Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you encounter a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion, click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Sabbatino being inpolite[edit]

Sabbatino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) on his talk page uses rude communication style from a position of excellence on me:

  • it appears that you lack WP:COMPETENCE to edit in English so just stick to Russian Wikipedia
  • I have been editing English Wikipedia for about six years and I know a bit more than you do

I would not write here, but the user already had similar problems with calm communication. In addition, apparently, there is no such strong consensus on the issue under discussion as the participant is trying to show. Rather the opposite is true. Please convince the user to follow Wikipedia:EtiquetteCarn !? 17:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Digging up an old discussion that took place two years ago just shows that the reporting editor is holding a WP:GRUDGE for no apparent reason. He/she just came out of nowhere and started to annoy me on my talk page. In addition, he/she went to the Los Angeles Clippers page, which was never edited by the reporting editor and reverted my edits. It makes an impression that those reverts were in retaliation to the AFC Championship Game page. The reporting editor then went to my talk page and started blabbering about some "longstanding" consensus on the Los Angeles Clippers' page, which he/she invented out of the blue, and also pinged two other editors, who are not related to the issue on my talk page. This whole report is stale and the reporting editor is doing everything just to make a WP:POINT, which is bad faith. It also makes an impression that I am being stalked. The first cited statement from my talk page was in my first reply to the reporting editor, because I could not understand what he/she meant and after looking at the editor's edits, it became apparent that his/her skills editing in English were poor so I advised him/her to stick to the main Wikipedia where the editor makes edits – the Russian Wikipedia. The other statement just stated the obvious as I am certainly not going to other language Wikipedia to show off like the reporting editor does here. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the underlying content issue, but must point out that it is totally valid to point out that Sabbatino has been given a final warning about civility and edit warring, that it is not annoying someone to start a discussion on their talk page, that telling someone that they shouldn't be editing the English Wikipedia is a personal attack, and that only D-list "celebrities" use the "don't you know who I am" argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I already explained that I pinged users, which inserted sources from which you removed the "language = en" parameter. The fact that you mention my words as "blabbering", saying that I am "bothering" you, cut off an unfinished conversation with the words "The discussion is over until you understand how to use talk pages" leaves me not many options for the reaction. I think that anyone who reads our discussion with you will see that I have been peaceful and patient, and I want to continue to be so, but your communication style creates an atmosphere that is uncomfortable for me. ·Carn !? 21:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: You do not know anything about the "final warning" situation so it is not for you to judge me. In addition, telling someone that they are lacking WP:COMPETENCE is not a personal attack. I also do not use any "that only D-list "celebrities" use the "don't you know who I am" argument" arguments as you are implying. You do not know my editing history and I do not know yours so just stop with the judgments. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I suspect Phil's 'D-list' analogy is a reference to your having claimed to know a bit more than Carn. As a general rule, such statements come across poorly regardless of the intended meaning. Also, it is not a judgment to make the factual observation that you have been given a final warning. Lepricavark (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Basing my stance on a discussion from two years ago is absurd. The usee does not know me and I do not know him so he should just stop with implications. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
If you think this is a proportionate reply to this, then it would appear that the issues from two years ago are still relevant. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course that was the meaning of my analogy, as I would have thought that anyone with enough proficiency in English to admonish others for minor grammatical failings would have recognised. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Carn: I am calm. However, when a person starts to repeat the same thing all over again for no apparent reason, it makes an impression that the person does not really know what he/she wants besides trying to annoy someone, which is the case. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
My reason is transparent - I'm occasionaly translate pages from enwiki to ruwiki and I want language=en to be not removed in cases than it was set by editor, that added <ref></ref>. I'm sorry that I have failed to explain my position clearly to you. But don't you think, that if there were a newbie in my place, (s)he would be scared.·Carn !? 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
If you were a "newbie" then it would evident by your actions. And when I see a "newbie" I always try to help. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Will you agree to stop removing the parameter? This entire problem could be solved if you agreed I think. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Sabbatino's comments are indeed rude, condescending and overly quarrelsome for such a trivial issue. Carn was right to bring this to ANI. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree that Sabbatino's comments are problematic. While Carn!? first comment to Sabbatino did have some language issues, and their English as shown here and in the followup issues isn't perfect, it does not seem to be bad enough to suggest the editor cannot edit here. I can't imagine Sabbatino analysing Carn!? contributions would have shown any different. And if they were offering that suggestion based only on that one comment Carn!? left on their talk page, that's hardly civil behaviour.

And it seems particularly weird to make a big deal over how long you've been here, when you can't even get basic policy right. WP:SOCK does not forbid the use of multiple accounts. Using multiple accounts to appear as if you're two editors is indeed a violation of our sockpuppetry policy but the accusation was fairly weird anyway.

Carn!? outlined why they pinged the editor when they pinged. And followed with diffs demonstrating what they said was correct, after the sockpuppetry suggestion. I don't know how Carn!? knew that User:Azure1233 is one of the one's who added the parameter. Maybe they used wikiblame. But it seems a fair enough ping especially as it was only a discussion on a user talk page anyway, not an RFC or something. And it seems weird to suggest sockpuppetry just because of that.

Also while 2 years is a fairly long time ago, the best way you can convince people you've improved is by showing it. Which I'm not seeing here or the discussion on Sabbatino's talk page.

As for the content dispute, that's best discussed elsewhere. But I've reverted since Carn!? has outline a reason why they want the parameter, but Sabbatino has outline no harm other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT nor policy or guideline supporting their actions.

To be clear, there's nothing particularly wrong with Sabbatino believing it's best to remove the template. I wouldn't even say it was wrong to remove it in the first instance since the documentation does sort of suggest it's not necessary. But once Carn!? objected, then Sabbatino should have given their objections including rationale for why they want the parameter, a fair hearing. And if they looked at the template documentation, they should have realised it doesn't actually say it's forbidden. And known that their vague memories of previous discussions are not good evidence it's forbidden. And therefore, if not reverted themselves at least told Carn!? they were free to revert. And also undertaken not to remove the template in articles Carn!? is likely to edit.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that removing that parameter was encouraged when Sabbatino first started editing. The preference changed several years ago, as more translation work started happening and the CS1 folks updated the template to hide the parameter, but most editors outside the core AWB and CHECKWIKI groups probably didn't hear about the change. I'll see about clarifying the /doc pages, so that people will be able to find out the "rules" if they happen to look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to know whether, on reflection, Sabbatino regrets his remarks that I will join the half-dozen experienced users here identifying as inappropriate. I think some self-reflection complimentary of his many valuable contributions here would be well received. If these were my remarks, and it turned out as it did that I was probably in error on the underlying issue to boot, I would show some contrition. --Bsherr (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not going to say that I regret my remarks, because I can express my opinion, but I do agree that some of them were harsh. If the user was direct from the beginning of the discussion on my talk page then this could have been avoided. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Carn was direct from the beginning of the discussion, but you chose to insult him rather than conduct a civil discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
How much more direct could they have been? --Darth Mike(talk) 21:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that nobody has seen fit to close this discussion yet. I think that there is a consensus that Sabbatino was uncivil here, so it just comes down to the decision as to whether a final warning is actually final, or whether we have to put up with such behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So I guess this is textbook Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate. "If the community is telling you that you are being inconsiderate, then please reflect on your behaviour. Continuing to behave in a way that people are telling you is inappropriate or disruptive leads to problems. For you, for the community, and for Wikipedia." Support one month block and let's see if that time for self-reflection was utilized. --Bsherr (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Could I have acted differently? Yes? Did I? No. Do I understand my reaction was not good? Yes. Did I try suggesting that the parameter is sort of not needed? I did, and after the editor asked somewhere else about the matter, I replied there regarding the matter. In addition, when I saw that the editor went off-topic on my talk page, I decided to stop the discussion there. Finally, whatever the decision is – block or no block – I have bigger matters in my life at this time than think about anything Wikipedia-related. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

MicahZoltu[edit]

MicahZoltu is indefinitely topic banned from blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. MER-C 20:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MicahZoltu registered in 2009. To date, he has amassed 38 mainspace edits, mostly to an article where he has a credibly identified conflict of interest (as spotted by David Gerard). His edits include edit-warring self-sourced promotional material (repeated three times in <24h), original research and synthesis (with added extra referenciness that doesn't actually support the text). Both the latter on the likely COI article.

The balance of his 177 edits as of right now are talk page edits (again mostly the apparent COI) and a new strand of Wikipedia space edits chastising us for our interpretation of policy. I think it would be an idea if he were temporarily restricted from the probable COI and from Project space, at least until he's edited enough articles to understand how Wikipedia works, because right now his idiosyncratic interpretations of policy appear on the face of it to be driven more by personal animus than by understanding of Wikipedia norms, including this proposal which would, as written, prevent the removal of BLP violations if drawn from sources we have deprecated for fabrication.

I am sure MicahZoltu wants to help. I am much less sure that he is helping. Guy (help!) 13:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree they are not, as yet, being particularly helpful; but they've only—notwithstanding the apparent tenure—been editing since November this year, so it's probably the usual intersection of over-eagerness and inexperience (and overconfidence in their own understanding perhaps). ——SN54129 13:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Subsequent disclosure: apologies, I thought I knew the handle from somewhere, and I now see (from their talk) that I encountered them at Roosh V, where indeed their editing was sub-optimal: non-neutral presentation of material, edit-warring through multiple warnings, addition of original research...etc. So yeah, more inclined towards JzG's report than previously. ——SN54129 13:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I acknowledge I have made mistakes while editing Wikipedia and that not all of my edits are of encyclopedic quality. I have learned a lot in terms of Wikipedia policy and guidelines over the past two weeks and I try to engage in talk page discussion anytime there is a back and forth.
For the edit warring citation mentioned above, you will see that my first revert included a comment indicating why I believed David Gerard revert was uncalled for. David then reverted without discussion or extended comment. I then reverted again and started a discussion on the talk page, linking to the talk discussion in the revert comment. From there discussion occurred and I learned about a policy I wasn't previously aware of (yay for discussion!). I still believed there was value in some of the content and that the revert was overall a poor choice, so I reverted again after posting some additional discussion. In hindsight, I probably should have been the bigger person and waited a day or two before reverting again, rather than trying to push my belief of policy through via repeated reverts as other editors were doing. While I believe that I could have done better in this engagement (don't sink to opponents level), I do not believe that anything I did there was against policy (e.g., didn't violate 3RR).
I acknowledge that the Augur edits were poorly cited. There is discussion happening elsewhere that I would like to resolve prior to re-submitting that edit with additional citations.
There is a COIN discussion ongoing at for a anyone who wants to read up on the status of that or get involved. There is currently a disagreement as to who has a COI, and how much of a COI.
"The balance of his 177 edits as of right now are talk page edits This sounds like proper behavior." I tried to make some edits and fix things that I thought were wrong, there was disagreement so I engaged in discussion on talk pages rather than getting into an edit war. To me this sounds like appropriate and expected behavior of a Wikipedia editor.
I definitely don't think that someone should be punished for engaging in Village Pump proposals. If you read the linked Village Pump proposal, you can even see that I changed my stance later on in the proposal after some people made some good arguments and further discussion occurred.
Given the supplied evidence, this proposal feels frivolous at best, and an attempted attack against someone you disagree with at worst. It is suggesting administrative action should be taken because I supplied some low quality changes, tried to engage in discussion on talk pages, and got involved in community wide discussions on policy. Further, as an administrator I believe JzG should know better than to file an ANI against someone for having a content disagreement that turns into a lengthy and productive Talk discussion and for a relatively "new" user engaging in site policy discussions. Micah Zoltu (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
MicahZoltu, there you go again, offering the benefit of your <200 edit experience. The question of David's "COI" in respect of crypto is long settled: he doesn't have one. He's an expert in the subject who appears to have come to be one through his participation here, rather than the other way around.
I am not suggesting you are punished. I am suggesting you are restricted from wasting the community's time until you know enough to make proposals that aren't dangerously ill-informed. Guy (help!) 14:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the Roosh_V edits, once again I don't believe my edits go against any policy or are anything other than a content dispute. It should be noted that on that page I have posted some discussion on the talk page and neither David Gerard, JzG, nor Serial Number 54129 have engaged. All three have instead only reverted the change with minimal comment and no talk discussion.
I believe this is a good example of the problem, I am trying to make changes that others disagree with, and I have tried to engage on Talk pages extensively (which is why my commits are mostly on Talk pages) while others are reverting without discussion. Micah Zoltu (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
While it's normally expected editors should join a discussion if one is open, it doesn't have to me immediate. And editors should not be getting into an edit war just because others have not yet joined the discussion. Maybe more to the point, it's fairly resonable that editor's can't be bothered getting into a discussion when there's little to discuss. Since you started to edit that article [1], it has had this "having ties to the Alt-right.[13]" (which you didn't remove). 13 is this source [2] which does indeed mention such ties. You don't seem to have noticed this source since you did not discuss it. There also seems to be multiple sources for misogyny later in the article. Meanwhile I see zero sources for "conservatism". (Maybe they are there but I see no way to gather it from your edits.) So you were trying to change sourced labels, to unsourced ones. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It appears that you have engaged on the subject over at the appropriate talk page, and if others would like to join it should happen over there. As far as behavioral problems related to this issue, I agree that editors should be given time to respond. You will note that the reverts of others did not include any attempts at discussion, but each of my reverts included attempts at discussion. I should have probably waited more than 5 minutes before reverting Serial Number 54129's revert, to see if they were just taking some time to type up a Talk page comment (they were not, but I couldn't have known that at the time). Claiming that I am the problem when I am attempting to illicit engagement from other editors and the other editors are merely reverting without discussion feels quite against Wikipedia's policies/guidelines/ethos which all encourage civil discourse when there is disagreement and discourage silent edit warring. Micah Zoltu (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I see Micah as hopeless, or at least a net detriment to the project. It's the usual mixture of passive/aggressive behavior we see in some users, whom we are therefore reluctant to block because they don't seem "malicious". I've tried holding his hand, and it all came to nothing but a stubborn refusal to learn and a continuous interposition in areas of the project for which he lacks any experience or understanding. I would recommend a NOTHERE block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
What valid report? AFAICT, the report you cited was invalid as the only violation was long stale when you reported it. Making a single stale report is not generally a big deal, but failing to understand this even after explanation could be. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
"Valid report" meaning that I was correct that a person was edit warring. It was a very poorly constructed report due to being a WP:NOOB, which I learned after talking to Bbb23. You will notice that I have not filed another edit warring report since then, which suggests that I have learned (or at the least there is no evidence that I have failed to learn). It is also worth noting that even if you ignore the stale incidents, the edit warring incident report was still valid because of the 1RR sanction on that section. I dropped the case due to the recommendation of Bbb23. Micah Zoltu (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Are we supposed to congratulate you because you have not filed another edit-warring report? Yet, as you acknowledge, although you put an unjustified positive spin on your actions, you commented at an ANEW report that had zero to do with you. Why would you, an inexperienced user with so many problems understanding policy, do such a thing? And, as I stated, when I removed your comment, it was pointless in that it was irrelevant and a distraction. And here you are wikilawyering this to death.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect your question was rhetorical, but since this is an "official hearing" I will respond none the less. My above comments were intended to show that the evidence you referred to (but failed to link to) did not support the claim of "failing to learn". My hope would be that people reading this would ignore unsubstantiated claims like you made here (you provided no evidence, just made a claim), but I understand that human biases exist and seeing an undisputed claim may lead to the reader to giving it undue weight. My comment on the ANEW was an attempt to assist. Generally, when I get involved in an open project like this I like to try to "give back" to compensate for what I have "taken" in terms of time. I saw a situation that I believed (and still believe) I could help and thereby reduce administrator load, so I joined in. Micah Zoltu (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, yeah, that about sums it up. Guy (help!) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have had way more patience than I usually have with editors of this sort, but another several thousand words of querulous talk page discussion is a waste of my and everyone's time. Micah doesn't understand quite basic things even when repeated. His suggestions concerning appropriate Wikipedia sourcing look very like a push for open slather on dodgy references in the crypto articles - perhaps not his intent, but really obviously the effect. I concur with JzG's suggestion of restriction on project-space edits, and suggest a topic ban under WP:GS/Crypto on cryptocurrencies and blockchains, broadly construed - which any uninvolved admin can decide upon - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • At the very least they should be indefinitely topic banned from blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. The retaliatory thread below probably justifies an additional block of some period - maybe a week or so, to make it clear that the next one will be indef. MER-C 18:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Starting to support that Tban. Still think an indef is an over-reaction at this point; they may well be a salvageable editor although I'm less optimistic as I was. The thread below, rightly described as retaliatory, is not a good sign. I have a feeling that the deafness is strong in this one. Still, short sharp shocks can = WP:ROPE I suppose. ——SN54129 19:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I was perfectly content to wait until this incident and the COIN against me are settled before taking any further action. However, David decided to poke the bear. Micah Zoltu (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
MicahZoltu, I think you should probably spend some time studying the law of holes. Guy (help!) 19:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have blocked MicahZoltu for one week for disruptive, tendentious editing after reading several of the conversations they have been involved with. At this point, I recommend that editors either support or oppose a topic ban on blockchain and cryptocurrency, broadly construed. I support that topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: If you support a topic ban, why don't you simply impose it? It doesn't require a discussion. Although I believe the ban is warranted, I also believe that in a perverse way it will give the user more time to misbehave in other areas of the project, as he has already, which is why I'm in favor of an indefinite block, but I seem to be alone in that, so... --Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, I understand your point and know that I have that power, but I am seeking broader consensus for the topic ban. If the editor begins misbehaving when the block expires, I will certainly join you in supporting an indefinite block at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, Because he is a very nice man :-) I mean, seriously, he is. Guy (help!) 23:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic-ban. Just reading over the COI/N thread, his arguments seem to amount in sum to a Chewbacca defence, and in my experience this sort of thing is something in-the-weeds editors tend to do if they can't directly answer the allegations made without admitting guilt. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 21:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for now, although this seems well on the way to a NOTHERE indef. Miniapolis 23:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's see if he is better after the one week ban. Maybe he will cool down a bit and later be a productive editor. Not sure of that as it seems an effort by Micah to wikilawyer in changes, and doesn't stop at it. The main issue being it is all WP:1AM edits, and nobody else seems to care if some extra services are added to the respective pages. I would suggest to Micah he cool off and come back in a month. Wikipedia is a place of slow and incremental improvements. I think I would like to see a persistent violation of the same issues after the 1 week ban to support an indefinite TBAN. The thing is that as is pointed out above his edits are not just limited to crypto, he is also doing the same thing (apparently) at the Roosh V article (which I guess this Roosh article has nothing to do with crypto). So hopefully Micah just cools down and learns the protocols at wikipedia and becomes a valuable editor, we can always use more editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the tban, obvs. Also support indef. It takes quite a bit of effort to get Bbb23 to write you off as a hopeless case. Guy (help!) 17:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef, or if there's no consensus for that a tban, for never having done anything here but promote a company they work for. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have imposed the topic ban on MicahZoltu, and warned the editor that any further disruptive editing may well lead to an indefinite block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: please log this at WP:GS/Crypto#2019_blocks_and_bans for future reference (I would, but obviously I shouldn't) - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for all the good work you do in the blockchain/cryptocurrency swamp, David Gerard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328, good shout. Guy (help!) 10:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

David Gerard Repeatedly adding my name to COI list without COIN support.[edit]

This will go nowhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1. David Gerard added me to the COI list for the Augur Talk page, which is fine if he thought I had a COI.
  2. I disagreed that I had a COI so I removed my name from the list and asked him to not re-add me in the comment and talk page and suggested that perhaps a COIN filing would be appropriate if he felt strongly.
  3. Calton then showed up and added me to the COI list.
  4. I once again removed myself from the COI list and strengthened my request for a COIN if they believe I have a COI.
  5. David added me to the COI list again.
  6. I removed myself again.
  7. Calton added me again and David finally filed a COIN. At this point I was content leaving my name in the COI list until the COIN was complete. It felt appropriate to basically step away and not touch the Augur article or the COI list until the COIN was resolved.
  8. JzG initiated a deletion process for the Augur project page, which is fine (I think it is a frivolous case but anyone can propose an article for deletion).
  9. David then added a comment to the Augur deletion request page casting WP:ASPERSIONS on my statements (which were just stating facts) saying I had a Conflict of Interest and pointing to my name being in the COI list as support for that.
  10. I deleted my name from the COI list again, providing my reasoning being that its presence was inappropriately being used to cast aspersions on my statements elsewhere.
  11. I posted a responding comment to the Augur deletion page.
  12. David added my name back to the list once again.

Since the first claim of COI was made by David, I have made no edits to the Augur project page. I do not intend to make edits until the COIN is resolved.

Proposed Immediate Resolution: Leave my name on the COI list until the COIN discussion is complete and remove David's comments about my conflict of interest along with my rebuttal from the Augur deletion page.

Long term solution: I think this behavior exhibited by David is incredibly childish for an administrator and does not represent the values that Wikipedia administrators are expected to embody. Once the COIN was filed the situation was cooling down due and discussions elsewhere were making progress. I was perfectly content following the appropriate process, letting the COIN play out, and respecting the COIN resolution. I believe that David's actions are basically an attempt to kick the hornets nest and get me to engage in behavior that would be unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor (such as my response to his deletion page comment and me once again deleting myself from the COI list). I would like to propose that David be reprimanded for this behavior in a way that makes it clear that this behavior is very much not acceptable for an administrator. I think it is important that it be made clear to Wikipedia administrators that this sort of behavior is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and most definitely inappropriate for an administrator.

I have many more grievances with David's behavior on Wikipedia, but I was not planning on filing anything until some ongoing discussions have fully resolved as they seem to be making positive progress. I am filing this now because I believe this particular behavior he is engaging in is worthy of a somewhat swift remedial action (see Proposed Immediate Resolution above). Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, enough, it appears his comments on the Augur Deletion page were in support of a hornet nest kick. Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Gobsmacking quantity of repetitious bludgeoning ending with a stamp of approval[edit]

Instead of arguing, I suggest that the people who want the article improve Draft:Erica C. Barnett and the rest can find something more productive to do. Guy (help!) 14:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have asked User:Dmehus and others a half dozen or more times to stop bludgeoning, sealioning, or otherwise repeating themselves in the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett, as well as accusing other editors of bias, incompetence, being ill-informed, or otherwise invalidating their !votes rather than simply disagreeing.[3][4][5][6] Samboy made the same point, but Dmehus ignored them too and kept on bludgeoning. Twice more [7][8], until the closer finally tagged the page {{closing}}, requesting, mercifully, no more. Please, at long last, no more.

As shown below, they persisted and then some. Dmehus re-posted the same points as many as 21 (TWENTY ONE!) times in the same discussion. It's hard to get an exact count, and I've probably missed some. In a few cases the same point has been repeated as many as three times in the same comment. Dmehus has expressed agreement with, and pinged for replies, two particular editors, Chetsford and SportingFlyer upwards of 14 times. Chetsford had hand picked and invited to the AfD by name.[9]

The problem here isn't just Dmehus's filling the page with repetitive noise; it's the effect of badgering several other editors into making their own redundant replies. I was suckered into it, as have the two allies that Dmehus has repeatedly thanked and pinged. More than one newcomer to the AfD page has similarly been drawn into re-stating points already made several times on either side, including B k, Samboy, and Jmabel.

To wit:

  • I won't repeat myself [85]
  • I have repeated myself [86]
  • Hello closer! Hello admins! There is discussion happening in this discussion. [87][88][89]
  • Other stuff exists, it doesn't matter [90]

The remedy could be a topic ban on the subject of Erica C. Barnett, or on AfD discussions in general, but I think the best remedy is a ban on bludgeoning, badgering, sealioning, or peppering, construed broadly. A one-repeat-rule, subject to further action if violated. Say it once, say it twice if you must, then you're done. It might be nice if they started assuming good faith, assuming other editors have read the forgoing discussion, and not accusing them of bias, incompetence, or ulterior motives. Subsequent discussions such as Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 November 29 have followed the same path, bludgeoning replies to every editor.

The administrator Chetsford's hands are hardly clean in this respect. Numerous times they accused good faith editors of ignorance, incompetence, and bias, rather than respectfully accepting a difference of opinion. You can't blame Dmehus too much when that's the kind of behavior modeled by someone who is -- as Dmehus reminded us I think 7 times? -- an administrator. The AfD's closer's explicitly stated encouragement for this type of discussion is similarly problematic, not to mention the fact that it worked and successfully got the page deleted, so is all the more likely to encourage more of the same. I'm not even going to consider deletion review (canvassing and votestacking, bad faith nomination, highly questionable consensus rationale) if it means a similar "lively" debate is going to be tolerated, let alone encouraged.

We need a clear community consensus one way or the other on whether or not this kind of thing is what we want to see in talk pages and AfD discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the bludgeoning behavior in that AfD discussion was inappropriate. It took the closing admin nearly an hour to trudge through the entire discussion and come up with a consensus. The user has already been told that this behavior was not OK (permalink) advice they ignored. While I appreciate the closing admin’s hard work, I have concerns about how the AfD was closed; I think, in light of the Donna Strictland incident, we should err on the side of “keep”, especially with women, and I feel the sources did establish her notability. Samboy (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Talking to myself, I also feel that using Template:Source_assess_table is useful when an AfD discussion gets contentious, and would had been a much more useful use of time instead of getting in to that pointless endless argument. This table allows us to talk about the sources, and whether they establish notability more clearly. Samboy (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, really? I'm astonished that Dmehus is endlessly hectoring everybody who disagrees with him. Guy (help!) 22:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I was clearly involved in the AfD, but I'm not sure there's any remedy here other than a warning. The AfD itself was a rather difficult one with several non-policy-compliant keep !votes, and more was written than needed to be written. I think this was just improperly balanced - we want to encourage healthy discussion and we want to encourage !voters to stick to established guidelines when reviewing sources and notability, so I'm not sure anything more than a warning is needed. SportingFlyer T·C 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that everyone (me, SportingFlyer, Dmheus, the closer, etc.) have been wrapped up as the responsible parties in Dennis Bratland's recollection of how this AfD went. While there was, indeed, a lot of back-and-forth and the discussion became passionate at times I saw no signs of incivility on the part of Dmehus. This was an AfD on an article in which the real-life subject of the article (who had also directly edited it) had essentially issued a "call to arms" to her followers on Twitter to defend it against "assholes" who were "anonymously harass[ing] a female journalist" and editing "her" [sic] article to read that she was "a former journalist ... who writes like shit when ... drunk" ([106], [107], etc.). This cast a simple AfD N discussion as an attempt to personally attack her by a menagerie of committed chauvinists and used a description of something that never occurred (the claim that her article had been edited to say she "writes like shit when [she's] drunk" [sic]) in an apparent attempt to rile-up her followers and influence the outcome of a WP discussion. This was followed by the materialization of burner accounts and the reanimation of dormant accounts making vague waves at "keep". Faced with this combination of off-Wiki personal attacks and canvassed drive-bys, I can understand how Dmehus felt it would be beneficial to politely engage with many of these new and reanimated users to see if they were indeed GF participants in the discussion. I'm probably going to limit my comments on this matter to that. The OP has repeatedly accused me (most recently here [108] [109]) of personally threatening him (albeit sans diffs) and has rejected my numerous assurances that he is not the object of nefarious designs by anyone. Following a cursory review of OPs previous visits to ANI I believe this might be a debating tactic, however, I'd still like to maintain a respectful distance to mitigate any genuine sense of endangerment he may feel in case I've read his concerns incorrectly. Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
To correct the record here, I voted on the AfD in question to keep the article, and I am neither a new user nor a reanimated user; I have been voting on a number of recent AfDs, as well as contributing a new article to the Wikipedia. To claim that Dmehus’s behavior is OK because the Keep votes came from “burner accounts and the reanimation of dormant accounts” ignores that fact that I voted for keep and Dmehus, despite me being an editor acting in good faith, did multiple WP:BLUDGEON style replies to my two comments, as well as replying to any other keep vote. Samboy (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
My apologies. That was intended to refer to some, not all, accounts and included accounts active in the article proper, as well as the AfD. If I expressed myself imperfectly, I apologize. Obviously you are not a burner account. Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and thank you. I wish you the best, and will go back to ValhallaDSP. If this lady’s currently deleted article goes to deletion review, I will do my best to put clarity in what is a very muddy and messy issue. Samboy (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
And you're hardly the only one. Schazjmd and Oldperson Nnadigoodluck and Jmabel were discounted the same way, not to mention myself. Arguments failed, so they used ad hominem to paint us all as imposters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Chetsford's hands are hardly clean in this respect. Numerous times they accused good faith editors of ignorance, incompetence, and bias" (Obviously, that's not true. But, for purposes of deescalation I'd suggest this un-diffed claim be let to lay.) Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to need to see diffs supporting the various accusations here: vote-stacking, canvassing, bad-faith nomination, Chetsford making accusations, editors making policy-based arguments in a deletion discussion. Drawing the line between good participation in a discussion and bludgeoning is always going to be difficult, and I doubt there's a bright-line rule that would ever be workable. It's up to the closing administrator to evaluate the discussion, and if they err we all know where deletion review is. Otherwise, I don't see that there's much to be done here. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I meant to write "Chetsford had [been] hand picked and invited to the AfD by name.[110]" up there. Maybe the missing word typo made it hard to notice. From the diffs above, you see a nomination that doesn't even nominate the article for deletion. Claiming to "have no strong opinion" yet posting scores of times arguing to delete the article? It's a bad faith pose, pretending to be aloof and objective while being so motivated to prosecute a case that they've recruited allies and slandered the opposition. Chetsford provided an example of casting aspersions on all who disagree right here; scroll up: "burner accounts and the reanimation of dormant accounts making vague waves". That's AGF? That's not personal attacks? Chetsford provided diffs of my posts about his accusation of WP:POINTy editing, wherein I offered the very diffs he said I didn't provide. When an admin says you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, they're threatening to ban or block you. Chetsford treats all who disagree as illegitimate and up to no good in some way.

Dmehus called other editors illegitimate at least six times [111][112][113][114][115][116], while pretending to "respectfully disagree" [117][118]. Fake show of respect while flinging insults? Bad faith.

A community ban on Dmehus repeating the same point more than once in a given discussion (allowing one repeat is reasonable, and more enforceable) is a necessary solution. I don't expect anyone to stand up to Chetsford. I only point out his behavior in Dmehus's defense. I don't blame him as much given the circumstances. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I saw the mention of Chetsford being invited, but as I understand it he was already involved in the article, so that's not really canvassing and I assumed you meant something else. Regarding bad-faith, I'm not seeing what you're seeing and would appreciate a further explanation. The nomination explicitly questions whether the subject is notable while noting an ongoing conflict-of-interest. "No indication of any significant coverage" indicates a line of thinking which gets developed throughout the discussion. I suppose it could be construed as disingenous, but I'm having a hard time seeing bad faith. The diffs you provide which you characterize as Dmehus calling other editors "illegitimate" don't appear to do that; rather, he's indicating that he disagrees with their interpretations of the relevant policies and guidelines. That's a normal thing to see during a deletion discussion, and I see no personal attacks. Saying that someone's argument is "unsubstantiated by policy or evidence" is an expression of opinion and one to be evaluated by the closing administrator (who apparently agreed to some extent).
I think we're at the nub of the matter here: "When an admin says you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, they're threatening to ban or block you." That's an extreme construction, especially when you put that proposition to the administrator in question and they expressly disclaim any such intention. In the context of Talk:Erica C. Barnett assuming that Chetsford was threatening to block you when he characterized a proposed edit as POINTY strikes me as a significant overreaction and misunderstanding on your part. I'm going to quote the full passage here for the benefit of non-administrators:

First, it's not a "minority of the sources". Second, WP:DUE calls for all significant viewpoints to be represented and does not differentiate majority, minority, or plurality views. To your question, "do you have any objection to adding "newspaper reporter", "newspaper editor", "radio commentator" etc", I'll defer comment except to say such an edit — within the context of the preceding — would be WP:POINTY in the extreme. You'll have to judge for yourself whether or not that would be a wise edit to make.

I suppose that could be construed as a block threat, but I don't read it that way. Chetsford was involved in the discussion; to paraphrase, it would have been most unwise for him to block you under the circumstances. I think most people who use "POINTY" in conversation are trying to gently suggest that you're (in their view) taking an unreasonable, if not absurd position. It's not a block threat. WP:POINT is a guideline and carries no special weight nor status in that regard. Dmehus may have bludgeoned editors, but you've lost perspective on this issue and probably need to take a step back. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
A dozen other editors had been involved with the same article. Why pick only one or two? It's obvious from the editing which POV the hand picked !votes will support. Nobody who hadn't been critical of the subject, or questioned the subject's notability, was invited. The edit history showed them responding to talk page and article edits; obviously using their watchlist, which would have told them of the existence of the AfD. Why make the extra effort to invite known allies by name? It's exactly what the canvassing rules are there to prevent. It only adds to the reasons to question the legitimacy of the AfD outcome. You invite an admin by name, known to share your opinions, and they proceed to put their thumb on the scale, as expected. And everybody else is supposed to look at that and think it's an evenhanded result?

The core of this is that this discussion was filled with bludgeoning and badgering. The reason bludgeoning is a problem is that it poisons the process. It drives participants away. Several editors said they agreed with the stated keep rationale, but that was discounted on the grounds that they didn't satisfy the endless questions from the baderging. People see a wall of text and they don't want to read it all, or wade in and get attacked for daring to disagree. Who wants an admin with a grudge against you?

That is why the bludgeoning needs to be sanctioned and prevented from poisoning future discussions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"When an admin says you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, they're threatening to ban or block you." No one ever mentioned the word "block" in relation to POINTY (or at all) except you. You replied to Dmheus' very pleasant post on your Talk page in which he said "Hoping we can resolve this amicably as I appreciate your contributions to the discussions and your editing." [119] by shooting back that he was being WP:POINTY and that you were planning to seek to have him "sanctioned with at least a formal warning, if not a block or topic ban" [120].
With respect, this (combined with your history of claims and counter-claims at ANI) is why I think you're using the rather baseless assertion you're being bullied as a debating tactic. Despite the fact I reassured you three times after the fact that your suddenly conjured belief you were being bullied was without basis (and even, after you construed my reassurance as, itself, bullying, directed you to resources you could access such as the Trust & Safety Office, CHAT or ANI) you continued to claim — in increasingly heated (and, frankly, hysterical) tones — that my comment constituted: (a) "aspersions" [121], (b) "bullying" [122], (c) "harassing" [123], (d) "failure to assume good faith" [124], (e) "condescending" [125], (f) "snide condescension" [126], (g) "insulting" [127], (h) "trivializing" [128], (i) "childish" [129], (j) "personal attacks" [130], and concluded with (k) "nobody in their right mind would want to chat with you" [131]. As you obviously know, WP:ADMINACCT would have precluded me from blocking you even if it had been warranted, which it was not (indeed, I've only blocked one account - an IP editor - in my life; I doubt I even remember how). Your comments in and out of that AfD, in which you bark and bite at people directing polite comments towards you and conflate rather vanilla policy notes as proof of the persecution and bullying you're supposedly enduring, makes you come across a bit like a bull in a china shop if I can be frank. Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Elizabeth II[edit]

Nothing to do, let alone discuss. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 18:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Twitter is full of unsubstantiated rumors that Queen Elizabeth has died. I've blocked one vandal who tried to edit the article to say she's died. One attempt is not enough for semi-protection but more eyes on the article would be helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where you can be reasonably sure the BBC will have it first. Up the protection to PC for 48h, do you think? Guy (help!) 23:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Some of the tweets actually came from a fake BBC Twitter account. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Her article is already semi protected indefinitely. I don't think anything more is needed. This will blow over quickly (assuming there is nothing to the rumors). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Jeffrey Epstein did it.. -Nunh-huh 23:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Really? The Lyndon LaRouche people are pretty sure that She is the one who had Epstein whacked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but aren't the Lyndon LaRouche people also pretty sure that she's a drug-trafficking Reptilian alien? -Nunh-huh 04:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ummm... something like that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't be completely sure about that, but just almost completely sure. If this ever happens, which I of course don't commit treason by imagining, I would expect the news not to be made public until relevant people such as the heir to the throne and the prime minister have been informed, so there's a window of opportunity for people such as medical staff who know the facts to tweet about it before the BBC publishes it. Having said that, we don't source Wikipedia to tweets. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Unlike the fiasco in 1952, I am fairly certain that both the PM and the heir apparent are never out of communication and could be alerted very quickly if something happened. And there are elaborate plans for the public announcement down to the point where all of the normal presenters on the radio and TV news services hold periodic rehearsals for announcing the death of a senior member of the Royal Family. I read somewhere that the BBC even keeps a dark coat jacket and a black tie on hand... just in case. In the age of the internet and mobile phones, it's possible the news will leak before a formal announcement. But probably not by far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's true; here's a video of one of those TV news rehearsals: [132] Levivich 01:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's also amazing what we can learn from reading an encyclopedia. I had thought that "imagining the death of the monarch" was still considered treason under the Treason Act 1795, but it seems that that provision was repealed in 1998. For over 20 years I've been expecting the early morning wake-up to take me to the Tower, but that worry was completely unnecessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's an interesting Guardian article about the planning for the Queen's demise. Graham87 04:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Isn't she abdicating first? [133] [134] [135] Maybe her heart couldn't take the Christmas shock [136] [137] Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Similar rumors have popped up before and the Queen has always carried on. But I suspect that even she is somewhat surprised to still be alive. While I doubt she would ever abdicate, it would not shock me if at some point she "retired" from her ceremonial and constitutional duties allowing Charles to be proclaimed Prince Regent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, I believe the Palace have said she intends to "retire" around her 95th birthday. Clearly their pension plan sucks. Guy (help!) 09:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? When I was looking for sources for my joke above, the very recent sources found suggested the retirement is a rumour coming from The Sun or Daily Mail who claim they got it from unnammed palace sources or courtiers. While it's fairly plausible, far more so than the claims she will abdicate at that time, I wouldn't trust such sources either. There are a heck of a lot of often contradictory rumours that seem to follow a similar pattern. (I mean we even get completely silly stuff which anyone with a basic understand of constitutional law of any of the Commonwealth Realms would know isn't plausible like claims she has decided to skip Charles and make William king.) And the retirement mill has been going on for ages. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it she was going to retire from public duties when she was 95 but would still remain monarch until death. All her life she has said she will never abdicate. Inside sources have said that they expect she will direct Charles to abdicate in favour of William but I think that's just speculation from people who know her. --AussieLegend () 14:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It's best that we don't rely on tabloids, who's sole purpose is to make a profit. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Recreation of deleted article Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)[edit]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) was exactly recreated by User:Kenyaovagold as the article Kalki Avatar and Prophet Muhammad. This was after User:Lazy-restless was finally blocked for repeatedly creating this and other fringy stuff. May be a sockpuppet here too. 2402:3A80:CBE:56EA:1013:11B4:2AD6:3F22 (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm blocking the account as this is very ducky, the content is from User:Lazy-restless/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) with no other editors. There's also similarity in other editing aspects. —SpacemanSpiff 06:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The account is part of a sock farm, and unrelated to Lazy-restless. My error corrected and re-blocked by Bbb23. —SpacemanSpiff 02:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert of page move vandalism needed[edit]

(non-admin closure) Reverted, user blocked. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

please could someone return Jonathan Field to Matthew Lowton where he belongs: i.e revert this move. I can't do it myself because the mover has edited Talk:Matthew Lowton after the move. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the page black and blocked the user for vandalism. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

8675309[edit]

I have blocked 8675309 as WP:NOTHERE based on persistent addition of hoaxes and POV into articles, primarily the repeated insertion of "Russiagate" and "Russians hacked the DNC" into List of conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147].

The user has been warned of DS and has engaged on Talk sufficiently to know that these edits do not enjoy consensus. I don't mind if this is converted to a TBAN or something, some of the earlier edits were productive but pretty much everything since the start of the year, if not earlier, has been terribly sourced, fringe or in some other way unhelpful. Guy (help!) 13:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit [148] isn't encouraging, I think the NOTHERE block is the correct action. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Jenny what happened to you? I concur, good block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Jenny, I got your number.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Berean Hunter, Socking? This is my shocked face. Thanks for the prompt attention there :-) Guy (help!) 10:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by IPs using a proxy[edit]

Stop bickering. Zzuuzz already answered the hypothetical aspect of this question. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not targeting a specific editor, I'm just curious. Is it appropriate to revert edits made by an IP who is subsequently blocked for using a proxy? I'm referring specifically to an IP 195.191.241.12 that first popped up on my talk page tonight in the midst of a disagreement. He then started editing at List of The Grand Tour episodes and was subsequently blocked for using a proxy. Two of their edits have since been reverted by another editor.[149][150] Another editor asked if this was appropriate and the editor who removed the posts replied using WP:3RRNO:Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users as justification. That doesn't seem to apply though. Is it valid justification? --AussieLegend () 14:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

In general, no it's not a sufficient basis to revert edits per se. Proxies can get blocked for all sorts of reasons, including none at all. Edits made by a user who is subsequently blocked for whatever reason are not per se made in violation of a block or ban, nor by a blocked or banned user, so the onus falls on the person employing that assertion to show how that is the case. One can simply ask, on the balance of probabilities, which block was being evaded when the edit was made? That said, any further edits are going to be more complicated to evaluate, so I'll refrain from opining about that in advance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
As the editor who asked it, I was a little concerned if it was justified, considering the matter in the Editing War noticeboard concerned me. If he felt there was no justification, maybe he should have just closed it, rather than remove it?GUtt01 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
GUtt01, I have semiprotected the article so this can safely be remitted to Talk. Consensus for the disputed content should be easy to assess. Guy (help!) 17:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's worth remembering that an IP address does not identify an individual like a User Account does - WP:BANREVERT does not apply here. Additionally, I believe it's actually pretty disruptive to blanket revert otherwise constructive edits. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 15:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Alfie, not true when the IP is an obvious sock. Guy (help!) 17:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Why was there not notification of this discussion to the editors involved? Two editors have been referred to in the initial post as "another editor", but no notification was sent to them, as is explicitly stated at the top of this noticeboard. -- /Alex/21 22:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. I will go ahead and notify those other editors as a courtesy to the original poster. Michepman (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Alex 21: As was explained in the very beginning of this, no specific editor was being targeted, it was simply a general question. --AussieLegend () 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
You referred to other editors and linked their edits; it's therefore automatically about specific editors, there's no loophole for that, and you did not notify them. -- /Alex/21 07:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The box at the top of this page says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." This discussion is not about an editor. No editors were named and only the diffs of one editor were used, purely as an example. Your recent posts here and elsewhere are bordering on harrassment. Please stop. --AussieLegend () 07:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
AussieLegend - I actually did make the requested notifications on behalf of the original poster but I was reverted by 1 user and ignored by the other. TBH I don't see why the notification is necessary but the policy does seem broad enough to cover even editors who are briefly referenced. Michepman (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You referred to other editors and linked their edits; it's therefore automatically about specific editors. Naming them as "another editor" is not a loophole for "not naming" editors; the instructions at Template:ANI-notice are very clear about "all editors who are merely involved". Follow the instructions next time, else convertly discussing other editors without notifying them can be considered harrassment. And exactly per our other discussion, you have another editor against your position, with no support for your own statements. Please listen to the advice given to you. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 04:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I referred to other editors but linked the diffs of only one and didn't name any. The template instructions say "all editors who are merely involved in a behavioral dispute (e.g. previous blocking administrators of blocked users) can and must also be notified." There was no dispute, behavioural or otherwise. It was a simple question. You need to give up and stop harrassing. Throwing that accusation against me when you can see the harrassment by you at Talk:List of The Grand Tour episodes just because I didn't respond to you in a timeframe that suited your schedule, is a really stupid thing to do. The question here has been answered, you were wrong to revert the IP in the manner that you did so there is no point continuing. Can an admin please close this discussion? --AussieLegend () 05:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
And yet, no action was taken against me for reverting the IP, and it was clearly stated that such edits were acceptable "when the IP is an obvious sock". So, no, it wasn't as major an issue, nor is it as clear-cut, as you've come to believe; clearly not wrong at all. Next time you open an ANI thread, notify everyone that you refer to, as you've been told, again, by multiple editors. It's really that simple. -- /Alex/21 05:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
And yet, no action was taken against me for reverting the IP - That's because no action was sought. As I said it was a general question, not a dispute or a report about a specific editor. You can't have it both ways.
it was clearly stated that such edits were acceptable "when the IP is an obvious sock". - Except that there is no evidence that it was a sock, even when looking at the edit history, and your justification was not that it was a sock but that it was a blocked IP, which it was not at the time that it made the edits. You really had no idea that it was a sock, (or maybe you did?) or you would have reverted with that justification. Please stop beating a dead horse. --AussieLegend () 06:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Action doesn't need to be sought to be taken. Clearly, no administrator felt it was necessary to take any action against the reverts, so the issue wasn't an issue in the first place. And two IPs, making the same edits at the same times, both of them blocked? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... But hey, keep casting aspersions, see where it gets you. -- /Alex/21 07:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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

COLONEL77[edit]

Blocked by Cullen, nothing left to really do, except keep your eye on this user. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 14:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few days ago, I was doing my daily work at copypatrol, when I see this edit to Wes McKnight appear. I exanime it, it appears to be a pretty obvious copyright violation of this site, so I revert the edit and warn the user who made the edit, COLONEL77. I leave them a notice on copyright, observe that they've received previous warnings, watchlist their page, and then continue on at copypatrol as usual. A few days later, they respond IN ALL CAPS AT MY TALK PAGE, where they seem to imply they wrote the original article and that more than one person is running the account. They also ask that I email my response to them, but I decide not to because no non-public/embarrassing information is being discussed. I respond, imo pretty to the point and not incivil. They then respond with this, (once again in all caps) which spurred this report. I'm not really sure what to make of the response, except to note that it is unnecessarily rude and the the user doesn't seem to understand that just because something "APPEARS ON AT LEAST 5 OR 6 WEBS ALL OF WHICH YOU COULD HAVE FOUND IF YOU HAD JUST LOOKED" does not mean that it can be used on wikipedia. Some admin intervention/this user being explained how this website works would be appreciated. Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 16:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Colonel77 has at least 3 copyright notices on his page from three different articles. First from User:Vermont, where copyright was really well explained. The second one was from Diannaa, an administrator, no less and she explained a bit briefer, but still with enough links to drive the point home. The third was from you, which was a copy of the original template left by Vermont.
I really think Colonel isn't getting it at all. I hate to see an eager contributor be blocked, but given that copyright has been explained to him and given that he's chosen to not respond to anyone yet, except money emoji, and at that, rudely and he repeatedly refers to his account as us , indicating that the account is a shared account.. I'm kinda thinking a block would be in order.
Hate to see it, but copyright's a serious thing!! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked this editor for repeated copyright violations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Knights of Columbus[edit]

My reading of the RSN discussion was that the use of ABOUTSELF material is excessive and that the article is bloated with self-sourced promotional and trivial content.

Slugger O'Toole has been around since 2006 and has around 20,000 edits. He has been mainly active since 2018. His top edited articles are connected the Knights of Columbus: 636 edits to the KofC article (highest of any editor by a large margin), 525 to Catholic Church and homosexuality (second highest), 349 to Political activity of the Knights of Columbus (highest, again by a large margin). He refuses to state whether or not he is a member or affiliate of the KofC, but asserts that according to his own reading of COI, he has no conflict. However, according to his own reading of WP:ABOUTSELF there is no limit on the amount or type of self-sourced material that can be included in an article, so I take that with a pinch of salt.

The article is, in part thanks to his reversion of any removal, extensively sourced from KofC and affiliated websites, including much promotional material such as claims of membership numbers, revenues, charitable giving etc. When I first checked, around half the inline citations were to KofC and affiliated websites or obvious press releases, and most fo the rest from a handful of books including at least one commissioned by KofC.

This looks very much like promotional editing. I am concerned by his refusal to acknowledge whether he has any connection with the subject and much more concerned by his bloating of the article with trivia, asserting that WP:ABOUTSELF provides effectively carte blanche to include as much detail as cannot be sourced independently, from affiliated sources, and his reversion of attempts to remove excessive self-sourcing. Guy (help!) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that this has reached the stage of ANI. I've encountered Slugger O'Toole's work in the past and he seems like a solid content creator. I don't know if he has a genuine COI with the Knights or if he is just an ardent fan, but the state of that article is unconscionable. If he doesn't want to disclose his relationship with the group, that's fine, but his editing behavior is not justifiable. The Knights are a fairly high profile organization; there are reliable third-party sources out there, and there's no excuse for so much of the sourcing to be taken directly from the organization's own website. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, normally I'd support anyone on Wikipedia not wanting to reveal personal information, however, when it conflicts with that person writing an article, especially if they're connected to it, yeah, that have to disclose it. Slugger O'Toole's responses smack of literally not answering the question at all. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't agree. Our policy explicitly does not require people must disclose (have to) a COI unless it's WP:PAID territory. People are strongly encourage to disclose, but if they do not do so, we have to consider whether their editing is causing problems. If it is, it may very well be appropriate to block or topic ban them, but this will be based on the problems their editing is cause, not the fact they may have an undisclosed COI. Editors should be aware that failing to disclose a COI means others may be reluctant to help them with any edit suggestions, and they will be given short shrift in any discussion, but still it's not a requirement. Personally I find an editor who refuses to comment on a COI slightly better than an editor who comments but misleads, although the former doesn't seem to apply here since as I understand it, the editor has refused to comment on any connection, but says they have no COI. Whether the latter applies, I have no i dea. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Nil Einne actually, WP:COI actually requires those with a COI to disclose it. Up near the top it states:

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Even non-paid editors with a COI need to disclose it. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: Did you read what you quoted? It says "Expected". It does not say you are required or must do so. And later it says "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles" (emphasis mine). Notice these words. They were chosen carefully. The only parts were it says "must" is in relation to paid editing. In that case, it is indeed required, and an editor can be blocked simply for failing to disclose their paid editing. It doesn't matter if their paid editing is stellar and no one can find any problem with it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne, and refusal to either confirm or deny is as good as a confirmation, as we all know. But that's not the main issue. The main problem here is a terrible article that makes a notable subject look like some crappy little group because it is mostly promotional text taken from the group's own sites and press releases. Guy (help!) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't know if I'd necessarily agree on that, and I'd argue your post demonstrates why. Someone may consistently refuse to confirm or deny precisely because if they start to deny, then they also have to confirm even if they don't want to. If you ask me whether I live in Wellington, and I refuse to confirm or deny, it may be because I live in Wellington. It may be because I live in Auckland and don't want to reveal that, and so don't want to go down a path which may eventually require me to either confirm I live in Auckland, lie about it, or basically tell people I do by the one time a question which I cannot truthfully deny is asked, I have to refuse to confirm or deny thereby confirming it anyway, or point blank refusing to answer which again if I normally reply will be taken as confirm it.

Likewise if you ask me if I am a member of Knights of Columbus, maybe the reason I may refuse to confirm or deny is because I am a member of Knights of St Columba and don't want to have to effectively reveal that when I feel there is no valid reason. I'm fairly sure some politicians have such a policy of refusing to confirm or deny a lot of rumours precisely for this reason.

Undoubtedly an editor should not be allowing their COI to cause problems, and the best way they can avoid having to disclose a COI is by steering well away from any area where they have a COI. But I'm also completely sympathetic to people who want to keep their private lives private despite editing here. And so fully endorse our current policy which IMO is clear that we cannot force people to declare an ordinary COI. Only when it comes to paid editing are editors required to disclose with no ifs or butts about it and their failure to do so is completely blockable.

Hence why as I said, we need to concentrate on problems this editor may be causing, putting aside whether they may or may not have a COI, rather than making misleading claims that a COI must be disclosed (which would imply it's ultimately a blockable offence to consistently fail to do so).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, when someone is engaged in promotional editing, it's legitimate to ask if they have a conflict of interest. If they refuse to answer, then it's equally legitimate to restrict them to the talk page as if they did, because the problem is promotional editing more than it is a conflict of interest. That's what I mean here: Undisclosed COI versus non-COI promotion is a distinction without a difference as far as the content goes. Guy (help!) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Nil Einne Yes, I read what I wrote. I guess it comes down to how we interpret "expected to ". We're expected to stop at red lights, but it doesn't mean it's voluntary.

I read the COI statement the same way. NO, I won't get into a discussion about semantics, I totally see how you read "expected", you read it as something voluntary, and I don't. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if it means "required", they need not disclose anything other than the fact that they have COI. It's usual for editors in this situation to explain what the COI consists of (a member, and officer of the association, a close friend of a member, etc. ) but this is not required. We assume good faith, and recognize that the need to disclose further may be in some way identifying DGG ( talk ) 11:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we are confusing two issues here. The first is the amount of WP:SELFSOURCE material that is appropriate and for which facts it is appropriate. The second is when a COI needs to be disclosed. I was of the opinion that a primary source was acceptable for things like membership numbers. Due to the longstanding stable nature of the article, I believe there was a consensus for it. Others have come in and started removing that material, claiming it to be promotional and not appropriate for a primary source, without changing the consensus first. I think this is inappropriate, but as a gesture of good faith have endeavored to find additional sources. I haven't seen that reciprocated on the other side, sadly, and in fact have found the tone of some other editors to be downright hostile. If the consensus changes on this, I would be happy to abide by it.

As to whether or not membership requires disclosure, this issue has arisen before on this article. Two admins, @TonyBallioni: and @SarekOfVulcan:, have both declared that we "have never interpreted the COI guideline to require disclosure for things such as" membership in a fraternal organization. I think this is a wise move for those who are not in the upper ranks or paid employees. As I said on the talk page, declaring membership in an organization like the Knights would reveal several pieces of personal information, including age, gender, and religion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?[edit]

I'm less concerned about what might constitute COI than I am about his repeated insertion of UNDUE, promotional, and weakly sourced content in the article. The article is written in a tone and with a level of detail, jargon, and admiring excess that comes off downright bizarre to an uninterested arm's-length reader. This issue has been patiently explained to him, and I am not optimistic that he will be able to collaborate constructively on this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the COI is less important than the article content and how editor Slugger O'Toole does his best to own the article. Every time any other editor changes/removes content, he quickly reinserts it, and with his promotional spin. See this example of his whitewashing. [151]
He seems to believe that the only acceptable behavior of any other editor is to expand the article, (note his comments above) and he seems to be repeatedly either failing to comprehend or INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the repeated comments by other editors to point out that unless some piece of trivia or other material is sourced in an INDEPENDENT source, than it doesn't deserve to be in the article (it is not important enough to be in Wikipedia).---Avatar317(talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Vandalism Occurring on Chesapeake[edit]

(non-admin closure) Semi-protected by NinjaRobotPirate. DarkKnight2149 08:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am reporting about many vandalism going around on today's feature topic Chesapeake. If possible locking the wiki for extended users to edit seems to be a good idea. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.231.231 (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Page protection requests are thataway.
2. It looks like you linked the wrong article. You were editing at USS Chesapeake (1799), and the account that was vandalizing is already blocked. I tossed a warning on the page for the IP address that continued disruption after the block, but an admin might want to decide if that deserves to be whacked for block evasion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Dommiraubi and WP:CIRCULAR violations[edit]

Dommiraubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Dommiraubi (talk · contribs) continuously cites other wikipedia articles in their references, even after leaving multiple warnings on their talk page. Some examples:

  • [152]
  • [153]
  • [154]
    • If you look at the revision history of this page, you can see that I removed the references to wikipedia and explained why (using WP:CIRCULAR and WP:WINARS) yet the user continued to re-add the reference to the other wikipedia article.

Those are the ones I warned about, but going through this user's contributions, I have found other instances of circular references, including:

-- Bait30  Talk? 00:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


Can an admin check this out and see if anything needs to be done?  Bait30  Talk? 06:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at User talk:Dommiraubi, Dommiraubi has been warned three times since November 30 to stop using Wikipedia as a source. Their most recent attempt was on 19:29, 2 December 2019 after being warned to stop on 06:25, 30 November 2019, 21:07, 30 November 2019, and on 17:43, 1 December 2019. In-between these warnings, Dommiraubi decided to edit war his changes at K. S. Gopalakrishnan (musician) trying to get their WP:CIRCULAR sources into the article. On 20:04, 2 December 2019, Bait30 was advised by GPL93 that Dommiraubi was continuing the same shtick undeterred, prompting him to file this report. Even in the midst of all of this, Dommiraubi has never left an edit summary nor replied to his talk page. This is an obvious case of disruption and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. DarkKnight2149 09:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It should also be noted that this is Dommiraubi's second ANI in less than six months. The last one was due to the editor following a similar pattern (although then it appears to have been with unsourced content) of not heeding warnings and then edit-warring to keep the content he added up. He also made no attempt to communicate with other editors then, either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Going through Dommiraubi's contributions, I have noticed another troubling pattern. Aside from WP:CIRCULAR violations, the articles that Dommiraubi is creating are riddled with WP:PUFFERY, are usually puff pieces filled with editorialising, original research, and compliments to the subject of the article (in other words, not even remotely neutral), and they either rely heavily on a single source, obscure sources, or unreliable fodder like IMDB, user reviews, or other Wikipedia pages. I just had to template the hell out of a few articles that Dommiraubi created. DarkKnight2149 23:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Itzratatoskr[edit]

Purely promotional account. Also appears to have posted while logged out from his school. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The IP address was just blocked by Widr (probably per this report), while the account hasn't edited since February. DarkKnight2149 08:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Fullerplace67[edit]

(non-admin closure) Blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. DarkKnight2149 08:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fullerplace67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Can an administrator please review this editor's contributions? They've been editing disruptively for a long while now at TV Land. For the last month, the user appears to have repeatedly reverted to an old version of the page, then would immediately revert the page back:

The first in the series of disruptive edits appears to be this diff from November 8: [157]. The following day and after a number of intervening edits, the editor essentially reverted the page back: [158]. This continued over and over again over the next month. The first couple times are documented with the following diffs:

For subsequent diffs, please see the edit history of the page in question. See particularly the edits since November 12. Some of the reversions back and forth were done by IPs. In total, I see roughly 24 or so pairs of reversions -- this disruptive behavior makes up most of the page's history during the last month.

An editor gave Fullerplace67 a warning on November 9 [162]. The editor responded, "So does it mean that i will never do that again and read?" [163]

I followed up with a warning on November 15[164], which the editor responded, "OK just I will never do that again?"[165]. The editor continued reverting the page back and forth.

I asked the editor if they could at least explain why they were making the edits they were making earlier today. They gave a very WP:NOTHERE response: [166].

Can an admin please review this and take action if required? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Ritvik12 (talk · contribs) to me.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Blackshod[edit]

Hi administrators, requesting someone warn Blackshod for this personal attack in their edit summary, after I placed a notice on their page informing them why their cut/paste move was reverted. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a warning on their talk page. Whether or not further action is needed is up to administrators. DarkKnight2149 09:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Chronic Lyme[edit]

Sthatdc has 117 edits since registering in September. Following an earlier bout of edit-warring on the subject of "chronic Lyme" I notified him of DS on fringe / pseudoscience ([167]).

After a two month hiatus he has returned today to resume the disruptive edits: [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173]. These substantially repeat edits previously reverted in his September active period: [174], [175], [176].

He's now repeated the edit on "chronic Lyme" for the fourth time: [177].

The user has failed to WP:ENGAGE. No edits in Talk space at all, warnings and alerts are blanked ([178], [179], [180], [181]) and the only community engagement has been in the form of peremptory demands to "explain yourself or accusing long-term editors of disruptive editing.

I honestly suspect that this is not a genuinely new user, but regardless, I think he needs some assistance with understanding how we work here. I suspect that if he carries on as he is he will be topic banned pretty soon, if not blocked altogether. Guy (help!) 11:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has explained what they objected to about my edits. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they didn't even understand the point of them. User:JzG in particular has left canned edit summaries only, when reverting edits which are basic common sense and which I explained in the edit summary. Quite why they would prefer to pester me with form messages and report me on noticeboards instead of simply explaining what problem they had with my edits, I cannot imagine. Sthatdc (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sthatdc, See above. You need to engage on the article Talk page. Guy (help!) 11:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems that you don't actually have any concrete objections to my edits. Sthatdc (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sthatdc, In fact I do, but since you appear unwilling to explain on Talk what you are trying to achieve there's no obvious way to resolve this. Guy (help!) 14:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The obvious way to resolve this is that you explain what your objections are, if you actually have any. Repeatedly undoing without explanation my straightforward, minor edits, which I explained when I made them, is obviously not a good faith action. Sthatdc (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sthatdc, actually the obvious way to resolve this is simply to block you as a timewaster who doesn't understand what words like "straightforward" and "minor" mean on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 16:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
You are that reluctant to explain why you undid my edits? Sthatdc (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Sthatdc is edit-warring and not discussing content, while being abrasive with other users. Content wise, the edits (e.g.[182]) are in my view not great (removing on-point content, not properly respecting WP:V). If they don't engage and start discussing content in a civil manner I suspect their Wikipedia career will be short, especially considering this topic is under DS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Which "on-point content" did I remove? Where exactly do you think my edits were in conflict with WP:V? I asked you this before; you didn't respond. Sthatdc (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for discussing behaviour. You need to discuss article content at Talk:Chronic Lyme disease and gain consensus for proposed edits. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
So you, like User:JzG, are refusing to explain exactly what you objected to. That is a ridiculous attitude. Sthatdc (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The burden is on you to use the article talkpage to explain your edits. Please do so. If you do not, you may be subject to discretionary sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sthatdc: It's up to you to discuss contested edits to get consensus (maybe try WP:BRD?). I don't think, though, you'll get consensus to change (for example) the opening of the article so it drifts apart what the reliable literature on the topic says, which is what you are apparently wanting to do. But if you don't explain what you're trying to do how can anybody respond? Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Evidently, you have not understood what my edits did; you've grossly mischaracterised them, still without explaining specifically what you object to. I explained them clearly in my edit summaries; your edit summaries have been either canned, or mere insults with no basis in reality. If you are not prepared to describe exactly what you object to, there is no possible basis for discussion, is there? Sthatdc (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure plenty of editors are prepared to discuss. You've been advised how to proceed; you can take that advice, or you can continue edit-warring in which case you will likely be blocked. The choice is yours. Alexbrn (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
You are not willing to explain what your problem is with my edits. That's a ridiculous attitude to take. Sthatdc (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sthatdc, How do you know? You haven't raised it on the Talk page. Guy (help!) 17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I know because you have undone my edits without any explanation three times. If you were editing in good faith, you would not have done that. Sthatdc (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sthatdc, The onus is on you to achieve consensus for a disputed edit. Since you refuse to even explain your issue, or to engage on Talk at all, I think we can readily see why that's not happening. And by now I think you're just trolling. Guy (help!) 23:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is willing to explain what they objected to about my edits. if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. Indeed. Sthatdc (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Alexbrn is the root problem here, having failed to properly understand what my edits did. Their initial revert seems to have been aimed at a different editor [183]. Their claim in that edit summary of "wild POV-skew" is a flight of fancy, and yet they have become instantly entrenched and simply refused to actually read my edits and see what they did. User:JzG has never bothered to give any reason for his reverts, seemingly persuaded by the mere fact of someone else reverting that they must do the same. Any editor who undoes an edit but refuses to explain why is not acting in good faith. Sthatdc (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sthatdc, no, the problem is you. You refuse to engage on the Talk page, you remove warnings and comments on your Talk page, and you leave aggressive peremptory demands on the talk pages of those who challenge you. You have virtually no history here, and the people you are so belligerently challenging have a lot. Talk:Chronic Lyme disease is the correct venue for you to defend your edits, this page is for you to defend your behaviour. You've done neither, as it happens. Every comment you've made here is based on the assumption that you are obviously right, but it is definitely not obvious and the balance of probabilities strongly favours multiple long-standing editors being right, not one new editor who doesn't engage on Talk. Guy (help!) 16:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

On 8 September 2019 I told Sthatdc:

I have noticed that whenever you get into a disagreement about the content of a page you immediately go to the talk page of whoever reverted you.
Our policy at WP:CONSENSUS says:
"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns."
WP:BRD says:
"Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution."
I am going to assume that as a new Wikipedia editor you were unaware of our policy on talking things over on the article talk page (not the user talk page of the editor who reverted you), but now you know.[184]

Sthatdc deleted that comment without discussions, as he does with all warnings and criticism. And he has continued posting rather aggressive comments to the talk pages of those who disagree with him while refusing to have any discussion on any article talk page or on his own talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If people undo a change I've made and give a reason that corresponds in some sense to what I actually did, we can all have a lovely discussion and find a way to make the article better. If people undo a change I've made for no reason, or give a reason that bears no relation to what changed, we cannot. You don't think that's obvious? Sthatdc (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
If people undo a change that you’ve made, go to the article talk page and explain why you made the change. Then it can be discussed, and (hopefully) a consensus can be reached about what changes are appropriate. That’s how BRD is supposed to work. Don’t just try to edit-war it into the article; that won’t end well. Go to the article talk page and discuss it there, and we can close this thread.
Alexbrn and JzG, it might be a good idea if, when reverting a comparatively inexperienced editor, you explicitly referred them to the article talk page in your edit summary. As Guy said, this editor had only a hundred or so edits. Wikipedia is a complicated place, and certain areas (articles falling under MEDRS rules being one of them) are more complicated than others; people really can’t be expected to know how things work around here by some sort of instinct.
There hasn’t been an edit to the talk page of the Chronic Lyme article since September. Can somebody please go there and start the discussion? Brunton (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Done. Why none of the involved editors could have started a discussion in the right place is beyond me. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that AN/I isn't the right place for this, I think the editor's comments here makes it seem like there are bigger WP:IDHT issues. Darthkayak (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, because we don't have a problem with the existing article. At least two of us have invited the user to state his case on Talk, and his response has been to delete the messages and continue the edit war. Not much to work with there. Guy (help!) 23:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with Phil Bridger: BRD doesn't forbid the "wrong party" from beginning the discussion, and doing so is constructive even if the opening comment is just "please explain your edit". --JBL (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis, It is, however, futile when the user refuses to WP:ENGAGE. As evidence: TP discussion has been open for a day, and the user still does nothing more than make conclusory accusations here. Guy (help!) 16:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: Since the discussion has been opened, the editor hasn't made any edits at all. That seems like a major improvement to me (both over the edit-war and over this ANI thread)! --JBL (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis, you are not wrong. Let's see if he does the same in another three months. Guy (help!) 19:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks[edit]

The user R9tgokunks is causing problems with the page List of longest-running United States television series. He keeps removing large chunks of material that has been included on the page for some time now. I have asked him to take his issues to pages to Talk page, but he refused to do so. Instead editing my own talk page several times and butchering his and my older edits in the process. Him just coming by and removing large chunks of information on the page right just is not helpful. He is refusing to engage with the people who are actively maintaining it. Please intervene to prevent his unhelpful activities. Thank you. dreiss2 (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute. Not incident. For talk page. At some point, probably, also WP:ANEW. Cheers, ——SN54129 12:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism by User:Wclifton968[edit]

Nothing left to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wclifton968 just blanked Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders (see Special:Contributions/Wclifton968), despite the ongoing discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders that showed no consensus for deletion or moving. I suggest blocking the user for at least 48 hours, as a warning and to enable him to cool down. Gray62 (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months by Alexf. --Yamla (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a harsh sentence, though, making me feel pity for that user now. But he did this to himself. Such nonsense can't be accepted, only disrupts productive work. Gray62 (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Good block Looking back, this user has a long history of similar types of disruption. He shouldn't be able to say he didn't expect such a reaction. for a first offense, it would have been harsh. This is part of a clear pattern of behavior that needs to be changed. --Jayron32 18:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:AndrewNatty[edit]

AndrewNatty blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been developing some WP:CIR concerns about AndrewNatty (talk · contribs) over the past few days. I came across this user at this discussion at the Tea House, where a new editor was complaining that AndrewNatty had plagiarised a draft article they were working on and published it in the mainspace as their own work. On investigation, it turned out that AndrewNatty had indeed copied and pasted this user's draft into mainspace without the required attribution for copying withing Wikipedia. I tagged the new article and draft with {{copied}} templates to provide proper attribution and DESiegel later performed a history merge. (This article and this draft.) During this time, a number of editors tried to engage AndrewNatty on his talk page but without response - [185], [186], [187], [188]. AndrewNatty finally apologised on the user's talk page today.

When this was happening, I noticed a number of copyright notices on AndrewNatty's talk page and in particular noticed File:Tacha.jpg. AndrewNatty uploaded this image on 22 November without tagging it with a copyright licence ([189]). A bot then marked it as untagged ([190]); AndrewNatty tagged the file as {{PD-self}} 15 minutes later ([191]). However, I found the image on this website which seems to suggest that AndrewNatty never held the copyright to the image. I nominated the file for deletion on 1 December. Earlier today, AndrewNatty then added a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag to the file without engaging the concerns expressed at the deletion discussion or providing any evidence for this licencing. I have also just come across these four files uploaded by AndrewNatty - File:Timi Dakolo.jpg, File:Yemi Alade at the MTV awards 2016.jpg, File:Tachabbn.jpeg, File:Benard Odoh.jpg. I suspect that he does not own the copyright to them yet they are all marked as either PD or Cc-by-4.0 and two have Google search URLs listed as the source. After posting this I will be nominating them for deletion. These two incidents lead me to believe that AndrewNatty does not understand Wikipedia's policies around copyright and licencing and is not responding to editors who have tried to help him; this is becoming disruptive.

In addition, an article AndrewNatty created, Symply Tacha was nominated for deletion on 1 December. Instead of engaging in the deletion discussion, AndrewNatty tagged the page G7 and it was deleted by Fastily (deletion log). AndrewNatty then moved another draft he had worked on in AfC into the mainspace, replacing the article which was deleted as G7. I do not have access to the deleted revision of the page so cannot see how similar the new article is to the one G7 deleted; however, the article is about the same person and appears to have the same/similar issues to the original article nominated for deletion. The draft had been declined as an AfC submission almost two weeks ago for not being notable enough. The result was that the article was back in the mainspace without the AfD template. While I want to AGF with this user, it does look like he has tried to circumvent the deletion discussion by requesting deletion and replacing it with a draft. Again, people have tried to raise this with AndrewNatty, but without response ([192], [193]). I also notice that the same article was deleted on 25 August as created by a blocked or banned user in violation of their ban. I am not making an accusation of socking here because I don't know the circumstances of that older deletion; however, an admin who can view the deleted history of that page might be able to let us know if they are connected or not.

I am not advocating a block at this point but do think AndrewNatty needs to begin editing collaboratively and engaging with other users. I also suggest he needs to stop editing or uploading files until he has a better grasp of copyright. WJ94 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I have checked the deleted version of Symply Tacha as it was just before deletion. It uses the exact same cited sources in the exact same order as the version now in mainspace. I don't think it is byte-for-byte identical, but there is no significant difference between them that I noticed. If the first had been deleted by AfD, the second would be a valid G4 speedy in my view. I choose to assume good faith that this was not a knowing attempt to circumvent the deletion process, but it might as well have been. Predictably, it didn't work. AndrewNatty, the creator of the version now in mainspace, made the overwhelming majority of the edits to the deleted version, and tagged it for deletion under G7, user request. The earlier version was created by a now-blocked user User:Bigboss18, who made only two edits to it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

ExtraEditing/ViacomCBS[edit]

ExtraEditing (talk · contribs) has been indiscriminately changing around companies, programs and subsidiaries related to Viacom and CBS Corporation to ViacomCBS over the last two weeks, even though the deal has both not closed (it won't until Thursday), and not even doing a bare check to see if it makes sense; for instance, Columbia House, which hasn't been owned by CBS since 1989 and is now a defunct company, had Category:Former ViacomCBS subsidiaries added to it, along with most of the companies in that category; as VCBS does not exist yet, it is completely impossible for it to have any former subsidiaries. This has continued for the last couple weeks with several editors, and although they backed off after being warned (or one IP just stopped editing), EE has continued unfettered, creating an issue where I feel my rolling back would be considered an abuse of the tool. They've also done several pagemoves to pages titled ViacomCBS without any discussion. Is it okay to roll back these edits, or should they just be undone and reverted manually? Nate (chatter) 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive sock[edit]

(non-admin closure) Blocked by Ohnoitsjamie. DarkKnight2149 22:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any help in blocking User:104.243.160.57 would be appreciated. Previous socks have been quite disruptive and include Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs), 104.243.160.113 (talk · contribs), WXA53 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki (talk · contribs), 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs), 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), Futuristic21 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs), Mega256 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki The Third (talk · contribs), Mega257 (talk · contribs), Mega258 (talk · contribs), Futurew (talk · contribs), 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs), 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs), and Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs) (I may have missed a few). Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


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

User:Nazanin0009[edit]

Could someone take a look at User:Nazanin0009? They have sent the same message to hundreds of user talk pages asking for someone to do something about the Iranian internet blackout. The message is unclear what action is being requested. This looks like a large-scale campaign, and I don't think it is beneficial to the project. They have ben reported to WP:AVI already (not by me) but I don't think they are exactly a vandal or a spammer, but they probably should be stopped. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Someone might want to look into that account more though. Not sure what's going on. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ritvik12 evading his block again[edit]

It appears that Ritvik12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI confirmed suspected) is block-evading as Special:Contributions/2601:147:4001:1AA0:0:0:0:0/64 and is causing trouble in Tom & Jerry articles. He was recently blocked as 73.135.4.140, but seems to believe that this applies only to his iPad.

It would probably be a good idea to block his IPv6 range to match the IPv4 block. His IP is so dynamic that he is virtually impossible to contact. Therefore, I wont leave the obligatory notification of this ANI report. —Wasell(T) 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's Ritvik12. But it's still admitted block evasion, so I've range blocked the IPv6 /64. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:PAID/WP:SPA: User:Drmiri[edit]

This concerns Drmiri (talk · contribs), who is basically a WP:SPA with the purpose of promoting/editing Kowsar Publishing-related article (see their talk pages). On their user page, they link to their ORCID profile, , which lists them as an employee of Kowsar Medical (they are actually the CEO of Kowsar). They were warned about WP:UPE before, but that didn't do anything, and they have recently added a bunch of promotional material to the Kowsar article.

Letting admins know so they can deal with this as the situation warrants. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

They actually don't link to their ORCID profile, they do link to their university page, which is blank at this time. However, on Moony the Dwarf's page, they do state that they own Koswar outright, so yes, there's still a COI at the very least Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You're right, they don't link to the ORCID profile, not sure where I got the link from because I certainly didn't search for it directly. But they're still the Kowsar CEO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please think about comments of Founder of Kowsar publishing before deletion of his comments[edit]

I am the CEO and founder of Kowsar Publishing. You are posting some un-proven and un-ethical personal points about my company. Please think more about my comments. I have the right to defend about our activities in Kowsar? Somebody like Beall said something about Kowsar in Bealls list without any document. After that ONLY 2 other people like corresponding authors of the mentioned articles wrote something against our company. How can I defend? Please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmiri (talkcontribs) 18:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This really is not an urgent, intractable issue requiring administrator intervention(reporting of which is the purpose of this page). However, since you are here- you must review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement). If you have concerns about the article about your company, you should bring them up on the article talk page. As you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid editing the article yourself. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
See also two sections above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I've moved this to be a subsection of that discussion. --JBL (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I just EC'd because I wanted to do the same. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Issue about vandalism by user jcubed[edit]

Boardwalknw8 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • jebcubed (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) This user keeps deleting all edits made to the page Mike Berlon claiming that the entire page is opinion based. This can be seen by his edit history. The article is well authenticated and noted. There has been no attempt by user jebcubed to explain why certain facts are in dispute and the wholesale elimination or edit of the page shows that this appears to be vandalism or bias. The user has been advised. Boardwalknw8 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8Boardwalknw8 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Boardwalknw8: This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Jebcubed raises legitimate concerns about sourcing: there appear to be a mixture of primary and secondary sources used in the additions. Both parties need to discuss the matter at Talk:Mike Berlon to work toward consensus about the changes. The general rule of thumb when additions are contested is to leave the article in the status quo ante condition, although I'm not going to make that change (which would revert Boardwalknw8's edits) at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • jebcubed (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) More than willing to work with Jebcubed. He has never pointed out any issues with the article, just made the unilateral decision to take it down multiple times and threatened to block me as user if I didn't agree. The article is well authenticated and noted. More than willing to discuss the points he has issue with. Thanks for your help and advice. Hope to hear from him soon about the issues over which he disagrees. Boardwalknw8 (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)boardwalknw8Boardwalknw8 (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm minded to block the next person who hits "revert" on Mike Berlon, especially if the word "vandalism" is (mis-) used. Use the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Boardwalknw8

Ritchie333 Thank you for the note. This is the first issue I have had on Wikipedia and was not familiar with the procedure. Will use the talk page on Mike Berlon moving forward. More than willing to work to get this resolved. If you have any other advice, please let me know. Just want to get it right. Thank you again. Boardwalknw8 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Boardwalknw8

Pervasive IP vandalism by probable blocked user[edit]

Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. This is regarding the continuous subtle vandalism by multiple IPs over the course of several weeks from what I believe to be a single individual. Note that the IPs above aren't an exhaustive list, but rather the ones that I could immediately gather. They all have similar editing habits which include:

I also believe this editor to be the same as User:Jattsidhu55 and the two blocked sockpuppets, User:Baburjahangir and User:Baburakbar. This is not only because of the similar editing habits,[202][203][204] but also because all the accounts and one of the IPs seem to have identified themselves with the same name and birth date.[205][206][207] The choice in targeted pages are not very consistent and I am now struggling to find and counteract the vandalism. I'd really appreciate some help. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Cinema Clown removing comments at rename discussion[edit]

User has been blocked as part of a group of sockpuppets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There was a rename discussion last month at Talk:La_Grande_Illusion#Requested_move_8_November_2019 that resulted in the article not being moved from La Grande Illusion to Grande Illusion. Cinema Clown has restarted the discussion at Talk:Grand Illusion#Requested move 3 December 2019, this time at the target article. He is now deleting comments that oppose the rename:

  1. [208]
  2. [209]
  3. [210]
  4. [211]

I have tried discussing the issue with him here: [212]. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. Yeah no, you don't delete multiple users comments on a discussion because you aren't getting your way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Cinema Clown is a sock of Agantuk0708, who has been editing here since 2014. There are other undisclosed accounts used by this editor as well. It's all very odd (see the deleted edits of another  Confirmed account Stolonifer for example). I've left a request for an explanation on Cinema Clown's talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's work with this. I think their last post on their talkpage speaks volumes. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It is a novel approach to creating WP:CON..... Sethie (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Given it is five socks and no embarrassment or remorse about using them to skew consensus their direction, I think there is one obvious course of action that should be taken in respect of ALL the accounts, including the Cinema Clown one: indef blocking all of them (Agantuk0708, Stolonifer, Aaron the Auteur, Bubaikumar and Cinema Clown) and checking to see if there are any others. – SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Module:Efn native lang[edit]

There has been an edit war at Module:Efn native lang, reported here. The user insisted on adding text that results in incorrect information. The page is now protected with the incorrect text. It should be reverted. Ythlev (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Not what I recommended, but oh well. El_C 21:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ythlev: this page is for discussing editor conduct, what you are describing is a dispute about article content. Please see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, for help on resolving your content dispute. Paul August 21:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Paul August: is edit-warring not about editor conduct? Ythlev (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ythlev: both you and Geographyinitiative were edit warring. That has stopped since El_C has protected the page. But both you and Geographyinitiative are warned that continued edit warring can result in being blocked. You are both advised instead to resolve your content dispute by the methods described at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Paul August 22:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Colin[edit]

Colin has had a long term issue with incivility directed towards multiple members of Wikiproject Medicine. They were previously brought to ANI for this is 2018 but problems have persisted.[213]

Two days ago Doc James requested that Colin stop pinging him.(Dec 2nd at 19:04) Colin’s reply was “James As long as you won't drop this issue, you'll get pinged whenever I mention your name.” and he has continued pinging.[214]

There are lots of concerning comments by Colin in 2018 including "But there are real problems with his behaviour on this project, and frankly those problems are not helped by editors like you worshipping him........ James is so arrogant....... these videos are just a symptom of a deep illness affecting WP:MED, and James is at the core of it.......... This "making Wikipedia more shit" has been going on for years."

And in 2018 he compared editors at WPMED to sexual predators and refused to withdraw the comparison when called on it.

These things that are being discussed are symptoms of an underlying illness with WP:MED which at its core lies Doc James, with a chorus of worshippers......... Tryptofish, do you realise your comments "If you choose to edit medical pages, you can, but you have to deal with it as it is" sound exactly like an apologist for sexual abuse in the workplace: "The guys here are a bit crude at times, might feel your bum in the lift, peer down your top, but you know, they don't mean harm by it, and if you want the job, well you have to deal with it as it is". Wrong and bad.[215][216]

Issues go a long way back with Doc James requested that Colin not post on his user page in October of 2014 after a prolonged period of incivility directed towards him.[217] Despite this Colin has continued to do so.Nov 25 2019Nov 26 2019,Apr 4 2018,Apr 2 2018, etc--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the behavioral and content problems dominating WP:MED for several years now have become so pronounced, entrenched, and factionalized, that it will not be long before an Arbcase may be needed to look at all of the behaviors, and the serious content issues, and an increasingly entrenched approach that ignores sourcing and content policies, and applies guidelines as a means of furthering personal preferences. Colin is confronting a regular handful of editors who have a tenuous grasp of policy, and regularly pile on "Me, too" type support for non-policy-based arguments, with little logic or reasoning supplied. These trends have resulted in a clear deterioration in what was once a fine WikiProject, while Colin continues to argue, coherently and thoroughly, in favor of content policies. Should the needed arbcase eventually happen, Colin's preference for content policies will be viewed in the context of everything else that is going on at WP:MED, and those who continually ignore, or advocate to ignore, content policy are not likely to be happy with the outcomes of a deeper look at these behaviors or those who support them. As a once prolific medical editor, and FA writer, I have found that the scholarly direction of the WikiProject I was once a core member of has deteriorated to factionalism and support of people who don't evidence an understanding of content policies, so I have mostly stopped trying to improve medical content; the scholarly collaborators have long since left in the face of a lesser qualified crop of current editors. I am surprised that Colin --who was a core member during WP:MED's ascendancy, and responsible for most of the guideline and policy discussion and formulation that brought the project to its now-gone high point -- still tries, as the environment and lack of logic he faces is daunting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Wasn't really expecting this, but SandyGeorgia's summary looks better than Ozzie10aaaa's. (Although the "I'll ping you if I want to" thing is a bit of a dick move.) --JBL (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SandyGeorgia. Repeating what I've already said multiple times on the matter: I'm stunned by the behavior I've been seeing related to pricing across Wikipedia in order to support some sort of broad exception to content policies. It needs to stop, but it appears ArbCom is the only way it's going to.
(Yes, the pinging should stop.)
See Wikipedia:Prices#Discussions_about_best_practices for a partial list of discussions. --Ronz (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) SandyGeorgia's comment about the long-term changes in the group resonates with me. We used to be focused on writing brilliant articles filled with precisely delimited claims and superb sources. Then we went through an anti-woo phase: almost anything's okay, as long as it hurts the spammers and alt-med proponents, and nothing's okay if it helps them. This naturally is going to frustrate anyone who wants brilliantly written and carefully sourced articles, because there was nothing brilliant or careful about any of that. (Example: An editor once claimed that a peer-reviewed review article could not be used to say what color a cosmetics ingredient is, because the editor-in-chief was suspected of being a poor businessman.) Now we seem to be talking more about issues of health policy, which is a more approximate subject area with a focus on practicalities, like approximate prices. Which is naturally going to frustrate both of the previous groups, because it's not up to the standards of the first group, and practicalities sometimes don't produce the proper anti-woo signals. I have been thinking for some time that the group needs to have a proper sit-down and figure out what we want to accomplish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Multiple issues affecting WP:MED are ripe for community-wide RFCs because WPMED no longer has a vibrant participation, or exhibits a core understanding of consensus-building, while previous RFCs are being ignored. Colin is the most knowledgeable and experienced wrt formulating an RFC to reach a useful conclusion, but we see a) other editors not understanding that a good RFC comes from ample discussion, and they instead pile on meaningless “me, too” supports that smack of cabalism, and b) other editors launching ill-formed RFCs and !voting. The sit-down that should be happening is in the form of discussion, not “me, too cabalism”, so that someone experienced like Colin can then write a neutral community-wide RFC. The core problem at WPMED is that guidelines are being interpreted as policy to further personal preferences of a handful of people, while more knowledgeable content and policy editors gave up and left. (And any time you see the pricing of a worldwide commodity with standard benchmarks -—oil—- compared to local prices of retail pharmaceuticals, you have to wonder where the logic has gone, and know that a broader community discussion would point out the faulty logic.) But pricing is not even remotely the first time we have seen this kind of problem recently at WPMED. Read any of the lengthy discussions occurring on the talk pages of WP:MED, WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS to quickly see who correctly makes policy-based posts, and who always piles on one-way, me-too supports based on little understanding of policy. WAID and Colin are doing the best they can, given the conditions. Producing even mediocre content stopped being a priority at WPMED several years ago, and poor behavior from those who support the minority has been tolerated in what looks to be quid pro quo behavior. Broader community input is needed to break the logjam. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This sounds like every walled garden in Wikipedia. It would be wonderful if we found a way to tear the walled gardens down. I've only been here a year but I understand this has been a problem since forever. Levivich 05:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There may very well be problems, but I'm unconvinced that Colin is the best person to be the primary one drafting an RfC to deal with them. This is one of those cases where I think as this "they're just words" or "bad words" or "sticks and stones" etc talk misses the point. Whatever problems may exist in the area, making such a comparison which is offensive not only to those involved but especially to those who have to deal with real sexual abuse does not help advance the discussion, or your point or case in any way. Such talk not only turns off those it's directed at, it turns off everyone else including both neutral parties and even those who are supportive of the editor. We all make mistakes especially when tempers fray, but it sounds like Colin hasn't actually acknowledged this was a mistake. Surely there's someone who can better lead the charge, who can actually have a hope to deal with the issues because they don't offend everyone in the process including those who may actually support them were it not for the fact they're so utterly terrible at communicating? Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne, there was one remark that provoked my "sounds like an apologist for.." comment. Tryptofish wrote, "I will oppose any efforts to treat the WT:MED editors as wrong or bad." This sounded to me very much like one bloke sticking up for his mates regardless of whether anything bad was going on. History would come back to bite Tryptofish's defence of WP:MED editors. Jytdog was in that conversation too, and was among those siding with James and attacking me at the time. When Jytdog fell dramatically from grace, James et al, backed him as "one of us". The community disagreed and he is indef blocked by ArbCom. I accept my analogy was ill judged and likely to cause offence. Office bullying is a more appropriate analogy, then and now, and Jytdog was a symptom of a general behaviour at WP:MED, not an outlier. -- Colin°Talk 09:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Colin, you need to understand the rationale behind that. WP:MED has some of the strongest sourcing requirements on Wikipedia, for excellent reasons. Medicine is very prone too hyperbolic claims based on a study of three mice, on one end, and bitter hatred from the Gary Null posse on the other. We maintain an exceptional standard of reliability on those articles by sticking to RSMED and managing out obvious POV editors.
The "pharma shill gambit" is very commonly used by fans of quackery to discredit anyone engaged in serious medical research. That's further complicated by people like Peter C. Gøtzsche who makes excellent points around issues with psychoactive drugs, but then erroneously extended that to criticism of HPV vaccine that has been exploited by antivaxers. Gøtzsche is a serious and thoughtful man (I've shared dinner him and David Colquhoun of UCL, also a trenchant critic of issues with academic medical publishing). This contributes to a bit of a bunker mentality whic, for the most part, the MED editors do a remarrkable job of tamping down.
The issue of pricing does not seem to have a genuine consensus. That's the underlying problem. Guy (help!) 11:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Guy, you are aware that I wrote WP:MEDRS and pushed it to becoming official guideline? You are aware that it is Doc James using the "pharama shill gambit", not some alt med quack? You see "bunker mentality" I see bullying, ignoring policy and edit warring. I appreciate some folk supported Jytdog because he was "on their side" against the quacks, but he was a bully and an edit warrior and deserved his block. That WP:MED would no doubt welcome him back with open arms is in fact a damning criticism of the current state of that project. -- Colin°Talk 11:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Colin, Jytdog may have been an edit warrior, but he was not a bully. He is much more of a Tigger than an angry mastodon. Guy (help!) 12:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Didn't he get perma-banned because he made real-world contact with someone he was edit warring with, or something like that? That doesn't sound like a bouncy, cheerful Tigger to me.
Guy, I strongly agree with you that "The issue of pricing does not seem to have a genuine consensus." I think that WP:NOTPRICE might be due for a thoughtful review. I believe that there is still a strong consensus for not including ever-fluctuating retail prices for generic consumer products ("today, Amazon's cheapest price for a T-shirt is US$3"), but including some prices (e.g., the initial list price of some electronic devices, the base price of some vehicles) might have stronger support than we'd have seen among the original generation of Wikipedia editors. User:Alexbrn IMO brilliantly summarized this question as "in essence a philosophical dispute about where Wikipedia should sit on the information⟷knowledge spectrum" (information being approximately understood as a number, and knowledge being approximately what that price means). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Guy, as a medical editor since 2005, I can assure you that the community-wide acceptance of WP:MEDRS can be almost entirely attributed to Colin's efforts and that a good deal of WP:MEDMOS is also due to Colin's effort. Most significantly, it was Colin's ongoing insistence that WP:MED guidelines cannot get ahead of Wikipedia-wide guidelines and must reflect policy that led to a page that was widely accepted and useful. Considering the very effective guidelines, the bullying that took hold to deal with alt-med quacks was unnecessary, and ugly to watch. It is possible to deal with alt-med quacks without resorting to the kind of blunt force bullying that came to characterize WP:MED. Yes, Jytdog joined forces with a small handful of others (who rarely argue policy but always add "pile on, me-too support" to positions taken) in the factors that contributed to this environment. Not even the most qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable medical editors have been spared from the OWNERSHIP that overtook WP:MED. Both MEDRS and COI were used to bully, and not just alt-med quacks. Older and experienced policy and medical editors have watched as WPMED has descended to cabalist group that took its strongest tool (MEDRS) and used it as a blunt instrument to bully, quite often with a lack of civility that led the esteemed User:MastCell once to wonder why some of these editors still enjoy editing privileges on Wikipeda (that is, why they haven't been banned).

Similarly, the guideline WP:MEDMOS has been used to widely convert broad categories of medical articles to contain personal stylistic preferences not supported by guideline or policy. WhatamIdoing remains as one of the few WP:MED regulars whose positions are typically grounded in policy and well reasoned. User:RexxS is a sometimes medical editor who rarely resorts to faulty logic or pile-on support. Those who have a basic understanding of why we needed MEDRS and how to appropriately use it are mostly gone, replaced by newer editors that pile on support without offering reasoning grounded in policy (which Colin's always is). I invite anyone to read through any WPMED discussion and see the familiar lineup..

Colin, the person who mostly wrote the guideline, has consistently been opposed to the bullying that has come to characterize WP:MED as cabalistic behaviors became the means of chasing out alternate viewpoints, and even qualified experts.

(I am slowly working through the new posts, but I expect it can now be seen why the WPMED issues are ripe for an arbcase, and those issues go well beyond the current pricing dispute. No, this is not just a content dispute or support of older vs. newer editors; it is a long-standing problem of CABALISTIC, non-policy-based, OWNERSHIP that has overtaken WP:MED.) The other factor affecting the dynamic is that Colin does not edit war, while Doc James has a history of editwarring to install his personal preferences; I (again) brought this to his talk page within just the last month.[218][219] As an admin, he is typically spared blocking, but the admonishments don't seem to have long-lasting effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, what kinds of alternate viewpoints? There are definitely alternate viewpoints that should be chased out (naturopaths and other fake medical professionals for example).
I do see QuackGuru as a problem, and have held him up as a classic example of doing mostly the right thing in mostly the wrong way. But n the main I see this as a case of policy drift based on too few eyes and a disagreement between editors acting in good faith who have not come up with a way of resolving an underlying disagreement for much too long. I could be wrong. My personal view is that canonical policy mitigates against including data and for including information, so pricing on albuterol or insulin, clearly a matter of active policy debate, should be included, but I am much less persuaded by some others. Maybe it should be fixed by using an external link to the database of drug information that includes pricing, much as we routinely link IMDB. I don't know. Anyway, I am trying to ascertain the policy-based rationale for blanket inclusion. At this point I tentatively agree with you and others here that the policy-based rationale for inclusion is weak, and the argument for inclusion verges on dogma, certainly in the case of QuackGuru. Guy (help!) 09:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Guy where I disagree is in the techniques and lack of civility employed to keep quackery, and some editors out. With a strong guideline supporting quality medical content, there is no need for bullying and misbehavior and lack of civility. The alternate viewpoints I was referring to are not from alt-quackery editors rather information that is compliant with policy and guideline, but that has encountered disagreement from certain editors who essentially have owned WPMED. The expert who was chased off of the epilepsy article is a good example; the problems in that article persist. In my personal editing (and I sure don't support any alt quackery or marginal sources), I have had correct and correctly sourced information reverted on prostate articles (text that stands today as accurate), with the usual Jytdog collegiality involved. I assure you that even policy-compliant, knowledgeable editors have been exposed to the tactics used to allow only certain information into articles, or for articles to be structured in certain ways based on personal preferences. Perhaps the constant quackery-patrol has led to a degradation in civility among some med editors. The "argument[s] for inclusion [that] verge on dogma" are repeated across multiple areas and topics, and supported by a handful of editors who employ no policy-based reasoning. You have mentioned QuackGuru, who is not the only one. Joining together in support of quackery-bashing led to a bad dynamic taking hold over ALL editing at WPMED, and an unfortunate "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ("I must support anything proposed by anyone who supports me in keeping quackery out") effect in the "me-too, pile on supports" for issues that should be discussed with policy-based reasoning. We only get discussion grounded in policy from a few current editors, with a whole lot of "me-too" arguments, and a strong dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT (good example being the videos). Moving to community-wide RFCs may help, because WPMED is, and has been for several years now, a walled garden with very high walls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I don't have any basis on which to dispute this, and accept your word as one whom I have always trusted.
Nonetheless, I think the specifics here (i.e. around drug pricing) do stem from a question on which reasonable people may differ, and the lack of a proper resolution of the underlying dispute makes it harder to separate egregious warrior behaviour from excess of zeal in advancing a principled position.
I have made a proposal for resolution of the underlying issue. If that has traction then I hope we will rapidly find out whether this is resolvable or whether we'll need another ArbCom case, the process - and probably also the outcome - of which would very likely be unsatisfactory to all concerned.
In fact I'd have no issue with applying "consensus required" to all medical articles. I mostly see them when repeat vanity spammers appear to add their latest paper, but it does seem that most edits are either unexceptionable or lead to protracted fights, often with no middle ground. Guy (help!) 10:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Wrt current content dispute, see Talk:Ivermectin#Price and the edit war over pricing, which predates my involvement in the issue. It is interesting that Ronz sought further third opinions, who agreed with him, though one noted that "providing prices of drugs in the intro seems to be standard across Wikipedia" -- well it is only so because James, and James alone, added those prices to the leads, and will edit-war with anyone who removes them. On that talk page, James says "we have a very strong lobby which wishes to suppress pricing information but we are not censored" and indeed James has cited WP:CENSORED to me, as has CFCF. The detailed price-in-lead thing not only breaks WP:NOT and WP:LEAD, but his arguments for including it appear based on his agenda rather than policy. For example "Ongoing lawsuits by industry to prevent having to disclose the price in commercials. Obviously that demonstrates that they are of encyclopedic value" and "industry wish to hide how much medications actually cost both from the general population". Along come Ozzie10aaaa, QuackGuru and CFCF, on the talk page, MEDMOS talk page and WP:MED to back James up with "I support James" level of argument. Soon James is telling Ronz "Ronz the majority of people commenting here disagree with you." despite the count being 2:3 on the talk page, even if we assumed mere numbers were any measure of consensus.
See also Buprenorphine/naloxone edit war. There is also an edit war at WP:MEDMOS where QuackGuru has imposed Price-supportive text in the guideline. I should stress that in none of these venues, have I engaged in any edit warring.
So this is the background. The leads and bodies of most of our drug articles have price information, in defiance of two policies/guidelines WP:NOT and WP:LEAD, and James and a few others at WP:MED will outnumber and edit war with anyone who removes that. Anyone who does so is accused of being a big pharma shill attempting to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia in support of suppressing drug price information.
James is an admin and de facto head of WP:MED, and has single-handedly imposed his personal agenda on drug pricing across Wikipedia. As such he cannot ask inconvenient editors to stop holding him to account. He would prefer the problem went away, no pings, no talk page request, and above with Ozzie10aaaa's request, a clear attempt to silence an opponent.
In contrast to James's edit warring on multiple venues, I have engaged in detailed discussion about the many flaws in James' approach. We have a clear case of original research being performed by an editor who's article statements are unsupported by the source, who lacks even a basic understanding of statistics, who cherry picks prices from databases in order to present low-developing world price and expensive US pricing, and who just plain makes big mathematical mistakes. James has corrected a few of the mistakes and errors and has recently conceded that even the concept of a "wholesale cost" is complicated -- this is from an editor who juxtaposed wholesale and retail prices in articles without indicating so. James will happily juxtapose a price from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo in 2014, claiming this price reflects the whole "developing world", with a price for a different drug in the US in 2019. And he will make such egregious accounting errors while quoting numbers to four significant figures of "precision".
Wrt "Colin and the Videos", that didn't work out so well for James and his supporters. WP:MED deviated strongly from being part of a community-edited text-based encyclopaedia, which is what Wikipedia is. James secretly engaged with a commercial provider of medical student training videos for content, and added them to hundreds of articles, often without using any edit summary. James edit warred with anyone who removed them or questioned them. Does this sound familiar? In the end all 300+ videos were removed from Wikipedia, when the wider community expressed its strong rejection of commercial uneditable article-as-video content. Colin°Talk 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef block Whatever else, I'd support an indefinite block of Colin until and unless they agree to stop pinging Doc James, and stop posting on their talk page except for essential messages. It's well accepted that such requests should be respected, and failing to do so is WP:harassment. Anyone who will ignore such basic decency is not welcome on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

    I should clarify in case there is any confusion that such basic decency does not prevent people continuing to discuss problems with article content. Such discussions should normally happen outside editor talk pages anyway. If an editor has asked not to be pinged, they cannot complain they were not pinged and so were not aware of the discussion.

    It's often unnecessary to ping editors to discussions anyway, that risks WP:Canvassing concerns. If an editor is already aware of the discussion, there are plenty of ways they can follow the discussion such as watch lists or simply checking out the page regularly. And the fact they were already aware generally means it's expecting they will do so, and not rely on pings even in case where there's no barriers to pings.

    As for concerns over editor behaviour, as I've said before if it reaches the stage where someone is asking you not to post on their talk page it is unlikely your messages are helping. If someone starts banning everyone who posts on their talk page with concerns, it's fairly obvious this won't end well for them.

    Further such bans do not preclude you being a case to an appropriate notice board like AN or ANI (and notifying them of the thread is one reasonable exception to the ban), likewise with an arbcom case. You can explain in your discussion that you cannot try to discuss the matter further with the editor concerned since they've banned you, so editors will taken that onboard when considering whether you've adequately tried to deal with the matter via discussion before bringing it to AN//I or arbcom.

    Nil Einne (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, could you not just have written: "Colin, I think you should stop pinging James and writing on his talk page". You might get the response you are looking for if you ask nicely. Since when did we start indef blocking people before asking them first? -- Colin°Talk 10:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Colin, all the time, if they are being a dick. Don't be that guy, eh? Guy (help!) 11:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Colin: By definition you were already asked to stop pinging and stop posting on their talk page otherwise we wouldn't be here. If this was just an accident, e.g. because you always ping someone and forgot about the request not to ping a specific editor then sure a firm but polite reminder would be enough. But we're here because you not only ignored the request, you thumbed your nose at it "As long as you won't drop this issue, you'll get pinged whenever I mention your name." I find this disgusting. There is absolutely zero reason you need to ping them. You're an experienced editor. You must know full well you can mention someone without needing to wikilink their name or do something else which would cause a ping. I'm guessing you even know there are simple ways you can effectively wikilink a name without pinging if you really need to do that. So there's zero reason why you would believe you need to continue to ping someone after they've told you not to other than your apparent view you have some right to annoy someone with behaviour that you can easily stop and which provides no benefit to anyone in the discussion. It's not the first time I've supported a block for such disgusting behaviour and sadly it probably won't be the last. The fact you needed to be taken to ANI before you would stop such disgusting behaviour is on you. Not me. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne, you wrote the above rant one hour after I wrote the message below, that I would not ping Doc James. Talk about rubbing someone's nose in it. It is clear I got the ping thing wrong. Nobody else asked me not to ping him. The first I hear about it being an issue is this AN/I and your threat to indef block me. You might not have noticed, that James and I have been having a conversation for several days, where he makes some points and I make some points and we continue. I had no idea it was such a big thing. -- Colin°Talk 11:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: Well I knew you'd already agreed to stop pinging Doc James otherwise I wouldn't have said "before you would stop such disgusting behaviour is on you". You chose to reply to me saying I should have just approached you directly. I chose to reply explaining why there's no reason I needed to approach you directly because you were already approached. I don't really give a damn about who else did or did not approach you. As an experienced editor, there is absolutely zero reason you needed someone else to approach you before you would obey a reasonable request.

I'm somewhat unsure what happened with the talk page thing since it's an old request and I can't be bothered looking into the history. But for the ping thing, no one has said you could not reply to Doc James in discussions elsewhere wherever they occur. You're perfectly entitled to. (Subject to the normal norms of discussion.) You're perfectly able to continue to do so without pinging Doc James. No one has faulted you for pinging Doc James before you were asked not to ping. As I said, if you simply forgot about the request, then okay fine. But you explicitly said you would not follow it. Whether because you were lazy and couldn't be bothered making a minor change to your behaviour or worse reason, I don't know and don't really care.

It did not have to be a "big thing" if you had just obeyed the requests rather than thumbing your nose at them. You acknowledge you got this wrong, but don't really seem to understand why.

It's because that's how we operate on wikipedia as in much of the world. We treat each other with respect as much as possible. So if someone says "hey can you stop doing this" and they have a reason why they want it to stop (stay off my talk page and stop pinging me don't need explanations just like don't call me X, don't call me he/she etc), and it's trivial for you to do so and there's no benefit to anyone for you to not do so, then you do so. You may forget. That's fine. Explicitly refusing to do so is another thing completely.

Nil Einne (talk)

  • For the record: I agree not to ping Doc James and post on his talk page. -- Colin°Talk 10:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd support an indef block or rather a temporary block per what Nil Einne stated. It's not just a pinging a matter. There's also the matter of not posting on Doc's talk page except for essential messages, and not making Doc feel harassed in any other way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Flyer22 Reborn, what are you expecting me to do or say to avoid such a block? -- Colin°Talk 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Just don't do anything that others will consider harassment. Nil Einne has already addressed this above. I've been harassed plenty, and those who harassed me were admonished and/or sanctioned because others saw it as clear-cut harassment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • support a temporary block per Flyer22--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support designation of WikiProject Medicine as "Wikipedia friendly space" WP:5P4 says that Wikipedia is a civil place for everyone to enjoy. In any difference of opinion it is possible for everyone to express themselves in positive way. The conflict which I see here is that Colin has a style of personal expression which incorporates negative sentiment. Communities which want to permit negative sentiment can do so, and communities which wish to disallow it should be able to do so also. I wish for the community of contributors at WikiProject Medicine to designate it as a positive sentiment environment or Wikipedia Friendly Space.
Sentiment is unrelated to the validity of claims. Colin raises good points and is commendable for their creativity, insight, and correctness on many points. However, communities in public spaces should regulate how much negativity they allow into their environment. If individuals use negativity beyond the welcome allowance, then the community of that space should have encouragement to remove that negativity and direct the user at its source to another forum which has social capacity to benefit from their way of communicating.
WikiProject Medicine is a public facing forum which is unusual in Wikipedia for high activity and attracting all sorts of new users. New users thrive in environments which are more positive. In general, more people enjoy contributing to environments which are positive most of the time. Please look at Colin's choice of words with me. Here is WikiProject Medicine right now - special:permalink/929382711. Here are some phrases which Colin uses in this present version which I assert would trigger robotic sentiment analysis detectors for negativity, and which anyone could see by searching for strings in that page -
  • just plain incorrect
  • problems with our use
  • wrong on so many levels
  • rather embarrassing to WP:MED
  • This is your problem
  • I think you have forgotten
  • James is misusing
  • it is just nonsense
  • wrongly claims
  • usually inappropriate to use
  • the sort of thing we shouldn't do
  • The problem
  • you are just acusing me
  • It wasn't intended
  • nobody else does this
  • there is no consistency
  • falsely claims
  • more complicated than you want
  • your statements are very unclear.
  • If you won't accept this
  • over-simplified like you do
  • no reasonable way
  • I know you wished
  • you are being wilfully obtuse
  • You ignore
  • you are not acknowledging
  • you cherry-pick
  • you had an agenda
  • WP:MED intends to silence any criticism
  • It doesn't work
  • which is wrong
  • it would be good for you to admit you made a mistake
  • You still haven't found any
  • falsely claims
  • isn't what I asked for
  • you don't understand database copyright
  • are not allowed to do that
  • failing to present anything coherent
I take the position that Colin could have expressed everything they had to say without communicating in a way that people and bots can readily detect as negative. Many of these words are negative and fail to contribute to a positive friendly environment. If we make the shift to positivity then that should apply to everyone. The remedy for further use of negativity should be an invitation to post in a place other than WikiProject Medicine. I encourage everyone to be as friendly and supportive as they can everywhere in Wikipedia in all circumstances. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Bluerasberry I find your approach interesting, though must admit it seems a little naive and utopian to expect only positive sentiment in an environment where editors and admins might misbehave and are open to criticism. I can see it working for some photography forum and indeed the "Photo Challenge" on Commons I set up was deliberately designed to only permit positive sentiment vs the critical environment that Featured Picture and Quality Image can encourage (photographers nominate their works for FP/QI and other editors agree or explain why they disagree, sometimes quite harshly). The Photo Challenge only allows positive 1/2/3-value support votes or to give a 0-value "love" vote. It has been a great success and run now for many years.
Negativity and chasing away new editors can be achieved while still using neutral or even positive (wrt one's own edits and views) language. This is particularly so when an editor is in a position of power over another editor. Their position is already the content on Wikipedia and a slow revert war is all that is required to retain it. Can you consider that each revert or each out-of-hand dismissal of another's argument is negativity too? Perhaps that's too subtle for your robot? What if every time you saw a revert diff, it spoke out to you as a "f**k off"? What if every time a policy concern was raised and dismissed without addressing the concern, it spoke out to you as rude "meh".
In the diff list below, James responded to the removal of prices with "we have a very strong lobby which wishes to suppress pricing information but we are not censored". This positive language. Yay! We are not censored! Further James adds "Ongoing lawsuits by industry to prevent having to disclose the price in commercials. Obviously that demonstrates that they are of encyclopedic value". While that language sounds positive, James is clearly trying to frustrate the discussion. What on earth have prices in US commercials got to do with Wikipedia content? It is an odd tangent. James goes on to say "industry wish to hide how much medications actually cost both from the general population" are I hope you are getting a feeling here about what James might be suggesting wrt Ronz's price-removing actions. "One opinion was in each direction" is the happy positive edit summary that went along-side another edit-war revert from James. Remember to speak out a rude interjection of your choice that went with the revert. The interaction concludes with the thoroughly dispiriting "Ronz the majority of people commenting here disagree with you", after James recruits a body to support him. But really, the most negative language I have read on Wikipedia for a long time, language that is chilling is the following statement from Doc James to me: "That you are pushing the industry position to try to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia is concerning". What does your emotion robot make of that? -- Colin°Talk 19:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef blockUser:Colin has long-standing issues with civility, dismissing valid arguments brought forth by other users, while trivializing dissent of his positions. In response to an earlier incident I authored the essay WP:ORACLES due to his behaviour of WP:BLUDGEONing the process through sheer volume of text, and intensity of editing different articles, as well as stating that he alone was able to interpret community consensus (or at least invalidating and ignoring all attempts to discuss what consensus had existed up until his engagement).
    In short this is a case of a user with a very firm grasp of policy and who knows where and when to call for backup — but with massive issues with WP:CIVILITY and unclear editing goals (WP:NOTHERE). He does not respect WP:BRD, often coming to issues lacking knowledge — but with very strong opinions — acting by changing tens or even hundreds of articles at once, totally ignoring implied consensus. He may once have been a positive force on Wikipedia, but is today, and has been for a longer time — nearly without fail — disruptive per WP:POINTY. His style of editing is a danger to any collaborative work on this encyclopedia. Carl Fredrik talk 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • CFCF just hold on a second. Where does "He does not respect WP:BRD" come from? Where does "changing tens or even hundreds of articles at once, totally ignoring implied consensus". "His way of editing"? Who on earth are you talking about? What article content have I been abusing? What "hundreds of articles at once" edit have I ever made in my entire existance? Have you got the wrong AN/I section? If you are going to make such outrageous claims, I think we need some diffs. -- Colin°Talk 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
ColinRest assured no mistake has been made — my position is represented above. I and many other editors are unable to find the time or motivation to respond to repeated requests for clarification. I will not elaborate my position further, doing so would act to show WP:BLUDGEONING in action, engaging in a deliberate timesink. I believe interested parties will be able to see the issues for themselves. Carl Fredrik talk 19:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really expecting you to clarify because the statements you made about me are 100% made up. I must object most strongly to someone making claims, in support of a indef block, that are outright fabrications, and then "unable to find the time or motivation" to respond when called out on it. Yes, interested parties will make of that as they wish. -- Colin°Talk 20:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
CFCF, your statements about Colin are not even remotely aligned with fact; I suggest you strike a lot of content above, or produce diffs. I understand that you strongly supported Doc James position in the last effort that was overturned by a community-wide RFC (the videos), and I understand that keeping up with Colin's policy-based reasoning can be time consuming, but your personal views are unsupported. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, CFCF was and remains extremely vocal in his support of Doc James wrt the Osmosis videos and the more recent VideoWiki. He gets particularly upset whenever the essay I wrote, WP:NOTYOUTUBE, is cited, using language towards me that would certainly trigger Bluerasberry's negativety robot. The "changing tens or even hundreds of articles at once" might be referring to when James, tail between his legs, removed all 300+ videos from Wikipedia, after he lost his own RFC on the matter. It seems that CFCF has still not forgiven me for that. -- Colin°Talk 19:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Colin, in my experience any accusation of censorship in Wikipedia is almost always POV-pushing. I find that disturbing. Guy (help!) 09:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose block – Colin said they'd stop pinging and posting on the talk page, so there's no need for a block to prevent that. It seems all sides of the debate have made some comments that were uncivil, and everyone should tone it down. I'd support civility warnings but I don't see evidence that a block is necessary to prevent any ongoing disruption. Levivich 19:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose block. As I said below, a 2-way fight between "Block Colin" and "Topic Ban Doc James" is not going to solve the problems that people suggest underlie all of this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose block. We don't block long-term editors on the say-so of people who have a dog in the fight, or indeed in one case a COI. Indeed, even though Colin shouldn't have made the rather silly ping comment, it looks frankly pathetic bleating for an indef block of a 14-year editor with a clear block log on the basis of "too many pings". I'd suggest you go away and self-reflect on that particular idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This is not about "too many pings", but about long-standing and repeated uncivil behavior from the editor in question. The issues could certainly have been expressed more tersely above, but in one sense this is an issue of "editors that do" versus an "editor who complains". Liken the lack of a bulleted list of negative actions to WP:NOTSOCIAL. Carl Fredrik talk 20:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronz asked me if I was trolling and restored Colin's comment that was not about improving the page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I've had such unpleasant experiences with Colin that he is one of only three editors that I have banned from my user talk page. I also consider DocJames to be a wiki-friend. So those are my cards on the table. I'm going to make myself neutral about the indef proposal, but I do think that there has been a long-standing feud that involves multiple editors. As best I can tell, early editing about med-related articles was done by some editors who have also been very active with featured content, and who write content very well indeed. Gradually over the years, WP:MED came into existence, with a different group of editors as the most active ones. Over time, these have become two opposing camps. I'm not a regular participant at WP:MED, but I dip in and out of it from time to time, because my editing interests are more at the basic science end of it, and I've tried to stay as neutral as I could whenever I found myself in between the two clans. Roughly a year-and-a-half ago, I spent some time trying to help out at Dementia with Lewy bodies, at SandyGeorgia's request if I recall correctly. (See Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 2.) By the time of Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Archive 3#"Should" and similar language, I became so exasperated with Colin that I just walked away from the page. Something that I think is important to understand about this dispute, as a whole, is that MEDRS and the like were developed over time by the most active editors at WP:MED, but it was absolutely not a "walled garden". As far as I can tell, and I think I do know enough about it, all of the discussion at WP:MED was open to whoever wanted to participate, and was driven by WP:Consensus. And it led to some very useful guidelines for standardizing our medical content. Unfortunately, the earlier FA-oriented editors disagree with a lot of those guidelines what newer editors see as best practice for med articles, and regard the WP:MED editors as upstarts who ruined what we had in the good old days. But I don't think the FA editors were excluded by WP:MED. Rather, they just didn't want to engage with others who disagreed with them. And here we are now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Tryptofish, That is a very odd history indeed. WP:MED predates Doc James and in its best years was de facto headed by User:Jfdwolff. It supported a collaboration between lay and qualified editors. It produced several featured articles, the best of which involved lay and professionals working together.I have written one myself, which was copyedited by one of our literature editors (sadly no longer with us) and reviewed on my request by a world expert in the subject. Those days involved collaborative editing the like of which todays's WP:MED editors know nothing. WP:MED also produced the MEDMOS and MEDRS guidelines but you get your facts wrong there. I polished MEDMOS and promoted to guideline status. MEDRS, I created and worked with others to push to guideline status. These are not the products of the newbies. Far from "the earlier FA-oriented editors disagree with a lot of those guidelines" it was those editors who created and nurtured them. They were interested in quality and sources and readability and Wikipedia being the best source for medical content on the internet. Which it was.
Then the edit warriors took over. They were only interested in fighting the alt-med people, and only interested in reverting contributions that failed to be perfect in their eyes. It didn't matter if the contributor was a subject expert or a troll. Revert. Revert. They weren't interested in writing articles and reading books, but just in inserting factoids into pages based on whatever PubMed paper they last read. The quality of content deteriorated and no more featured or quality output was produced by WP:MED. Our medical articles became random repositories of incoherent nonsense. The chief of these factoid-inserter serial-reverters is James, but Jytog was certainly up there at the top. Praised for keeping Wikipedia clear of alt-med woo, these editors could do no wrong and got blind support. Tryptofish, I quoted you above ("I will oppose any efforts to treat the WT:MED editors as wrong or bad.") stating that you refused to countenance a bad word said against any WP:MED editor. And I do recall you and James being among the most vocal supporters of Jytog when he, well, took things a bit too far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe both of you opened your arms to any future prospect of this warrior returning to the fold. Someone who sought out the phone number of an opponent and phoned them to harrass them in person.
Admins here are welcome to view the history at the dementia articles Tryptofish mentions. You might also wish to compare the state of the article before User:SandyGeorgia started improving it, and after. Sandy is one of the old school, literate, quality-focused, editors. I believe the article history will well display Doc James edit warring and some current members of WP:MED tendentiously blocking progress with rather silly and unique interpretations of our policies. We are where we are because the edit warriors and illiterate factoid inserters won, and rule. And folk like Tryptofish defend them like brothers. Today, well, Wikipedia is no longer the best source of medical information on the internet. There are many other excellent websites, whose content is readable and coherent, and which don't inconvenience their readers with essentially random dollars and cents prices of drugs, in some bizarre effort to stick the finger up at Big Pharma.
Readers may be surprised that I too once counted Doc James as a wiki friend. I too fell into the "he's on our side" mentality, without really examining his edits. When he visited London, I took James and his wife out for dinner to a vegetarian Indian restaurant, and we all had dosas. But since those days, James edit warred away a neurologist who was in good faith trying to improve our epilepsy article, an article that James had taken ownership of and, frankly, a topic of which he is profoundly ignorant. James collaborated with a private company to produce more than 300 articles-as-videos and then inserted them into our articles without even an edit summary. Any editor who queried the content of these videos was edit warred into submission. Many at WP:MED repeatedly told frank lies about the videos being editable by the community (they could be cropped, that's all). At an RFC, the community clearly voiced its displeasure at our project being commercialised and content taken over by a private third party. James removed all 300+ videos. My campaign to remove the videos, and my essay WP:NOTYOUTUBE, has, shall we say, not made me many friends at WP:MED, though a few of the medical experts who had pointed out factual problems with the videos were supportive. I don't suppose I'll be on many WP:MED Christmas card lists this year, but, hey, when ever any one of them cites WP:MEDRS, I get my reward. -- Colin°Talk 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
And that's a good illustration of what I was talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Tryptofish, yes, pretty much your entire history above of how WPMED developed, relative to FA people, is incorrect; those who wrote most content, including the GA and FA writers, were the same group that helped develop and strongly supported the project guideline pages. What you describe as "two opposing camps" isn't entirely accurate either, nor is the idea that you aren't a regular who regularly supports certain positions. I haven't looked up the Dementia with Lewy bodies diffs, but yes, I basically invited anyone and everyone to help, hoping that WPMED could experience again what collaboration felt like versus constantly troll whacking and quack-bashing; my inner Pollyanna came out and I hoped that WPMED could once again be a group that worked together to bring quality content. I quickly found that would not be possible. The turning point for me was when Jytdog behaved miserably towards established and fine article writers, and then a lengthy discussion with another medical editor who intended to install a personal preference over objections from everyone else who weighed in finished derailing the attempt. Although I gave up on that article (indeed, the entire suite related to Lewy Body dementias), dementia with Lewy bodies was intended to show what WPMED might accomplish if they started collaborating, and still today offers a fine start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Colin, I defer to Jimbo on our handling of quacks: WP:LUNATIC. It is necessary to be firm because they have strong vested interests, which they very often refuse to accept. We are in a situation precisely analogous to evolution/creationism in the early days of Wikipedia. We should not subscribe tot he fallacy of "different ways of knowing" and should not treat in-universe sources such as quackery journals as equivalent to reality-based medical journals. Example: acupuncture as currently practised is largely a creation of Mao Zedong, who harnessed local superstition and then current disinformation techniques to build a mythos entirely uinsupported by any articulable scientific principles. The question of how to separate fact from fancy was settled in the 17th Century, but we are experiencing an unprecedented upsurge in assertions of Truth™ against fact. The word fact only came to have its meaning at the start of the scientific revolution, it has always been bitterly opposed by those whose religious beliefs are not supported by fact, and alt-med is a quasi-religious belief system. Guy (help!) 09:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this block proposal. Clearly, Colin had already acknowledged the pingie problem and agreed not to continue pinging Doc James. (Although I find the whole thing odd. Because of the extent to which Doc James involves himself at WPMED, it doesn't seem reasonable for him to expect not to be pinged, but his choice, and I see Colin has already agreed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban on Doc James wrt Drug Pricing[edit]

I propose Doc James be topic banned from the topic of drug pricing in articles. Further, editors at WP:MED should accept the long-held consensus at WP:NOT wrt the inclusion of drug prices, and the guideline WP:LEAD that the lead should summarise the body.

As briefly noted above (more diffs can be provided), James has single handedly added pricing to the leads (and sometimes body) of most of our drug articles. He is, AFACS, the only editor doing this, and doing it on a massive scale. He has engaged in edit warring to retain the prices. He has voiced on multiple times that Big Pharma has an agenda to suppress pricing and any editor who removes or discusses removing such prices is engaging in censorship of Wikipedia. James is clearly and openly editing in this area with an agenda and to Right Great Wrongs.

Since our sources do not supply the price information James wants to include (merely incomplete raw data records), he has engaged in original research to invent prices, citing cherry-picked database records, arbitrarily choosing one pill size or formulation over another. He has in many occasions juxtaposed prices for the "developing world" and the "US" in ways that are not comparable or unsupported by the sources (e.g. different drugs, different doses). He continues to support the use of a source that has not been maintained since 2015, and uses it in a way the writers of the source recommend against. He juxtaposes wholesale with retail prices without informing the reader. He presents prices ranges in misleading ways, where the range is an artefact of his method, rather than inherent in the data. He repeatedly claims to our readers that "a" drug has "a" price, when in fact the article covers multiple formulations of a drug, for multiple indications and multiple methods of administration.

The price of drugs is notable on occasion. For example, extortionate price rises when there no competition for a generic version of a drug. Or a very high cost to healthcare providers of new medicines, which are then judged unaffordable and rejected by healthcare bodies or insurance. But the routine inclusion of these essentially random prices, which can vary by factors of 15 depending on methodology chosen by James that day, is not supported by policy. Further more, nearly every price I have looked at, has serious issues with being misleading or even just plain mathematically or statistically wrong. -- Colin°Talk 10:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • No. So there's a content dispute, and you've come here to get administrators to rule in your favor AND shut down opposition to your position. Really really really don't think that's going to happen; a WP:BOOMERANG is far more likely, and how hard it hits would depend on how hard you push this tactic. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Colin, that's not happening. Is there a central RfC on drug pricing? If not, that seems to be the obvious starting point. Guy (help!) 11:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Calton, I didn't "come here to get administrators to rule in my favour". Did you spot the enclosing section where Ozzie10aaaa (who supports Doc James) hauled my ass here to silence an inconvenient critic. Just, for example, who do you think is edit warring on drug pricing? It isn't me.
  • I didn't "come here to get administrators to rule in my favour" Baloney. That's EXACTLY what you did, since your long screed is all about how Doc James is wrong wrong wrong on the content and must be stopped, and nothing about behavior -- which is PRECISELY what Ozzie10aaaa's post was about and which behavior you are REPEATING. So spare me.
  • who do you think is edit warring on drug pricing?. You. Duh. --Calton | Talk 12:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Calton diffs please? Or please retract that allegation. -- Colin°Talk 15:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Guy, WP:NOT has been clear on pricing for some time. James was clearly aware that his edits were contra to policy, because he started an RFC in 2016 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84#Price of medications to get it overturned or an exception made for drugs. James made a number of claims in that RFC that have been clearly shown to be false. His RFC failed, was closed "no consenseus" and editors were reminded by the closing admin of the longstanding WP:NOT requirement: "Except in the cases where the sources note the significance of the pricing". So, yes, there was an RFC to change policy and it failed. James ignored it and has continued adding and edit warring over this. -- Colin°Talk 11:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Colin, so that's a "no" then. I have ventured an opinion at the ongoing discussion. Guy (help!) 11:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As I said earlier, if you want the community to look into some dispute, it helps a great deal if the messenger isn't someone who rubs everyone else the wrong way. When someone takes forever to acknowledge an offensive comparison, and also needs to be taken to ANI before they agree to stop harassing another editor, then there's no way I'm going to waste my time looking into their claims, to see if there's really some reason for a topic ban. I suspect I'm not the only one to feel this way, so it would probably be best if this is dropped deferring to someone else e.g. SandyGeorgia to make this request if they feel it's merited. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is basically a tone argument. So you vote "weak oppose" on an issue that you openly say "there's no way I'm going to waste my time looking into". Way to go! So yes, User:SandyGeorgia can take up this if they want to. -- Colin°Talk 11:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We all volunteer our time here. People can't be expected to spend their timing doing something which they feel likely has no purpose. The way you've handled everything, compounded now by the way you've behaved here makes me thing it will not be productive for me to look into this dispute since I'm unlikely to find anything meriting your proposed course of action. From what I've seen this happens a lot at ANI. People make a very poor request, so even if there is something behind it, no one knows since most people think there probably isn't and even if there is, it's hard to find it. Mostly it results in the request simply being ignored. And normally if I want to point this out I simply leave a comment or approach the editor directly. But in this case, with several people already opposing, I felt it best to suggest a quick death too this proposal. If people waste time on it now and it results in no consensus, it's likely to reduce the chances of anything happening when someone who can actually make a good case proposes it. In the event that this actually starts to get some decent support, I may change my mind. Even if I don't my !vote will count for little. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Nil Einne to be sure I am understanding this correctly, the suggestion is that I should be the person to request a topic ban for Doc James on pricing? I am not sure why I would be asked to do that, but if that is what you are suggesting ... I believe the proposal is too narrow in scope and a pricing topic ban would not solve the broader problem. Doc James is a mature person, and should be able to recognize on his own, without the need for admin action, that his OWNERSHIP behaviors need to change. Pricing today, videos last time, altering structures of articles for personal preference before that, dumbing down language only so that articles can be translated to other languages before that, altering leads not in compliance with WP:LEAD for years, and so it goes. The problem moves from one issue to another, and pricing is merely the latest example. This behavior is encouraged by his supporters.

If I were to propose something it would be more like:

  • Doc James must stop edit warring. Some admin needs to decide how this can be addressed effectively. Even giving Doc James a 1RR restriction would not be effective, because there are enough editors who revert to his position without consensus or discussion.
  • Doc James must understand the difference between guidelines and policy. I don't know how admins can make that happen-- open to ideas.
  • Doc James should stop installing personal preferences across broad swatches of articles. I don't know how to make this happen; the problem has existed across multiple issues for many years, and the message isn't getting through.
  • Previous RFCs, and collaborative discussion, should be respected by all WPMED editors. The 'Me, too' cabalism needs to have a light shone on it.
  • A community-wide RFC on pricing should be collaboratively developed, executed, and results respected.
  • The OWNERSHIP and cabalistic issues dominating WPMED might improve if more non-MED editors watchlisted, became aware of, and called out these issues when they occur. It's not hard to decipher who does and does not consistently ground their positions in policy and guideline.
Again, in my opinion, the problems at WPMED are entrenched enough and serious enough that we are not far from an arbcase. I suggest that Doc James needs to take seriously the problem with edit warring and using a guideline to install personal preferences, but that there are many more editors than just Doc James that need to clean up their act and stop engaging in non-collaborative behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
it depends on the discussion here, however 'drug pricing' or any other medical subject should not have to descend to incivility towards so many at WP:MED, can't he have a conversation without "unlimited pinging" or name calling as indicated in my original post....please?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, I'd like to think it's worth a concerted effort to understand what purpose people think is served by adding pricing, and have started a discussion around that. The idea that this is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overriding canonical policy does have some merit, but there may be a good reason that;'s just not articulated yet and places the inclusion of pricing within the bounds of ordinary policy despite a MOS default preference for exclusion.
For what it's worth, I find MOS to be the weakest of all arguments used in Wikipedia content disputes, notwithstanding that it has caused some of our longest-running and most acrimonious disputes. Guy (help!) 12:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your manner of discussion and in the end I might agree with you(using logic and not bothering Doc James or anyone else) however this ANI is not about content is it?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No Gray-zone content-disputes are not settled over here. see WP:DR. WBGconverse 12:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ivermectin:

This is typical. And if you open the article today click on the source James uses for the "developing world". You get a broken database search result. There are no prices at all. There are no prices for 2014, which is the "search year" James used. All that edit warring, and the source doesn't even have any prices.

If I search for 2015 I get a "buyer" price for the health service of Costa Rica. The source itself says not to use "buyer" prices (only "supplier" prices) if wanting an international reference price. So James is claiming the price Costa Rica government pays for the drug (after discounts, rebates, bribes, etc) is representative of "the developing world". The price James quotes (12 cents) would correspond to a 15 mg one-off dose for a 70kg patient with strongyloidiasis. But the tablets are 6mg and you can't buy 2.5 tablets. So James has indulged in original research to assume the age/weight of the patient, their particular tropical disease and done some crude maths to give a figure that requires asking the pharmacist for 2.5 tablets. And then he compares the price in Costa Rica in 2015 with the US price in 2019. This is typical. -- Colin°Talk 14:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, I'm uninvolved but reviewed the lengthy discussions linked here. Seems to me there is a serious problem. First, habitual edit warring is unacceptable, especially from editors of high station like admins, functionaries, and trustees. Second, statements along the lines of "XYZ drug costs between $0.01 and $0.05" are obvious oversimplifications that misinform our readers. Third, we have documented consensus on pricing that is being ignored. Fourth, the problem has spread to a large group of articles through the tendentious efforts of a few editors, apparently primarily DJ. Fifth, prior efforts at resolving or discussing this with DJ have clearly failed. Sixth, this is an example of the walled garden behavior I mentioned above. It needs to stop. I support the tban. Levivich 13:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • In re comments below, I agree the content dispute should be handled through DR like a new RfC if needed, but I see evidence of disruptive editing regarding drug pricing and no indication it will stop despite prior attempts made by other editors. That's a conduct dispute, not a content dispute, and that's why I support the tban. I'd support an official warning of some sort as a lesser measure as well. Levivich 19:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Question when did the wiki become focussed on pricing in one area? Eneryone in the UK knows that all drugs cost £9. But that doesn't belong in a drug's article. Cabayi (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Unless the prices themselves are notable, do not include them as WP:NOPRICES says ArkayusMako (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Nothing either way to this suggest yet by this, but now I recall this discussion at WT:NOT [220] that I commented on but that involves those mentioned here, which I see directly applicable for consideration in light of what's being argued here. --Masem (t) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See no reason to topic ban Doc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some here seem to be treating this as a discussion on whether drug price should or should not be included in articles, but that is not something to be decided at ANI. That's a content decision, and it needs a content discussion and consensus - perhaps an RfC as some have suggested. That consensus needs to be reached before we should be considering sanctioning anyone from either side of the disagreement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Boing! said Zebedee, there is a policy WP:NOPRICES and there was an RFC (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84#Price of medications), which James lost. James is now editing, and edit warring, against policy.That's a behavioural problem. -- Colin°Talk 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Colin, that's a 2016 discussion and there was significant support and opposition, and consensus can change - and I don't think this specific proposal is the way to resolve ongoing disagreement. If there's still a behavioural problem (which comments from a number of well-respected contributors, yourself included, suggest there is) then it sounds to me as if it goes significantly deeper than this one issue - the drugs prices disagreement sounds like a symptom rather than the core problem. So if behavioural issues need addressing, as others have suggested, I think it should go to ArbCom which can consider in-depth issues in a way that ANI can't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Boing! said Zebedee I get that the RFC had points on both sides, but ultimately it failed to overturn the policy at WP:NOPRICES. You need consensus to overturn policy, and there was no consensus. Yes consensus can change and yes another RFC might be required. It would need to be a bit more truthful this time about the limitations of whatever sources we have, and the complexities of how to explain prices to our readers. Most of the support comments last time were of the "I think prices are useful" variety and "We have great sources for prices here and here" variety. I think a telling factor here is that nobody else than James added the prices, nobody updated them, nobody spotted that most of them were wrong/misleading, and nobody seems to care that the source used stopped being maintained with new prices in 2015. Nobody took the care to check that Hey, that price you say is for the Developing World, is actually just for war-torn DRC in 2014. Or Hey, that price you juxtapose with a wholesale price is actually a retail price. This could be that (a) our readers are not the slightest bit interested in prices in dollars and cents and (b) the editing community is not the slightest bit interested either. But woe betide anyone who dare remove a price. The forces of WP:MED will rise up against these obvious Big Pharma Shills and their censorship and squash them. Anyone who plays the WP:CENSOR card to support their editing on WP has IMO already lost the argument. -- Colin°Talk 16:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Colin, that all reinforces my belief that this is too deep and emotive to be settled by a simple ANI discussion. A 2-way fight between "Block Colin" and "Topic Ban Doc James" is not going to solve the problems that people suggest underlie all of this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the problem here is adding prices when MEDRS-compliant sourcing doesn't seem feasible (plus the WP:NOT policy context noted above); pricing also tends to fail WP:SYNTH. While Doc James might be driving this (a well-meaning effort since cost is a major concern in health care), I don't get the sense he's alone so I'm not sure a topic ban for one editor makes the most sense - perhaps WPMED needs a clear message on this topic (I'm too inexperienced to know the "right" way to do that, but the RFC did not ban addition of prices AFAIK, rather it provided no consensus for their addition in mainspace generally). The notes here about behavior are spot-on; as a physician and biomedical researcher I've been dispirited by the tone of discussions at WTMED - and have no interest in joining one of the factions. The prominent players here (Doc James and Colin in particular) tend to drive forward without consensus (or write a wall of text), quickly invoke old grievances, when we have so much less controversial content that deserves attention. — soupvector (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • soupvector, I haven't found any editor other than James adding prices to our drug articles, or edit warring to retain them (although others may join him in edit warring as diffed above). A few other WP:MED editors have taken "I support James" approach to discussions, but have not actually engaged in any policy or source based argument. The price additions were done on a mass scale and have been left to rot and age. The source used no longer maintained for five years. It seems very clear the community is not interested in adding or maintaining the prices, and until I started examining them, nobody had noticed that nearly all of them are wrong or very misleading to our readers. WP:MED used to prize accuracy and truthfulness in our articles. -- Colin°Talk 16:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • My perception is that accuracy is prized, but discussions are exhausting because brevity / succinctness / civility get too little attention. Reasonable people might learn to stay away from the drama fest? — soupvector (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Wrt accuracy, not if you examine any of the drug prices. There's more than one way to be uncivil. Edit warring is pretty uncivil. Slipping 300+ videos into Wikipedia with no edit summary is pretty uncivil. Making statements that are obviously false or misleading is uncivil. -- Colin°Talk 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Colin, perhaps you've forgotten that I came down strongly against the Osmosis videos, and was critical of the videowiki content. I read what you write and I respect nearly everything you do - except for the badgering. — soupvector (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a topic ban is an over-reaction, but adding prices (that are not, in themselves, of especial noteworthyness) contrary to the 2016 RfC is a problem, because edit warring invariably follows. If participants wish to change the guideline that that 2016 RfC offers, they are more than welcome to launch another RfC, with the aim of weighing the current consensus or lack thereof. El_C 16:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose — merely as a formality, see my response above regarding support of an indef block of Colin. Carl Fredrik talk 19:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No Not quite as terrible an idea as indef-blocking Colin (mainly because it's not as ludicrous), but no, that's not going to fly for the same reason. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The wrong solution for the wrong problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A word of caution from a member of the engineering community[edit]

I am an embedded systems engineer. If you are making an electronic toy at a rate of 100,000 units per hour and want to reduce your costs by 0.01 cents per unit I am your man. Medicine, not so much. I don't edit medical articles for the same reason that Colin and Doc James don't edit our articles on Cockcroft–Walton generators, Hall effect sensors or Negative resistance. I am very much an outsider in this situation, but I do understand the human aspect of how subject-matter experts like Colin and Doc James end up interacting with ANI and Arbcom.

In the above discussion, I am seeing a lot of discussion about user behavior, the usual "he creates content and has friends, so behavior that would get anyone else a 24-hour block gets a warning" bad attitude, and at least some examples of "Yeah, I know we aren't supposed to rule on content disputes, but dang it, this content dispute is just so darn interesting that I am going to forget the basic rules about ANI and content disputes just this once". I recognize the latter because I have seen it when engineers end up at ANI fighting over engineering content disputes.

My caution is for each of you to watch yourself carefully and only to deal with user behavior, without any hint of ruling on article content.

Nothing I wrote above should be construed as supporting either side on the content dispute or on the behavioral issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to second Guy Macon's analysis here. I also am not taking sides, but do note that the following problems are evident and blatant and occur quickly in the discussion:
  1. Legitimate concerns about behavior are, within seconds, quickly swept under the rug because the person who committed the alleged infractions "does good work" otherwise.
  2. Discussion veers away from behavior at all, and people start explicitly voting based upon their opinions of content.
We really need to stop this. I suspect that this discussion will go nowhere because the well has already been quite poisoned by the tangents the discussion has gone on. We really should ONLY be focusing on the matter at hand for this board, which is is there a problematic behavior being shown by a user and what should we do to address that. At no time should unrelated matters regarding content (either the content the accused user has contributed, or the content of the articles at the nexus of any dispute) ever really enter into the discussion. If there is competing bad behavior (that is, if the reporting party has also engaged in sanctionable offenses) then we of course should consider dealing with that as well, but we really need to keep content issues out of these discussions, and leave that to article talk pages and the normal WP:DR process. --Jayron32 15:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32, the way to stop it is, in my view, to establish what consensus actually is, and then abide by it. Guy (help!) 17:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Fine, but this is not the place we establish consensus on content. --Jayron32 17:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32, hence the link to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Product pricing above. Guy (help!) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Not only do we not establish consensus on content here, we don't address content at all. This is difficult. What happens when two editors clash, one is 100% right about the content but has misbehaved, and the other has not misbehaved at all but is 100% wrong about the content? Every admin then has a choice; either go to the article and work on getting the content right as an ordinary editor, abandoning the ANI case and obeying WP:INVOLVED, or choosing to comment on the behavior only on ANI with zero reference to the content. It is, of course, OK to use the tools to deal with someone who has introduced content that goes against consensus or violates policy, but the focus must be on the going against consensus or the violation of policy, not about what the content is or is not. This too is difficult. It is difficult because so many editors who get reported at ANI either were reported for the content they added/removed or point to the content they added/removed when confronted with their behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's really 100% in either direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Reasonable people may differ on this, but in my personal opinion it should be as close to 100% as possible, and admins should try to stay well inside the boundaries set by WP:INVOLVED rather than standing right on the line that they are not supposed to cross with their toes hanging over the line. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood you. What I meant is that I don't think either editor is 100% right or 100% wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I did misunderstand. Neither being 100% right is most likely true, but I don't feel qualified to say in my own voice that I have examined the evidence and am ready to opine on the content dispute. On the charges of misbehavior I haven't carefully followed the history and examined the evidence, so all I can say is that, if true, either refusing to stop pinging someone or refusing to abide by the result of an RfD should get you a 24-hour block to show you that we don't tolerate such behavior no matter who you are. Note the "if true" disclaimer and that I have not personally examined the evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for resolution[edit]

My reading of this and the prior debates is as follows:

  1. There is a fundamental and unresolved dispute between committed editors on the issue of when to include drug pricing.
  2. This has not been resolved despite several previous debates, and is being handled through editing disputes in articles and guidelines, whichi is disruptive and ineffective.
  3. The dispute, and perhaps some other unresolved underlying disputes, has contributed to polarisation and factionalism among an editing community that was formerly much more collaborative.
  4. Assessment of behaviour may be conditioned by opinions on the merits of the case being advanced, leading to competing demands for sanctions against members of other factions. This is a symptom of escalation of the unresolved dispute and is probably not helping. There has been an erosion of the assumption of good faith.

My proposals:

  1. The question of drug pricing is remitted to a single venue (I propose Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Product pricing).
  2. Editors are requested to formulate a consensus RfC to resolve the underlying issue, which will be published at WP:CENT for wider community input.
  3. The above debates will be subject to civility restrictions with strict enforcement of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, no WP:BLUDGEONing and no rehashing of grievances.
  4. There is an embargo on adding or removing pricing during this process.

Is this worth trying? Or should we simply start dragging the warring parties apart and applying escalating blocks? Guy (help!) 10:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Same user under different IPs stalking a user[edit]

A user by the name of Walter Görlitz has currently been stalked and had edit wars with an unknown user using multiple IP addresses. I won't put much here, but here's a discussion me and Walter had (where he states that the user has been hounding him for 'at least 6 months'), along with his contribs, and this craziness at Tim Miner. I might add extra updates to this situation as it unfolds. dibbydib 💬/ 02:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: Some IPs involved are 142.112.229.157, 184.153.56.220 (currently blocked) and 2600:1700:3221:1eb0:d84d:5bea:f93a:264. Note that many of these have little to no contribs. 02:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Changed my mind. dibbydib 💬/ 04:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? These IP addresses geolocate to New York, Tennessee, and Ottawa. And Walter violated 3RR to restore unsourced content in a BLP? Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've blocked Walter for a week for edit warring to restore unsourced content to a BLP. Not a huge BLP vio, but where someone lives could be considered private, and even if it wasn't, edit warring to restore unsourced content is fairly high up on the "never do this list", and to be honest, his edit summaries read like someone who isn't thinking rationally and are disruptive in themselves. His last edit warring block was 72 hours, so a week seemed the next step. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Abusive administrator Bbb23[edit]

(non-admin closure) This is pointless. There is no admin abuse here; rather, there is a user who can't understand why their edit was inappropriate. Amaury • 08:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harrassing, deleting my votes in AfD.MarcelB612 (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarcelB612: to answer your question, the rule would be WP:NOTFORUM (and WP:PPOV and WP:POLEMIC). Your edit was completely inappropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:FORUM has nothing whatsoever to do with this incident. My edit was not inappropriate at all. I voted in an AfD discussion and stated a perfectly valid reason for my vote. Polemical content is "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing", my statement was entirely related to encyclopedia editing and nothing else, was related only to Wikipedia as it should be, did not attack any editors, etc etc. Obviously you disagreed with my view, which is fine, that's why we take votes! But my view is completely reasonable and conforms with Wikipedia rules. In no way do ANY of the rules you stated apply to my vote. MarcelB612 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with EvergreenFir; voting to keep an article on the grounds that you think that it is bad and therefore "serves as a great example to warn people about what a disaster Wikipedia has become" is not a serious effort to participate in a discussion. The vote was properly removed, and further agitation in this direction should be dealt with appropriately. BD2412 T 05:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As mentioned by others, MarcelB612's vote was a WP:POINT violation and was correctly struck. Anyone wanting to participate in discussions at Wikipedia needs to do so in a reasonable manner. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, what the EvergreenFir, BD2412, Johnuniq said. MarcelB612, should drop this now instead of trying to escalate this further. —SpacemanSpiff 06:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Whenever you hear about "administrator abuse" it almost always turns out that it is the administrator who is being abused. I cannot understand why anyone would want the job. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Money
    Power
    Fame
    Must be the t-shirt. Levivich 07:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Admin T-shirt2.png
Wait, we were supposed to be given a T-shirt? DMacks (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I have a really old black hoodie sweatshirt that has a cool "Wikipedia Ambassador" logo on it, with the jigsaw puzzle piece globe on the back. It is so uncool that nobody ever mentions it when I am wearing my it. People probably think that I am crazy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with others that MarcelB612 needs to stop this silly point violation "protest". If they don't, a WP:BOOMERANG block may very well be in order. Personally, I'd normal suggest that in a case where the !vote is so clearly nonsense it's probably not necessary to strike it out, but this is a very long AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User Feoffer Eliminating Valuable References[edit]

A user called Feoffer is going around Wikipedia and eliminating all references to articles by Massimo Introvigne and works published by CESNUR. He also claims I have a conflict of interest with respect to Introvigne and CESNUR. I deny this, but this is immaterial for the present discussion.

Feoffer is eliminating references to material written by Introvigne or published by CESNUR included by editors other than me as well.

He has quoted sources dating back to the “cult wars” describing Introvigne and CESNUR as defenders of “cults.” From this he derives the idea that everything past present or future written by Introvigne or other CESNUR scholars should disappear from Wikipedia.

I may agree that some pieces written during the cult controversies of the 1990s may be polemical rather than scholarly and that as for all authors, the quality of hundreds is articles and dozens of books by Introvigne is uneven. However, Feoffer’s actions are eliminating valid information on a massive scale.

Eg he has eliminated here [221] a reference to an article by Introvigne in a primary Portuguese academic journal. Here [222] he has eliminated a reference to a CESNUR research project co-managed by University of Turin and published by the leading Italian academic press. And so on ad nauseam. Presumably he eliminated articles he didn’t even read.

I do not claim that every word Introvigne wrote or CESNUR published is RS. But a lot is. In the conclusions of the standard textbook on the history of the scholarly study of new religious movements, American academic W. Michael Ashcraft, not affiliated with CESNUR that I know of, writes that “the largest outlet currently supporting research on NRMs is the Center for Studies on New Religions...the CESNUR website is a cornucopia of information on hundreds of NRMs.” Professor Ashcraft also calls Introvigne “one of the most influential scholars on NRM studies today” due to his “endless capacity to produce quality scholarship” (W. Michael Ashcraft, “ A Historical Introduction to the Study of New Religious Movements,” London: Routledge 2018, 236 - the page is accessible through Google Books; for an example of reviews hailing Ashcraft’s as an authoritative book see [223]).

Another example of how Introvigne is assessed by scholars in the 21st century is Professor Per Faxneld’s review of his massive book on Satanism in the book review journal of the American Academy of Religion at [224]. Introvigne is described as “among the founding fathers of the field of Satanism studies. Introvigne is not only that, of course, but also one of the major names in the study of new religions in general.” Introvigne’s book “The Plymouth Brethren” has been published by Oxford University Press in 2018 and again favorably reviewed (eg in [225] where Introvigne is defined as “widely known for his work on new religious movements and as the managing director of the influential Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR).”

I can go on and on with quotes from academics but it is obvious that Introvigne and CESNUR are considered in general as RS in the academic community.

Feoffer has also eliminated all quotes from Bitter Winter, a bulletin on religion in China edited by Introvigne, as not RS. Interestingly, the US State Department’s last yearly report on religious liberty in its section on China quotes Bitter Winter 15 times. See [226]. It is obviously a RS for the US State Department. It is also often mentioned by mainline media.

Worse, Feoffer eliminated everything scholars published in “The Journal of CESNUR.” While as for any journal some articles are better than others, it is not yet indexed only because it started publication recently but its founders who formed its first board are well-known scholars [227] including Eileen Barker, Antoine Faivre and J. Gordon Melton. Feoffer has cancelled articles by university professors just because they were published by CESNUR. I do not want to argue about motivations but clearly this behavior should be stopped, and the fact that, possibly with the exception of some early pieces of controversy, CESNUR and Introvigne are RS in their field. Aidayoung (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that Feoffer really did that. E.g. at List of messiah claimants, Abd-ru-shin, Grail Movement, In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. There were more references which could be said were "redundant", but he/she selectively selected the Introvigne references for termination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, yup. I congratulate Feoffer on cleaning up what seems to be a long-term promotional campaign. Guy (help!) 10:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Aidayoung, I really like Feoffer as a user. Although I often disagree with him, he's always open to level-headed discussion, which I appreciate. I do have to admit that he has been on a tear against CESNUR recently and I think he should carefully reconsider his trend of blanket removal of CESNUR or CESNUR-related citations. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 14:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's nothing 'blanket' or simple about cleaning up onwiki promotion. You can't just search all and hit delete, you have to actually examine how and in some cases even who inserted the material. Feoffer (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#CESNUR as a source for articles on New religious movements. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Phil Bridger, There has not been a consensus either way. I will note that CESNUR articles have been cited extensively when I search them in Google Scholar, which is an indicia of reliability. May His Shadow Fall Upon You📧 17:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why I was pinged here. All I did was link, without commenting, to the most recent discussion of this that I could find, to inform this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

True, any paper indexed by Google which remotely looks like an academic paper gets indexed by Google Scholar. Even this paper of ro:Lorin Fortuna, which talks about snake-illian and gorillian civilizations, among other civilizations (which belong to either esotericism or systematized delirium, take your pick). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So, you see, any biased hack could publish at Google Scholar. Otherwise, publications by Introvigne at Routledge, Oxford University Press and Giunti Editore (one of the oldest publishing houses in the world) should not be conflated with CESNUR. CENSUR has been criticized as an advocacy group—I'm not saying that it is true or false, just that there is criticism of it. On the other hand, if we compare CESNUR with the Satanism moral panic, CESNUR is definitely the reliable outlet.
If you think I'm too harsh on Fortuna, see https://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/audio-revolutionarul--lorin-fortuna-ratacit-periculos-1_50abdc977c42d5a66381816d/index.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is obviously largely governed by opinions on "cults." However, user Feoffer has eliminated everything referencing Introvigne and CESNUR authors even when their work has been published by indexed journals such as the Journal of Religion and Violence and presses well-known for their rigorous peer-review process such as Brill and Oxford University Press. This is beyond any acceptable policy, given also the evaluations by Introvigne/CESNUR in the academic community I have mentioned above. One should also not confuse criticism of CESNUR/Introvigne 20 years ago and CESNUR as it is now. Associations and scholars go from the first steps to maturity just as everybody else. Aidayoung (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia precedent long predating me has held CESNUR is not a reliable source. It would appear that CESNUR has engaged in a sustained campaign of WP:PROMOTION here. I've tried to cleanup some references to CESNUR that seemed promotional or otherwise inappropriate, while still preserving the valid references to CESNUR. Feoffer (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned many time, it is not my intention to start a flame war with you, Feiffer, who may have made valid contributions to Wikipedia. I do not find any consensus that CESNUR is not a reliable source, but perhaps there is some confusion about what CESNUR means here. CESNUR may mean in fact different sources - perhaps this distinction may help us to come to an agreement.

1. An old discussion in Wikipedia referred to polemical articles published by CESNUR (mostly criticizing Stephen Kent) during the “cult wars.” Several users disputed that these articles were RS although a proper consensus was perhaps not really reached. This discussion referred to articles published in CESNUR’s Web site at cesnur.org, which appears to be a repository of very different material, some speeches given in CESNUR conferences and some simple updates and notes. I would agree that texts published there should be examined on a case by case basis. Some date back to more than twenty years ago and some are recent. Some are rough drafts of speeches given at conferences, some occasional notes, etc.

2. Recent, inconclusive discussions concern The Journal of CESNUR. It is a novel journal, which started its publication in 2017. It is not or perhaps not yet indexed and does not carry the authority of indexed journals. Waiting for possible indexing, it appears to me that eliminating all articles published there is abusive. The Journal has a peer review policy [228]. You can declare that anything coming from CESNUR is suspicious but I doubt the founders of the Journal, most of whom are quite well-known scholars [229] would risk their reputation by declaring peer reviewed something that isn’t. I can agree with you that some articles were worse than others but this happen with all journals, including the most famous ones. At any rate The Journal of CESNUR is a new journal, its board is different from CESNUR’s board, and any criticism referred to the CESNUR Web site (the more so to articles published ten or even twenty years ago) cannot apply to it automatically. As mentioned in the Eastern Lightning talk page, you eg deleted all references to articles by Professor Holly Folk, a credentialed academic, only because they were published in The Journal of CESNUR.

3. In 2018, CESNUR started publishing Bitter Winter. Again, apart from Introvigne, contributors to Bitter Winter (mostly Chinese) are different from contributors to the CESNUR Web site. As mentioning earlier, the U.S. Department of State considered Bitter Winter a RS on China and quoted it 15 times in its latest report on religious liberty in China [230]. I can go on and quote several mainline media using Bitter Winter as RS but do not want to be too long. You have eliminated many references to Bitter Winter articles just because they came from Bitter Winter. Again, comments on texts that appeared on CESNUR’s web site many years ago cannot automatically extend to Bitter Winter. Interestingly, you deleted all references to Bitter Winter, Introvigne and other CESNUR scholars in the Eastern Lightning article. I just came across a report by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, a government agency, at [231] on Eastern Lightning. While it duly notes that corroborating information could not be found due to the fact that many primary sources are inaccessible, you will note that the Board, looking for expert on Eastern Lightning sought the assistance of the “ Director, Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR)” - obviously Introvigne - and other scholars explicitly mentioned as associated with CESNUR. Here, we have authors considered as RS by a government on a very obscure and difficult matter but eliminated by you from Wikipedia as not RS just because of where they publish their articles.

4. Finally, “CESNUR” may mean the directors and board members of CESNUR, including its co-founder Massimo Introvigne. You have eliminated a number of texts by Massimo Introvigne claiming there is a consensus that everything he wrote or writes is not RS. There is no such a consensus, although I may agree that among a large number of articles some may be of lower quality. Also, scholars and organizations evolve and Introvigne has written its most acclaimed books in English in the last 4-5 years. You have cancelled references to texts by Massimo Introvigne en masse, even not published by CESNUR, including some published by undoubtedly peer-reviewed presses and indexed journals. The problem here is that the academic community may be divided on issues such as “cults” or Scientology, but a book reviewed as a crucial reference for the history of the study of new religious movements assesses Introvigne as “one of the most influential scholars on NRM studies today” due to his “endless capacity to produce quality scholarship,” as mentioned before, and other academics I have quoted agree. Not only RS but according to these scholarly sources, one of the most authoritative RS in his field! I believe that this is not necessarily contradicting the early negative judgement by Professor Kent, as they may refer to different works. Kent and Introvigne were barking a lot at each other back then, but the other sources I quote are assessing Introvigne as the mature scholar he is now, with two books published by leading academic publishers in English in his bibliography, not the “young Turk” described by Kent almost twenty years ago.

5. You have also cancelled several texts published in the encyclopedia World Religions and Spirituality Project, apparently because you and some other editors concluded that an article published by this encyclopedia by Introvigne on Oleg Maltsev was not reliable. I do not want to revisit that specific controversy. It may well be that some articles in WRSP are worse than others (or that Introvigne is so busy that as all “influential scholars” do he may sign texts written by research assistants), but if you look at the index of WRSP you will see that it includes several hundred entries, mostly by tenured professors, most of them without any relations with CESNUR. You have eliminated several articles by WRSP without the analysis you at least made for the Maltsev article, meaning that just because you found one article there you judged of inferior quality (among hundreds) you have decided that the whole huge encyclopedia is not a RS.

I and others here do not dispute that some texts written by Introvigne or his CESNUR colleagues are of lower quality and hence not RS. But given the current prevailing assessment of Introvigne in the academic community studying new religions as “one of the most influential scholars” in this field, solid reasons should be given before eliminating references to his texts, the more so when they are published in peer-reviewed journals and presses.

I hope this matter may be solved amicably but should invite Feoffer to revisit the edits he made and revert those where the only reason he cancelled valuable information was a connection to Introvigne, CESNUR, The Journal of CESNUR or Bitter Winter. Aidayoung (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The war against the Journal of CESNUR in WP is definitely inappropriate. This journal has good renowned academics publishing in it, and should be accepted as RS as any other of its kind. Then depending on the author of each article, and the content of it, various judgments may be made. But no general ban as it looks that some people would like. They entered in an ideological war, not an encyclopedic one, and it's a shame. Le luxembourgeois (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that I indeffed the above user as a pretty clear sock of Aidayoung. Since they have been around since 2009, we probably have a bigger sockfarm than I thought. Likely Aidayoung must be indeffed as well, but I have no time no to file an SPI.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, increased to indef. The socking plus the disruption is well into WP:NOTHERE territory, IMO. Guy (help!) 10:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption and promotion from Aidayoung[edit]

Aida continues their pattern of promotion of Introvigne: [232][233]

Edit Warring on Massimo Introvigne: [234][235][236][237]

Aida has continued to misrepresent the views of others. This was just at ANI where there was widespread agreement that Aidayoung has a conflict of interest on this topic

After the recent discussions at ANI, it was hoped Aida might follow a self-imposed topic ban to assuage COI concerns, but that seems not to be the case. Feoffer (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I believed some common sense may be injected here...
You keep repeating that including positive comments on Introvigne or CESNUR is promotion while what you do (collecting and including all negative comments wherever you find them) and including them in Wikipedia is "objective." You also did not answer why you are systematically deleting all references to Introvigne's and CESNUR's work even when it is published in peer-reviewed journals, and why criticism to articles published by CESNUR twenty years ago should justify your systematic deletion of everything published in "The Journal of CESNUR."
Btw, I just came across Ashcraft's book in my university library. If I was Introvigne's "secretary" or "paid agent," presumably I would have known of that book published in 2018 and used it long ago. The book deals with his specialized field and it would be strange Introvigne did not know of it. Ashcraft has no association with CESNUR and his book was reviewed inter alia by University of Sydney's Carole Cusack as "highly recommended to all interested in the history of the academic study of religion and in new religions in particular. It is warmly commended as an excellent work." See [238].Aidayoung (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Cusack is also not affiliated with CESNUR that I know of. Aidayoung (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear lord. Is this a joke? Nobody cares about your university library, and nobody has any way of verifying what you should or shouldn't have already know about... This is just tissue-thin nonsense. You added a cherry-picked quote from an obscure source to support a very specific, very flattering perspective you've been injecting into articles for several years. With only a handful of exceptions, all of your edits have been closely connected to this person and his work. All we can verify is your activity. We cannot know when you became aware of something in some library somewhere. You behavior has been overwhelmingly focused on padding-out minutia in service of this one person and his project. Trying to spin this book's publication date as proof of something or other only proves you're willing to play facile games to promote this person's work. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice joke but i remains book by Ashcraft is not "obscure" in the field and a relevant source for the topic. Aidayoung (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who brought it up. It doesn't matter if it won the Nobel Prize for Hagiography, the problem is that you have wasted a lot of time on these TL:DR posts defending this one lawyer and his publishing work, and have constantly changed the subject whenever anyone points out the red flags this raises. The Ashcraft book is yet another deflection. It proves nothing about your behavior, and bringing it up makes this tedious wall of text even longer, meaning it's even less likely anyone will bother to read it. You have been adding unacceptably promotional content to these articles for over a decade, so it's not unreasonable to ask you to explain this. Grayfell (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I blocked for 31h for edit-warring, but the talk page suggeste that the user has been involved in long-term disruptive activity promoting obscure cults, and it should be seriously considered whether their further participation in the Russian Wikipedia would be beneficial.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
They've been up to it for nearly 13 years... 31 hours is but a stopgap I'm afraid. Feoffer (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

EOP Gatekeeper - Executive Office Of The President editing our articles[edit]

Probably should be a heads up on this one, but I didn't know where to post this. Bureaucrats? Jimbo? Anyone? WP:RFPP had a request for help on disruptive editing on Washington Examiner. I reverted the edits and protected the page. There were numerous edits re-writing the article, from IP 204.68.207.13 . Who Is Gateway and What Is My Address both confirm this IP is the Executive Office of the President of the United States. Not entirely surprising, but how do we handle this? — Maile (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The notes on blocking sensitive IP addresses are here Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_IP_addresses WilyD 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This IP (Special:Contributions/204.68.207.13) is not listed in the table of sensitive IP addresses nor on the handy list in the block settings window, but everything about the technical data and the contact domain name and such suggest that it should be. Nonetheless, it's clearly edit-warring, and considering the source, also blatantly violating WP:COI. Protecting the page was the correct approach, and I have sent a message to the WMF communications committee. (courtesy ping GVarnum-WMF Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Just another day in Wikiland... –MJLTalk 18:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A 3RR report was just removed due to this discussion. It seems to me that issues with the EOP edits in general are distinct from issues with the IP user edit warring, so I just want to make sure both are addressed. Dyrnych (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Technically Dyrnych is right that as I understand it, and rereading the above page seems to confirm my view, you are allowed to block sensitive IPs as you normally would except you should avoid long blocks, which weren't justified here anyway. You should take care with your block message, and should make sure your block is justified since it could easily receive media attention; and for that reason are supposed to notify the WMF when you block. But otherwise I don't think there's any limitations on blocking. Still I don't begrudge an admin not wanting to step in that minefield. And while I'm personally normally opposed to semiprotecting when it's likely a block will do (since it prevents other IP editors for no reason), in this case it seems a reasonable course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Repeated addition of non-free images without relevant NFURs.[edit]

User talk:213.205.241.118 has warnings about repeatedly adding non-free images without relevant NFURs for use on the pages in question, but he continues to do so, such as at Saudi Arabia national football team. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This kind of thing happens quite a lot since many editors (not only new editors) often mistakenly assume all images are the same and are unaware of things like WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. This happens quite a lot in sports team articles like national football(soccer) team articles; someone sees see an image used in one article , and just automatically assumes it's OK for the same image to be used in other related articles. Sometimes all that is missing is a non-free use rationale (FUR) and that can be fixed by anyone who feels up to it per WP:NFCCE, but other times simply adding a missing FUR is not enough per WP:JUSTONE because there are other non-free content use criteria not being met as well. In some cases, like files have been previously discussed at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD and the consensus was to remove them, but most editors will not be aware of this without doing some digging through the article's page history or looking on the file's page/talk page for mentions of such discussion.
FWIW, there are bots (like JJMC89 bot) which go around like for non-free files without corresponding FURs being added to articles, and they will remove the files and leave an edit summary explaining why. Other editors who work with files may also remove the files or add the missing rationale (if they think the use is justified) per NFCCE; sometimes even using templates like {{di-missing some article links}} and {{Missing rationale2}} is done in lieu of simply removing a file when things might be a borderline case. Most of the time this type of issue gets sorted out without going to ANI.
The question in this case is whether the IP is knowingly ignoring your warnings and continuing to add non-free files without corresponding rationales despite the user warnings they've been receiving, and whether that disruption should lead to the account being blocked. Most IPs like this usually show up for burst of editing and then disappear, and pretty much never respond to anything posted on their user talk (they might not even be aware they have a user talk). For sure there might be some cases, where the IP is actually someone who has a regular account (perhaps they've been blocked) who's aware of the relevant policy but just doesn't like it; however, it seems pretty hard to try and establish such a thing based upon a hunch. This particular IP doesn't seem to be going back (at least not yet) and re-adding any files which might have been removed; so, maybe it might be better just to wait until the bots remove the files and then see what the IP does, If they come back and re-add the files without making any attempt to explain why, then perhaps that's one step closer to a block. If they don't come back or don't re-add the files, then blocking them would seems to be more to punish them than to prevent any further disruption. This IP made a handful of unrelated edits early in the year, stopped editing, and then reappeared a few days ago to start adding files to articles; so, perhaps they will disappear again. Anyway, they seem to have stopped for the moment and maybe nothing other then some cleaning up after them is all that is really needed at this time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Not sure it is a socking issue too. Not long ago, a very new user did the same: Simonnollaigcaomhanach (talk · contribs). Matthew hk (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

I don't think this warrants administrative sanctions, but the less formal request has bounced [[239]] as it apparently requires the other editor to participate in the discussion [[240]] - User insists on reverting to plagiarism on article Diotima_of_Mantinea. I don't know how to make the issue any clearer to them since they don't seem interested in the article's discussion page. Not the reason why I started editing, and a poor way to stop if the editor were collaborating at all, but given the circumstances, frankly, it will do. A quick search only gives me Template:Uw-copyright-new which seems excessive. Perhaps someone they'd be more inclined to listen to could give them a nice message instead? Emelkaji (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Emelkaji: can you please show the source of the alleged copyright violation? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a temporary picture [[241]]. Source is [[242]].Emelkaji (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It's still not clear to me what the issue is. Is it plagiarism or copyright violation? They are related, but distinct, things. Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as one's own, but copyright violation is a legal concept that protects the words (or images, music etc.) created by someone else from being reproduced without permission. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for referring to the content as "plagiarism". The issue is then copyvio, ostensibly through plagiarism of an editor [243] - though the old revision history has been cleared, it seems a first cleanup missed some of the copyvio words, and left them bereft of context. I've nonetheless rewritten the words so that they would, as far as I can tell, no longer be copyvio. I think it would be nice for the rewritten version of those words to not be reverted to the copyvio version of those words. I also think it would be nice if editors were to discuss rather than resort to rule-lawyering of this sort, however that is not the issue.Emelkaji (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an obvious copyvio, I've restored Emelkaji's version for now. Paul August 19:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Picture has accordingly been deleted. As I will no longer be following the matter, please notify me if help is later needed with the source.Emelkaji (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The filer did not name the other party in the dispute. I am guessing that the original copyvio is due to material added in 2016 by User:Kristy.m, a person who is no longer active. The party who was recently warring with Emelkaji was User:Antinoos69. The academic paper copied was presumably by Nancy Evans, as I show above at the top of this section. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Elfboy758[edit]

Indeffed. --Michael Greiner 04:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smells like a sock, hasn't responded to any of my talk page notices and he keeps adding stuff that violates WP:CRYSTAL. I don't want to break WP:3RR so I'm leaving a note for you peeps. Whispering(t) 02:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Whispering - I just wanted to apologize here to you for reverting your most recent edit / reversion of this user. I did not realize that he was violating WP:Crystal and I have reverted my own edits accordingly once I realized why you made that change. Michepman (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Michepman - It's all good. Whispering(t) 03:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by User:Alybood on their talk page[edit]

lblocked. El_C 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor in question added the (claimed) name of the woman with John Entwistle on the night he died to the respective article. I AGF-reverted as unsourced and left them the "unsourced" welcome, they readded without a source, I reverted again and warned again for unsourced additions, they readded, claimed to be the person in question, and cited an ebook they wrote, I reverted one last time and said that that's not a reliable source (and am done reverting for now, WP:3RR and all that). They proceeded to make a legal threat on their talk page ("Put it baxk or faxe legal action you tirant" (sic)). I gave them the legal threats warning, they doubled down here and here (as far as I'm concerned, phrases like "defamation" and "slanderous action to my public image" suggest interest in legal action) creffett (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you also tell the admins that my name was previously a verified fact of this bio for over a decade or that I am the person in question? Did you tell the admins that you are defaming a previously wiki verified fact of that bio page included for over a decade by removal of the edits? And that I am a public figure and your putting this put publicli IS crossing legal territory of defamation by stating I am a liar and by the action of removal will also be considered legally defamatory. I was not vandalizing....as you put it...anyone's page but simply reinstating a previously verfied fact to a page that had been there a decade. Don't cry wolf and leave out facts like you do on the bio page you are harassing me over. And now you drag this onto a public source as to try and defame, humiliate and slander me even more? I consider this harassment on YOUR behalf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alybood (talkcontribs) 04:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I had a thorough and point-by-point rebuttal put together for this, but it's pretty clear that you're going to continue to call me removing an unsourced claim in an article harassment, defamation, and what have you, no matter what I say. The fact of the matter is that you've been informed of the relevant Wikipedia policies on sourcing (and legal threats) and don't seem interested in following them. There's nothing more for me to say here. creffett (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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