814:8247:AA14:1963 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is adding uncited and improbaby precise casualty figures to many articles about battles. When reverted, then adds figures which contradict those he originally added, (see, eg, here and here. I believe it would be appropriate to rollback all his edits. Was wondering if anyone recognised the behaviour - it seems oddly specific. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. I have rollbacked the edits. If the behaviour continues, a block would be the next step. El_C 14:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill, in fairness, you should have used uw-unsourced rather than uw-vandal. I could see the user being confused when faced with those vandalism warnings. Anyway, I have now added uw-unsourced4, so hopefully, they will begin to provide citations from now on. El_C 14:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    CuriousGolden

    Both users are warned against continuing to spew venom at one another. I have collapsed the article talk page that contained an unacceptable exchange, with a warning and instructions on how to proceed. El_C 21:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I told him to stop, yet he continued. This user has been throwing WP:ASPERSIONS as of recent.

    These are just some of his recent ones, not gonna bother digging much down into this.

    Implying that I am apparently working with others to revert other people May I ask you why you think this change is considered "nationalistic POV pushing", so I can avoid getting my changes reverted by you and your friends.

    The rest speak for themselves;

    I'm sure if a Persian born in Azerbaijan wrote poems in Persian about Iran, you'd think that having "Persian Poet" than "Azerbaijani Poet" written in his page would be more suited. But since this is the opposite case, where it doesn't benefit Iran, you seem to have problem with it.

    If you can't handle any discussions that don't go along your POV, then I guess there is no point to discuss as well. I'll just go ahead and add my change, since you've made clear the discussion is over. On side note, I love that you're still keeping up the cheap threats to try to scare people that don't agree with your POV.

    No proof whatsoever for these accusations.

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's great to see you here. To reply to your accusations:
    1) I've never had any alt account. I once got warned for sock puppetting (which in itself I wasn't doing, but was told to just wait it out, so didn't make any fuss about it).
    2) I didn't imply that you work with others to revert changes. As you can clearly see, I came to talk page to get your and your friends' approvals before adding my change. I wasn't implying anything. I only said that, because there were multiple reverts by you and user LouisAragon, who is your friend.
    3) My "accusation" as you say it, is your POV pushing. Which has not only been reported by me, but others, such as this report here [92]
    4) I don't understand what's really wrong with the last part of the talk page you linked to, as it really is just me answering to your comment, which mentioned that you wouldn't respond to the talk page, which left me stuck, where I was unable to talk to you and solve the dispute we were having.
    Now that I've answered your accusation, I'd like to talk about how you said that I was obsessing over you for literally asking you before editing a page that you were patrolling. This is what you said:
    Please stop obsessing over me. You literally attempted to report me for "stalking you" not so long ago, quite ironic.
    In the next comment, you said this:
    you have been lowkey fixated towards me since I've reverted some of your non-constructive edits, even making a bizarre report against me
    I don't know why you think Wikipedia users trying to edit pages that you are patrolling is considered "obsessing". Especially, when you're patrolling almost all pages that are related to Iran.
    — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An account that you used to edit war and make non-constructive edits with. However, that's another topic, as you can see I removed the bit regarding that before you commented.
    What makes you think that me and LouisAragon are friends? It still sounds like you're indicating some kind of team-up. Also you've said "friends" and not "friend" multiple times now, are you sure you weren't referring to others as well?
    Ah yes, reported by a (now banned) user who showed no proof, hence why the discussion got closed. The same thread where you attempted to unsuccessfully report me without having any proof to support your allegations. Again, you're still throwing aspersions.
    That says it all really.
    This has nothing to do with your edits in articles, I've already told you and I frankly don't know where you're getting it from. I feel like you have indeed been somewhat after me, whether it's in a talk page or in the report you attempted to make. Again, I didn't answer you in the section above in the talk page for a reason [93]; because I'm trying to avoid you. And the question yet still stands; why didn't you ask some of my "friends" instead of me? Especially if you could see that I did not answer you the first time. Another question, I do recall that in the report you accused me of "harassing" you, if you felt that I "harrassed" you, why did you continue to try to speak to me then?
    --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1) As I said already, it wasn't my account. If it was, I'd be banned for sock puppetting, not meat puppetting.
    2) What makes me think you guys are friends? Discussions on your talk page [94] [95] [96]. There are lot more, but these should be enough.
    3) I meant Louis Aragon only, don't know about other friends you have, so can't really mean them by saying "friends".
    4) The discussion got closed because it was thought to be a dispute, which unfortunately never got resolved by the original reporter. I didn't try to "report" you, if I did, I'd make a full report about it. I was just adding my own unfavorable experiences with you to the list of the original reporter's.
    5) I don't think you should feel that, because you're patrolling so many pages, that it's almost impossible to edit anything even slightly related to Iran without your "approval". I find it somewhat funny that you're actively trying to avoid me, yet still take a dispute into a full report rather than a dispute resolution.
    6) Why I pinged you but not your friends? Because you were the last person on the history of the page to revert a change that was similar to what I wanted to change.
    7) Me being felt harassed by you does not mean that it'll stop me from editing Wikipedia articles. That's why
    — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you stop arguing with each other. You already argued on other pages. Stop. Let other people weigh in.--v/r - TP 19:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry T, but I'm gonna have to defend myself from these accusations just once more; Gonna make this short; Working together with fellow editors in the same area =/= friends. That's not what happened in the report, everyone can click and read it. Nonsense, no one needs my approval, more ridiculous comments about me. Editing articles =/= pinging me. Just because I was the last person to revert something in the article doesn't mean you have to ping me. Gonna let the admins take over from here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how many times I have to say it to people. You two bickering on ANI will result in one of two things: either you both get blocked or this entire thread gets ignored. Be concise. We expect people to have their own points of view. You two are going to go back and forth ad nauseam if one of you doesn't stop. Your choice, do you want to defend your ego or do you want something productive to come out of this?--v/r - TP 20:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like the user has a serious case of projection...--v/r - TP 18:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can this username be removed or deleted?

    user:I will give a Wiikipedia addmjnistrator coronaviirus is blocked--please remove the username. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the policy on No Viral Threats, deleting user accounts is not possible. We just block and move on. bibliomaniac15 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahahahaha I almost thought that you are the one who is saying that you will give admins coronavirus. I feel like you wanted to make it look like this?. Anyway, can't we change these usernames to something like "redacted"? There are some BLP violation usernames, like for example "User:Fuck someone".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a second thought, I think this wouldn't be a good idea. I am assuming that the reason why accounts usernames can't be changed without permission from the owner of the account is because copyright. All contributions are protected by a copyright and changing the name of the copyright holder would probably be considered stealing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This is some ancient history, but this idea has been around for a while. BD2412 suggested it all the way back in 2006 and even made a page for it at WP:WAREHOUSE, but the proposal never really gained traction, mostly because it would just create more busywork disproportionate to the possible benefits, and because there would be nothing stopping people from creating the same account again. If we block an offensive username, that's one less offensive username that can be created and used. Keep in mind this proposal was made back when crats did renames. With renames moved from crats to stewards/global renamers, there's even less of an incentive to create this kind of backlog. bibliomaniac15 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Naypta: If you read the thread, BD suggested that we stash away all the offensive usernames in a process similar to WP:VANISH, where they get renamed to Vanisheduser1311 or some other random string. In that sense you would be "warehousing" them. bibliomaniac15 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported this (and two other names from obviously the same LTA) to meta:SRG. I believe stewards can hide names from the dropdown lists and CentralAuth. Not sure what effect that will have locally. @Bibliomaniac15 and Davey2010: I'm not saying it's necessary, but why do think it is impossible to hide usernames? Revdelling the name from all the user's contributions and logs will have that effect, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I've never seen them hidden never..... I shan't re-close this but I still don't see a reason why this needs to remain open any further. –Davey2010Talk 21:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suffusion of Yellow: I was talking about just completely deleting a user account, but revdelling basically does what "disappearing" an offensive username is supposed to do. Before 2010 revdelling was a terribly complicated affair involving deleting the whole page, moving the edits you didn't want, deleting that, and then restoring the right edits. But these days it's significantly easier, and honestly would probably address the concerns SharabSalam brought up. bibliomaniac15 21:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bibliomaniac15: Thanks. I was objecting to possibly misleading information being given out on a high-visibility page. I don't want someone to see User:SomeOtherUser's home address is... and not report it to oversight, thinking nothing can be done. That said, this whole thread is totally failing at WP:DENY and I won't object if you, or anyone else, removes it without archiving. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davey2010: and others: Oversighters have the ability to block and suppress, which removes the username from all logs and histories in one action (including Special:ListUsers); stewards have the same ability but globally. But we don't normally use it unless the username itself is libellous or contains personal information. But per Suffusion of Yellow, this thread has probably outlived its usefulness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Their username has been revdel'ed at most or all of their edits. And I think it should be removed from the title of this discussion per DENY. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the title of this discussion. For the record, the name we were talking about was "I will give a Wiikipedia addmjnistrator coronaviirus". -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Davey2010, If they were hidden, you wouldn't see them... Natureium (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah sorry I ended up getting slightly confused, I thought we were talking about renaming the account, Not the first time I've tripped up on this and probably wont be the last. –Davey2010Talk 22:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I still think warehousing old offensive, libelous, or privacy-violating usernames is a good idea. I think if a list of these registered names could be generated, some Wikimedia bot could do the work. BD2412 T 22:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems there's a bit of confusion around the technical capabilities to hide usernames; everything already has procedures and can be handled globally. Stewards have the ability to, and often do, hide accounts, usually done alongside a global lock. It prevents you from searching for the name in Special:CentralAuth, and the lock prevents them from logging into the account. Local contributions can be revision deleted or oversighted to prevent edits from showing up in a search, and afterwards the only residue left from account is a blank local contributions page. Vermont (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Horse Eye Jack (misuse of Uw-nor4)

    I am not sure why stating (an incontrovertible fact, which is) that the Holy See does not (strictly speaking) recognise Taiwan as an independent state is somehow OR on my part, and surely this is a gross misuse of the whole user warning system by placing a subst:Uw-nor4 straight onto my (IP's) User Talk page. [97] 194.207.146.167 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why didn't you just supplant Holy See with Vatican City throughout, though? Would that not have resolved matter. Yes, the uw-nor4 warning may not have been optimal (as in bitey), but it isn't really actionable. Only an admin can enforce warnings, anyway. El_C 22:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the first bit, just what were you on about?! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a routine content dispute and not a matter for this noticeboard. Discuss the content issue at the article talk page, and if you think the other editor misused a template, discuss that calmly on their user talk page. Using terms like "incontrovertible" and "gross misuse" is a bit much under these circumstances. Getting emotional about such a minor matter is not productive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there was no discussion on his part! And, it still wouldn't justify an Uw-nor4! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As Cullen said, you should have tried addressing that with Horse Eye Jack first, before submitting a report here. This is meant to be your last resort, not your first. Anyway, I suggest you just move on to the content dispute by engaging in discussion on the article talk page. El_C 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your now-deleted comment, were you also trying to suggest I was somehow vandalising articles? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not. El_C 22:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just having a rant of your own then? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are outliving your welcome on this noticeboard, IP. El_C 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The severity of the warning was due to similar behavior at Foreign relations of Taiwan and because they appear to have been warned many times about disruptive editing. Making grand statements about international law [98] without even a whiff of a source is definitely OR. Also the whole “incontrovertible fact” which the editor is basing their argument on does appear to be a matter of opinion and they do appear to be fundamentally mistaken about what happened in 2018 (File talk:Holy See relations.svg). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dicklyon and page moves

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

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

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

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

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

    @Pi.1415926535: could you please add diffs for the recent behavior you find inappropriate? Dicklyon has made hundreds of moves in the past week. Mysticdan (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant moves were at Green Line "A" Branch, Green Line "C" Branch, Green Line "D" Branch, Green Line "E" Branch, and Highland Branch. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Is there a discussion somewhere that would have caused Dicklyon to believe those moves might be contested? Mysticdan (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. There's another discussion on Pi's talk page, User_talk:Pi.1415926535#What_sources_are_you_looking_at?, about contested railway line moves in the Boston area involving Dicklyon. The last post was three days ago. Dicklyon knew, or should have known, that this would be a controversial move. Moving these articles without a formal discussion feels provocative at best. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The last post is 3 days ago there, as you note, because he decided to stop contesting those edits (which were not page moves). He just shows how sore he is that the consensus was against him there; it's not relevant to the "branch" downcasing moves. The more relevant discussion is at User_talk:Pi.1415926535#Highland branch which I started after he reverted one of my moves. Rather than reply, he came to AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon is very active page mover. Even taking reasonable care (as all editors should) to avoid controversial edits, there are going to be some with which other editors disagree. For this, we have talk pages and the dispute resolution process.
    • Has a wider discussion been engaged in for these moves?
    • Has Dicklyon (and the other involved editors) been willing to engage in those discussions in good faith?
    Prodego talk 16:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editing in Blond and Red hair

    (non-admin closure) Blocked for 3 months by Ymblanter. DarkKnight2149 09:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Hunan201p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Please note Hunan201p was blocked twice for edit warring in January 2020. I recently posted a 3RR warning on their talk page [99], and posted a warning on the article talk page [100]. They no longer do 5 reverts in 24 hours but they have recently engaged in slow motion edit warring, editing against consensus, and WP:OWN behavior.
    • Hunan201p has been misrepresenting sources in effort to WP:OWN artcles. Calling the source(s) self-published when this is not the case. Also, Hunan admits removing this material for the fourth time, which is slow motion edit warring. [101]. The sources are not self published: [102], [103]. Also, please note this "fourth" effort demonstrates WP:OWN by keeping prefered version in the article. The problems is this occurs without discussion on the talk page.
    • Here @Queenplz: waited 6 days for a talk page response and there was none. They made a correction while restoring the edit. [104]. About 4 days later Hunan201p removes one part of this content and source [105] - so this would be the fifth time, without talk page discussion.
    • Here @Shinoshijak: adds content based on consensus at WP:FTN [106]. Here is the FTN discussion if anyone is interested [107]. Here Hunan201p removes the content against consensus. [108]. On their talk page, about the consensus, Hunan says: "...that noticeboard discussion was three cliquish and shady editors voting for each other" [109]
    • Here I warned Hunan about disruptive editing, including editing against consensus [110]. Their response was they didn't remove reliable sources, which they did as demonstrated above, and this tallies with about the sixth time after reverting my edit [111], [112]. This is slow motion edit warring. My edit was an effort to correct the situation. And I'm not going to get into an edit war over several days or during one day. The rest of their talk page response can be read in the diff.
    • I'm pointing out here, that Hunan201p ignores articles for days, eschewing talk page discussion, until someone edits the article in a way they don't like. Then they come in and restore their prefered version. This can be seen in the above diffs.
    • In the Red hair article User Queenplz added this edit: [113]. Here Hunan reverts the edit while claiming "fraudulent" and claiming unreliable sources. Again without talk page discussion. Two days later I restored the content (based on the sources) [114] Hunan reverted 46 minutes later [115]. Here they are misrepresenting the restored content as vandalism (casing aspersions), falsification of statements (aspersions?).
    • Hunan seems intent of making these articles reflect their prefered version. No matter what. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked for 3 months. This has been going on for too long, and I have no idea whether Hmong can have red hair or not, but massively reverting references to academic publications calling them fraud without any followup is certainly not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass rollback?

    Hi, Is it possible to do mass rollback ?, If so can someone mass rollback T09 as they've reverted my "Station Exit" edits (consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2019#RfC_about_station_layouts_and_exits),
    I would revert them myself however I currently have and I kid you not "99+ notifications .... all from this guy,
    Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 11:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This must have communicated to the user. I will do it now and then roll back. Btw someone recently mass-added layouts to the Beojing Subway articles, they probably need some attention too.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see that rollback is not really appropriate since they also added the station codes which should stay in the articles. I will do some work but I do not have time to manually correct all of this today.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ymblanter, Given they've spent a whole hour just reverting me IMHO they should be rollbacked en masse with them being told station codes can be added back, I really don't see why we have to put the work in to fix things but that's just me,
    Thanks for your help anyway, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 11:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Easier now to re-add the useful information where required. Cheers, Davey2010. serial # 11:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is this script, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js it allows you to do mass rollback. However, I don't recommend doing that in this case. I only use it for sockpuppets of blocked editor--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Ymblanter and User:Serial Number 54129 for your help - Greatly greatly appreciated,
    Thanks for that SharabSalam, I'll go ahead and install that as in future I'd rather do the work instead of everyone else doing it for me if that makes sense :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    You can probably just ask for longer protection. Perhaps a partial range block would also work but I imagine RFPP could deal with that if they feel it's a better solution. It's good that you're seeking help rather than continuing to just revert. The only real fault I see with your editing is that especially since (I believe) the trailing zeroes do nothing other than slightly increase the page clutter, it would have been better to stop reverting the IP when this first started and wait for them to join the discussion. Once all they did was remove your talk page comments, it became clear that was fruitless so simply reverting them and asking for protection if they tried again was reasonable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a month of protection to the article.--v/r - TP 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chuqqling incorrecly identified edits as vandalism and is refusing to acknowledge this

    Last night (UTC) Chuqqling (talk · contribs) made a series of edits to articles under the edit summary of fixed vandalism... (these are the two that appeared on my watchlist but there were more: Special:Diff/956883903, Special:Diff/956884134) even though those edits weren't. This lead to both me and myself and MSportWiki (talk · contribs) having words on his/her talk page. Chuqqling then continued to argue that the edits were vandalism which lead to some discussion ([116]) and culminated in his removal of my reply and accusing me of being a troll (Special:Diff/956976005).

    At this point MSportWiki (talk · contribs) saw that he had removed some of my content and posted a message on my talk page expressing concern over Chuqqling behaviour and asking how me how I thought we might preceed. Because MSportWiki used [[User:Chuqqling]] Chuqqling got wind of this discussion and continued to argue that the edits were vandalism, this discussion is currently at this stage and has included personal attacks (attitude is disgusting (x2), Special:Diff/957003130 and Special:Diff/957010138 I have also added {{uw-agf1}} and {{uw-agf2}} (Special:Diff/956978890 and Special:Diff/957007494) which he has reverted (Special:Diff/956979038 and Special:Diff/957009333) in response to attitude is disgusting (x2).

    I feel that someone needs to explain to him what does and doesn't constiute vandalism before he starts WP:BITEing new editors. MSportWiki and I have tried to explain this to me but he continues to ignore us at every turn, hopefully he will listen to a higher power. Thank you in advance,
    SSSB (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: Just remembered that the first {{uw-agf}} was for ...rewrote sentences using the obviously incorrect tense? (Implying bad grammar is vandalism, Special:Diff/956974406)
    SSSB (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is absurd beyond belief. I fixed some edits which were obviously vandalism. Just look at them! This one and several others changed the tenses, to say things like "Michael Schumacher has won the Italian Grand Prix". Nobody -- nobody -- would make such a change thinking that it improved the article. This one simply replaced text with junk that made no sense. Again, nobody would make such a change in good faith. So I undid the edits by the IP concerned ([117]). And yet to my absolute bewilderment, I've got this guy SSSB hounding me all day now for having taken the initiative to clean up the mess of some dumb vandal. And now they have reported it to a noticeboard for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"?? That is ridiculous. Chuqqling (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of the two edits you linked to above are vandalism. They are good faith changes, you may not agree with them but they are not vandalism. And I'm not hounding you, take a look at WP:HOUNDING.
    SSSB (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What could possibly lead you to imagine they are good faith changes? Are you, in fact, the editor who made the changes? Chuqqling (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now making baseless, bad-faith accusations of WP:SOCK puppetry. I advise you rescind that comment.
    SSSB (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are going to extraordinary lengths to defend harmful edits made anonymously six months ago, and I think it is reasonable to wonder why you would do that. If you did not make those edits, you could simply say so. Chuqqling (talk)

    17:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

    Your accusation was so ridiculous I didnt think it necessary. And for the record:I didn't
    SSSB (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chuqqling: Your next reply better be crafted carefully. I reviewed your contribs and you label a lot of good-faith edits as vandalism. I'm also not impressed with your accusations and attacks. I'm fixing to block you as disruptive if your next comment is anything but apologetic with a promise to learn what vandalism is and fix yourself.--v/r - TP 17:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I labelled edits to seven articles vandalism, because they were obviously vandalism. I have not labelled any good-faith edits as vandalism. This deluge of attacks on me for fixing up a dumb vandal's mess is utterly bizarre. If you're desperate to block someone for fixing up some dumb vandal's mess that has been making articles look stupid for the last six months, well then perhaps you'd better go ahead and do that. Chuqqling (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to restate, the edits I undid were anonymous edits made six months ago. There was and is zero evidence of any productive intent.Chuqqling (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Vandalism is an intent to cause harm. Harm caused by well intentioned but otherwise faulty edits are not vandalism even if they do not improve the project. SSSB has been trying to tell you that but you're not listening.--v/r - TP 17:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits were clearly intended to be harmful. They were clearly not well-intentioned. The anonymous IP edited 11 articles within 35 minutes on 2 December 2019, leaving no edit summaries. Every one of the edits was harmful to the article. What on earth makes you believe they were well intentioned? To the extent that you are threatening to block me for having undone them? Chuqqling (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chuqqling, I suggest that you accept that you're wrong and move on. All you ever had to do was say, "I disagree that the edits were meant to improve the encyclopedia, but I see that they are not vandalism by the definition that English Wikipedia uses." Then people would have been a bit disgruntled, but they'd leave you alone. Vandalism is overt disruption, such as inserting random obscenities into the middle of a sentence. Bad grammar is not vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Too late. User has been indeffed. Well, maybe there will be a breakthrough in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinite is indefinite, any admin should feel free to unblock if sufficiently convinced that the response to this question is yes. Thank you TParis, SSSB, and NinjaRobotPirate. Prodego talk 17:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at WP:AIV

    Some reports have been there for more than two hours... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 16:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's cleared.--v/r - TP 16:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Justice007 socking with IP and poisoning the well

    User:Justice007 aka Ehsan Sehgal is currently attempting to rescue the article about himself at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (4th nomination) ]] by evading scrutiny with his IP address and alleging editors including me of engaging in WP:MEAT.[118] He has been canvassing as well.[119] While the SPI had been already opened nearly 2 weeks ago,[120] it seems that nothing is happening there. Orientls (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=957037652"