Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066 - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images

This user has committed WP:Personal attack in two occasions to different users over at Tajmuraz Salkazanov. To put things in context, Salkazanov is a naturalized Slovak freestyle wrestler of Russian origins who represents Slovakia. This could be explained on many different ways in the main description section (such as ... is a Russian–born Slovak... or ...is a Russian–Slovak freestyle wrestler who represents Slovakia...), however, I think this is the best way to put it as it solves the question "why is he Slovak?", because it's evident that he earned the citizenship of the country he represents via naturalization. This could have perfectly been civilly discussed, however, User Baroni opted to insult anyone who didn't think like he did. He thought the article should be described as an 100% Russian wrestler who represents Slovakia, but is not Slovak, just Russian. In another article of the same conditions (Achsarbek Gulajev), he even wrote the stub template as a "Russian wrestler stub" instead of Slovak, in my opinion, clearly because of bias towards Russia.

The first time he reverted the edits thats showed Salkazanov as Slovak, he just wrote why you deleted his natialisty? he's a Russian and have never refused his natinality even though I never deleted his past in Russia, I wrote "Slovak ... of Russian origins", same as in Yasmani Acosta for example. Now going back to the personal attacks, the first one came towards other user (User:Martimix) who had reverted Baroni's edit to mine, saying are you dumb?? he has a Russian citizenship, he is not slovak heritage. He is still Russian even though once again, nobody said he was not Russian. I was simply not going to argue against that because it wasn't an argument or anything worth it, so while adding more info, I reinstalled the previous version. Baroni then, without argument once again, reverted for the second time, to which I also reverted his for the second time. In response, Baroni commits his second offense while not really changing anything, just insulting me by saying chilean kunt, which is obviously directed towards me because I am a native Chilean citizen as seen in my user page.

I decided not to engage in any kind of discussion with someone who just insults instead of reasoning, and I notified User:Cassiopeia, an administrator who has been extremely helpful to me in a lot of stuff. He informed me of details of edit warring, explained what Baroni had done in terms of Wikipedia's policy and also informed me of the possibility of reporting this in this page as he had already notified Baroni of his behaviour. I then pretty much thanked him and explained my point of view, to which Cassiopeia told me to let him know if I was going to report. Thanks. PabloLikesToWrestle (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: User Baroni has been a long time editor and should know such comments - "dumb" and "chilean kunt" which the later clearly pointed toward User:PabloLikesToWrestle as the editor is from Chile (see editor user page) are not acceptable at all and against Wikipedia personal attack guidelines by (1) using defamatory or derogatory phrase and editor nationality "chilean kunt" and (2) Insulting the editor by commenting the editor "dumb" instead of discussing the issues in hand. Cassiopeia(talk) 06:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe that David Gerard's indiscriminate removal of deprecated sources constitutes disruptive editing. The WP:DEPRECATED guideline says "[c]itations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." When a user does 4-5 such edits per minute is it obvious that it's indiscriminate removal.

The first example is here. The information was removed wholesale. It took me about a minute to find the same information in the Guardian. I've notified the editor about this.

Here's the second example. Even assuming that Russia Today is not reliable for the official position of Russian government, it's not that hard to find Medvedev's words elsewhere or simply put [better source needed] or [citation needed] tag.

I should probably add in general I agree that the less Russia Today is used the better for Wikipedia (with some rare exceptions) and have removed links to it and to other unreliable sources myself. Alaexis¿question? 17:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's so easy to replace the information in the rare cases where it can be replaced, what's the problem? (Also, WP:DEPRECATED isn't even a guideline.) WP:RSP notes, Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. I'd say that the work of careful review has already been done; in any given case of an RT citation, the burden lies on the side of showing that it should be included. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
XOR I think it's more the speed that it's done at as well as the fact a huge chunk of information is sometimes removed.I don't see why it has to be done almost instantly and why it cannot be tagged-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Because we've had hundreds or thousands of citations to a state propaganda organization polluting our encyclopedia? The presumption has to be that (a) the citation needs to go, and (b) any material supported by it is unreliable. (Even in the rare cases where one might guess them to be factually accurate — say, quoting the words of a state official — if all we have is a propaganda outlet, then we have no grounds to include that quotation. NPOV means basing inclusion on representation in reliable sources.) We need more and faster removals of RT, not the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Deprecated does not equal "banned" and perhaps the only source that has any type of outright ban on use from the community is Daily Mail with relation to BLP. Deprecated sources should be removed but with care not to disrupt the encyclopedia, and the presumption that material presented only sourced to deprecated sources is tainted and thus must also be removed is a bad fallacy (as proven by OP post). --Masem (t) 19:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
An example where the material could be restored with a better source doesn't prove that material from an absolutely unreliable source should be kept by default. In the first cited example, not all of the removed content was restored. And in the second, a Google News search for Medvedev's quote ("We are categorically against drawing parallels between the Balkan events and the events in the Caucasus") finds no hits, while a DDG search returns only Russia Today and Wikipedia mirrors. So, we have no WP:RS indicating that the exact quote is worthy of inclusion. The disruption to the encyclopedia was the inclusion of propaganda as "sources" in the first place, not its removal. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
A similar discussion was held at WP:RS/N and I don't think we ever got a definitive answer about the immediate removal of deprecated sources from articles that aren't BLPs. I think it would be better if the sources were marked with [better source needed] like Alaexis suggests, giving editors the chance to find and replace the source. I found David Gerard's removal of the information attributed to a deprecated source more disruptive than just the removal of the source. There are now articles out there with gaps and paragraphs that no longer make sense. I think I'd prefer a [citation needed] tag added instead of that situation. Least if a source cannot be found, the information can be removed by someone who is familiar with the topic and can rewrite the article around it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I was looking just now for examples to discuss specifics, and it appears that David Gerard has taken to replacing RT citations with {{citation needed}} rather than removing the associated text in cases where the article flow would be significantly broken [1][2][3][4]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I should say "has been", rather than "has taken to", since he didn't just start today [5][6][7][8]. Also for Sputnik, e.g., [9]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
At least as I see it the answer we got was that both removing the sourced information plus the text, just replacing the citation with a Cn tag, and doing an in-depth search to try and source at least part of the text where appropriate and up to editorial discretion but that in BLP circumstances there simply is no option and both *must* be removed or properly sourced (admittedly that is kind of a non-answer). I think we should be willing to accept whatever level of work an editor is willing to do that improves the encyclopedia, removing deprecated sources almost always improves wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
See the WP:V policy, specifically WP:BURDEN: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. + Some editors object to others' making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. A lot of these articles don't have lots of watchers and are only infrequently materially changed. Content removed may be lost for a long time or permanently. Indiscriminate mass removal of unreliable sources without spending at least 1 min to Google or check nearby sources in the article probably isn't in line with policy. If that is usually done but these were irregular omissions then that's a different thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that the articles not having lots of watchers and being only infrequently materially changed is part of the problem. If they're wallowing in obscurity, then replacing bad citations with {{cn}} tags isn't going to help very much: the content drawn from those bad citations will just sit there, being propagandistic, without anyone coming along to fix it. If more dramatic removals are what it takes to get the pages fixed, then so much the better for dramatic removals. Moreover, we're not just dealing with material that lacks an inline citation to a reliable source; we're facing material based on a manifestly unreliable source. The cost-benefit calculus of removal is different when the source is actively misleading. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
One can go a step further than just tagging by just Googling the fact and seeing if a source pops up, then replacing with a different cite. It takes about a minute for many facts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that, even if sourcing a claim takes "about a minute" (which I consider to be an extremely short estimate), he is removing them far quicker than that. For example, on April 26 we see a whole four diffs in the space of less than one minute. This isn't something that one person can realistically deal with. jp×g 20:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
None of those damaged the articles in question by making their prose disjointed (and the fourth was a swap-with-{{cn}} edit). Also, there are something like 1,500 RT citations yet remaining. That is a problem that no one person can realistically deal with. (At a minute a pop, it would still be 25 hours of work.) Making a dent by cutting redundant citations, removing lengthy quotes from state officials, excising RT from "External links", and swapping out the occasional maybe-salvagable entry with a {{cn}} is a good way to start. And in all that I've seen reading back through Special:Contributions/David_Gerard so far, that pretty much characterizes them. What, exactly, has been broken here? Because I'm not seeing it yet. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia content is supposed to have a reliable source. In my (not inconsiderable) experience, people will demand, with equal coinfidence, that deprecated sources may not be removed until the person removing has found another source (wrong: it's the job of the person including content to source it reliably), that the source should be removed and replaced with {{cn}} (wrong: only the most uncontroversial information may be left unsourced), and that the content must be removed entirely. David has a long history of being anything but indiscriminate in how he handles this choice. Also: RT is 100% unreliable. It's Russian state media and as trustworthy as Pravda ever was. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I recall having read in a page history a dispute between David Gerard and an FA writer over whether it was acceptable to use the Daily Mail to cite "the Daily Mail said this". After a bit of poking, I found it here. For BLPs, I'm inclined to go "yeah, mass-removing is at worst a bit quick and at best necessary", but I can't see that action as being anything but indiscriminate. Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Screw this, this is exactly the wrong time for me to get into conversations on ANI. Please no one ping me here for, like, a month. Vaticidalprophet 21:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, "$UnreliableSource X said Y, source, $UnreliableSource X saying Y" is exactly the kind of shit we should be removing. Reliable, independent, secondary. It's a trifecta, not a "pick one". Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
On top of that, the claim in question was BLP material, even though the article was about a painting. The first line of WP:BLP says that it applies to any Wikipedia page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I remember the example at Talk:Hugh_Walpole#Removal_of_deprecated_source and history popping up on my watchlist some months ago wrt MoS, I'm not even sure that removal was in line with policy (specifically WP:RSEDITORIAL, if not WP:EW). Other edits remove historical usages of the source or sourcing uncontroversial facts, both explicitly permitted by the RfCs, eg Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case. It's hard to say this is anything but indiscriminate and IMO DG's interpretation of policy/consensus is broader than the actual consensus. This is not necessarily an issue, or at least not necessarily a remediable one, but I think it wouldn't hurt to at least make a token effort to find another source when making removals, even if it slows down DG's rate slightly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Although the majority of edits to remove deprecated sources by this editor are valid, a substantial minority are disruptive and remove pertinent information where a reliable source could be found easily. This results in a substantial amount of damage to the project, which outweighs the benefits of cleaning up the sources in my opinion. This is a long-standing problem (and not the only area of controversy this edit is embroiled in) and furthermore any attempt to challenge these bad edits results in hostile and uncalled for responses by this editor (and a number of allied editors). I feel that sanctions are required. Shritwod (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, the fans of deprecated sources consider any removal "indiscriminate", and often treat their favoured deprecated source as somehow worthy of greater consideration than merely bad sources that anyone would remove on sight. They will go to tremendous lengths to find excuses why bad sources are good, actually.

The appropriate policy is WP:V, which explicitly refers to the strong guideline WP:RS as the way to proceed.

WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.

WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. Sputnik and RT are deprecated sources. This means they have been found, by broad general consensus, to be all but unusable on Wikipedia.

The deprecation RFC for Sputnik says: Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. A significant proportion of editors describe Sputnik as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. The deprecation RFC for RT says: There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Wikipedia content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail.

The referenced 2017 deprecation RFC for the Daily Mail says that it is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

(Note that a lot of the arguments above are the same arguments that Daily Mail and Sun partisans use, including Daily Mail partisans who are still unwilling to accept two broad general RFCs deprecating the Daily Mail.)

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

As such, removing links to Sputnik and RT is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.

So if you want material from these sources - which have been found, by a broad general RFC consensus, to be fabricated propaganda sources - then the onus is surely, by policy, 100% on you to find an RS to keep the material in. If you think I have this wrong, please explain why I have the policy above incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to hear from the people who don't want me to remove their favourite deprecated sources, detailing what they're doing about our backlog of deprecated sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop acting like a stuck record and address the issues. Shritwod (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I literally just did, thanks. But I look forward to why you think my understanding of policy is incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
You are using your personal interpretation of policies to justify lazy editing. Yes, these are not reliable sources but in many cases reliable sources exist. You just don't bother to find them. That is vandalism in my opinion, and your continued refusal to alter your behaviour should be sanctioned. Shritwod (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
According to the relevant policy, On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Moreover, Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. There is no way that DG's actions qualify as vandalism. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Removing improperly sourced material is a legitimate maintenance task. You might wish that the person doing so find a source, but they are not obligated to do so and "lazy editing" is not something any admin is going to sanction for. Your opinion that it is vandalism is not in alignment with well-established site policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The close doesn't make sense. It's not even the thread OP who used the "vandalism" word, it was another uninvolved editor commenting, and they probably meant "disruptive editing". The section was closed within 4 hours based on semantics, really? This seems to be a valid concern, with several admins and editors listed at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations (ie presumably they understand sourcing policy) disagreeing with DG's interpretation of policy/RfC over the past year in the linked discussions, and the issue has had at least one run at ANI before. Whatever happened to "it's why admins invite users who have disagreements with them to raise the issues at AN" ? (incidentally, above we have a non-admin editor being crucified for 'lazy AfDing')

Obviously DG shouldn't be sanctioned for removing unreliable sources, which is thankless work. But it isn't unreasonable to request at least a token effort be made to find other sources[10] (has journal sources with a 10sec Google search) or at least not remove statements still acceptable per the RfC[11]. Policy is also clear that editors do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity and WP:BURDEN indicates indiscriminate mass-removal is not ideal. If the issue (as claimed above) is that there's so many unreliable sources being used that if DG slowed down then the backlog would never be eliminated, then it needs more editors to help out, not more speed.And yes, I'm aware I'm wasting my time writing this response, as someone will probably tap the Archive button within 12 hours. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Except there's no point in this kind of thing continuing around here on the dramaboard - legitimate issues with their editing can and should be raised on their talk page; where I see only a short discussion has taken place. If the issue is with the objection to the removal of content sourced to poor sources and it not being replaced with better sources, that's one about (legitimate, I'd say) interpretation of policy (seems to be an issue between enforcing WP:V and encouraging editors to apply the WP:FIXIT to problems they encounter) and dramaboard isn't really the best place for that either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that's quite a lot of action following my post here (I had to go offline and couldn't follow it). I see that there are other editors who have expressed similar concerns, so I don't think that a closure is justified. I have not accused the editor of vandalism. Alaexis¿question? 07:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Many editors have express concerns (see DG's talk page) and they have mostly been dismissed in the same way with a failure to engage on the actual points of the dispute. As for "vandalism"... well, that's my subjective point of view. I don't believe that these are all good faith edits though - this editor's over-riding aim seems to be to remove these deprecated sources at any cost, even if that means removing pertinent information from the article. Bear in mind that this editor is also under a topic ban on certain topics and there was a whole bizarre indicent around the Susie Boniface article where this editor again applied a unique interpretation of policy and the privileges of his admin rights. Shritwod (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and boldly undone the close per the discussion below. SkyWarrior 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What I would like is that users removing deprecated sources should exercise judgement per WP:BURDEN ("Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.") and WP:DEPRECATED guideline which says "[c]itations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." Thanks to JuneGloom07, 5_albert_square, Masem, JPxG, Shritwod, ProcrastinatingReader thanks for the input, I've tried to incorporate it. This is what I would propose

  • If there are slightest suspicions about the information being referenced to a deprecated source, or it's used for BLP, remove the information together with the source
  • If such information is not controversial (e.g., that a certain tennis player won a tournament) then replace the reference with {{fact}} tag
  • If the source is probably good enough for the claim (e.g. RT for the official position of Russian government), add {{better source needed}} tag.

The editors of course can go above and beyond and find reliable sources and replace the removed ones, but I recognise that this takes much more time. Alaexis¿question? 07:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Also, this thread is not about the reliability of RT or Daily Mail or random youtube channels. 99.9% of such sources should be removed or replaced and I have been doing my part of it. Please keep the discussion focused. Alaexis¿question? 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think Mr Gerard's zealous application of WP:V is sanctionable, I do think he could work on his attitude, having had the unpleasant experience of disagreeing with him several times over removal of material in articles on my watchlist because of sourcing concerns. Any suggestion that he apply the policies with a little more care (and deal with the sourcing rather than the content, which is often entirely uncontroversial but, like the proverbial baby, goes out with the bathwater) is met with an accusation that one is a defender of the source being objected to. I appreciate that being questioned is tiresome, but I do think Mr Gerard needs to work on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Witness the above response: "the fans of deprecated sources", "Daily Mail and Sun partisans", "their favourite deprecated sources". This seems to be Mr Gerard's default response, and I don't find that attitude helpful or appropriate, particularly from an admin. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I will note that if the effort spent by everyone above complaining about DG removing deprecated sources was used by those same people to add good sources to the articles in place of the deprecated sources, it would have actually been easier than holding this discussion. --Jayron32 12:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • ...and I will note that on several occasions I've done exactly that. It's not the removal of sources that I have a problem with, it's the removal of valid information purely because it is referenced by a deprecated source, to the detriment of the articles affected. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I did replace a few RT links with RS yesterday actually. But that isn't a good argument anyway. Firstly, because it's like saying when someone WP:MASSCREATEs bad articles other editors shouldn't complain but should just improve the article themselves. Nobody exercising human judgement can compete with the speed of indiscriminate actions (see WP:MEATBOT), and nobody should have to WP:HOUND DG's contribs checking his removals and reinstating the bad removals. Secondly, because in some cases the source is reporting uncontroversial info on a niche issue and so no other sources can be found; WP:DAILYMAIL2 explicitly carved out an exception for this, but DG removes those too and tends to argue against reinstating, often to result in WP:NOCON outcomes with low participation and thus reverting to his newly established "status quo" (not really, but understandably editors don't want to edit war with an admin). This, in effect, nullifies what the actual close says and its underlying consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • When an individual user undertakes a mass action on their own which they may believe they have consensus for and/or policy/guideline fully supports, but without seeking a consensus to take those mass actions, they are still at onus for responsibility for those actions to make sure they meet community standards. DG has well stated that removal of these deprecated sources is in line with WP:V which is true, but as has been pointed out, other consensus and guidelines like DEPRECATED do not support the mass removals in these fashions, and this issue has come up multiple times before. DG nor others have asked the community to set a timeline for removal of deprecated sources, which makes the rush to remove them in mass action unnecessary save for the few cases where they are terribly bad (DM on BLP), and just continuing to point back to WP:V to say that supports completing these actions in haste when others continue to find them disruptive is not helpful.
    • There would be no issue if DG announced at VPP or similar some plan in the future (eg 6 months) of mass pruning deprecated sources and then taking the same types of actions they are doing now (which includes content removal along with sources), sorta like a bot approval process. Now you give editors pre-warning to clear out deprecated sources so that when DG goes through and clears them, the last thing we can call this is "disruption". That clears the issue on the onus related to mass actions (the same problem we had recently with mass-stub creation). Heck, if DG wants to do a more targetted one-deprecated-source-at-a-time, a 1-2 month notice for each would be fair enough assuming we're talking in the ballpark of ~1000 current uses or less. Editors would more likely work collaborative if they weren't responding to an aggressive action to correct matters. --Masem (t) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      Masem, David's project of manually and carefully removing deprecated sources has been underway for at least three years. And for that entire time, he has been harassed by people who don't believe in deprecation, and told, with equal certainty, that he must approach his work in one of a handful of mutually exclusive ways.
      In the end, these are deprecated sources. Wikipedia should not be citing Russia Today. It's a propaganda organ for Putin's oligarchy, used to undermine democracy and further his geopolitical goals. But no maintenance tags ever get fixed, so in the end someone (and it's often, but not always David), does the needful. We should thank him, not constantly hound him. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      • This. --Jayron32 17:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I concur with Guy as well. Maybe rapid-fire removals are less than ideal, but hundreds of citations to a propaganda machine for an authoritarian oligarchy is pretty far from ideal, too. As for the complaints about excessive speed, I've yet to see an example where DG actually made an article harder to read or excised information that would be called vital if properly referenced. For that matter, I will cheerfully dispute the idea that RT is even suitable for official positions of the Russian government. If the only statement of a government's position is in propaganda, then NPOV forbids its inclusion: NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No RS = No coverage. Russia Today was deprecated 11 months ago today. That has been more than long enough for anyone with a serious interest in preserving the text originally sourced to them to find replacements. By now, removing those "citations" is overdue. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      I have seen no editor state they don't believe in deprecation, nor arguing that these sources must be kept for proper sourcing. They all agree that in time we should remove these sources and not doubting their issue of being too close to propaganda or misinformation or whatever you want to catalog them. They state what deprecation means as used on WP as well as in standard computer language - it is a source no longer supported and should be removed in time, but nothing in policy or in any of the deprecation RFCs on these sources set a deadline or a need for timely removal, which is the issue. The concern has always been loss of information without any apparent attempt to seek replacement or leave behind maintenance templates that help editors know what has been taken out to be fixed. Preventing disruption of the work is a policy matter and that's the concern here, and DG's been doing this on their own without checking with the community of how they should be approaching the work while minimizing community disruption. If DG or others wanted these removed in a timely matter, it could have been proposed to the community, set a timetable to give editors a chance to recover what info they can, and then go for it after that timetable is up - that's how you minimize disruption normally for any type of mass edit issue. Its great that DG wants to do this, but all that was needed was to make sure that the process was through a manner agreed to by consensus, otherwise DG's trending on onus territory that they have to be able to stand up to. This is less about the issues of "oh no, we have Daily Fail and RT links that we need to excise" and more about trying to make sure singular editors do not jump to conclusions on their own to do mass edits, create conflicts, and continue on their own believing they are right; we've outlined numerous times in the past for many other types of mass edit systems unrelated to deprecated sourcing that there's certain processes that should be followed to minimize disruption, and DG seems not to want to engage in that at all. --Masem (t) 19:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      This, actually. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      Masem, the issue is that "in time" is always defined as "some time probably at least a week before the heat death of the universe" and in the mean time these same people make pretty much no effort to fix the rpoblem themselves.
      And that is how it always goes. People who don't want (or perhaps can't be arsed) to fix the problem, objecting to the methods of someone who can be arsed. Someone with an extremely long history of valued contributions to the project, so his commitment is in no doubt. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      And I'm saying is that DG could say on VPP/RSN "I planning on sweeping through to remove all Daily Fail and RT links on July 1, 2021. If you want to repair content to use other RSes, you have two months to try to fix them." (though not so tersely), and do nothing else before that day. Boom, deadline set, VPP is considered central enough to alert people to the action, and then when DG goes to do that on July 1, now they can use a sledgehammer rather than a chisel because they have given fair warning. If people can't be arsed to fix the problem in two months after being given that warning, that's their fault now. The problem right now is that no one has given them any warning: being put on the deprecation does not set a deadline because that's not the expectation set by the RFCs or the principle of deprecation. --Masem (t) 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      It's true that the deprecation RfC's didn't fix a deadline. But they didn't set a minimum waiting time, either, or specify a venue where a notice should be nailed up before taking action. Without an explicit consensus to that effect, we can't say that the community opinion is against acting sooner rather than later. XOR'easter (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      And regardless, WP:V is completely clear that any statement that lacks a reliable source can be removed on sight. It has some cautions and suggestions about how to go about it (which I feel generally reflect how DG has gone about it regardless), but even then, those are worded as mere cautions and suggestions; and every effort to make them more strict or give them more teeth has failed (often, I should point out, failed attempts to change that have been led by the very people now pushing to sanction DG, so they are well aware that their position has failed to obtain a consensus.) This discussion should be closed because it seems to effectively be a begging-the-question effort to rewrite existing policy by going after individual editors who are editing in compliance with it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      There's nothing careful about the process, in his own talk page he he explains the process as essentially just searching for the deprecated sources and ignoring the top results. This has led to many perfectly valid uses of these sources being removed because this technique does not scale. And it's hardly the case that time is spent on most of these edits - typically not even a minute. This is not editing, this is a human-driven bot that is not in the end adding value, in my opinion. And note that I am not alone in this opinion. Shritwod (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      That doesn't read to me like his explanation of the process. DG points to a search query and notes, about the top 20 or so there have plausibly reasonable cause, and would need very careful attention to be properly replaced. That's not running a search and ignoring the top results; it's exercising exactly the kind of caution that has been asked for here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Seeing as this is ANI, I'm wondering what administrative action is being requested here. ANI is where you go when you want an admin to act to resolve your grievance. At this time I don't see anyone even suggesting what they want an admin to do here. It might help anyone making such a proposal to clearly explain what site policies are being violated as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Someone, please close this again. The discussion post-close is unimpeachable evidence that the close was appropriate. Very knowledgeable and experienced editors stand on both sides of a nuanced policy debate. No consensus is even close to emerging on any possible sanction. If ProcrastinatingReader's desired outcome is not sanction but to "request at least a token effort be made" then that request has been clearly stated and we can be done. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      I'm not the thread OP. BTW, the thread hasn't even been open for 24 hours (if you subtract the time it was closed, 4 hours after creation). ANIs usually don't start with proposals of sanctions, as people wait to see where the thread goes. But it does seem like there's a hurry to get this one archived... Aside: I think Masem, above, describes other reasoning issues. So I trust we can now draw a line under the idea that any possible criticism of a subset of DG's editing is equivalent to support for overturning the RfCs and promoting the use of deprecated sources or the spread of Russian propaganda.
      The underlying criticism is that in the pursuit of speed to meet some artificial WP:DEADLINE there are bad edits that (probably) wouldn't have happened if more care was taken. Five separate policies/consensus decisions apply to various sample edits, described above. Most importantly for me is that there's a lot of good, factually accurate content written in disparate topic areas by various editors (many now departed) written over 20 years. Much of this content, if removed, will never be re-added due to that fact. Content such as this event was important in the context of the article and adds value for readers (I've just reinstated it with two journal sources). So I think this is a problem. If the community wanted to authorise a search and destroy mission I'm sure it would've said so. But the close said the opposite, and there is no deadline to get the job done with the least amount of loss and disruption. It might take a bit longer, but a noble goal doesn't seem to have justified high-speed editing at the cost of quality in the past (see WP:MEATBOT). It's also erroneous to think that we're misleading readers if the "Special:LinkSearch displaying 0" part takes longer too. If the aim is content accuracy/reliability even at the lowest time whilst not even make a cursory Google search, one could focus their efforts on statements that sound suspicious, rather than hitting everything going down the list no matter how uncontroversial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      I don't think we can say that content sourced to a state propaganda organ is fine just because it doesn't instantly sound suspicious. Part of misinformation is mixing the deceptive in with the accurate, so that the latter lends credibility to the former. A half-truth can work better than a lie, precisely because it doesn't set off the reader's alarm bells. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      Yes, but when that logic (which is sound in theory) is applied to some of the removal diffs above it not only turned out not to be the case (evidenced by other sources), but also just thinking about the statement one wouldn't've expected it to be false. I'm sure many, probably most, of DG's edits remove crappy statements. I'm just saying a lot completely remove relevant, factually accurate, uncontroversial and highly plausible statements. Some such removals also don't recognise the 'uncontroversial content not elsewhere available' exemption of deprecation, from WP:DAILYMAIL2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      If no reliable source exists, then the content is surely WP:UNDUE even if it is uncontroversial. Now, I can think of exceptions in principle to this. For example, we generally like to have the locations of births and deaths filled in, even if RS'es don't make a big deal of them, so including the city where someone died could make sense, and that datum is not likely to be contested. But I've been reviewing many, many DG edits over the past two days and have not found any where I'd say an exemption of that sort would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      A reasonable argument can certainly be made both ways in this regard. I agree it would be, relatively speaking, rare, as usage of deprecated source is generally prohibited. In at least the specific examples on this point I linked above, I'd personally argue those were uncontroversial, but I suppose reasonable people could take a different interpretation of what the closers were getting at on that point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      Yes, there are apt to be differences of opinion. (If there weren't, how dull this project would be!) The preponderance of RT removals I've checked have been about living people, as one would expect for a "news" source, so the "don't use the Daily Mail or anything on its level for BLP's" advice would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      Other than the removal issues and the uncontroversial issues, what exactly is the point of replacing <ref>[deprecated cite]</ref> with {{cn}} anyway? I mean, the sources are deprecated because they make up stuff sometimes, right, not due to some backlinks problem? So surely when WP:DAILYMAIL1 said There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. it meant that editors actually need to review the statement preceding the <ref>, check if it's factually correct, if so replace it with another source to verify the statement, and if not then remove it. But just keeping the content and replacing the ref tag with {{cn}} just moves it from a tracking cat of 1,500 instances into one with 500,000 instances, so at best doesn't seem to improve content for the reader and at worst makes it harder for a volunteer who actually wants to review the content to do so. If that's what the community wanted, it would've authorised a bot to do the job. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Given the number of time the problem has occurred and the failure of this editor to engage I would suggest a moratorium on bulk removal of sources for six months. Part of the problem is the bot-like activity of these mass removals. Shritwod (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Given the number of times this user, who is doing the correct thing in their removals, has been dragged unfairly and without cause to the drama boreds, there should be a moratorium on complaining about their work for six months, giving them time to do this necessary and thankless job. --Jayron32 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh come on. Unfairly? This user was tbanned last time they were here, as I recall. This page is for discussion of chronic, intractable problems, it says so right at the top. Mass removal of deprecated links is absolutely one of those problems. It's not the first time this has come up, everyone reading this knows that. We can tolerate this thread being open for more than a few hours. So let's stop circling wagons. And please may I remind you that no one here is doing any kind of necessary job. We are all enjoying a hobby, or trying to. The issue here is that the way one user is enjoying their hobby is interfering with the way other users enjoy their hobby. I'm sure we can find a middle ground that makes everyone happy. Dividing editors into saints and sinners and claiming a hobby is a job is not helpful. Levivich harass/hound 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I agree with Jayron. Whether you want to call it a "job" or not is besides the point. References to deprecated sources need to go, they damage the encyclopaedia's reputation. David Gerard is doing necessary work. If other think it should be done in a better way, nobody is stopping them. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
          • DG is stopping them, by removing content along with the deprecated link. That's the point of this thread. Whether deprecated links "need to go", and exactly how soon, and exactly how they go, are the issues under discussion here. It's not helpful to act as if there is only one valid position and anyone who disagrees is somehow getting in the way. This is what I meant about dividing us into saints (those who are mass removing deprecated links) and sinners (those who think it should be done a better way). Levivich harass/hound 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • What is the minimum time limit for keeping incorrect information at Wikipedia? If something is not correct, but still written there in Wikipedia, how long must we falsely tell readers it is right before we are allowed to remove it?--Jayron32 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • David Gerard and very few others have removed and replaced thousands of unreliable sources. I can't say I have seen those who "think it should be done a better way" do it. I think it's unreasonable to make these demands on those who are willing to tackle the problem if one isn't prepared to do the work. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
              • You're still referring to a hobby as "work" and dividing editors into good (those doing "the work") and bad (those who think this problem should be handled in another way). You should respect your colleagues and their differences of opinion. People who disagree with DG's approach do not need to have engaged in DG's approach (what you call "the work") prior to suggesting a different approach. Express your opinion, sure, but don't villainize our colleagues who disagree. People who think DG should be doing something different are not being disruptive or obstructive by voicing their opinion. They're not "making demands". Levivich harass/hound 15:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                • So, why then are you trying to get DG to stop doing his hobby? If his hobby is carefully reading articles, finding deprecated sources, removing the links and dealing thoughtfully with each article after removing said links and treating each situation in the way he feels most appropriately meets Wikipedia's standards and policies and guidelines, why have you spent so much energy in this thread trying to make him stop doing that? --Jayron32 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Um, I'm not doing any of that stuff? I haven't even commented in this thread prior to this, and I have no opinion on DG's edits. I have an opinion about attempts to stop discussion of DG's edits. I think our colleagues should be given the space to have that discussion. Levivich harass/hound 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                    Levivich, but we already have. Repeatedly. And yet the same people keep looking for other parents to ask. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
                • I'm not villainising, just describing what I am seeing. Of course it's disruptive to repeatedly drag people to AN/I for contributions that are effectively net positive. Time would be better spent by leading by example and removing deprecated in "a better way". Robby.is.on (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • When one person is removing content and another person wants that person to stop removing the content, leading by example doesn't resolve the dispute. The question under discussion is whether the contributions are net positive. Again, you're welcome to the opinion that they are, but you should be tolerant of our colleagues who hold the opinion that they're not. At best, we'd be open minded, but at least tolerant. Levivich harass/hound 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • In any case it is long past clear that no consensus is ever going to emerge to sanction (or even criticize) anyone for this. People have objected before to the removal of depreciated or unreliable sources and none of those objections have ever come anywhere close to obtaining a consensus to even slow the process down or to add even the slightest bit of red tape that might interfere with it - all previous discussions I'm aware of have reached the conclusion that the sort of edits DG is making are an entirely valid and much-needed implementation of the consensus reached in depreciation RFCs, generally with a majority lauding the precise sorts of removals that a few people in this discussion find so objectionable. You're welcome to try and start such discussions again, but unless you have some indicator that things have changed, it seems like a near-certainty that they will go nowhere. As I see it, the work that people like DG is doing in this regard is time-consuming, necessary, and generally thankless maintenance, and while, yes, you're free to personally grumble or feel otherwise, you have to recognize at this point that your position is too much of a minority to make it a constructive use of time to pursue him in ANI; constantly pursuing someone at ANI for an entirely legitimate series of edits that you object to, knowing the community has repeatedly found them to be legitimate, is a waste of everyone's time. This discussion should be closed with prejudice. --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                      Legitimate? I see some of them contradicting several policies and the RfC closes. Now, it may be difficult to discuss the issues because as soon as one questions any edits there's the 'you must be a Daily Mail/RT fanatic and a harasser who is trying to relitigate the RfCs' argument waved around (see above), without any attempt to actually engage on the issues. Thus preventing any serious discussion taking place. It seems somewhat like a cult mentality. But that doesn't mean there are no edits violating any policy or just basic logic. If only we could actually have a discussion on this without appeals to emotion and personalisations of the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                      You will have to point to which RFC closes you mean; as far as I know, this has come up repeatedly on WP:RSN and WP:RSP, and while a minority has continued to object (usually a minority consisting of people who objected to depreciation in the first place) the consensus has always been to continue such removals. See [12][13] (note that Alaexis, who has been vocal above, tried and failed to get consensus making the removal of deprecation more difficult; no matter how much they may personally object to it, at this point they are well aware that the behavior they are trying to censor DG for is endorsed by the community.) As far as policies go, WP:V seems extremely clear-cut to me; The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If a source is unreliable, that burden is unsatisfied, and... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Alaexis, as I noted above, you previously tried and failed to get the community to agree to restrictions on the removal of depreciated sources here; as you can see in that discussion, while there was disagreement, it is clear that opposition was intense and that your position failed to obtain a consensus. I don't understand why you think you can then turn around and bring DG to ANI for the exact behavior you failed to form a consensus against before - having failed to get consensus to slow the removal of depreciated sources in a more appropriate venue, do you expect a different outcome here? The fact that you dislike those removals and disagree with the fact that WP:V currently allows (and even encourages) them is well-established, but that does not allow you to drag an editor to ANI simply because you dislike their edits. If you believe you can obtain consensus to stop or slow the removal of depreciated sources this time around (which, I assure you, you cannot), start a discussion in the proper place again. But - as I pointed out last time - WP:V is a core policy and its basic principles are not subject to consensus in any case; while there is certainly room to discuss the ideal way to handle such changes and to refine the guidelines for them, ultimately it will always be acceptable to remove things that lack reliable sources, and you will never be able to obtain sanctions against someone for legitimately enforcing that policy. My advice is to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this. You have been hounding DG over these edits by, to my count, around half a year if not more, and have achieved nothing the entire time - certainly nothing comparable to the, broadly, laudable and necessary improvements he has made to our sourcing over that interval. EDIT: I'll also point out that in the middle of a section supposedly devoted to DG, Alaexis dropped a 'suggestion' for a fairly sweeping and still extremely poorly-considered policy change that more or less reflects their failed proposal from the link above. Trying to create new policy by going after individual editors on WP:ANI is entirely inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • First, there are three separate possible concerns raised: 1) the complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search; 2) the removal of uncontroversial usages of content; 3) the replacement of refs with just {{cn}}. It doesn't help to conflate these. Second, if I may ask, how much of the above discussion did you read before commenting? Because there is some discussion on the arguments you've just made, such as the partial quote of WP:BURDEN or the effectiveness of these {{cn}} replacements, and repeating arguments would be detrimental to discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Regarding point (3), it seems like people have disagreed with DG's actions in two opposite ways. On the one hand, the suggestion was made that if the information is not controversial, the citation should be replaced with {{citation needed}} to preserve the useful text. On the other hand, replacing a deprecated source with {{citation needed}} might let it get lost in the noise of all the other {{citation needed}}s that weren't born out of propaganda. I know that one can't please everyone all of the time, but it sounds like here, nobody can please everyone any of the time. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • If it's actually uncontroversial, per WP:DAILYMAIL2 it should be kept with {{bsn}}, but most probably aren't eligible. Obviously the ideal standard is to actually review the cites. In 99% of cases the action should be remove the statement or replace the source. If DG couldn't find a source after a quick Google for some reasonable keywords I don't think anyone would whine if he removed the statement entirely. It's not like people are expecting editors to go to a local library and look in some obscure book before they take action. A quick search is not an undue burden. Shifting the maintenance categories to a broader one is just make-work though, like it doesn't even achieve the goal of removing 'half-truths' content. Actually, it's possibly actively harmful because we lose the tracking, the count of cites then becomes meaningless, and others who actually want to review the usages can't. Regardless of whatever solution editors find appropriate, this can't possibly be it, because it doesn't make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
          • For mass removals, it sounds like a special {{bsn}} for deprecated sources (like maybe a {{bsn-dm}} for Daily Mail) might be useful. Levivich harass/hound 02:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
            Levivich, years of experience dealing with predatory journals, fake news sites and the like, indicates that {{bsn}} is functionally equivalent to {{please ignore this tag}}. The only thing that reliably - and in most cases ever - results in better sourcing, is removing the content. And while people constantly insist that the onus is on whoever removes content supported by a bad source, to first try and find a good source for it (something, incidentally, that David routinely does), actual policy does not support that view.
            Content drawn from deprecated sources is presumptively unreliable. If poeople want to go round before David gets to them and replace these deprecated sources with better ones, there is absolutely nothing stopping them. But what heppens is that people who don't accept the concept of deprecation, or don't care enough to fix the problem, devote enormous amounts of energy to creating drama around the few people who can be arsed to fix it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
          • A quick search is not an undue burden. And anyone who wants to retain or restore the content is free to do so (in fact, required to do so); it is not, however, a burden that falls on the person removing the content - an encouragement is not a requirement, whereas removing uncited material is a requirement. They may choose to do such a search but are never required to do so; policy is completely unequivocal on this point, to the point where you weaken your argument every time you express a desire for it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • First, there are three separate possible concerns raised: 1) the complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search; 2) the removal of uncontroversial usages of content; 3) the replacement of refs with just {{cn}}. The first concern is entirely baseless per WP:V: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. It is completely unacceptable to try and push that responsibility onto the editor challenging or removing the claim. There is no responsibility - none, none whatsoever - to do even the most cursory search before removing a claim that lacks a reliable source. Some editors may choose to do so, but the idea that anyone could be sanctioned by not searching for sources for an unsupported claim added by someone else directly contradicts WP:V and can therefore be dismissed out of hand. "Uncontroversiality" (which is, obviously, subjective) is not a defense; WP:V plainly states that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. And replacing a source with a CN tag is the recommended solution for editors who choose to be cautious with their removals - ie. it is itself optional - the alternative presented in WP:V is immediate removal of the uncited content: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. This consider is, again, as opposed to simple immediate removal, which is the default. Nor does it discourage mass-removal at all; the parts you are trying to hang your case on are very cautiously-worded presentations of options, not core, project-central mandates the way the sentences I quoted are. All of these policies are well-established, and are well-known to anyone who has spent any significant time discussing the cleanup of depreciated sources; if you believe you can reach a consensus to change WP:V to reflect your reading, you can try. But as things stand nobody has raised any legitimate concerns or anything remotely resembling misconduct outside of, perhaps, the continued hounding of DG for something that, while many editors plainly disagree with, is clearly and unequivocally supported by policy - something that is nearing the point of requiring a WP:BOOMERANG given that, again, it has been going on for over six months, completely unproductively, without achieving anything at all. I read the discussions above and am aware, yes, that you have an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:V, but the wording is completely clear - at a certain point (certainly, again, six months in), it is necessary to WP:DROPTHESTICK and recognize that you haven't convinced enough people to sanction anyone over that interpretation. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It appears that we are at an impasse yet again. Let me put this a different way: several editors on multiple occasions have made complaints to DG about disruptive evidence, but he refuses to acknowledge this or engage with the complaints - instead citing WP:THIS and WP:THAT rather than acknowledging the issue or altering his behaviour. This is not an issue about the reliability of the sources, this is an issue about editor behaviour where I believe that any non-admin user would have been sanctioned. Therefore perhaps this is time to take this to arbitration, however this may result in more severe sanctions on the editor in question (who it should be noted is already under a topic ban). Or does anyone else have another solution to this long-running dispute? Shritwod (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Shritwod, merely saying that something is disruptive doesn't make it so. You do not address the core facts: first, this is a deprecated source, because it is monstrously unreliable; and second, that any attempt to remove deprecated sources, however bad they are, always ends up in a chorus of demands that you must instead do it in one of a handful of different, but mutually contradictory, ways.
    The correct solution is for more people to remove crap sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    The core facts are disruptive editing, the fact that there is an group of editors here with pitchforks is pretty good evidence of disruption. It isn't about reliable sources, but what we do have is an editor spending typically less than one minute on a page removing them. If this was an acceptable way of doing it, why don't we simply create a bot to remove the citations? Shritwod (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    A bot, which cannot understand natural language, cannot identify the text associated with a given source and so cannot be employed to remove it. And I don't see how disruptive editing can be called a core fact of the situation when there has yet to be established a consensus that DG's editing is disruptive. Some think so, some don't. It's possible that a consensus simply will not form on the topic. (More than once, the ambient hostility I have sensed during this discussion has strongly tempted me to abandon it and possibly take a good long wiki-break.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    DG calls the editors raising concerns here "fans of deprecated sources". That's hostility. Levivich harass/hound 15:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't want to say that anyone is blameless, regardless of what position they have taken. But I also don't want to leap to reading anything in the worst way I can, as doing so would make me contribute to the problem (and I know I can be quite nasty when I feel like it). DG wrote, In my experience, the fans of deprecated sources consider any removal "indiscriminate". I do not think that a general summary of one's previous experience, which makes no mention of any particular editor, is hostile. Jaded, perhaps, and maybe even ungenerous, but not confrontational. And I am not sure how else to express what seems to me a valid point. I myself have dealt with fringe science more than with political extremism, but people do complain about "indiscriminate removal" and the like when they don't get their way. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    You're maybe assuming too much good faith. The allegations have been repeated apparently for years now to specific editors (eg), with refusal to substantiate when challenged. They're still continued above (by others) without evidence. Combined with what happened in related discussions, the only reasonable conclusion is that the goal of these attacks (alleging membership of a (possibly non-existent) pro-DM/RT anti-deprecation brigade) is to: a) create an appearance that no problems exist by 'discrediting' those raising them; b) sufficiently derail discussions so that consensus cannot be reached; and/or c) attack editors so they no longer feel able to participate in relevant discussions with their opinions. This is exactly what causes consensus to break down, and it's what has happened here and in all the related discussions I've skimmed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    That diff doesn't show DG making an allegation about a specific editor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    It shows the refusal to substantiate when challenged. I suppose I could dig out the specific diff, but this example should suffice and can be found with a scroll of the same page: [14][15] Of course, it depends how overt a comment needs to be before it becomes an allegation about a specific editor. For example, if one replies to someone and makes the remark "generally", surely it's made about the editor replied to (otherwise what's the relevance?). I'd say the implication is the same either way; that only editors who like the source could have concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's certainly evidence of incivility. Thank you for finding it.I don't agree that criticizing general groups when responding to an individual counts as personal allegation. For example, you earlier referred to editors with a cult mentality but probably weren't saying that's true of the editor above you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Shritwod: The community does not appear to be able to make progress on the issue, as consensus seems to be breaking down. Reading the discussions Aquillion links above, many editors raised concerns and/or found steps to move forward (eg [16][17][18][19]) but most appear to have been forced to withdraw (eg) after the usual reasons. Same stuff above. If we actually look at unique editors across all these discussions it seems probable this approach does not have consensus, and is possibly a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would have no particular objection to creating a modified {{citation needed}} tag that said something like, "The original source for this content has been deprecated". I am not sure how much good it would do (tags can last a long, long time without getting attention), but it might at least alleviate the problem of these instances getting lost amid all the other statements needing citations. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sidianmsjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a history of promotional and COI editing on WP. He has a deleted autobio: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidian M.S. Jones, and most of his editing has consisted of adding mentions of himself, or his books about his grandfather, Rolling Thunder (person), to articles. His grandfather was a very controversial figure, so there's a lot in the article Mr. Jones does not like. Periodically Jones, or accounts and IPs that quack, show up to remove the material. Today he is doing it again.

  • He is now back to editing the article:[20], [21]

I am shocked that he seems to have paused on the article, and now shifted back to long rants on talk, but his pattern is to resume after a pause. Or the quacking accounts do. I wasn't around the last time they did or I think he'd be indeffed by now. Probably those accounts are stale. This article disruption and using WP for self-promotion is longstanding and tendentious. I could use additional admin intervention on this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sidianmsjones appears to be a borderline single-purpose account, with little to be said beyond his work and the legacy of his ancestor. He has absolutely no business creating or editing articles pertaining to himself or Rolling Thunder. I propose that he either desists now or else face an indefinite block. He appears to be knowledgeable in other areas, so his expertise could be useful - so long as he not utilize it for self-promotion. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 02:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd say Rolling Thunder was definitely notable in the '70s. Now... hard to say. There were fairly recent, serious criminal charges on another of his sons or grandsons (link on talk), so he was in the news a bit over that. His name was still well-known in the hippie subculture in the '80s, I guess, but as that population ages and dies, probably less so. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I have found the partial block tool to usually do the trick with the SPAs. Hopefully that will also be the case here. Just noting for the record that this user's response to the block notice is a vow to continue his quest to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: "I'm not going to stop pursuing this page until it is truthful." Hmmmm. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I just returned to address this. We can't have an editor who promises to disrupt the project; I now support a community ban. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There have been ongoing issues with copyvio and edit warring on this draft throughout the month. While a partial block from this page would solve the issue, it's too complicated a request for Page Protection and I'm without a doubt involved. The user does not appear to understand how talk pages work, although we attempted to determine if there was a better way and they did engage for a brief window at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Draft:Deelee_Dube. Overall, there's no way to communicate with them at all and the draft is not going to get to a place where it can exist in mainspace. The artist/subject is probably notable, but there is a lack of understanding on reliable sources and copyvio, with the latter of course being the major concern. When they're asked not to edit war, an IP joins in asking for nothing to be removed, and there are now rev-del'ed edits from Special:Contributions/Platinumbirch. Suggestions on how to proceed? Courtesy @Justlettersandnumbers, Nick Moyes, Robert McClenon, and Nathan2055: who have also been a part of this conversation. I'll notify the editor as soon as this post creates a direct link as I think that would be the easiest for her to use. Thanks all StarM 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion at the Teahouse about a week ago about how to try to deal with this editor. The discussion was inconclusive, but some of us thought that this editor is using a stupid mobile app that either doesn't support a user talk page or makes it difficult for an editor to find their talk page. Since all efforts to communicate have failed and the editor is continuing to edit-war, I think that a block for 36 or so hours is unfortunately in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Robert_McClenon. I think they have some ability to see communications as they react to changes (the IP saying don't edit), but I'm not positive. StarM 18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
They can see our communications to them, but they don't or won't communicate back to us or engage in dialog. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
They did briefly respond to Star Mississippi and to me about a week ago. It didn't really help. And edit-warring is not allowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel that a short attention-grabbing block would be in order if a user isn't willing to properly engage with the many editors trying to help them write this clearly autobiographical article. They still haven't made a Conflict of Interest declaration on their userpage, and this overtly promotional article (of a probably notable person) is fast becoming a time-sink. I suggest we give them 24 hours from the start of this thread to begin engaging with us before an initial and temporary 36 hour editing block is given. Should they edit the article and continue edit warring over content or add more copyright violation content from what I presume is their own website before engaging, then the block should be applied sooner. My view is that if numerous attempts have been made to get this person to engage with us and accept our guidance, but have so clearly failed, then they will have put themselves in a position whereby they have forfeited their right to edit an article about themselves or anyone else. If that turns out to be the case, then that means an indefinite editing block would then be appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. I too am involved here, I think. I'm in two minds: the repeated additions of copyvio material cannot be allowed to continue (I'll remove some more in a moment), and nor can the edit-warring; but I'm reluctant to recommend or endorse a block of an editor who is apparently oblivious to our attempts to communicate. However, sooner or later this will have moved into WP:ENGAGE territory; a brief partial block might then be a good interim measure. For what it's worth, unlike Star Mississippi I'm not convinced that this person is notable – she has sung with a saxophonist of fairly questionable notability and won an award in a competition that isn't even mentioned in our page on the New Jersey Performing Arts Center. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh interesting. I think we should have an article on the Sarah Vaughan competition, but that could also be my performing arts bias. It's the only thing that might bring her to WP:Notable, the rest is a lot of fluff. The Teahouse conversation made me realize that we need a better means of conveying WP:THREE for new editors. There are major COI issues here, of course, but I think she's trying to edit in good faith and it isn't necessarily clear to new editors that overkill doesn't bring them closer to notability. I'm unfortunately not sure what the answer is here. StarM 00:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Star Mississippi, I've (sort of) answered the first bit of this on your talk-page. Dangelvoice, please know and take note that if you again add to Wikipedia content copied from non-free external web sources, your account is likely to be prevented from making further edits without further warning ... so please don't! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Dangelvoice: I will just clarify what User:Justlettersandnumbers has said, by telling you that their instruction includes copy/pasting words that you have written yourself on your own website or elsewhere unless you add a certain type of Creative Commons licence which explicitly releases it for anyone to use, even commercially. You may know that you have written stuff yourself, but unless it's properly licenced we don't allow you to paste in your words on Wikipedia. Just reword whatever you want to say, but make sure you avoid close WP:PARAPHRASING. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks; accusations of stalking. [23] [24] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Another expletive-laden attack (see [25]). He needs to be banned from editing his own talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r is abusing his power and needs to have his account suspended 22:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilldoug750057 (talk • contribs)

I have blocked Hilldoug750057 for one week because of utterly unacceptable personal attacks and harassment going back at least to December 11, 2020. The fact that the homophobic attacks on that date took place in article space is an aggravating factor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please could an univolved administrator check this edit made on 6 April 2021 which includes the statement "... I recommend leaving the discussion now. I will pursue legal channels on this now. ...", and if neccessary follow it up. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the comment was made 3-1/2 weeks ago and the editor has been inactive for over a week, my inclination is to wait for clarification rather than blocking immediately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
It's indeed ambiguous, my impression is that they mean they'll write/publish about it by other means than Wikipedia. —PaleoNeonate – 08:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

CatJon1 has personally attacked editors [26] and made disruptive edits to Radha Stirling. They have already been dragged to SPI. --Firestar464 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

[27] Further WP:ASPERSIONS. Firestar464 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Came here from SPI. I don't think CatJon is related to the group filed there; I do however think that they're linked to Tradeze1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also noting that everyone involved is now well past 3RR. Blablubbs|talk 07:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed here. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There is an IP on the talk page which seems to be saying stuff very similar to CatJon. I think this may have simply been a mistake rather than attempt to hide their identity but who knows. Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I have opened a SPI for User:Tradeze1, User:CatJon1, and User:212.63.119.106. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I am Tradeze1. I am making reasonable edits with citations that add value to a page that has requests to add value. Someone didn't like the style of some of the new edits in the categories (excessive detail), so I changed that and added other points but one of the editors just keeps reverting back to original, rather than only cancelling the edits they don't like. There is no reason for example, to cancel an inclusion of reference that she has founded a podcast. Why not edit the added content, rather than erasing everything? I don't have a connection to this other user CatJon1 but note they have reverted a lot of my edits. I am just trying to help. Why can't you let me add content? It's as though the editors don't want anything more added even though the alerts say wikipedia does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradeze1 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Tradeze1, you did add citations, but you also added a bunch of things that are not good for the article. Also, your behavior is very similar to User:CatJon1's behavior, especially with the edit history; you both said 'added citations', or 'added cited content'. Also, your usernames are similar. It seems suspicious on my end, so I opened an WP:SPI. You can comment on the investigation here. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I added notable cases. If you look at other lawyers and profiles that are similar, they also list notable cases and talk about them. You didn't like the excessive detail so in my latest edits, I removed that format. Then I added content like "stirling founded a podcast" and that version was even reverted to the basic page. I don't understand why you won't accept some of my additions. I make my additions one by one so that they can be analysed easily and small ones can be approved/declined. I don't understand why you wipe out ALL of the work and go back to an earlier version when clearly, a lot of the edits I am making, are valuable? I've answered the sockpuppet query. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradeze1 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

At talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, Innican Soufou is giving us the benefit of their 49 edits' experience to advocate that we portray Ashli Babbitt as the sole - and indeed innocent - victim of the insurrection. I suspect that this user, who was notified of the DS in February, might be better advised to learn their craft in a less contentious area. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I've not seen any conduct issues by Innican Soufou on that talk page. I have, however, seen JzG take issue with two words used by IS and use them to go into a rant about his personal opinion unrelated to the topic at hand in the section in which he commented. If anything, I think this just be closed as a premature reporting of no conduct issue whatsoever - and allow the content discussion to continue on the talkpage. Perhaps a warning to JzG to focus on the topic at hand and not allow his personal opinions to go into rants about the events would be merited, as before he commented recently, the discussion was progressing decently, in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the reporting editor needs to take a breather and try not to let their emotions get the better of them. I don't care to make a big deal of this, but outright lying in an ani report is not very useful, as everyone involved can read what I actually said. God bless. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This does not seem at all "ripe" for ANI. I'd suggest WP:DR of some sort to help resolve the dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The dispute was progressing fine on the talk page, and is continuing to do so - JzG's behavior in the thread, which has contributed nothing other than FORUM-like comments, is the only thing that could derail it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've been disrupted by Guy's repeated non sequiturs, too, suggest a week off. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • He's responding to requests to stop ranting with longer and less helpful rants now, accusing anyone who wants to compromise of bending to the will of a "fantasy world of patriots". One of those seeking compromise is me, a Canadian who doesn't watch TV and doesn't condone rioting, theft or burglary. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "I'm proposing that we separate the one murder that took place (of the unarmed civilian by police) and the other suicides/medical issues that people who may have been involved in the protests died from, days later." and "Well we do know that only one person died during the protest. That was an unarmed protestor. The rest of the people that passed away did so at a later date by either suicide or natural causes do seem to match JzG's description above. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I appreciate this is a DS area but is there some evidence of recent disruption I'm missing? I went to the talk page expecting to see long discussions started by the editor in question but all I saw was one silly comment followed by a reply or two in response to stuff Guy and others said. While I mostly agree with Guy's comments, IMO they were more disruptive than Innican Soufou recently. Although I have a tendency to do it myself, I do agree it's not necessary to challenge an editor everytime they say something stupid, especially when realistically no one is going to be influenced or misled by the comment. It would have been better for Guy to either just ignore the comment, or concentrate on the article and policy i.e. say something like "No we continue to follow sources, not editor's personal opinions". While they moved back towards this afterwards, their first reply IMO unnecessarily lead the discussion off-topic into editor's personal opinions, and as always "they/other editor started it" is not an excuse. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to close. There seems to be an increasing tendency to bring people to AN/I for expressing the "wrong opinion" on a talk page. Unless there is a clear breach of policy or terms of service demonstrable using diffs, talk page differences of opinion are not a matter for administrators and there are other avenues for dispute resolution. Close this and Guy deserves a trouting. Fences&Windows 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • People sure do get mad online about politics, huh? jp×g 19:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    Not so hot at Canadian, Australian, British or New Zealand politics, to be fair to people..."They" started it! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm with Uncle G here - those diffs, particularly this one are problematic. This isn't about having "the wrong opinion": describing the killing as a murder, which is a criminal offense, when the authorities are not describing it as such seems like a BLP violation to me. You can't call it a murder without implying that the police officer who fired the shot is guilty of a criminal offense. The comment was made a while ago now, but that kind of stuff on talk pages is not OK. GirthSummit (blether) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    It's only a BLP violation if the target of an accusation has a name, a rough pseudonymous persona or is awaiting a murder trial, none of which apply to federal police, who can only possibly face charges of violating civil rights after killing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk, I'm not sure I understand your comment. The target of the accusation is presumably the officer who fired the fatal shot - that person has a name, although I guess what you're saying is that the name hasn't been released? Nevertheless, I can think of no good reason why someone would be calling it a murder on a talk page if it has not been so described by the authorities - to call a killing or a shooting would be neutral and accurate, but to call it a murder seems obviously to be pushing a particular POV. GirthSummit (blether) 17:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    In a way, I agree, calling any generic cop a murderer sounds bad. Calling a soldier named Ashli Babbitt an attempted murderer, attempted murder conspirator, conspiracy theorist, insurgent, rogue, mindless drone, lyncher or bitch who got what she deserved sounds bad. Accusing the President of Treason sounds bad. But that's AP. Innican didn't go "above or beyond" the existing "climate of mud" here. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk I've just seen this comment. Just to be clear, has anyone referred to Babbitt as a 'bitch who got what she deserved' on a talk page, or are we talking more generally here? GirthSummit (blether) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm paraphrasing, but that seems to be the crux of guys like Guy's arguments. She was shot for attempting to lynch/murder/assassinate, and the only cop to fire that day was defending America from an armed terrorist. If you'd like me to change "bitch" to "female terrorist" or "B-word" or something, feel free to do it yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    @InedibleHulk, the point is did JzG use anything even vaguely similar to 'bitch who got what she deserved' on the talk page? If he didn't, then saying he (and 'guys like him' which is kind of a broad brush too) did say that isn't helpful. He may very well think that, and you may know he thinks that, and he may know you know, etc., but if he isn't actually saying things like that, it's not helpful to say he is.
    These articles are tough. I have worked on some of them, and it sometimes does feel very clear that the person arguing to present the content in a different way believes something I find troubling. Accusing one another of it without actual evidence isn't helpful. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Look directly below, for starters, then see "lynch mob". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Girth Summit, exactly. Babbitt was engaged in trying to storm the doors into the speaker's lobby, as part of a mob calling for the execution of the speaker and Vice President as "traitors". She was shot by an armed police officer defending the building and the people in it. To describe this as "murder" of an "unarmed civilian" is at the very least tendentious. Taken as a whole, it is clear to me that Innican Soufou adheres to a conservative media bubble counterfactual, where the mob were a minor counterpoint to the real threat to America - BLM and Antifa - and where Babbitt was the only true victim. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Is it normal for reporting editors to completely invent things that were never said, cast aspersions about another editor, and outright lie about the person they are reporting? Furthermore, does it usually go unpunished? JzG is straight up lying about me and accusing me of all sorts of things that aren't true and it's extremely toxic and unhelpful. Innican Soufou (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    yes Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    In everyday speech, "murder" and "homicide" and "person killing another person" all are used interchangeably. It is not WP:AGF to assume that the reason they said murder was because they were trying to imply criminality - it's just simply less wordy than "person killing another person" and may have been the first word that came to mind. I don't think you'd find a lawyer who would take a defamation suit over someone saying "murder" as opposed to "killed" - the difference is so subtle and both are used interchangeably in colloquial speech. Maybe that's the implication you (and others here) see into it - but that's because we are an encyclopedia where the minute difference between words matters - and in real life, even politicians get it wrong and say "murder" when it's not criminal in nature sometimes. JzG replied to this thread with even more ABFing, and went into his opinions instead of admitting that his problem is with the choice of words - which is not tendentious or disruptive if the choice of words is an honest mistake. Taken as a whole, it is clear to me that JzG adheres to a specific viewpoint and wants Wikipedia to be used only to further his viewpoint, and tries to derail any discussion by ABFing against anyone who wants us to be neutral instead of his viewpoint. He also goes into talking about BLM and Antifa when Innican Soufou has not brought those organizations up as a whole - more and more assumptions. I don't think it's productive for JzG to continue commenting when the majority of his comments (in this instance and overall) are making massive assumptions and rarely bring any actual discussion value - others are doing just fine discussing with IS and others on the talk page about this, and they will continue to do so (and likely improve the encyclopedia) if JzG doesn't comment further. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    We do not need experts or lawyers, words have definitions

    Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.

    The is clear difference between a criminal act of murder and the lawful defence of the Capital by an armed police officer doing their duty defending the building and the people in it. It is simply absurd to suggest that the terms murder and justifiable homicide can be used interchangeably. This just an example of the kind of arguments that Guy has been correctly challenging in the talk page of the article in question, he has not been ranting, but has trying hard to maintain the articles NPOV. I strongly believe the article in question needs more active oversight by many editors. ~ BOD ~ TALK 00:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    They can be in colloquial speech - assuming that every single new user who uses the terms incorrectly is here to push a POV is WP:ABF. An appropriate response would've been to say "murder has to be convicted, so the correct term is X". Instead, JzG chose to rant about his personal opinions, which inflamed the situation, and then he brought someone to ANI for violating no rules other than the use of a technically incorrect word that could've been clarified instead of this. He did rant - he not once said what you just said - he instead chose to voice his personal opinion as to the "justification" for the shooting - which while I agree with, is not appropriate for a talk page - where we should be explaining Wikipedia rationale for things, not our personal opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Berchanhimez: Is there a link somewhere above to justify "JzG chose to rant about his personal opinions"? If not, you need to add the link now, or strike the comment. That needs to occur before continuing with other edits because leaving an WP:ASPERSION on a noticeboard is not acceptable and will lead to sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Johnuniq: does this also include the WP:ASPERSIONS that JzG left about me, or do those not count? Innican Soufou (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Not everyone has the time or patience to examine walls of text. I noticed the last comment in this section because it was last, and had the current date. I don't know what comment you are talking about. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Johnuniq, there is no link, because at the time I said that it was his two most recent edits (aside from this report), and they can still be easily found in his contributions or the page history. Here's the links to the two diffs: he rants about the choice of two words, and this didn't add anything to the discussion of value because that's not what was being discussed, and then this - still discussing something other than what the section was about and ending with a snarky "insurrections have consequences" comment. Those are both not only woefully off topic responses, but they are snarky and don't add anything to the discussion other than attempting to prove that he's "right" and the other editor's "wrong" on a choice of words. You may wish to peruse the section on the talkpage in its entirety - the discussion was progressing fine and towards a amicable agreement among editors, until JzG came in and injected his opinion on the one issue that everyone agreed on that was unnecessary, rudely worded/toned, and not helpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Berchanhimez: In everyday speech, "murder" and "homicide" and "person killing another person" all are used interchangeably feels very 'citation needed' to me. Murder is a word loaded with shock value and negative connotations. When the Smiths released Meat is Murder, the use of that word was for rhetorical effect, and if politicians misuse it I expect they're doing it for similar reasons. When people use that word, they do it for a reason, I don't accept that people don't know what it actually means. Anyway, even if that were true, the standards we are expected to uphold here are rather higher than 'how people speak colloquially'. Nowhere in our BLP policy does it say 'so long as you won't get sued for defamation, you can say it'. Nowhere does WP:TPG say 'if you'd say it in normal conversation, you're fine to put it on a talk page'. If users start throwing words like that around carelessly in discussions about exceedingly contentious issues, they need to be warned that it's not acceptable. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen Innican Soufou say that they accept that such language is inappropriate - I'd welcome such a statement from them now. GirthSummit (blether) 05:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Berchanhimez, in everyday speech, murder means illegal killing. Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. Murder does not mean shooting someone who is charging armed police opfficers as part of a lynch mob. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Oddly enough, the very first word in the first section of that Floyd talk page was "Murder". It was about prejudging a named living person as a murderer. That word was used about two hundred times on that page by a few dozen editors between then and the predetermined verdict, and guess how many of them got blocked or this seriously scolded for it? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk, oddly enough, the account that started the thread you refer to was CU blocked as a sock within 24 hours of doing so. Now, being a Brit who doesn't follow American current affairs closely, I don't know much about either case, but I believe that in the Floyd case, lots of reliable sources were saying that it was possibly murder, and the police officer in question was charged with, and eventually convicted of, murder. In such circumstances, a discussion about whether we should call it one seems reasonable - although the obvious answer would be 'not until authorities call it that, by way of a conviction, inquest or whatever'. Have any reliable sources talked about the case we're talking about here in such terms? GirthSummit (blether) 12:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    No, because it's not illegal if a federal officer does it, it being most anything a state, county or municipal officer can be charged for doing. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    @JzG: Lynching is murder. You should be more careful with your language. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)  
    Sweet6970 they had a gallows. They were shouting "hang Mike Pence". They were looking for Nancy Pelosi. They had flexicuffs. I don't think any accuracy is sacrificed by describing this as a lynch mob. But the irony is not lost on me: Republicans have spent decades trying to prevent passage of a Federal anti-lynching law. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Lynching, is a deliberate extrajudicial killing by a group, is clearly murder. The slow crushing the life out of George Floyd for 9 1/2 minutes was obviously murder too. Floyd was surrounded and restrained in police custody and was not a threat to anyone. Babbitt was part of a wild angry mob ransacking the inside the United States Of America's seat of democracy, shot once in the shoulder by a Capitol Police officer as she attempted to climb through a shattered window in a barricaded door leading into the Speaker's Lobby, through which elected House Of Representatives members and Capital staff were escaping, being a very likely threat to the lives of United States House of Representatives; rioters had already used lead pipes, chemical irritants, stun guns, sticks, poles and clubs, officers had been warned by the Metropolitan Police that many participants were carrying concealed weapons. Babbits death was nothing like the killing of George Floyd's. Wikipedia does not use colloquial speech loosely, especially in an article about an assault on democracy. Guy should be applauded for defending Wikipedia from a group of POV-pushing editors. ~ BOD ~ TALK 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Bodney: I don’t know whether you are including me in the ‘group of POV-pushing editors’. I have not expressed any POV on American politics. I don’t edit American politics. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @JzG:I did not come here to argue about American politics. You have not told me anything I don’t already know. You are not addressing my point. You are complaining that someone has used the word ‘murder’ inappropriately. I am complaining that you have used the expression ‘lynch mob’ inappropriately. So far as I am aware, there has been no verdict saying that the killing of Babbitt was murder. Equally, (as far as I am aware) there has been no verdict saying that everyone who invaded the Capitol was intending to commit murder. So it is as inappropriate to use the ‘lynch’ as it is to use the word ‘murder’. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sweet6970, you challenged my use of the word lynching. I showed that it was justified in the context (a gallows, a mob, calls to hang people based on the mob's prejudices). We're done with this line of argument. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @JzG:No, you didn’t justify it. A lynch mob lynches someone. No-one was lynched, and you cannot know what the intent of the crowd was. So you should be more careful in your use of language. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    A failed lynch mob is still a lynch mob. Thanks for asking, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Sweet6970 this entire sidetrack is why it's not actually helpful for people to insert rhetorical snark remarks intended to make a point and which often generate more heat than light into ANI discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't always mean "illegal killing" in colloquial speech. While that is the primary definition in dictionaries, Oxford lists the first definition only as "The action or an act of killing" followed by a sub-definition of "The action of killing or causing destruction of life, regarded as wicked and morally reprehensible irrespective of its legality". You can see similar secondary definitions in every major English language dictionary. They are not labelled as "archaic" or any other label to suggest that people don't use the word that way in real life. In fact, you can see this in real life just by turning on the news to any time someone is interviewed after a police shooting - the term "murder" is commonly used by the people being interviewed to describe the act - even though there's no way they can know if it was legal or not at that time. Furthermore, "homicide" is listed as a synonym in the OED's thesaurus for that definition. Regardless, a quick check of the OED shows that you're wrong that it's only used for "unlawful" killings. Pinging @Girth Summit: also because as a Brit (as he said below) he may want to see this definition for himself. I understand that on Wikipedia we tread carefully in using "murder" because it usually implies an illegality about it, but it is improper and assuming bad faith to think that every new editor will have that distinction given that it's used commonly enough regardless of legality to be listed in dictionaries as a secondary definition. If you had an issue with saying "murder", you also should've started with that - instead of your snarky opinionated comments regarding "insurrections have consequences". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Berchanhimez, was that last comment directed at me? I have not said anything about 'insurrections have consequences', and while I have expressed opinions here with regard to language and its acceptability, I don't think I have made any snarky comments.
    The 'secondary definition in the dictionary' argument seems exceedingly tenuous. As the definition you have quoted makes clear, even when it is not intended to imply technical illegality, it always implies that the killing is "wicked or morally reprehensible". In the context of that talk page discussion, its use was at the very least obvious and inflammatory POV pushing, and it's not acceptable. I'm not saying that the user needs to be blocked or TBanned for that single instance, but they need to be made aware that they need to be much more careful in how they use language. GirthSummit (blether) 14:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Girth Summit, no, I just pinged you in the middle of the discussion then went back to talking about JzG without making that clear. Sorry. And no, it's not "obvious" POV pushing - that's a massive assumption of bad faith. Assuming good faith would mean calmly explaining why the term "murder" is not accurate or should not be used - not what JzG did which is inflame the situation more. I'm also not saying that anyone needs a block or a topic ban, but I think that talk page (and likely the topic as a whole) would benefit from JzG taking a step back and being a little more calm in his editing so he stays on topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Berchanhimez thanks for clarifying, no problem. However, I'm afraid that I strongly disagree with you, both in your interpretation of what is, and is not, POV pushing, and in your assertion that I am assuming bad faith. I genuinely put a lot of store in AGF, and signed up to WP:OFWV years ago. I've tried hard, squinting at it through the old rose-tinted spectacles, but I cannot see the use of that word in that context as anything but POV-pushing. I have invited Innican Soufou to make a statement to the effect that they understand that the word is inappropriate, but they have so far not made any comment on the matter. Perhaps they will do so now, in light of this discussion. GirthSummit (blether) 14:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's why I brought up the use in colloquial speech, with dictionaries to back it up, that it isn't always illegal killing. Assuming good faith here would be that this user may come from a location where homicide and murder are both used to describe killings regardless of legality. By calling it "POV-pushing" you are assuming the user is intentionally using an incorrect word to push their POV - when there's a perfectly logical explanation for why they may have felt that "murder" was an acceptable word to use. Regardless, I think the bigger issue here is that instead of JzG explaining why he took issue with that word, he went on a rant that inflamed the situation and didn't explain why on Wikipedia "murder" is used carefully and only when it meets the legal definition of murder. That's all that needed to be done - but instead he posted two ranting comments, and then went straight to ANI - not acceptable behavior and to me that shows that he may need to take a step back from this topic area as the discussion was proceeding fine without him (and has been since he last commented). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Berchanhimez, we will have to agree to differ on that I'm afraid. I can't accept your argument about colloquial speech: while I accept that the intent may not have been to imply illegality, I can't see any reading where it does not imply the worst kind of impropriety on behalf of the officer who fired the shot, and I do interpret that as inflammatory POV-pushing. By extension, I also reject your conclusion that JzG is the bigger problem here. GirthSummit (blether) 15:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So this no longer appears to have anything to do with me anymore and has devolved into talking about George Floyd, BLM, Antifa, and the Smiths. Can we close this so the virtue signaling can move elsewhere? Innican Soufou (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    Innican Soufou, I for one would appreciate an indication from you that you accept that your comments discussed above were inappropriate, and an undertaking not to say anything like that again. This is not a trivial matter, and your flippant comment does not give me confidence that you've understood that. GirthSummit (blether) 18:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I completely agree with this. While one use of the word "murder" in what is technically an "incorrect" meaning (i.e. to replace killing in general rather than an illegal one) could potentially be excused as being unaware, it's disruptive and not appropriate for someone to not correct that behavior when informed of it. Yes, it is still about you Innican Soufou, and I tried to stick up for you by saying it could've been a legitimate mistake based on a different use of the word in your life - but you're making me feel like me sticking up for you was a mistake and that maybe you are only here to disrupt with this continued.. well disruption. If you (IS) want to be able to continue discussing topics like this, you need to accept that while the way JzG responded to you wasn't perfect, and wasn't clear, you also made a mistake in calling something a "murder" when it's technically not. note: I've also made quite a few MOS:LISTGAP corrections to make the bullets/spacing not wonky -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    And I would agree with this. On contentious talk pages it is just not helpful to throw the term murder around until/unless there's been a conviction. Period. —valereee (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


@Valereee: You have concealed my comments, which are highly relevant to the discussion, and referred to this as a ‘clerical’ move. How is concealing relevant comments ‘clerical’? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, lol, okeydoke, restored. Please, all, make sure to carefully examine the sidetrack resulting from the rhetorical remark. I wonder if I should set it off in bold so no one misses it? And, yes, I'm being a bit snarky here. I'd collapse this as not important for anyone else to bother with, but...well...—valereee (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Whilst lynching is murder, a lynch mob (the specific term Guy used) is not necessarily. Otherwise the discussion would've been quite a good example of how assuming bad faith via dictionary definitions can lead to absurd outcomes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I am equally a bit unhappy with the movement of my comment, before the concealment. While i used the definition of lynching as a clear starting point, I was in fact replying more to User:Berchanhimez's comment at 13:52, 30 April 2021 which now comes after my comment, regards whether the use of the term 'murder' was at all remotely appropriate in this particular case. I was responding in what was then the existing flow of the conversation, however i do not think I can move it back as other editors involved in the conversation seem happy and i can see the new flow works for them. Oh well. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do you feel the need to call out this editor on only having 49 edits? Do you really have to passive aggressively insult someone and basically say "their opinion isn't valid because they don't have many edits"? Questionable reasoning for an AN/I thread when you could've just cited WP:BLPCRIME which pretty much says we can't say a living person is a murderer until they have actually been convicted of a murder. It is bizarre to me that not a single admin has acknowledged with these two very clear issues (aside from vague ideas of the BLP implications). It's not OK to call someone a murderer until they have been convicted of a crime; doesn't matter if the victim is George Floyd or Ashli Babbit. Calling the killing a "murder" is therefore also a BLPcrime vio as it implies the killer is a murderer. It's also not OK to bring someone to AN/I when your only justification for doing so is "they don't have enough edits and shouldn't be in American politics". If OP wasn't an admeme this would've boomeranged pretty fast but instead the admemes here are throwing on the kiddie gloves and spending all your time debating American politics when the fact is that our opinions on whether Babbit or Floyd was murdered doesn't matter; only whether a court has convicted the living people in question of murder do we call those killings "murder". That goes for both sides; Bodney's opinion on whether "The slow crushing the life out of George Floyd for 9 1/2 minutes was obviously murder too." is irrelevant and so is their opinion on whether "Floyd was surrounded and restrained in police custody and was not a threat to anyone." Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Innican Soufou has described the death of Ashli Babbitt as murder. Multiple editors (including myself) have expressed concern over their use of that word, and Soufou has been invited multiple times to address those concerns. I was hoping that they would express some understanding that the use of such language was inappropriate and confirm that they would avoid it in future, but so far their only response has been to been to deride the concerns as 'virtue signalling'. An editor willing to use such language, and to ignore (or even mock) legitimate concerns over it, should not be editing articles in the post-1992 American Politics topic area. I propose that they be indefinitely topic banned, appealable after six months of collegiate editing elsewhere. GirthSummit (blether) 09:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many called Brian Sicknick's death a murder, too, or every protestor present's purpose attempted murder. It's a shame the word has been tossed around so loosely in many, many talk pages and articles since 2012, but getting away with it has become the norm. And, to reiterate, no known victim is targeted or affected by these words from mid-March. Whoever he is, he's the safest person in the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, we have wp:blp for a reason, calling her killing a murder is a direct statement that the cop who shot here was a murderer (and thus broke the law). If they had done this once or twice well I see no issue with that, we all make mistakes. This is about wp:nowhere and wp:rightgreatwrongs to try and use Wikipedia to push a wp:pov narrative at variance with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    According to the two diffs offered above, he did do it twice. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support more because of my general belief that contentious articles are a terrible place for most new editors to try to learn to edit, although the virtue signalling comment kind of sewed it up for me. Innican Soufou, that is exactly the kind of comment that contentious articles don't need, and especially not from newer editors whose imperfect understanding of Wikipedia is something experienced editors already need to spend time and patience on. At contentious articles that combination is a major timewaster. Tempers are often frayed already. Go edit some noncontentious articles, where the experienced editors have time and patience to spare to help you learn the ropes. —valereee (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I do think JzG needs to take a step back from their own POV-pushing. If someone were to gather the diffs, I think it's quite likely there'd be a warning in that direction for AP2. —valereee (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
After a deeper look at the talk page, I've changed my mind. IS's contributions were no worse than everyone else's comments on that page, including JzG. I will go in as an admin and see if I can help. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a draconian measure to suppress minority views. I'm a bit shocked that this is even here at ANI, and more so that someone has proposed a Tban. Looking at the discussion, the editor simply !voted in a discussion and was prodded from there. The mentioning of 49 edits in the original report seems more akin to poisoning the well than providing useful information. Sorry Guy, but I think you are very mistaken about this one. As Beeblebrox said above, this just needs to go to dispute resolution and everyone needs to calm down a bit. There is no one "Wikipedia approved" view on this topic, lets be a bit more tolerant, even when we find a viewpoint abhorrent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Dennis Brown, I'm shocked that you're shocked. I'm shocked that you would defend an unsupported assertion that a serving police officer has murdered someone as a simple 'minority view'. Regardless, it's not the the one-off use of the word which convinces me that a TBan is necessary, it's more the repeated refusal to engage with concerns over it, and the outright contempt expressed above for the editors raising those concerns. This is not the collegiate editing style called for in that topic area. GirthSummit (blether) 11:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    This is the kind of problem I'm talking about. You are overstating what I said. I am seeing a problem, wikiwide, where we slam the door instantly on people who have far right viewpoints, even if their behavior has not risen to the level of disruption. I completely disagree with their viewpoints, but I support allowing minority viewpoints to be expressed. In this case, he might have gone over the line, but to impose a tban only serves to overpunish, and encourage sockpuppetry. This isn't a solution, it is an overreaction and it would be foolish. The editor was poked a bit, keep in mind. The solution is to warn the editor and monitor, get them up to speed on what is expected. As JzG stated, they only have 49 edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Dennis Brown, I'm all for allowing minority viewpoints to be expressed, but I draw the line at making assertions to the effect that living public servants have committed serious criminal offenses, refusing to address concerns about such comments, and insulting people who raise those concerns. In my mind, this isn't about whether they are far right or not, this is about basic principals like civil discourse and responding appropriately to legitimate concerns, which are all the more important in contentious topic areas. I'll add that while I don't mind you disagreeing with me, and am happy to consider your viewpoint, I don't appreciate your use of the word 'foolish'. GirthSummit (blether) 11:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'm shocked that GS hasn't seen American current events articles this year commonly calling cops murderers, and more shocked that DB takes that as a far-right view. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk, I don't really keep abreast of American current affairs - I only know what Radio 4 tells me on my commute, and they're pretty careful with how they use that word. When I see an assertion on Wikipedia to the effect that a living person has committed what a serious criminal offence, I expect to see a citation to a reliable source supporting that assertion. If the source isn't there, I usually remove the assertion and perform a revision deletion. My impression was that we were supposed to be more strict with that sort if thing in contentious areas, not less strict. GirthSummit (blether) 12:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Fair and plausible, I guess. No insult intended. But yeah, BLM, Antifa and Biden's reform legislation "lean left" down south. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is way over the top. A warning on more careful use of language would be appropriate – also for JzG. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Not at this point - not enough disruption (yet) to warrant a topic ban, too little evidence has been presented. Let this be a warning - Innican Soufou is allowed to have the opinion that Babbitt was murdered, but on Wikipedia, we can't state as a fact that Babbitt was murdered, since the officer wasn't even charged with a crime, much less convicted. The virtue signalling comment is also unhelpful, and further refusal to address concerns may lead to a topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 11:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This proposal is laughable. Selective outrage got the better of many editors. I am amazed that this has not been closed already. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Doesn't discuss your actual reasoning, but does make three more-heat-than-light remarks. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If one very poor comment made over a month ago is the worst that Innican Soufou has done - and it appears that this is the case - then there isn't enough disruption to warrant a topic ban. - Bilby (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly per Starship.paint. (I wish I hadn't watched the footage of Ashli Babbitt being shot, but can't remove it from my inner cinema anymore. I, too, have strong feelings about which individuals and organizations share responsibility for misleading her to the fatal point of being shot, but shouldn't be expressing these feelings on Wikipedia, where we must always follow reliable sources, no matter what we feel, personally). Many of us occasionally argue with hyperbole or even falsehoods in the heat of a debate, and it's good to be reminded and asked to stop in these cases, but this sanction is premature, and it does feel one-sided, after having read the entire discussion. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as draconian, mostly along the lines of Dennis. Also I agree that colloquially murder and killing can be synonymous, and the same argument was made by many editors in last year's "Killing of George Floyd" move, so trying to definitively attribute intent seems unfair, especially since in one of the two diffs they used "killing". I also don't think the editor can be criticised for their non-participation, in part due to the WP:NOTCOMPULSORY argument, but also since the above discussion cannot reasonably be said to be a fair trial. In their shoes I'd probably not participate either, and would probably reconsider whether this is a hobby I want to develop. However, will add that AP2 has enough inflammatory content on talk pages and people should take more care not to unnecessarily rouse FORUM-y arguments. Still, the editor should've been given an opportunity to amend "murder" -> "killing" via a polite talk page note, but afaics this didn't happen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't know what to do with this IP editor, they keep removing mentions of far-right and antisemitism and generally pushing a POV. I don't know if this technically counts as vandalism or edit warring (no reverts, just keeps making same edits), but at least it's pretty disruptive IMO. I've issued four warnings but the activity goes on. Can something be done here, or have I caught the wrong end of the stick somehow? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you're barking up the right tree. Thank you for reporting, DoubleGrazing. Dynamic IP blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC).
There's a saying for that, "Ein blindes Huhn findet auch mal ein Korn". :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
They are back again as 79.25.92.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Ashleyyoursmile! 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked, and I have semi-protected the two articles that didn't have pending changes enabled, since this appears to be a long-term issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It’s an LTA using Telecom Italia IPs geolocating to Brescia, Italy, or nearby. Targets BLPs too. BMK has the details. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I've been following this LTA pretty closely: see here, and had discussions with Malcolmx15 and @Acroterion: about them - they've been very helpful about blocking and some range blocks. I've started an LTA page but will have to work on it tomorrow or afterwards. I'm of the opinion that despite the large number of IPs used, this is probably one person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It's almost certainly one person inhabiting a broad Telecom Italia range. I've placed a few narrow rangeblocks in the past. I haven't found a broad range that wouldn't shut down most of northern Italy. This has been going on for a couple of years. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been repeated vandalism and original research on the Patriotic Alternative article added by IPs and newly created accounts. PA is a white nationalist group and they have advertised Wikipedia on the social media platforms telling people to edit it. Last week their deputy leader was arrested. Firstly this IP [28] and on another [29] is adding original research to the article not cited in the sources trying to remove the fact the deputy was arrested but adding it was only her partner, and another new created accounts such as [30] are adding original research. What can be done here? Should I reqest to lock the article temporal? I think there is a case of meat-puppetry. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I protected the page for 3 days to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm locked out from the German wiki, and was not allowed to finish writing my explanation. Now I need help, because they locked me out completly. It is related to changes I tried to make here.

I wrote the same in my Talk Page and below I tried to ping the admin that banned me, in hope he would see my explanation. Karl-police (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't notify the editor because it's a cross-wiki issue and I'm banned from one. Karl-police (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Karl-police: Each language project is completely independent - administrators here can't do anything about a block on the German Wikipedia. You will need to follow whatever instructions you were given on the German Wikipedia to request unblock there. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there an Admin that also is an Admin on the German page, that could help me with the instructions. They banned my mail aswell, whatever that means. Karl-police (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
You'll have to figure out how to go about that on the German Wikipedia as you cannot ask editors here to proxy for you. Grogudicae👽 11:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I will try to send a mail to the link provided in the instrctions. A Mail ban only means, banned to use for account creation right? Karl-police (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
No, it means you cannot email. You'll have to figure out and follow whatever instructions they have on being blocked without email access. Grogudicae👽 11:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Karl-police: Checking on Central Auth they've disabled your talk page access (so you can't post there) and they've disabled the ability to use Special:EmailUser to send emails through the Wikipedia site. I don't speak German, but I think you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Sperrprüfung. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@192.76.8.91:But I still can send to @wikipedia.org right? Karl-police (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Karl-police: Yes, you can still send emails to that address, but you'll have to use your normal email software to do it, rather than the wikipedia site. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@192.76.8.91:Ah, okay I see. Thanks for the help! Karl-police (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Also what can I do if conflict changes happend like it did now? Karl-police (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You just have to merge the changes together, and put the comment where it makes sense 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@192.76.8.91:Is there a merge button for that? Karl-police (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Karl-police: No, you have to do it manually, the software isn't smart enough to deal with edit conflicts in the same section - you should have both copies of the text (your edit and the conflicting one) presented to you so you can just copy and paste your changes across. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@192.76.8.91:Oh.. well then, hm.. Karl-police (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5.197.251.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP is active since a few days. Some of the edits are pure vamdalism ([31] [32],), some are highly questionable ([33], [34]). Most of their edits have been reverted by various users. They have zero edits on any talk pages, but they come back to restore their edits to the articles, including vandalism ([35], [36]). I reported them to AIV yesterday morning, but nothing happened, this is why I am here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure it's vandalism and not just an alternate name? See our article on Quba or [37]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Guba is not a valid transliteration in any case. Kuba could have been one, but Azerbaijani is written using Latin alphabet, and in this alphabet, it is Quba. Anyway, by now all edits of this IP have been reverted, by multiple users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
And even if we assume this is not vandalism, replacing Quba with Guba is still not an acceptable edit, and edit-0warring over it is a clear policy violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Page protection needed. Much of the vandalism is nonsense, written in Spanish. Perhaps someone can ascertain whether any of it is defamatory to the point of rev/deletion. Still, it's not every day that one gets to read about dinosaurs and pornography in the same paragraph. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese, actually. Seems to be related to a Brazilian YouTube channel "Ei Nerd" whose creator shares the same name. No idea if there's more to it than that.   Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We'll see if they give up after, though I'm not especially hopeful—longer protection might be reasonable, given not a single edit since Nov 2020 has been constructive. — The Earwig (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
BTW, it is all juvenile silliness; do not see anything worthy of revdel. — The Earwig (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, The Earwig, for the assistance, and for correcting my late night sloppiness on foreign languages. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I am here today to request an administrative opinion on the user named ZaniGiovanni. In summary, I personally have the impression that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build a Wikipedia. I have come to this judgment based on the user's recent actions, his tone when editing, his actual history of edits, his threats, and his apparent unwillingness to cooperate. I had left a long message on ZaniGiovanni's Talk page detailing exactly what my concerns are with his behavior (a message which was reverted by ZaniGiovanni), but I will post the message here anyway. I apologize that I am posting the message itself, however, I think the message describes my concerns quite well and I didn't think it would be productive to re-arrange everything and try to turn it into a new message. I have included links to examples of his edits in the message as well. Prior to coming here, I also checked together with an experienced user who seems to agree there are "baseless claims" coming from the user. The message:

ZaniGiovanni, you are a user whose entire edit history [38] is seemingly composed of only two things: 1) removing Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia, and adding Armenian names to villages in Azerbaijan. 2) engaging in lengthy arguments with other users over trivial matters where you continuously resort to personal attacks, which even got you banned for a week at one point [39]. During the entire span of the time you have been editing, you have established a pattern of deleting information rather than adding it. You seem to have no issues with leaving Azerbaijani translations of village names when a highly experienced user reverts your edits [40] [41] [42] [43], however, you seem to apply a completely different standard to more regular users like me.

During the full span of time I have interacted with you, I have offered to you on multiple occasions to resolve our disagreements via Talk and compormise [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. I have invited you to discuss things on your talk page to settle things in a civil manner. Not only have you ignored this offer multiple times, but you have seemingly made no effort to come to a compromise either, engaging in overzealous deletion of material WP:ZEAL, all the while sending me threats of you "reporting" me [50] [51] on the ground that you personally suspect me of sockpuppetry (although you've yet to provide any proof of that).

You have tried to implicate me in some sort of a scheme involving a banned user CuriousGolden on the talk page of another user [52] without having ever approached me with your concerns, and without having ever even spoken to me previously on any talk page about anything.

You have used a highly condescending, commanding tone during every interaction I have had with you. You have accused me of "edit-warring" and of "disruptive behavior" even though I have been open to talk with you and to compromise with you. You have used phrases like "Last warning, ..." [53] and "bogus POV information" [54] and "You will be notified if an investigation is opened on you" and "I would've already opened an investigation on you" [55] in reference to me.

Frankly ZaniGiovanni, I have no idea how to even approach you as a user. I personally feel you are making the editing environment unnecessarily toxic and making it impossible for us to have a regular conversation and I am thinking of requesting administrator attention WP:RAA, because I personally feel that you are not here to build a Wikipedia, particularly because I believe the following WP:NOTHERE descriptors are attributable to you:

1) "General pattern of disruptive behavior."
2) "Little or no interest in working collaboratively."
3) "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia."
4) "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods."

I will now seek to find an experienced user and ask them what they think of your behavior since I am very tired of you antagonizing me, threatening me, and everything else that I have mentioned above, because it seems I just can't reach out to you. - Creffel (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I am open to all suggestions that you may propose and I am open to engage in further conversation. Also, I'm not sure if this is an important detail but for the sake of transparency: the user in question has just about 30 minutes ago opened a sockpuppet investigation against me. Not sure what the implications of this are but I will be patiently waiting for the final verdict.

Edit: The sockpuppet investigation has just been closed, turns out I am not a sockpuppet.

In the meantime, thank you for reading and considering my concerns. - Creffel (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Similar accusations by other user were addressed to me in this same noticeboard 1, which I already replied. There is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation about you 2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that I've closed the SPI and deferred it to the CU OTRS queue since there is apparently off-wiki evidence involved. From what I can see on-wiki my take is that yes, these two users know each other and share a POV, but there isn't sufficient evidence to indicate that Golden is sitting behind Creffel's keyboard. Since Creffel joined before Golden's block and the explanation that they watchlisted the pages in anticipation of a coordinated raid is at least somewhat credible (and would indicate an independent reason for reinstatement), I don't feel comfortable actioning the socking side of this based on the on-wiki evidence alone. Blablubbs|talk 11:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the further information. Where exactly to reinstate the off wiki connection, and his mentions of reddit posts abt CuriousGolden / supposed raids? I'm still new to opening reports on wiki, apologies for too many questions. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Answered here. Blablubbs|talk 12:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
For editors or admins reading this, here is my side of the story. The block Creffel is talking about regarding me is when I just joined wikipedia and wasn't aware of all the rules, and I don't have problem with that block looking back. What is also true tho, a block almost two months ago has no relation to this case, and I fully acknowledge my wrong doing back then. The only relation it has to the case is that it involved a now banned editor, CuriousGolden.
In regards to Creffel's accusations about Azeri translations in Armenian villages. First of all, when I see credible reasons that translations should remain, e.g. properly sourced information, notability, etc., I don't edit further, and with Sotk as an example, they fail to mention that said criteria was provided 1, 2. Logically then, I left the page untouched, not because "I have different standards to regular users".
In the span of 24 hours, Creffel has been edit-warring with me on several occasions 3, 4, 5, 6, reverting my good faith edits. Btw, all of these edits are the banned editor's additions to the articles, CuriousGolden. I restored stable versions on these articles, because All of them contain bogus POV sentence like "Azerbaijani village" referring to an Armenian village and territory (and yes it is POV to refer to foreign territory village as Azerbaijani when it's not).
And many other abandoned villages like this with the same sentence, all added by CuriousGolden 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. In my edits I even mention, if editors like Creffel wish to add about former population of these villages, they should add them in appropriate section of the article, I have no problem with that 1, 2, 3, 4.
What Creffel does then, is he restores ALL the edits with blatant POV in the lead of the articles, and they don't want to restore info only about translation and population, granted that it's properly sourced. The reason I'm telling this is that after Creffel for the 2nd or 3rd time, restored one of the village's edits as a "compromise", he claimed that "I have kept the rest of the information, which is properly cited and factually correct" 12. Upon looking at the source in details, which was about the former population of the village, it was an extremely biased non reliable website, added again by CuriousGolden, titled "Sacral foci of the Gihi gorge (river) basin or unfoundedness of the fictitious "sacred geography of Armenia"" 13, 14. And this was the website used by CuriousGolden as a basis to add his POV sentence and about former population of the village, I don't know how it even qualifies as WP:VERIFY source to begin with. This was also the edit that according to Creffel was "properly cited and factually correct".
I think that this case opened against me is unfounded and quite frankly it seems like a deflecting moment from Creffel. The only criticism I see is that I could've been more timid with my tone in later edits, but I never insulted them, and you have to also understand that the user was changing and edit-warring, restoring edits with clear POV in it, even tho I gave him the compromise numerous times saying "Restore properly sourced info about population all you want, I have no problem with it". I mentioned Creffel on the talk of a more experienced editor, so to get a better understanding of how to move forward (I'm very new to opening reports) with this situation 15. And also the reason I informed them that there was already a discussion going on, when he left this same essay on my talk page 16. I also replied to their previous messages on my talk page 17, and I also warned them about disruptive editing, since they restored a blatant POV with a propaganda source 18.
Thank you for reading patiently. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Yea, except virtually everything above is distortion at best or outright false at worst. I tried to get the user to discuss things with me and all I got was threats and insults. Now that I have shared his actions on the administrator's board, user suddenly decides now is the right time to start discussing edits? Wow.
User filed some shabby "sockpuppeting" complaint against me after threatening me multiple times. Amusingly, the user decided to do so only after I informed him of my intention to share his behavior with the administration board. User tried to prove I am a sockpuppet by citing how my account and this other account both contain the same word, "skepticism". Yea okay.
That sockpuppeting thing fell flat on its back, now he is here writing, well, whatever all of that is supposed to be.
My personal opinion is that this has become a matter of personal ego for the user in question rather than a genuine concern. - Creffel (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a drama show. Nothing I said is a "distortion" or "outright false at worst". Nobody insulted you and you failed to prove otherwise, avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. And yes this is a warning, you will be reported. And I have every right to do so if you continue with these ridiculous bogus smears. I already discussed with you and told you that you literally restored a propaganda source edit claiming it was "properly cited".
I had sockpuppeting suspicions hence the reason I filed the investigation, and it was done before your report here. I was told that users should act BOLD on wikipedia, and at the time I thought it was best to open the investigation.
Please stay on the topic we discuss, and address my points. All I see is WP:OTHER, and unfounded smears from you.
Wikipedia isn't a place for "egos" and when you open a case, expect people to reply to that case. You seem to have run out of arguments, and started to accuse and smear me all of the sudden. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
You have consistently engaged in POV edits, edit warring, vandalism, and you have also casted WP:ASPERSIONS and you have attempted to smear me. I don't appreciate you getting so aggressive of all sudden when I point out your wrongdoings. I believe you should have better morals than that, and it seems to me like frankly you no longer know what to say. I believe you should engage in productive discussions instead of trying to smear me and make bogus POV edits. I am warning you right now that if you don't cease your edit warring, then I will begin reporting you to admins individually.
Please engage in productive discussion, discuss my points, and don't try to attack me personally. Thank you. - Creffel (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Now this is a deflection if I've ever seen one. I don't think you are here to engage in a productive conversation, and I struggle to assume good faith in any of your recent two replies. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Stop with the empty smears. I am assuming good faith for you, but if you cannot assume good faith for me then this is not my fault. You need to stop engaging in edit warring and please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and stay on topic. I would also like you to stop your borderline vandalist edits on pages about Azerbaijani villages. - Creffel (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to ping the admin involved with the case @Blablubbs: or any other admins reading this, @El C:. I'm not going to tolerate such insults and smears from Creffel, and blatant deflections from him. The user failed to answer any of my valid points, and continues to deflect and smear with unfounded accusations and insults, even after being warned. Please take the necessary actions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also going to invite several admins to look at your behavior. You have consistently refused to answer my concerns about your behavior and instead chose to change the topic, which should have been discussed when we were editing (which you refused to do so). Your actions clearly demonstrate that you are not willing to address my concerns and instead prefer to constantly edit war and try to "report" me, first to Sockpuppet investigation, and now to other admins. You have personally threatened me with investigations which I believe is not the correct way to engage in civil discussion. You have a long history of arguing with other users over trivial details, which I believe you are now attempting to do with me. Your edit history also demonstrates a continuous pattern of removing Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia, and adding Armenian names to villages in Azerbaijan. I invite admins to please do whatever is necessary. - Creffel (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

So instead of properly answering to my sourced comprehensive reply to this same exact accusation from you, you repeat what you said initially, which I already addressed? As I said, It's impossible to assume good faith in your recent replies, given your continued behavior even after being warned. Also, most of my edits are done to Armenian pages, adding another lie with smears again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
You addressed virtually none of my original concerns and instead, you tried to deflect responsibility away from your behavior. I have been trying to assume good faith in your replies all along, but frankly, every single message you have ever sent me has been loaded with threats. Also, you should not try to "warn" me since you are not an admin, I don't understand your attempts to "warn" me. Most of your edits were in villages that used to have an Azerbaijani population, whereby you tried to remove most, if not all information that would suggest the presence of Azerbaijanis in these villages. Whenever I confronted you on this, you engaged in edit-wars with me, threatened to investigate me for sockpuppetry, and refused to discuss things on your talk page, and now you are engaging in an edit war here as well. You have a proven record of arguing with others users constantly, and you also have a record of being banned for personal insults. You only agreed to begin discussing edits with me after I posted my concerns on the administrator's noticeboard. I don't think you are here to build a Wikipedia, since all you seem to do is: 1) remove Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia, and add Armenian names to villages in Azerbaijan. 2) engage in lengthy arguments with other users over trivial matters. I welcome Admins to please investigate this case. Thank you. - Creffel (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I addressed all the points regarding the recent edit-wars you yourself engaged in, and even showed you that you restored a propaganda source under the pretext of "properly cited information". As I said in my initial reply, if you read it, I have no problem with addition of former population if they a)are properly cited, b)are notable enough and done to their respective section (e.g. history or demographic section). I told this mutliple times to you but you either restored all the pages with 3 of them, inculding the POV bogus sentence reffering to the villages as "Azerbaijani" when they were not, or you kept the propaganda source called "Sacral foci of the Gihi gorge (river) basin or unfoundedness of the fictitious "sacred geography of Armenia"". If you read my reply you would know this, and as I said that source isn't nowhere reliable or WP:VERIFY to have as an evidence of anything. You continue to bring up unrelated block of mine 2nd time now, which is also a bannable offense, and to which I already replied. I addressed everything related to the case, and when I say "warning" it is warning to get reported for your continual behavior, which I also mentioned. I discussed your revision and I showed you where exactly by linking it, it is still visible on my talk page. I have nothing to add here, you have created an idea about me in your head and you continue with harassment and smears. Admins should decide what to do next. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
"I addressed all the points regarding the recent edit-wars you yourself engaged in" - The ones you started and the ones you refused to resolve via talk and compromise.
"I told this multiple times to you but you either restored all the pages with 3 of them" - You deleted big chunks of information including Azerbaijani translations which was entirely unnecessary. The burden of proof is on you as the editor who removed information to demonstrate that the information is not appropriate, which you failed to do. This is a breach of WP:BURDEN.
"I said that source isn't nowhere reliable or WP:VERIFY to have as an evidence of anything" - You refused to talk with me about it on your talk page all the while threatening me with sockpuppetry investigation. I had to report your behavior to Administrators' Noticeboard to get you to actually explain your reasoning in detail, which you wouldn't seem to do otherwise.
"You continue to bring up an unrelated block of mine 2nd time now, which is also a bannable offense" - No it is not, it a demonstration of continuous disruptive behavior, whereby you chose to engage in endless arguments with other users and resort to personal insults rather than solve things through Talk and compromise.
"you have created an idea about me in your head" - Please don't use personal arguments on Wikipedia based on unfounded assumptions. I have extensively detailed your pattern of behavior based on your edit history and on your actions. You tried to implicate me in "sockpuppeting" by claiming that both my account and CuriousGolden's account have the word "skeptical" in them, is this really worth it?
"Admins should decide what to do next." I fully agree with you, because your edit history, your history of confrontation rather than disucssion, and your refusal to use Talk and compromise are indicative that you are WP:NOTHERE to build a Wikipedia. - Creffel (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Same talking points, and same “accusations” that already been replied to with backed sources multiple times. Indeed, the only solution here is further action by admins. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @ZaniGiovanni: you need to take a long hard look at yourself. I looked at all the diffs, I looked at all the links, etc etc etc. By definition, you are the one edit warring. On every single diff which you provided, you made more reverts than Creffel. You are not supposed to make more than three reverts to a page, but making three on every single page is just as bad and also considered edit warring and will get you blocked. Creffel did two reverts on each of the pages, which some editors would also call edit warring, but it's far more acceptable than what you're doing. versacespaceleave a message! 21:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes I did those edits restoring the stable version before the POV sentence addition by a blocked editor, and in some cases, with propaganda source(s). I apologize to the admins for breaking the 3 revert rule which I forgot at the time, as I'm very new to wiki. From herein, I will report if I see vandalism done to the pages, and if users don't stop editing it back. For the record, as I said earlier, I don't mind information about former population/name to be added to their respective sections, if they are properly cited and notable enough, which I had experience in Sotk, 2 village. I also think that Creffel, with all the deflecting, harassing and smearing without properly addressing any of my points, should also receive necessary actions from admins. --ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
      • You also need to stop calling edits that aren't vandalism, vandalism. Vandalism is editing a page with the bold intention of ruining it. Adding the population of a place is not vandalism, even if the information added is incorrect. versacespaceleave a message! 21:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
        • All of the pages had "Azerbaijani village" added in the lead by a blocked editor 3, 4, 5, 6, meanwhile all of these villages are/were Armenian. And there are even more edits like those ones, done again by the same editor, which are still unchanged 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I think it's safe to say it was vandalism, when even other info in some of the village(s) like abt former population, was deliberately chosen from a POV propaganda website as a "source" with matching title. But as I said, the info that is correct and properly cited, I have no problem having on those pages. I simply reverted to the stable versions of the articles before the POV additions were made. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
          • @ZaniGiovanni: how in tarnation is it a "POV" edit to think that a city belongs to Armenia? And how is it vandalism? versacespaceleave a message! 22:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
            • How adding "Azerbaijani village" in the lead of the article, regarding different country's territory isn't a POV push? Are you aware of the situation in Caucasus with Armenia and Azerbaijan? I'm sure adding "Armenian city" in the lead of Shushi would be fine then, cause by your logic, it then says "Shusha district of Azerbaijan". Thank god he didn't delete the part about Armenia I guess. That was just unnecessary addition by the user, and given their editing history, a clear POV push and vandalism. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
              • @ZaniGiovanni: at this point, you are just not listening. Even if the information added is incorrect, it is not vandalism if the editor genuinely believes their insertion is true. versacespaceleave a message! 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
                • I don't know why you assume that the editor in question, CuriousGolden "genuinely believes their insertion is true". They edited almost exclusively on Armenia/Azerbaijan articles, and I struggle to conclude that they "genuinely believed" multiple established abandoned villages in Armenia are "Azerbaijani villages", given their experience as an editor and their history of edits. I'm listening to your arguments very clear. More probable explanation is a blatant vandalism and POV push attempt from them, since they probably thought these kind of pages go unnoticed usually. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Please read WP:VD to see what vandalism is. It is pretty much an attempt to destroy a wiki page by blanking it or adding nonsense or obscenity. Content disagreements are certainly not vandalism. Grandmaster 16:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose", Project's purpose WP:5P2 "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Pretty sure, adding "Azerbaijani village" in the lead of several abandoned Armenian villages constitutes as vandalism and a blatant POV push. Not sure why an editor with your experience thinks those were "certainly not vandalisms", when clearly the now blocked editor indeed was knowledgable enough about the places given their edit history and topics, and still added those POV sentences, and in some cases, they included propaganda websites with matching titles as "sources". Before linking anything, please consider looking at your links in more detail. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                      • You have already been explained by other users too what is and what is not vandalism. Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I repeat once again that those edits were not vandalism, and most probably were made in good faith, unless you can prove the opposite. And the fact that someone was banned does not mean that their edits can be undone, regardless of their merit. What is the point in repeatedly bringing up the fact that someone was banned (and not for those edits, but for a totally unrelated offense)? It cannot be a justification for anything. Grandmaster 18:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                      @ZaniGiovanni: what you just described is not vandalism. versacespaceleave a message! 18:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                      • @Grandmaster: First of all, I don't appreciate your tone here. The blocked editor had a clear POV as shown by the SPI investigation, and very similar if not worse POV was demonstrated by them in these abandoned Armenian villages. You changed your reply moments ago, probably understanding that what you said was just outright false 1. My mere mention that the editor was blocked, and mind you as I said they showed very similar POV which they also showed in those villages, seems to bother you very much for some reason. The investigation showed similar pattern to what they did in those villages hence my mention of it, nothing more. It seems that you just don't like any mention of the block, regardless if it’s related or not. The edits were certainly not done in good faith given that the user was editing heavy in Armenia/Azerbaijan villages and was knowledgeable enough, and the fact that they still added the POV sentences in the articles and in some cases also added propaganda "sources" clearly shows their extreme POV and bias at the very least. I'm not gonna argue with you that besides a clear POV, it also demonstrates vandalism. And I'm going to assume good faith and trust your experience as an editor judging what is vandalism. But whether a certain blocked user, who had a clear POV and demonstrated it blatantly multiple times (including in the cases discussed here), and whether they also did vandalism or not, shouldn't be the focus here regardless. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My only interaction with ZaniGiovanni was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azizkend - I don't particularly mind the deletion, but I did try to save the article by adding sources, especially one from the Azeri government encyclopaedia, which ZaniGiovanni quickly reverted on the grounds it was "unreliable", and then unilaterally re-added a hoax tag to the article while the article was at AfD. I think the behaviour there and listed above is relatively clear, and at the least would support a topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed, if not more. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    This isn't the only interaction that you had with me since I already explained my decision to you, that you failed to mention for some reason 1. Quote:

    "As I mention in the discussion, I was the one who initially removed hoax tag from the already deleted article. Seeing the same bogus political source however I added it back. I was referring to same political source included in the first village I mentioned, which was also in the already deleted article. I wasn't referring to your "official source". You could've asked me before making baseless assumptions. Later, you removed the hoax tag. I added hoax tag back as there was a disclaimer to "not remove the hoax until discussion for deletion is over". The encyclopedia that you talk about has nothing to do with the villages I mentioned here (it's not even in the articles) and I didn't call it a "hoax". Your attempts to somehow belittle my arguments by bringing an already deleted article seems rather confusing SportingFlyer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)"

    Quote:

    "The deleted article you mentioned had the same problematic source, which still is problematic and included in other articles as well. What exact name changes are you talking about? I removed non common names, following wiki rules. And in my most edits, the translations were already mentioned in the lead of the articles. I didn't "edit-war" with you lol, what are you talking about? I simply reverted the changes to the deleted article before the deletion discussion was over (as editors were told to in the disclaimer). You are free to mention other sources from "Azeri wikipedia", and editors can take a look and see whether they are reliable or not. If you have anything to say regarding the issue we're discussing then do it, don't jump into discussions with strange accusations out of nowhere. Also my most edits are done to Armenian villages, I don't "add Armenian names" they are already included most of the time. And if they're not, then logically I would add them. Again, same weird accusations from you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)"

    So me following wiki rules and adding the hoax tag back until the discussion is over (and the village got deleted), which editors were told to in the disclaimer of the article "Do not remove hoax tag until the discussion of deletion is over", and your conclusion after all the talks in admin noticeboard with me and not replying to my last message there too, was to suddenly come here when there is an ongoing case regarding me, and suggest a "topic ban" on me? Jesus christ. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    My discussion with you on this notice board was directly related to that AfD, and it's pretty clear what you're trying to do with your edits and your attempts to ban users who disagree with your interpretation of events. SportingFlyer T·C 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    I can't "ban" users I'm not an admin. I can warn them of possible reports from me, if they continue edit-warring and restoring edits containing blatant POV push, which they did in several occasions. And as I said, your continual sudden "arrival" in discussions involving me is rather alarming, given that you keep casting aspersions, and mentioning a deleted article multiple times now in different talks including me, as some sort of argument. To which I replied previously. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Creffel: I'm writing this here rather than above since I feel it might get lose above even if I ping you. But there is no requirement that an editor needs to be an admin to warn another editor. Indeed that is fundamentally against how Wikipedia operates. It's generally less effective when an editor in dispute with the other edit warns them, but that applies to admins an non admins alike and a proper warning from any editor even one the editor is in dispute with is another to inform the editor of our policies and guidelines and the possibility of blocks. Therefore the editor may be blocked if their editing is indeed sufficient against our policies and guidelines to justify a block. To be clear I make no comment on whether the warnings are justified or good warnings, I haven't looked at them. I'm simply pointing out that your comment above 'you should not try to "warn" me since you are not an admin' makes no sense since it's not how we operate here. User:ZaniGiovanni warning you is also sufficient to establish they are aware of our policies and guidelines so they can also be blocked if they demonstrated the same behaviour they warned you about, and it justifies a block. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Nil Einne Oh okay, fair enough. I had no idea. Just felt that the warnings the user made sounded more like a "stop questioning me" type of deal rather than "please remember the rules" type. Regardless, thank you for letting me know, you learn something every day I guess. - Creffel (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

User AFGFactChecker, despite a previous ban and a consensus having been reached against this manner of edits, is back to previous antics on the Ahmad Zahir page. Please see most recent article history for a demonstration of this behaviour. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not done anything except trying to make sure the page adheres to the previous consensus that was reached on the talk page history which was to leave out mention of ethnicity because of a dispute over sources. Please see the full talk page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFGFactChecker (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
AFGFactChecker - is already blocked from two different articles about people called Zahir for edit warring; looking at the history of that page, they are obviously edit warring again there, and I don't believe that another partial block is going to be effective, they may just move onto edit warring at another article about someone else called Zahir - I'm therefore applying a one-week site-wide block. GirthSummit (blether) 15:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: We edit conflicted; I was about to ask if it's time to move on to a site block. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
After looking over the issue, I agree that this is the appropriate course of action. --Kinu t/c 19:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Johnjmuller (talk · contribs) and a range of IPs from Caracas have edit warred to add promotional content. Having been warned off editing, the WP:SPA interest has continued at multiple talk pages. This reads a lot like behavior from long ago, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zamora (musician), where a cluster of socks led by Alejandrozamora (talk · contribs) and Angelamuziotti (talk · contribs) behaved similarly. Requesting a topic block at the least, and something stronger if this is block evasion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Some relevant diffs: 18 April, an IP adds a verbatim copy of alejandrozamora to the article. 19 April, another IP restores the material – see the edit summary whch indicates collaboration with Zamora himself or his marketing staff. 20 April, yet another IP restores the text, with another interesting edit summary. 27 April, I make some major edits to the article, involving the removal of a lot of promotional text and external links. On 28 April, the account Johnjmuller is created and reverts my edits. After this, there are discussions between Johnjmuller, myself, and C.Fred, at User_talk:C.Fred#Zamora_(Pianist), at Talk:Zamora_(pianist), and to some extent at User talk:Johnjmuller.
The walls of text are a bit overwhelming, but the heart of the matter is that Johnjmuller would like the article Zamora (pianist) to include all the text and claims at http://www.alejandrozamora.com , and is bludgeoning the discussions. It is also clear that Johnjmuller has a close connection to the article's topic, since discussions here have led to immediate changes of external websites – not only alejandrozamora.com but also Zamora's profile at airplaydirect.com.
The AfD mentioned by the OP above is from 2010, and there is another AfD from 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora, with the identical kind of disruption. --bonadea contributions talk 14:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys!

Thanks for letting know about this in my talk page.

I have already mentioned that I have no direct affiliation or relationship with the artist nor with previous incidents reported here. I am a fan only. All others claims here are “hypothetical suppositions”.

About the “suspected connection with the artist” it started after that I sent an email to the artist requesting a license change (for public domain) to allow using his biography material @Wikipedia and since that I received a positive answer and the license was granted and published the same day at the website of the artist then it was wrongly supposed that I had a direct affiliation with the artist.

So, for this reason, to avoid any concern of conflict of interest I decided voluntarily to avoid editing the article directly and I am just using my right of free speech to suggest a list of edits at the talk page to improve the article.

@Bonadea: I will address your two main concerns / “heart of the matter” of this report about “bludgeoning” and wanting to include all the text from the artist website.

About the first one, I will follow the advise @Wikipedia help page to improve about “bludgeoning”

About the last one, I don’t want to add all the text - For this reason I’ve posted a list of items to discuss the re-inclusion into the article.

From my side the incident is solved and I am glad to work all together with “good faith” to improve the article about Zamora.

Also, Wiki.Admin @C.Fred: is willing to work with me to improve the article.

I am copying and pasting the message of C.Fred “as reference” here:

Finally, please assume good faith. I am working with you because I believe that, at the end of the day, your motive is to improve the article about Zamora.

Johnjmuller (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A couple of days ago, while browsing various articles, I came across one in which a sentence was grammatically incorrect. I read further and found more errors. I fixed them. Here are my edits:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=1020937894&oldid=1012518288 fixed incorrect use of "but" and poor grammar
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=1020937999&oldid=1020937894 grammar
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=1020938062&oldid=1020937999 NPOV

I believe that writing in grammatically correct English is a universally accepted baseline standard for pretty much any website, certainly one that aims to be an encyclopaedia. But, for no reason that I can comprehend, my edits triggered the ire of User:Beyond My Ken. Their behaviour since three days ago seems to me to be seriously unhinged and destructive. I have no intention of editing further; they have already successfully harassed me off Wikipedia. I would not have posted this, except that they are continuing to harass me even after I said I was not going to edit any more. Here are some links to illustrate behaviour so appalling that I'm truly dumbfounded by it:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1020957758 reverted my edits, without offering any sensible justification
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=1021074684&oldid=1020994352 did it again
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=1021091491&oldid=1021084807 did it again
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1021113968 reported me for edit-warring, falsely listing edits which were not reverts to accuse me of making four reverts, which I had not, and presenting my talk page post where I further explained my edits as his "attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page"
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=1021074992&oldid=1021015239 disparaged my edits and my careful justification of them, offered no justification for undoing them
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1021118418 insulted an editor who commented on their false claim of four reverts, demanded that their comment be ignored
  7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1021172938 disparaged the contributions of another editor who commented in support of my edits
  8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1021290903 insulted that editor once again
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1021306431 and again
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sergow&diff=prev&oldid=1021284208 edited my own user page to harass me
    1. (ironically shortly after expressing outrage that another user edited their own comments and claiming such things to be "strictly VERBOTEN". I read the page that they claimed forbids such things and found that to be untrue)
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dracunculiasis&diff=prev&oldid=1021285670 shortly after their edit warring report was closed, they moved onto another edit I made and undid that, again without any sensible justification
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sergow sought to get my user page deleted.

I'll reiterate that I fixed some grammar errors. What I did was not controversial in the slightest, and the response from User:Beyond My Ken is absolutely off the scale of rationality. I am not going to edit any more but I very much doubt I am the first person they have attacked in this way and I very much doubt I will be the last, hence this report. Sergow (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Whatever the merits of the remainder of this report: claiming that BMK edited your own user page "to harass you" is completely false: you made a user page to directly and blatantly attack him, and linked his user name so he was bound to see this. Removing such personal attacks is not harassment, creating such a user page is harassment though. That you didn't accept BMK editing it can prhaps be forgiven in the heat of the moment: but when others then repeatedly revert you as well because you are making personal attacks, then perhaps you should have realised that you were in the wrong here, instead of again and again reverting them?[56][57][58]. Anyway, that page is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sergow and seems to be heading for deletion, obviously. Fram (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've removed this[59] racist AfD vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannibalism in China. I assume that is the correct thing to do? SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that certainly was. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:NONAZIS. We don't do that here.--Jayron32 15:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Ah yes, the foreign queasine trope. Should the revision be RD2'd as well? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. Done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@RickinBaltimore: without having seen what was in the deleted revision, their new comment ([60]) is IMO not realy better. Can we get a block? Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I reverted the IP again, nothing productive coming from them. TAXIDICAE💰 19:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
IP blocked for 31 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Second edit is revdel'd as well. Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like this was all getting a bit tasty. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This complaint involves the user Alexbrn and his battleground behavior on the Finasteride page. To be as brief as I can, this has been a contentious page for a long time and AlexBRN has owned the page for many years. The controversial nature of the page is due to the fact that many people are reporting irreversible side effrom a common hair-loss drug. It has plenty of evidence in support of this, but it remains controversial and it is not well understood scientifically, because it is a rare condition that it does not attract much attention from the scientific community. There was even an investigative report from Reuters last year which reviewed confidential court documents and showed that Merck, the drug manufacturer found evidence of this syndrome in its original clinical trials yet obscured this information from the FDA and public.

AlexBRN's appears to try and remove as much information as he can about this irreversible syndrome. The opposite side of the coin is that there are members of this community who are badly affected and are understandably very emotional about this article to create adequate warnings for people who are looking to take this drug. I'm not sure why AlexBRN does what he does but you can see this is a recipe for an unfortunately heated situation. He very frequently uses Wiki sourcing guidelines to justify his controversial edits and then will reverse his interpretation of the guidelines to justify what he wants to keep in there.

I have been watching the discussion on the sidelines and saw the AlexBRN has been aggressively editing to remove any edits that include more information about Post-Finasteride Syndrome and treating newcomers with disrespect for years. I am not interested in any drama, but I would like to create a balanced article per wiki guidelines and sourcing criteria. Really not a big deal. He's exhausting and uncooperative so assistance is needed here.

Over the past few weeks I have attempted to have civil discussions on the talk page with AlexBRN and he refused to discuss saying I could just make edits and it would be worked out that way. I provided more context to sources that were taking out of context or information was partially represented to create a POV, I removed redundant sources, and restructured things a little to make it read more clearly. He immediately deleted every edit without even discussing on the talk page and declared it to be "blatant POV pushing". Some editors here thrive on creating conflict but I'm looking to get an admin or 3rd party editor to help resolve this dispute.

Feel free to see for yourself here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finasteride&diff=1020872681&oldid=1020872626 - but my edits are intended to create a balanced view of the sources to highlight the wiki supporting evidence in support of Post-finasteride syndrome and its controversies. If this isn't the right place to take this dispute, please let me know where would be a better place.

Thanks. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There are active discussions on the talkpage with several other editors, and it doesn't appear that objection to your edits is confined to one editor. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This was the first time I made any edits on the main page and he is the only one that objected. I had passively watched the article and made what I believe are constructive edits today. The other edits that AlexBrn had reverted were for different editors. Some of those edits were fair and some of them were unfair, but there was no civil attempt to engage other editors with whom there was disagreement. The edits that I added today were completed rolled back without any engagement, which has been typical. It's almost impossible to work with any editor that removes everything you add and has gotten to the point of edit warring with other editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finasteride&diff=1020872681&oldid=1020872626 98.7.49.47 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
So eight and a half years after this discussion, in which sources were repeatedly grossly misrepresented and I was repeatedly attacked, we still have editors who refuse to simply follow the science, as described at WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn should be thanked for taking on such a task against such editors, not complained about. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there has been an uptick in campaigning activity by the syndrome boosters of late, evidenced by their restoration of a previously-deleted POVFORK (Post-finasteride syndrome, since redirected again) which they boasted about off-wiki.[61] The IP/OP is likely part of that push (and possibly a sock of the other WP:SPAs who've been at it too). Probably a reasonable solution here would be to semi-protect Finasteride to dampen down this kind of drama in future, since this seems to be a long-running issue. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
How things were eight years ago on a science related article is completely stale. There's been a lot of research since then and an investigative report showing Merck hid risks from the FDA and public. Please feel free to participate if you'd like if you look at the article as it is today and not based on your outdated opinion of extremely stale sources and science. I'm here specifically to request third party review and mediation specifically for the most recent batch of edits that were blanket deleted without any feedback. I have nothing to do with these separate issues that AlexBrn is trying to bring into the fold other than, as I mentioned, I passively watched the back and forth and saw that AlexBrn was extremely aggressive and uncooperative and I would like to fix that. Unfortunately, nobody here yet has actually commented on the edits that I specifically would like to be addressed and are bringing unrelated conflicts with other editors into the discussion. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The OP has already said they don't want to interact with me.[62] The solution is to self-impose an interaction ban, which would include recusing themselves from topics where I was already active. Problem solved? Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
You're suggesting that I simply stop editing the article because you were there first which is exactly the type of problematic behavior that caused me to bring this ANI. I'm simply just looking for neutral editors to review my edits which were blanket deleted to minimize or even avoid conflict. Thanks. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
If you don't want to interact with Alexbrn, as you say in the edit linked above, then simply don't edit the same pages. You are entitled to say that another editor shouldn't post on your user talk page, apart from required notifications, but you can't unilaterally ban anyone from any other pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but I am not seeing a problem in AlexBRN's edit that you have provided. Editorials, even in a medical journals, are not peer-reviewed, and they are at best primary sources. As far as investigations go, news media like Reuters are not really rigorous enough for WP:MEDRS. What you would probably want to look at would be an FDA investigation or some similar investigation by a government regulatory body. Or you could look for published human RCTs on these drugs that reported these side effects, but you would likely want to find a source to cover them to avoid WP:OR or WP:SYNTH because those things can be difficult for non-experts to interpret.

    Please review WP:MEDRS for further guidance on appropriate sourcing for medical articles. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Additionally, looking over the article talk section, I would advise that the IPV6 address reciew WP:AGF, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND and, if they insist on pushing this ANI discussion, WP:BOOMERANG Hyperion35 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Hyperion35:, AlexBrn is actually the one who introduced editorials into the article, defending their validity as MEDRS sources. I very specifically asked him about this, because they were not discussed in MEDRS, and he claimed they are one of Wikipedia's "most golden sources" which you can find here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-finasteride_syndrome&diff=1015958223&oldid=1015957576 - I've found it nearly impossible to have constructive discussions with him because he is inconsistent in how he applies the rules to himself vs others. Beyond that, the text from the BMJ editorial he included had largely cherry picked a phrase from the editorial and spun the overall opinion of the source to make it seem like the BMJ was presenting PFS as illegitimate when the actual source had a much more balanced and informative view. When I made an edit to more accurately include the full text of the editorial, he hastily removed it as POV pushing.
    • Regarding the Reuters investigative report, it is used to discuss what the researchers found was hidden from the court documents and from the FDA and it doesn't make any direct claims about scientific or medical truths in Wikipedia's voice. An investigative report from Reuters, one of the world's most respected news agencies, is certainly non-notable when you talk about the contents of the investigation which the article did. The use of the Reuters report had been undisputed as a reputable and valuable source for quite some time but the Wikipedia page didn't always fairly and neutrally represent the underlying source. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Better to go by what I actually wrote[63] rather than misrepresent it (misrepresenting things seems to be your forte). The most prestigious editorials, yes, are useful for matters of general background on medical topics. But not for hard bioscience. Basically the OP is just POV-pushing coming off the back of an off-wiki campaign to WP:RGW over this syndrome; it's wasted a lot of editors' time already and now at ANI it's wasting more. Alexbrn (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Everything I included was on general background and not bioscience in the text I added. On when I revised your text, I more accurately represented the source your cherrypicked and included more relevant regulatory and background information. It's very clear from the edits which I again request people review on here. That is what representation is. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
          • If you think your adding[64] the (implication-laden) statement "5α-reductase inhibitors reduce synthesis of brain neurosteroids, which affect mood, cognition, and libido" is general background, rather than hard bioscience, then we have a WP:CIR problem. This and other issues, such as your garbled English, made your edits overall undesirable. In any event the usual way to proceed when reverted is to discuss (maybe per WP:BRD), rather coming to ANI with a series of personal attacks and false allegations. If you refuse to engage in the consensus forming process, your only option is to go away. Maybe there are other topics on Wikipedia than "post-finasteride syndrome" that need help. Are you WP:HERE I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
            Alexbrn, a lot of the sources are speculative and fail MEDRS, for sure. Also nobody seems to be addressing the elephant in the room: men who are insecure about hair loss or who are suffering prostate problems are going to be depressed whether or not they are taking finasteride, and pretty much all the symptoms discussed are absolutely consistent with clinical depression. The settlement amount - a bit over $4m - is tiny, Merck would have been spending orders of magnitude more than that in lawyers' fees for a multi-year series of lawsuits. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
            • JzG, will you please specify which sources fail MEDRS? I am looking to have a content discussion here. Pls keep in mind that AlexBrn introduced editorials, when I questioned him about it, literally called it Wikipedia's golden source. If the community disagrees, that is fine, those sources including the refs from AlexBrn can simply be deleted. Regarding the settlement amount, it isn't appropriate to independently read into the outcome. The Reuters investigation reported on "the hidden risks" and didn't feel it was worthy of going into detail on the settlement. The men who are upset about being injured by this drug are a side note as well. In my opening to this ANI, I mentioned there are a lot of editors who are pushing a specific POV on this article, not just AlexBrn but aggrieved men who are also obstructing the article. Again, as I mentioned in the intro, I would like to have independent 3rd parties review this editing content to address this issue in a NPOV format.98.7.49.47 (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
              • Presumably this new IP is the OP. Anyway, they don't understand what "literally" means and seem clueless about the concept of WP:RSCONTEXT, despite repeated attempts to explain. "Independent 3rd parties" have reviewed the situation, and the consensus is you're a badly-behaved POV-pusher, like what we've had before on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
              • This is not the appropriate place to have a content discussion, the article talk page is the place to discuss content. As for the complaint that you brought, about Alexbrn's conduct in deleting certain information, he was very clearly following Wikipedia policy per WP:MEDRS. This has been explained to you repeatedly. WP:MEDRS covers medical articles in Wikipedia, and it should be understood as a much more strict standard than is applied to non-medical articles. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                • Hyperion35, this point isn't relevant. I only added one source, an editorial, which AlexBrn said was one of wikipedia's golden sources. The vast majority of the content I added was immediately reverted with no commentary other than POV pushing. If we were discussing this on the talk page to reach some kind of consensus, that would be fine, but the total reversion of edits like he owns the page is obstruction. That is why I had to bring this to ANI.2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • By repeating the "golden sources" statement you are doing what several editors did in the deletion discussion that I linked above - repeating something that has already been shown to be incomplete and incorrect in the discussion. I'm surprised that there are so many editors who simply ignore the facts so blatantly. So much so that I have never seen such similar behavoiur in different people before, and find it difficult to believe that you are actually a different person. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • PhilBridger, this is a content dispute and it is hardly a source dispute. But if it is deemed that editorials are not acceptable, which I have previously discussed with AlexBrn, it is no problem to take them out. I'm interesting in having a proper discussion here. There was plenty of content that was taken out without discussion, there is one disagreement about editorials as a MEDRS source, and now Guy has taken it upon himself to edit a strong POV that PFS is a delusional disorder and there is only one low quality case study / opinion that makes that claim. I'd like to see NPOV with due weight on relevant perspectives.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • This board, ANI, is not the place to settle content disputes. It is, however, a place where deliberately misrepresenting another editor's words, as you continue to do, again and again, may result in disciplinary action from admins. Alexbrn did not say what you claim he said with regards to editorials. He was quoting from the MEDRS guidelines, which state that editorials may be a golden source under certain circumstances, but not others, and he repeatedly explained this to you. You persist in repeating this lie, and I do not know if the problem is a lack of understanding of what Alexbrn was trying to explain, or if you are deliberately hoping that repeating a lie might convince some editors. There is no disagreement about the use of editorials under MEDRS. The problem appears to be that you do not understand MEDRS, and I say this not as an insult or personal attack, but as a basic statement of fact. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • Hyperion35, those are AlexBrn's words... editorials are completely absent from MEDRS guidelines. When I asked him why he excluded every other source and put in an editorial, which I did not believe was MEDRS compliant, that was his answer verbatim, not a quote from MEDRS or anywhere else apparently. I was discussing this exact issue with another MD from WikiMedicine project but the separate PFS page was merged over in the midst of the conversation and disrupted this discussion. The other editor, Nikos, clearly believed there are not currently guidelines for editorials - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-finasteride_syndrome&diff=1016171461&oldid=1016124258. I would appreciate it if you would actually look at the related references before calling me a liar. What this dispute needs is somebody who will take the time to look at the content impartially. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                      • Repeating the same untrue thing, and adding a new one. The merge was done properly following discussion in the normal way.[65]. The OP is free to continue any "discussion" they want (though they seem to have some delusional belief that another sensible editor somehow agrees with them). Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Alexbrn this is the first time you've addressed an actual comment of an edit which is appropriate but removing the whole block of edits is obstructionist. I wish you would have gone about things this way in the first place and the editing process would be smooth and I invite you to do this going forward. I honestly think its a stretch to consider this anything more than an unordinary claim. Finasteride's impact on neurosteroids is already on the page, if you go to the wikipage for allopregnanolone, it basically says the same thing, neurosteroids as a potential cause of PFS are mentioned in a handful of other MEDRS sources, the author of the article says "it is known" implying it is widely held knowledge, and he isn't making any definitive claims. It's a pretty soft statement IMO. But this is a valid disagreement you raise (the first) and I intentionally brought this here to discuss the content with neutral 3rd parties in a fair forum. This doesn't appear to be the right forum so pls do let me know where else I can go on Wiki to better address my concern.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I am reasonably confident that the IP is indef-blocked Doors22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The pattern of advocacy is identical, as is the fixation on perceived "gatekeeper" editors, and this has been going on for years. The article should be semiprotected based on long term IP POV-pushing. AntiSemanticCanard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sugarhouse90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may also be related - there is a concerted campaign by off-wiki activists to crowbar Post-finasteride syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now a redirect to a sectionin the article with many of the same issues) into Wikipedia as fact, when the medical world in general thinks it's not. Oh, and see also Draft:Post-finasteride syndrome. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There is no way to effectively respond to these claims that I am part of a concerted activist campaign. If I deny it, you won't believe it and you can't prove it so there's no point in responding. What is self evident is that a lot of editors will notice when big changes are made on the page. The question about whether the medical community acknowledges this disease is a content debate and the literature has different opinions on that which should be reflected in the article. If you want to accuse me of being a member on here that was banned, it does me no good to deny it because I can't disprove it and you won't believe me. This one you can prove which you should do if you want to accuse me of this without evidence. 98.7.49.47 (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      Nope. There are a handful of opinion articles and virtually no actual research. Exactly as for morgellons and many other fake diseases, which is why we are skeptical. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • JZG There are dozens of articles that have been published as they relate to Post-Finasteride syndrome. It is fine to be skeptical, but there needs to be a NPOV to address all relevant information here. The PFS Foundation has compiled a list of many of the articles related to PFS. Not all of them will be MEDRS compliant of course, but I disagree that there is "virtually no actual research", even by MEDRS standards. https://www.pfsfoundation.org/publications/ The results were literally found in Merck's clinical trials, as discussed in Reuters special investigation, and they very specifically changed the language in the product label regarding the reversibility of sexual side effects, although the updated versus functionally did nothing to inform the FDA or public of what they found. That by itself is worth putting on Wiki, from a very reliable source, and definitely does not suggest this is a fictitious illness as RCT trials are actual gold standards of science. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
        • This is not the place to discuss sources. This board is solely for complaining about behavior, and multiple people have advised you that Alexbrn's behavior was perfectly acceptable and that he was acting directly under Wikipedia guidelines. We have linked the MEDRS guidelines for you, but you persist in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and trying to turn this into a discussion about sources. Feel free to post that list of sources to the article talk page, but virtually none of it passes MEDRS that I can see. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Please close this ANI request. The IP editor has been told repeatedly that no objectionable behavior has occurred here. They have repeatedly complained, tried to debate sources, demonstrated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when MEDRS was explained. They have also made it clear that they have a specific agenda with regards to this article and I would strongly recommend a TBAN given that they are most clearly WP:NOTHERE. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I am not looking to discuss sources here, sources were not even relevant to the original dispute. I think it is a problem when an editor blanket reverses about 8 edits without any feedback. There was only one source that was possibly questionable and the whole thing was deleted. Please tell me exactly how to work with an editor who simply reverts everything you add without constructive commentary or where I can go to find an adequate mediator to oversee this dispute. Thanks. I would appreciate if you strike the above because it was based on the perception that I was misrepresenting MEDRS guidelines which you will see is not the case if you look at MEDRS guidelines and Nikos' opinion linked above. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • What you do is you discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD, the D stands for "discuss" on the article's talk page. It appears that you have attempted to engage in discussion, but you did not like what you were told, or perhaps you did not understand it. I will not strike my comment. I will add that I am concerned that WP:CIR may apply here as well. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I and others haven't gotten constructive discussion from him. His response is completely dismissive and refuses to work with editors which is why I am here now. This isn't a sourcing question but that is one issue I attempted to discuss with him earlier that was completely dismissed and he said he was right without substantiating his argument or addressing my question. This and many other reasons are why I am here at ANI. I am here to build a consensus article based on a NPOV and I am not finding people who seem interested in working with me to do that at all. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
          • I can read the talk page for that article. Your comments here and here make it clear that you were explicitly telling Alexbrn that you did not want to discuss the issue with them. Further, everything that you have been saying so far makes it clear that you are the one trying to insert a specific POV into the article, and you appear to be frustrated by the fact that there is no consensus for your POV. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Hyperion35 I said that after he made many dismissive and combative comments and suggested I take my displeasure to ANI, which is why I am here now. If he offered constructive feedback and gave any sense that he was willing to cooperate in building an encyclopedia there would be no need for me to be here right now. I made 9 separate edits so they could be discussed in detail on a case by case basis and he reverted them all in one edit without commenting. What this article really needs is somebody who is willing to come in and be a neutral participant to protect the neutral POV of an obviously controversial topic. If you would like to come and help moderate the edits and content, that would be certainly appreciated. All it takes is somebody with decent judgment and a willingness to create a fairly balanced article. If you are involved in public health and care about the subject, as appears to be the case on your profile, I would love for you to get involved and be a mediator to fairly represent the different sides of the controversy here. I'm not looking for any kind of fight or battle, but this issue needs somebody who will be fair and take the time to actually pay attention to the details. It is an important issue as the drug is prescribed to millions of people each year, often by telemedicine companies where medical disclosures are poor, but it is a complex public health issue so you may or not be up to a challenge.
            • Right now, the article has cherrypicked one low quality source to make it seem like PFS is a delusional disorder. This is really a shame because there are plenty of scientific articles to suggest that's not the case and a Reuter's investigation reported that Merck found subjects with persistent sexual side effects in the original clinical trials yet they obfuscated this information with misleading language in the product label so that the FDA, patients, and doctors wouldn't notice. I think it should show a fair balance of the sources that support the existence of the irreversible side effects of this cosmetic drugs and those who don't believe there is a causal link.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What I gather from the complaint is that Alex is enforcing MEDRS against biased editors who, per the OP's own admission, have an emotion-driven POV. Not a policy violation. Disputes over sources should follow WP:DR, over which a single editor cannot control. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Swarm There have been a lot of comments in this complaint that have been off topic and big distractions so I wouldn't say that's an accurate summary of the complaint. AlexBrn has a history of antagonistic editing, baiting newbies into fighting with him, dismissing questions and disagreements, and most recently blanket removing all nine of my edits without so much as a single constructive comment. The MEDRS discussion about editorials is really a distraction in this complaint and very small piece of the original disagreement. I don't personally have an emotion-driven POV but there have been other editors who have been very emotional in the past, partly baited by AlexBrn, but I would personally like to create a NPOV in this article to provide due weight to the controversial issue at hand. AlexBrn has been pushing a very heavy POV to deny the existence of a long term medical syndrome caused by a cosmetic hairloss drug but there have been a lot of inexperienced and emotional editors doing the opposite which has created a mess. The actual collections of MEDRS sources on the topic are very diverse and certainly justify a much more nuanced version of this article. Right now, the POV is very far from neutral. I would like somebody impartial to mediate this because it has proven to be apparently impossible to work with AlexBrn constructively to create a balanced version. If this is not the proper forum for that, will you please inform me where I can find somebody who would be willing to be an impartial mediator or overseer of these controversial issue? What I am looking for is a reasonable person who has no prior involvement to fairly moderate since this has been a battleground for years. In that time, many new MEDRS sources and an investigative report on the subject have been published but the established toxic environment on this topic has prevented this more recent information from being incorporated into the article in a fair way. Thanks. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • It would be more accurate to say that there's a certain kind of POV-pushing WP:SPA who gets antagonized when their efforts to skew Wikipedia are thwarted by editors properly applying the WP:PAGs, so they then try to remove their perceived "opponent" by going to ANI with a groundless complaint. This has been a too-familiar pattern over the years, and your complaint here is just the latest in the series. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Swarm and JzG, the OP appears to be fighting to include a fringe POV by attacking or ignoring editors who are enforcing policy in an area that has seen disruption over a long period of time, with several indefinite blocks as a result. The comment above is a rehash of previous arguments, and is becoming tendentious. I recommend closure, with the complainant admonished for battleground behavior, which, if continued, will be met with sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I think you are bending over backwards to be nice to the OP there. Surely we are already past the point where the posts have become tendentious and sanctions should be applied now? They are wasting the time of several productive editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Acroterion, I think the article should also have ECP applied. This has been going on for years, with indef blocks, sockpuppetry and off-wiki solicitation. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Acroterion, I don't think it's fair to be pinned with the label of engaging in "battleground behavior". I have attempted to engage AlexBrn on the talk page to discuss the topic and was rudely dismissed on many occasions. On one occasion, I made nine separate edits that were immediately removed without adequate justification so I brought the discussion here. I chose to avoid the inevitable edit war if I tried to reach a proper consensus so I brought matters here to find a mediator. This exact reason I brought this complaint was to avoid battleground behavior. If anybody here were to actually review my latest edits, there was only one edit where a source could be questioned and AlexBrn was the one who actually introduced an editorial source were within MEDRS guidance but would not even provide adequate justification for his point. This issue is far more nuanced than other editors have acknowledged so far, in part because AlexBrn has introduced irrelevant information to this complaint to seeimly bend discussion in a way that is favorable to his POV.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      telling someone not to interact with you is a funny way to attempt to engage someone. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above, and the long history of disruption, blocks and bans in this topic area:

  1. The article Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is subject to extended confirmed protection for one year.
  2. The redirect Post-finasteride syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is fully protected indefinitely.
  3. Editors are warned not to personalise disputes, and to respect both local consensus and the wider consensus represented by policies such as WP:MEDRS.

Any uninvolved administrator may block or topic ban any editor (registered in or anonymous) who engages in tendentious editing, personal attacks or other disruptive behaviour. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinions on proposal

I've just blocked the IP's /64 range for block evasion - I've had a close look at their editing habits, and am convinced that this is Doors22. I don't want to spell out the exact similarities because BEANS, but would be happy to provide details by e-mail if anyone wants - there's quite a bit more than just the interest in this subject, and with particular editors. GirthSummit (blether) 13:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, *applause*. You don't need to spell it out, because we could all hear the quacking :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 16:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've implemented ECP for the main article and fully protected the redirect. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Zack439 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Your concise reason ( vandalized article for months with his extreme Christian thoughts, check his edit only focused on discrediting other and crediting his people ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladoyob586 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ladoyob586: All I see is a content dispute, not anything that rises to the level of needing administrator intervention at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Zack439 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You can check his edits, they are completely baseless and provide the sources unrelated to the topic to make it appear valid, he destructed the article over 10 times and remove, he repeatedly corrupted the article and removed an entire section with the sources he also added sources that do not mention Sham Ennessim at all, and added statements about other festivals that are exclusively Christian, he also removed the historical and linguistic sources that provided by another user 197.38.254.174 , it worth mentioning his profile only edits articles to glorify Christians or religion and make traditions exclusive to them without real fact or legit source of evidence but he links other religious sites, he made over 10 edits previously to this The article and keeps deleting other people evidence and sources, article needs to saved . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladoyob586 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Ladoyob586 - Your only edits have been to complain about this dispute. Were you also editing from 197.38.254.174? If so, why are you referring to them as another user? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
If there are only two editors involved, I suggest asking for a Third Opinion either via the article talk page or via the Third Opinion noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm the user that has been engaged with Zack439, and I'm not "Ladoyob586". My edits were not merely complaints about Zack439's edits, I provided reliable historical and linguistic sources, and explained to him over and over again why his edits are being contested, but he ignored everything I said, and does not provide any reliable sources, and keeps discussing other topics that do not bear on the issue at all. He deleted an entire section and corrupted the article more than once after I told him not to. I posted a talk to the talk page of Sham Ennessim explaining the situation in detail (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sham_Ennessim#Regarding_the_edits_by_the_user_%22Zack439%22,_which_I_consider_to_be_purely_ideological); he just ignored the talk I posted and reverted the to his ideological edits again; with an extremely deceiving edit summary, the sources he added (which he calls "medieval") do not mention Sham Ennessim at all, he is saying "proving", while the sources are about other festivals entirely. Everything else that he claimed I addressed. Also, another user gave his opinion on the edits made by Zack439, which can be seen in the edit history. I hope someone interferes. 197.38.254.174 (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


The medieval sources do not mention “Sham Ennessim” explicitly and as something separate from Easter. That’s the point. Outdoor activities in association with Easter is mentioned & Easter is on the list of those mentioned by Maqrizi. https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Al-Maqrizi-Coptic_Feast_Days_Alcock2015.pdf No independent religious-neutral spring festival mentioned by medieval sources for Egypt. Page 35 in “Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt, 1218-1250” is medieval historian is quoted where he mentions public celebration of Easter festivals. My argument from the beginning is the meaning behind the celebration was about celebrating the resurrection of Christ and thus it was historically seen as an extension of Easter, hence the outdoor activities in association with Easter. Hence we see Easter mentioned & outdoor activities in association with Easter mentioned in medieval sources but no spring festival that is independent from Easter in the medieval sources. A modern news article says “Although Copts treat Spring Day as an extension of Easter“ https://english.alarabiya.net/perspective/features/2015/04/06/Coptic-Easter-How-Egypt-celebrates-the-rising-of-Christ the thing is the tradition of Copts treating it as an extension of Easter is the only narrative that has continuity with the medieval source because the only spring festivities mentioned in those sources are linked to Easter. Is there a medieval source that mentions a spring festival that is independent from Easter and religious neutral? If yes you need to provide it & prove. Again That it why it always falls on Easter Monday. It does not always fall on the first day of Khamaseen. I provided a environmental science study which says Khamaseen starts in end of March, the problem is Easter Monday is not synchronized with that. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mustafa-Al-Kuisi/publication/222814007_Characterization_of_the_Khamaseen_Spring_Dust_in_Jordan/links/5b67ab5d299bf1b9303ca43c/Characterization-of-the-Khamaseen-Spring-Dust-in-Jordan.pdf For example 2021 Easter Monday is on the third of May. To substantiate the claim by EW Lane 1834 you need to provide an environmental science study which shows that the first day of Khamaseen is synchronized with Coptic Easter Monday. As for the linguistic argument, it still doesn’t prove Shemu and Sham Ennesim are the same thing. Because just because šmw provides the etymology for ϣⲱⲙ that doesn’t mean they are referring to the same event or thing. Even if the names were exactly the same, that still wouldn’t mean they are referring to the same thing. For example there is a Coptic Saint known as St. Amun (Ⲁⲙⲟⲩⲛ). His feast day is on 20 Pashons(Ⲡⲁϣⲟⲛⲥ) in the Coptic calendar. As you see he shares the same name as the pharaonic god Amun but clearly a different person. Regnault, L., 2021. Amun, Saint. Ccdl.claremont.edu. Sharing the same name or being linked etymologically by name doesn’t mean it is the same person or event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


I added another response on the talk I started, responding to every single point the user Zack439 has mentioned, regardless of how repetitive and dismissive he is, since I already addressed his claims. (Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sham_Ennessim#Regarding_the_edits_by_the_user_%22Zack439%22,_which_I_consider_to_be_purely_ideological) 197.38.254.174 (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, the user is incredibly misleading and keeps deleting nations. There is clearly a separate page on Easter, he's simply wikiping off a national celebration for Egypt and pretending that no one celebrates it other than Christians, which is a massive manipulation. The page truly needs an administrative help. Cheers. 185.62.75.198 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at the behavior of the user Zack439, and his countless reverts of other users, including me, on the article Sham Ennessim? Please also refer to the talk I have started on the talk page (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sham_Ennessim#Regarding_the_edits_by_the_user_%22Zack439%22,_which_I_consider_to_be_purely_ideological). I also believe for good reasons, which I mentioned in the talk I started on the talk page, that the user has been editing this article earlier from this address "2600:1702:4280:5f60:fc9f:2152:c417:2a4", and probably from other addresses, it would be a good idea to check these edits as well, to get an idea of what ideology Zack439 is here to push on Wikipedia. 197.38.254.174 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


Zack439 here. Not correct. I’ve never said that only Christian Copts celebrate it. I also said it is a National holiday in Egypt today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zack439: I already illustrated on the distinction between being a "national festival" and being declared by the Egyptian state as an "official holiday"! Again, you are extremely repetitive and dismissive, and your edits convey nothing but pure ideology. 197.38.254.174 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack439 here. I mentioned it is today a national holiday in Egypt in my edit. My edits are supported by facts. An example of being driven by pure ideology are those who insist that the 1834 report by Lane claiming it is celebrated on the first day of Khamaseen is right despite a modern published environmental science study claiming that Khamaseen starts in late March “ The term Khamaseen signifies that the dust storms are repeated several times during a period of around 50 days starting late March and ending in early May.” Abed, Abdulkader M., et al. Characterization of the Khamaseen (Spring) Dust in Jordan.” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 18, 2009, pp. 2868–76.” Coptic Easter Monday for 2021 is the third of May. Shows it is not synchronized with Easter Monday. This is an example which shows this is not simply a difference of opinions at this point. It is a denial of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zack439: Please stop repeating the same statements which I have responded to more than once; I have already accounted for everything you are saying; I said this on the talk I started: "the source [Lane] is a reliable source (WP:RS), and it reports exactly what has been quoted, that it was observed specifically on the first day of the Khamaseen, so regardless, it should not have been removed as per WP:NPOV, since this is properly cited content, but I also provided an illustration on this point in the article. So, perhaps Zack439 should stop repetitively saying that he "proved" that it is not synchronized, and should stop simply saying that "Lane is wrong", I already addressed this." Again, please stop being repetitive and dismissive, and refrain from pushing your ideology on Wikipedia. 197.38.254.174 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack439 here. The problem is Lane’s claim is factually wrong & I mention Lane’s claim in my edit & I kept it under the references. I explicitly discussed in my edit Lane’s claim & I mentioned Lane by name. If Lane’s claim were correct than Sham Ennesim for 2021 would be at the end of March not beginning of May(which is the reality, Coptic Easter Monday for 2021 is May 3 not end of March as Lane would have you believe). Another problem is you cite & quote Lane while deleting the study environmental science study I posted & quoted word by word ‘The term Khamaseen signifies that the dust storms are repeated several times during a period of around 50 days starting late March and ending in early May.” Abed, Abdulkader M., et al. “Characterization of the Khamaseen (Spring) Dust in Jordan.” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 18, 2009, pp. 2868–76. You deleted the study, the reference to the study and my properly quoted portion from the study in order to cite Lane while excluding a study which is at odds with his claim. You have not attempted to engage the study & you delete references & quotes from it. You also have not provided a study to substantiate the claim Lane made & you have not provided a study to refute the study I posted. This is because you are ideologically driven, not data driven. Those who are data driven follow the studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zack439: They are not currently synchronized because neither of them has a fixed date; that's why in the article I said "which at the time happened to coincide...", and I said in the article "it is important to note that the first day of the Khamaseen is not always synchronized with the day immediately following Easter,..." (the environmental study would be put after this statement of mine, but I didn't deem it necessary to put a study for this statement). And before what I said in the talk I started (which I quoted in the above response, and here is what the last sentence "I already addressed this" refers to) I said also this in the talk: "He [Zack439] did however mention that the Khamaseen is not always synchronized with the day after Easter, which is correct, but that still doesn't change the fact that Sham Ennessim is historically reported as being observed specifically on the first day of the Khamaseen, and not on the day after Easter, and that the same source reports on Easter Sunday without relating Sham Ennessim to it in any way, as I indicated in the article with the quotes, which constitutes properly cited content that shouldn't have been removed by Zack439; I also remarked on the desynchronization in the article itself". Again, this is exactly what I mean by saying that you are extremely repetitive and dismissive. Please stop! Also the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not the place for these discussions, specially when I have addressed everything you keep repeating on the talk page of the article, so if you repeat yourself again on points that I have already discussed I will not respond, referring thus other readers to the talk I started (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sham_Ennessim#Regarding_the_edits_by_the_user_%22Zack439%22,_which_I_consider_to_be_purely_ideological). 197.38.254.174 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack439 here. But the evidence shows that date for this holiday is always on Coptic Easter Monday & even in the source from EW Lane he affirms that it is on immediately following Coptic Easter Sunday. Indeed Coptic Easter Monday is not a fixed date but the date of this holiday is always on Coptic Easter Monday. What’s consistent based on the evidence here is that it always on Coptic Easter Monday but it is not always on the first day of Khamaseen. So it follows based on the evidence that the date is inextricably linked to Coptic Easter Monday but not linked to the first day of Khamaseen.

Another study from 2014 study also says “Between the end of March and the middle of May, hot winds, laden with dust (khamaseen) blow in from the south and southwest. There is very little rainfall at long intervals” https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234685858.pdf I’ve provided two studies thus far that say that the first day of Khamaseen is around end of March, including this one too “ The term Khamaseen signifies that the dust storms are repeated several times during a period of around 50 days starting late March and ending in early May.” Abed, Abdulkader M., et al. “Characterization of the Khamaseen (Spring) Dust in Jordan.” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 18, 2009, pp. 2868–76.

Are there any studies that say it is in early May? The problem is Lane’s claim is "A custom termed 'Shemm en-Neseem' [sic.] (or the Smelling of the Zephyr) is observed on the first day of the Khamaseen.” If the custom is truly on the first day of Khamaseen it wouldn’t be observed in early May like it is in 2021. The consistency here even when including Lane’s account is that it is always on Coptic Easter Monday but it is not always on the first day of Khamaseen.

Furthermore are there any medieval sources that say it is observed on the first day of Khamaseen independently from Easter Monday or are you just citing 19th century AD Lane & passing it as historical? Because even in the Lane source it is still celebrated on Easter Monday. You have not cited historical evidence which shows it is ever celebrated outside the Coptic Easter Monday date.

And Lane also says "they [the Muslims of Egypt] calculate the period of the 'Khamaseen,' when hot southerly winds are of frequent occurrence, to commence on the day immediately following the Coptic festival of Easter Sunday.” And how do the Muslims of Egypt today do this? How did they come up with the date May 3 for 2021? How did they come up with April 20 for 2020? How did they come up with April 29 for 2019? How did they come up with April 9 for 2018? How did they come up with April 17 for 2017? How did they come up with May 2 for 2016?(interesting how these are all April & May dates in the past 6 years while two studies I’ve cited says the first day of Khamaseen is end of March). If you’re going to claim they did that during the time of Lane & do not calculate it to be in the first day of Khamaseen anymore, that means lack of continuity with the current holiday since they would not be following their supposed traditional date for celebration. If the claim is they just follow the Coptic Easter Monday date, that means it is connected to the Coptic fasting schedule & not independent from Coptic Easter Monday. These are questions you need to answer to substantiate the notion of its date being independent from Coptic Easter Monday. Otherwise you’re ideologically in this regard, not evidence/data driven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack439 here again. You say at the time of Lane the first day of Khamaseen & Coptic Easter Monday happened to coincide? I looked into this because the Coptic Calendar follows the Julian(Old Calendar) when it comes to Easter & found that in 1834 Coptic Easter Monday was on April 23 by Julian system which means May 5 according to the Gregorian system. Whether late April or early May, that is not the first day of Khamaseen http://5ko.free.fr/en/easter.php?y=19 so how did they coincide at that time? Again two studies which show the beginning of Khamaseen to be late March https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234685858.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mustafa-Al-Kuisi/publication/222814007_Characterization_of_the_Khamaseen_Spring_Dust_in_Jordan/links/5b67ab5d299bf1b9303ca43c/Characterization-of-the-Khamaseen-Spring-Dust-in-Jordan.pdf In light of this, you need to provide evidence that they happened to coincide in 1834. Because I’m not seeing it. You don’t have studies from environmental sciences sources to support & the history of the calendar dates does not support your claim or Lane’s for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zack439: You have misrepresented this study (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234685858.pdf); here is the relevant quote from page number 7 of this study: "Between the end of March and the middle of May, hot winds, laden with dust (Khamaseen) blow in from the south and southwest." 197.38.254.174 (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack439 here. No I haven’t misrepresented the study. Remember the claim by E.W. Lane is Sham Ennesim is observed on the FIRST day of Khamaseen & two studies are saying that Khamaseen starts around end of March. The 2014 study is saying "Between the end of March and the middle of May, hot winds, laden with dust (Khamaseen) blow in from the south and southwest." https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234685858.pdf The study is describing a time interval. So the first day or start of Khamaseen would be around the end of March according to this study. And for the study of 2009 it says “The term Khamaseen signifies that the dust storms are repeated several times during a period of around 50 days starting late March and ending in early May” https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mustafa-Al-Kuisi/publication/222814007_Characterization_of_the_Khamaseen_Spring_Dust_in_Jordan/links/5b67ab5d299bf1b9303ca43c/Characterization-of-the-Khamaseen-Spring-Dust-in-Jordan.pdf Two studies say the start of Khamaseen is around end of March. And according to this data the Orthodox old Calendar Easter date (which is what the Coptic Calendar follows for Easter) is not at the end of March majority of the time http://5ko.free.fr/en/easter.php?y=19, in light of the two studies & the data we have on the dates, it is looks like Sham Ennesim is usually not observed at the end of March which means it is usually not observed on the first day of Khamaseen. It is however always on Coptic Easter Monday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zack439: I don't see how that is an interval, an interval is the one described in the other study. Also, during the French Campaign in Egypt the Khamaseen started as late as late may, a large margin after May 21, which you can check in the source (Nina Burleigh, Mirage, p.133-135). Now, let me repeat this for you again, I'm not here to contest how the Khamaseen is currently calculated, that is off topic; please read the guidelines of Wikipedia carefully, perhaps then you will stop being repetitive; I have provided a reliable source (WP:RS), which is E. W. Lane, and stated with the quotes what the source is exactly reporting, which is properly cited content and should not be removed as per WP:NPOV; this is the reason why I noted on your repetitiveness and your being dismissive, as I stated in the talk I started on the talk page of the article, you will drag me into repetitive arguments, which eventually lead to obscurantism. Please stop! [Note: I apologize, I already added my reply at the time this was being closed; and I also noted to the user Zack439 earlier that this is not the place for these discussions] 197.38.254.174 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Zack439 here. It is interval for both studies. Both studies describing when the Khamaseen starts & describes a period of time. Here is what an interval is “ An interval BETWEEN two events OR DATES is the period of time between them” https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/interval 2014 study is saying "BEWTWEEN the end of March and the middle of May, hot winds, laden with dust (Khamaseen) blow in from the south and southwest." https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234685858.pdf 2009 study is saying “The term Khamaseen signifies that the dust storms are repeated several times during a period of around 50 days starting late March and ending in early May” https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mustafa-Al-Kuisi/publication/222814007_Characterization_of_the_Khamaseen_Spring_Dust_in_Jordan/links/5b67ab5d299bf It is an interval for both studies. Both studies claiming Khamaseen starts end of March.

And like I said the historical trend for the Orthodox (Julian) Calendar Easter(which the Coptic Orthodox Church follows for Easter) shows for the majority of the time it does not fall on the end of March. Are there times when it falls on the end of March? Yes. But not the majority. It is usually not at the end of March which means it is usually not observed at the first day of Khamaseen. Even in the time of Lane 1834 it was not observed at the end of March. http://5ko.free.fr/en/easter.php?y=19 EW Lane says in the quote that it is observed at the first day of Khamaseen. Two studies claim Khamaseen starts at the end of March & the historical trend date for Orthodox Easter dates shows it is usually not at the end of March. Two studies & the data on historical dates for Easter celebration refute Lane.

Furthermore how it’s currently calculated today is entirely relevant because you are claiming the CURRENT celebration has historical continuity that traces all the way to the pharaonic times. So again I ask how do the Muslims of Egypt today calculate the date? How did they come up with the date May 3 for 2021? How did they come up with April 20 for 2020? How did they come up with April 29 for 2019? How did they come up with April 9 for 2018? How did they come up with April 17 for 2017? How did they come up with May 2 for 2016? If you’re going to claim they used to calculate it this way & do not calculate it to be in the first day of Khamaseen anymore, that means lack of continuity with the current holiday since they would not be following their supposed traditional date for celebration. If the claim is they just follow the Coptic Easter Monday date, that means it is inextricably connected to the Coptic fasting schedule & not independent from Coptic Easter Monday. These are questions you need to provide an adequate answer for to substantiate the notion of its date being independent from Coptic Easter Monday & Lane’s claim. Otherwise you’re ideologically in this regard, not evidence/data driven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Editor is engaging in vandalism, edit warring and personal attack via edit summary. All of this is visible in their contributions. They exist solely to disrupt and need to be blocked immediately. Rusted AutoParts 16:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@ErnestoCabral2018: is also engaged in the edit warring. Rusted AutoParts 16:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Jonah250 gets a week off for edit warring and personal attacks. ErnestoCabral2018 blocked 24 hours - they were edit warring and making PAs too, but they were fewer in number and less offensive. Advice offered to both on their talk pages. GirthSummit (blether) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could a sysop please remove this edit to the ITN template made by Rogerd? The item was added without discussion at WP:ITNC, thus without consensus, is maintenance-tagged and was added to the wrong place in the RD queue. Basically everything about it is wrong. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone just beat me to it. Connormah (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks to Stephen and thanks to you for quick response in any case. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. An admin blindly editing the main page without any understanding of governance processes probably needs attention. Stephen 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I apologize. I should have been more familiar with the process. It won't happen again. --rogerd (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I have figured out how it is supposed to be done and nominated the RD correctly. Again, apologies. --rogerd (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This seems like a fairly isolated incident, just from a brief look at edit history this appears to be the first time that Rogerd has edited a template transcluding on to main page out of process.( They don't perform a ton of admin actions, but mild inactivity has never been a criminal offense for admins on wikipedia)Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this subject in english, there is a misleading and one sided information. They stated that "The Turkish War of Independence[note 3] (19 May 1919 – 24 July 1923) was a series of military and ethnic cleansing campaigns waged by the Turkish National Movement after parts of the Ottoman Empire were occupied and partitioned following its defeat in World War I.". In this sentence "ethnic cleansing" part is misleading since it is only supported by armenian papers which are promoting a campaign against Turkey in order to be superior than Turkey in political world. This sentence should be checked and revised by other references. Although wikipedi is a free encyclopedia, it should not mislead people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.155.68.184 (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Content issues are not handled here; please visit the article talk page (Talk:Turkish War of Independence) to express any concerns that you have, and also offer independent reliable sources to support your claims and proposed changes. Remember that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, giving due weight to how sources discuss a subject. All sides do not get equal time or equal treatment. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@331dot: See #Co-ordinated off-wiki disruption at Turkish War of Independence immediately above, this is part of an off-wiki campaign. FDW777 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm somewhat concerned by the behaviour of User:FDW777. Their focus on Wikipedia bureaucracy comes across as rather petty, and their tone is incredibly patronising - see Talk:List of living former United Kingdom MPs. For example: "I've challenged the column. Reference it, or lose it. Your choice." The editor also accused me of having an "unhealthy fixation on dates of birth". Rather than discussing the BLP policies they felt I had breached with me, they went to get Arbitration Enforcement (see here). It doesn't seem very collaborative. Their behaviour is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Civility. It's clear that their mission seems to be to police others on WP, and complain. Their language is actually borderline threatening (or just very authoritarian), such as: "I'm not fixing the mess other people have created, I'll take the path of least resistance (and least time wasted) and simply remove per WP:BURDEN unless it's adressed very soon. I've given you an opportunity to fix it rather than me simply remove the column. IF you don't want to take it, that's fine by me." FDW777 is acting like an administrator, despite the fact they quite clearly are not. Just because an editor has been given multiple user-generated awards on their talk page, it certainly doesn't make their behaviour beyond question. The list created by User:Andrew Gray will be appreciated by many others, I'm sure, and I feel a better approach would be to try improving it, rather than instantly denigrating the article to try getting it deleted.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that AE section ended with TrottieTrue is given a logged warning to use only high-quality references for information related to biographies of living persons, and not to edit war when other editors object on BLP grounds. Do you dispute that result? What alternatives do you expect from the editor? Spend time sourcing it themselves? (something you said was too laborious a task to do.) Or just ignore it and let it be? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I haven't disputed that result, as I don't know how to - but it would be my inclination. I don't think I deserve a logged warning, since I had already agreed not to do it again. Users like FDW777 will just bully editors off the site if they are allowed to carry on like this. What do I expect from them?
A) "Spend time sourcing it themselves? (something you said was too laborious a task to do.)" No, but they could add sources for some of the missing references. Adding references to over 1,000 articles on entries in a column is clearly something that will be time-consuming, unless the work is shared by multiple editors. I have actually added references to many articles myself. If, perhaps, there was a list of those articles which were missing the DOBs, other editors could work to rectify that.
B) "Or just ignore it and let it be?" Ideally, yes. The article isn't doing any harm. Or they could come up with a constructive solution to help keep the article live, instead of making thinly veiled threats to have it deleted, or a large chunk of the content removed. It's as if they seem to get pleasure from merely enforcing policy.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Doing a rather unscientific search for "| data-sort-value=" leads me to believe the list contains 903 people. There might be on the odd one without a date of birth, so we'll say a conservative estimate of 800+. The responsibility for adding references lies solely with the people that made the mess in the first place, not those who object to policy being flouted in such a way. It is wholly unreasonable to create an article in such a state and expect other people to find, or even copy over, 800+ references to fix it. Per my unscientific experiment here four out of the six people called Taylor in the list have no refrences in their article for their claimed date of birth. That TrottieTrue has the brass neck to file this report so soon after the AE report into their BLP violating behaviour specifically with regard to dates of birth truly beggars belief. FDW777 (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, like all other articles, it is a work-in-progress. Thanks to you, all the DOBs have been removed from the list, so I hope you're happy, although it renders the article a lot less useful and interesting. It was created by a former Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library. I have the "brass neck" to call out your vindictive behaviour, yes. Referring to an article which a lot of work and effort went into as a "mess" is downright rude. What about List of living former sovereign monarchs? Or List of living cardinals? They also lack inline citations. This is pettiness in the extreme. I've added references to the missing Taylor names just now. I'm surprised you didn't remove the DOBs from the Taylor articles actually, since they were previously unreferenced.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel that I have accidentally jumped on a landmine here. After doing a bit of reading, it seems there is an ongoing dispute between FDW and TT, which I have no involvement in beyond making some comments about the MPs DoB issue a couple of months back, and honestly didn't know about until just now. For clarity: although TT and I have been discussing this article on and off for a couple of months, the list in question was put together by me, not by TT, and several of the talkpage comments were (I assume) directed at me.
I had reasonably assumed the data in the list was all uncontroversial and did not need each point individually cited, which has been our general practice for list articles like this for many years. However, I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes uncontroversial material, and given this, I have revised the list to only contain years of birth. I hope this is acceptable to everyone involved. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A week or so ago there was an RfD discussion about the template {{Cute news}}, created as a redirect to {{cite news}} way back in 2009, and which had been used exactly three times in those 12 years. The RfD resulted in its deletion. On the same day, editor Jonesey95 recreated the template in defiance of the discussion, and when it was deleted per CSD G4 they started the deletion review linked above.

Since starting that review, they have also created {{cote web}}, {{cite jorunal}}, and {{cute book}}, claiming they're frequent typos, but which have a combined zero transclusions between the lot of them. It's abundantly clear that Jonesey95 is doing this to make a point, and thus I'm here to propose they be topic-banned from creating any new redirects to CS1/2 templates.

  • Support as proposer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not a good idea for someone to unilaterally decide a consensus is invalid and therefore ignore the close. We have processes for challenging closes. If that were reasonable then what would be the point of discussing anything at all? And then creating similar pages when there's a dispute over the appropriateness of them just results in forked discussions and isn't conducive towards building consensus. I don't think Jonesey needs to go onto Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for throwing his toys out the pram. Hopefully he can give an undertaking to voluntarily desist and let the processes (eg the current DRV) play out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    See my comment below; it seems Ivanvector's timeline/chronology may not be accurate, and thus any intentions cannot be presumed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Initial statement from the accused: The proposer's phrasing "in defiance of the discussion" implies malicious intent and bad faith, of which there is zero evidence. Ivanvector, please retract those words immediately. ProcrastinatingReader also makes invalid assumptions about my reasoning and intent; I was not aware of any previous consensus, having not been notified of it, so there is no way I could have "decide[d] a consensus was invalid". Please look at the explanations and evidence and links to guidelines that I have provided, instead of the invented intentions that exist only in your own minds. As I have explained at multiple venues, I was not aware of the previous RFD discussion, which in any event did not cite any guidelines and was full of jokes instead of serious discussion (more explanation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute news). AFAIK, I have not created any new redirects, despite guidelines suggesting that they are valid, after being notified of the in-progress RFD discussions. The proposer's statement that the templates have zero transclusions is a red herring; every one of these redirects had a transclusion when it was created. I have provided links to reports showing those transclusions at the new RFD discussions: Cute book, Cite jorunal, and Cote web (which contains another bad-faith accusation by the proposer). The reason that there are no transclusions is that the existence of these redirects causes these typos to appear on error reports that gnomes or bots then diligently fix in the background. Between the time that the mistyped templates are added to pages and the time that they are fixed, the pages on which they transcluded are rendered correctly for readers. Redirects from typos, whether they are for templates or not, provide a service to our readers, preventing ugly red text and missing content from being rendered in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    So, what you're saying here is that, if you hadn't created these redirects, the typos would have been fixed through existing processes? Also, if you were not aware of the initial deletion discussion, how did you come across the deleted template less than 24 hours after it was deleted, when all of the extant transclusions of the error had been corrected in the course of the discussion? Also also, I'll retract my comment about malicious intent when you retract your multiple comments about there being no serious arguments in the multiple deletion discussions. From where I sit your actions look purposeful and deliberately defiant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    What I am saying is that the existence of this redirect causes the template to be fixed, because it contains {{R from misspelling}}. Deletion of the redirect makes it less likely to be fixed. I think that editors in these RFD discussions are making an understandable error in assuming that "no current transclusions of a redirect" means that "there are never transclusions of this redirect". The tagging of the redirect with {{R from misspelling}} causes gnomes to attend to any accidental transclusions (see also this daily report), so when one looks at "what links here" on any given day, there will be few or zero current transclusions. I don't know of a way to see a historical view of transclusions over time, but such a view would show this flow.I came across a transclusion of this template in the 29 April version of this report, which I check and process daily. As you can see in that link, there was at least one transclusion of {{cute news}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    I wonder if Mandarax would be willing to explain how they use reports based on {{R from misspelling}} to fix wikilinks with typos in them, and how often they fix transcluded template redirects that have typos in them as part of that workflow. That might shed some light on the usefulness of these redirects and the misunderstandings multiple editors appear to have around the lack of transclusions of these redirects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    I work on WP:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which has enabled me to fix countless links to misspelled article redirects. I haven't been doing anything with transcluded template redirects. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    I presumed based on Ivanvector's opening statement that you were aware of the RfD and assumed the given chronology of the creations, as I had no reason to doubt that timeline. But it appears the DRV was created on 4 May and the other redirects on 29 April, 1 May and 2 May respectively, and the recreation of {{cute news}} on the 30th,[66] which was not re-deleted until the 4th. All of them also appear on the daily report you link above.[67] So none were created Since starting that review or before your recreation was redeleted. Apologies, and I will note the same above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose any sanctions; the discussion was a circus even by RfD standards, and it's good that someone had the sense to point it out. {{Cute news}} shouldn't have been recreated, it's true; the other three redirects are perfectly valid, however, and so the ban proposal is a clear overreaction to a very minor issue. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The entire basis of the proposer's statement is contradicted by the chronology, which makes the allegations equally baseless. MichaelMaggs (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I do not understand why Ivanvector escalated the issue in this way; in my experience, they and Jonesey95 are reasonable people dedicated to improving the project. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Additional statement by the accused: I recognize that when I recreated a template that had been deleted via RFD, that was wrong. I should not have done that, and I apologize for it. I did not know or notice that it had been previously deleted. If there was a notice at the top of the page, I must have missed it due to banner blindness. I create and modify a lot of templates, so unless there is something drastically different about the screen, like a different background color, I grow accustomed to the visual pollution that surrounds the editing area. I will try to pay closer attention in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A number of SPAs and Anon IPs have been trying to insert content sourced to a random Youtube video at Markovian Parallax Denigrate since last year. They have been repeatedly reverted for the non WP:RS and today has begun disrupting Wikipedia at large over the issue. 115.189.91.57 (talk · contribs) (also editing as 122.56.201.177 (talk · contribs)) has been reverted by people apart from just me and the page has been Semi-protected as a result of their POV pushing edits. Under his "122" address, he filed a false 3RR report (complete with unsupported aspersions) against me yesterday [68], and has been posting passive aggressive nonsense at the article talk page both yesterday and after it was protected [69]. He has removed a Shared IP template from the IP's talk page in violation of WP:REMOVED (again with false accusations of vandalism), and begun pure trolling at unrelated talk pages as shown here [70]. Not really sure what to do about this person, other than report their disruption. ♟♙ (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

115.189.88.0/21 has been rangeblocked for a week. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: I commend you for your lightning-fast block of their back up IP, 122.56.203.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 22:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obvious Nazi 2601:481:0:AFE0:A5A1:B8A6:7BA8:D3D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked and TPA revoked, and suddenly there are new vandals on their talk page. Sockpuppets? Not sure what to do about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Handled. El_C 14:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the backlog at WP:AIV can I jump the queue and ask here for the prolific anti-Semitic vandal 87.5.93.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to be blocked? Article are having there edit histories filled with the back-and-forth. DuncanHill (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Resolved, blocked by @Malcolmxl5:, to whom thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to note, this is the Brescia LTA. See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

2603:8000:E807:D900::/64 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

(I've previously opened an SPI on this. Stupid, I know. But just putting it here for context.)

Almost of the IPs in this /64 range have attempted to revert my edits specifically in various articles, most of them in the whole month of April as can be seen in the contributions list. They've also done so with no apparent reason and without triggering notifications on my side so I've only found out just now. The edits have all been undone either by myself or someone else (but most of them have gone unnoticed until now). They appear to be intentionally choosing articles not commonly edited by editors so as to avoid suspicions.

I'm not quite sure who they are but they're obviously targeting me for some reason. The only thing in common that I can find is the Virtua Fighter 5 article. Which also brings the following to our attention.

This IP was also involved in editing the Virtua Fighter 5 page previously and had disputed with me briefly which I have provided my reasonings for both in the edit summaries and my talk page (but they didn't pursue further). The IP also appeared to have attempted to revert my edit at Battle Arena Toshinden but curiously reverted themselves. The IP also appears to share the same geolocation with the IPv6 /64 range in question.

I guess it's not solid evidence that they're the same person but the main problem is the IPv6 /64 range obviously targeting me and it's annoying that it went largely unnoticed even to myself (I didn't add most of those pages to my watchlist). LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I just received a help request on my talk page. I can't do exactly what is being requested, but I mostly know what is being requested, and I know that admin help is required.

User:Roundtheworld said that they noticed that I had been messaging User:Unilimited247, which I had, about an article that they had created in both draft space and user space. Their concern was about Agricultural value chain, which Uni247 had moved/renamed to Agribusiness value chain without discussion. Roundtheworld tried to correct for this by copy-pasting the article back to its original location of Agricultural value chain, but noticed then that it did not have history. That is true, because that is a known problem with doing a copy-paste. They asked if I would correct the problem and maybe block the user. I haven't reviewed the user's edits in detail, but it does appear that the user should be cautioned about aggressive edits without discussion. It appears that a history merge is needed, and that Agricultural value chain should go back to being the primary title, and Agribusiness value chain is a valid redirect. Will someone please do the history merge, and will someone please look at the edits by Uni247, who needs to slow down?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Might this be a case where it isn't really necessary to merge? The only intervening edits are the copy/pate move and you adding the histmerge tag. (I tried to do it with the tool anyway and it doesn't want to do it.) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Beeblebrox - Thank you. Then maybe what is necessary is just a round-robin move to get page history back to the title. I think that Unilimited247 needs to be cautioned not to do contentious moves without discussion. (The Move screen already cautions the editor, but some editors ignore any automated cautions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  Done - The principal title is again Agricultural value chain.
User:Roundtheworld - You meant well in copy-pasting back to the original title, but this made more of a mess that has now been cleaned up. The next time that you find a mess made by an inexperienced enthusiastic user, please don't guess at how to fix it, but ask for help. You both meant well. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Had to go last night, following up on this now. Glad the page is restored, I've left Unilimited247 a bit of advice on their talk page about looking before they leap. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Newcomer spamming my talk page with nonsense; he talks too much Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems a little too quick to bring to ANI. Perhaps tell the user to stop posting on your talk page first? With that said, I'm not sure how they found you; the only article they've edited is Weatherscan. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Tenryuu, I reported him and TWCZane to be sockpuppets, possibly of blocked user Zane Jamarillo. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I posted a warning on his talk page for treating Wikipedia as a social network. He also seems to be operating two accounts simultaneously so I've warned him about that as well while Mvcg66b3r filed a SPI case. He seems too inexperienced (read, young) for this to be intentional sockpuppetry, but we'll see how the CUs view it. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi all - I have a new editor, SkunkaMunka (talk · contribs), who has decided they like geographic relief maps in settlement infoboxes, which is nonstandard. They also continually edit warred with me over interactive maps, trying to remove or supplement them with outdated or inferior maps. I opened a sockpuppet investigation because it's clear they are abusively using multiple accounts. There has been no activity there yet. I also received and responded to an email from this user, hoping to discuss and stop edit warring. I have not heard back, and since then, they have proceeded to revert any un-reverted changes and continue to convert additional articles.

In short:

  • User changes maps to nonstandard or poorer maps with no discussion
  • Short edit war ensues
  • Brief email conversation
  • I stop to file a sockpuppet investigation
  • Days go by with no activity
  • I'm filing an ANI as this user will no longer discuss their desired changes or accept anything different

Best, ɱ (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This user made a very uncivil comment here: User talk:Dlthewave#Political userboxes. I ask for its removal (and possibly some good apologies). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: Putting that specific comment aside for a bit, can you explain how you chose which users to notify of the MfD? -- Blablubbs|talk 06:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see anything actionable in that reply to you: it's sarcastic, and it uses a mild profanity, but that is directed towards a userbox you created, not you personally. I would also be interested to hear from you how you selected the six users to notify about the facist userbox deletion discussion - as Dlthewave notes, it does look exactly like improper canvassing to me. GirthSummit (blether) 06:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blablubbs: Sure. I notified several users who could have been interested in the topic, based on their edit history or user categories, including four users who had previously voted in a similar MfD, but not only them. There was no need for that user to be so rude. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Est. 2021: So it's pure coincidence that 4 out of the 6 users you notified ([71][72][73][74]) had !voted keep in a prior, clearly related MfD ([75][76][77][78])? -- Blablubbs|talk 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blablubbs: Yes and no, I mean: I did not ask for their opinion because of that, but because they all had made edits about that topic. I didn't care if they would vote to keep or delete the userbox I created on request, I was just genuinely interested in allowing every concerned user to express their opinions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Est. 2021: I frankly have some trouble believing that. If that had truly been the case, why not notify everyone who !voted in the prior MfD, including the majority that had !voted keep? -- Blablubbs|talk 07:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Est. 2021 what Blablubbs says is correct. If you were genuinely interested in allowing every concerned user to express their opinion, you could have posted a note at the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject. Notifying people in the way that you did is not OK. GirthSummit (blether) 07:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Blablubbs and Girth Summit: I didn't even read the previous MfD before Dlthewave's comment. The only users I intentionally avoided to notify are the ones who use the template, ironically, since their opinion is clear. You can check their talk pages. If I meant to canvass, I would have notified them first. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
So what were your criteria for selection? I don't see any indicative or shared user categories (I've fixed your indents in this conversation). --Blablubbs|talk 07:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I answered this question three times already and I'm honestly tired of feeling under accusation for an userbox I don't even share. I reported a shitty uncivil comment and you didn't even consider it. I won't continue this process to intentions further if you won't remove that comment first. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
No matter why you notified these users, the result is improper canvassing. And I do have to concur with Girth Summit that I do not believe the initial reply is actionable. The pinnacle of civility? No, but also not actionable. In ANI discussions, the conduct of all participants may be scrutinised, and yours is frankly more concerning to me than Dlthewave's. (And please start indenting your comments; it makes discussions far more readable) --Blablubbs|talk 07:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've always been civil, helpful and cooperative, I spend my time here everyday just to help other users and fulfill their requests, hence sorry but I couldn't care less about these unfair accusations. Have a good day, goodbye! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Violating WP:CANVASSING has nothing to do with incivility, it's basically about attempting to stack the deck in your favor in a discussion. You came here, presumable, asking that something be done to Dlthewave, so you were certainly concerned then about how Wikipedia deals with accusations, only when you're own behavior is cited as problematic did you wave it off as "unfair accusations". It's possible that you have no idea that you were violating the anti-canvassing poicy, but when you are informed about it, the proper response is "Oh sorry, I didn't know about that, I won't do it again. I'll go now and invite all the users I left out before." Not waving off your behavior as for some reason irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I really didn't know about that policy, and I never said I did the right thing. I only explained why I did that, right or wrong. But yeah, the more you explain me how these policies work, the more I feel like an idiot. I've never been in this situation before. Thought that was obvious. Note: you made another false accusation, since I never asked that something be done to Dlthewave, I just asked to remove that specific uncivil comment. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Est. 2021 You notified four users who had !voted keep in a very similar deletion discussion. I cannot see anything else in their contribution histories that connects them, but I did note from a cursory look at the accounts that one of them is indefinitely blocked, and two of them have not edited for several months, so they seem like an odd collection of people for you to have chosen were they not connected by those keep !votes. I also find your assertion that you did not read the deletion discussion quite difficult to believe: you created a redirect from the deleted userspace template to the userbox you created, so you obviously knew about it, and knew that it had been deleted. I can think of no credible alternative way you would have selected those users, other than by reading that discussion and dropping a note to all of the people who !voted keep, which is the very definition of canvassing.

Another question: why did you redirect this deleted alt-right userbox to your fascist userbox template? And this one? And this one? GirthSummit (blether) 09:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I redirected those pages just because I found a bunch of red links on User:Marcus Napoleon Ceasar's page and I had just created the userbox for other users. The already-existing User:UBX/Fascism did not state anything against violence and racism, that's really inappropriate for a fascist userbox, IMHO. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: I found two of them (including the Alt-right one) on another MfD, not the one mentioned before. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Est. 2021, so if you are still asking us to believe that you did not read that MfD, please explain specifically what it was about those four accounts that made you think they were good people to drop a note to.
I don't quite follow your explanation on the redirects - why would you assume that someone who previously had a now-deleted alt-right 'Pepe the frog' userbox would want to now have your fascist userbox? If someone doesn't want to have a redlink on their userpage, they can remove it for themselves. GirthSummit (blether) 10:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I just don't like when pages are deleted without being orphanised first, so I thought that redirect to be the 'better' temporary solution, since Alt-right and Fascism look very similar to me, but yeah, I could have been wrong. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the MfD, the canvassing, and the unlikely claims about the canvassing: one should never recreate userboxes in this way. Either they have the same message as the original one, and then the original MfD is still valid; or they have a different message than the original one, and then you are putting a different message on the user page of people who still had the redlinked original userbox, which means that you are making them claim things they may not agree with. Basically, if you make new userboxes, don't redirect old ones to it. Fram (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: I didn't know, sorry. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Est. 2021 why didn't you discuss this with Dlthewave before coming here? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Because what fun is trolling just on one user's talk-page when you can do it on ANI? --JBL (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Close with no action I've had a number of issues with Dlthewave over the years. We rarely see eye to eye and I do not think they have clean hands when it comes to editor behavior (They are actively saying the same about me). For all of my issues with Dlthewave, I can't think of a time when they ever made an uncivil comment about another editor. Looking at the comment in question, yeah, that is probably the worst thing I've ever seen them say but that was about user boxes, not the user. If this were something they were doing time after time then I think there would be more merit but I've seen no evidence of that. Instead this is a one off comment. Not helpful and not something that they should be making a habit of but that's it. Springee (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I also note that the OP is an experienced user under previous usernames (and has been indeffed from their own wiki for persistent personal attacks and socking [79]) so I am unconvinced that they are unaware of local norms regarding canvassing etc. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I literally only asked for the removal of that specific comment, nothing more. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems possible that you might get more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already. The previous MfD is the only time I can think of that I've shown any interest in the topic of fascist userboxes; I'm not sure where else Est. 2021 would have found me. I'm not watching this page — ping me if you need anything. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Unconfirmed User AmericanMan18 is making page redirects, engaging in edit warring and adding content not relevant to the ethnic group template of Eritrea, Template:Ethnic groups in Eritrea and the Eritrean Diaspora . User has been warned but keeps adding same content.Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've fixed your {{u}} template, to what I assume you meant to do. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey we don't need to deal with this anymore. Its not a big deal never mind. I take back my edits its not a big deal. I've also changed it back to the way you want it to be, Leechjoel9. AmericanMan18 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked AmericanMan18 as a likely sockpuppet of Hoaeter (as per WP:DUCK). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted to discuss Radu1995's changes to the article about the film Untamed Romania. Their expansion of the content using Romanian-language sources is appreciated. However, they seem to have WP:OWN issues in terms of the style of the article. I've attempted to edit the article to conform to the guidelines at MOS:FILM (proper sectioning, over/underlinking issues), but they continually revert to their preferred version. The article is also plagued by language in many areas that is less than encyclopedic (although it is unclear if these phrasings are a direct translation of the original Romanian-language sources) and/or just plain poorly-worded, but attempts to edit things to be more appropriate in tone is often met with wholesale reversion. Attempts to communicate with them via their talk page are ineffective.

I did mention this at WP:FILM (see [80]), so I am hoping other editors with an interest will edit the article in the future. I decided to post here because, for whatever reason, I've taken an interest in this article as well, and I do not want to engage in an edit war with someone who refuses to communicate except via edit summary. Naturally, it would be inappropriate for me to use any administrative tools to sanction this user for continued disruptive editing (i.e., for contravening the MOS), as I am WP:INVOLVED. The last straw for me is this reversion, where the editor reintroduces the poor wording and style (and doesn't even get the hyphenation of the director's name right, which I did subsequently fix) from their preferred version. If anyone can see a solution that would help communicate with this editor, I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks. --Kinu t/c 21:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I directed them to the article talk page, but the talk page is currently empty, and it would help if you could start yourself, describing the changes you want to make.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
They responded at the talk page, and, as far as I understand, their idea is that since they started from a stub and improve the page, they now may do whatever they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter: thanks for your comments. At least they are now responding on their talk page, but I agree with your assertion that there is a WP:IDONTHEAR issue here. --Kinu t/c 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wareon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently engaged in a drawn out edit war over multiple additions on COVID-19 pandemic in India, accompanied by minimal engagement on the talk page and inappropriate use of templates. The following are diffs of their recent edit warring on the page, I may have missed some, it is bit hard to track as the page has high traffic and they mix and match removals of different content additions.

The following are diffs with regards to their inappropriate templating.

  • 11:28, 29 April 2021 Level one disruptive editing template on User talk:Jasksingh. This came after the concerned user had made one revert of Wareon's revertion. Warned for improper use of template on 13:23, 29 April 2021. The edit itself (Special:Diff/1020457292) on the face of it at worse appears to be a content dispute, it was cited to reliable sources, was verifiable and was accompanied with an appropriate edit summary.
  • 10:51, 29 April 2021 Edit warring template on User talk:ViperSnake151. The concerned user has made only 2 reverts on the page during the same time period and has constant engagement on the talk page, explaining their contributions and participating in discussions. They had a brief engagement between them where according to Wareon facts say otherwise to which VS responded by asking for sources to support the assertion. Wareon has not bother to respond and has continued editing in other places and edit warring on the page.

Note that this isn't the first time they have indulged in similar behavior. See the following diffs for instance.

Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - I agree that Wareon has been extremely obstructive at the difficult page of COVID-19 in India, apparently trying to block anything negative said about the government or the ruling party of India. The whitewashing is justified by cryptic edit summaries like "no need", "UNDUE", "already said UNDUE" etc. He is not the only one, but he is clearly taking the lead. In my view, he needs to be kept away from this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just linking what you deem as "edit warring" to remove disruption and POV pushing isn't enough. You have to mention which policy was violated and if my edit was successfully challenged.
Now if you are so concerned about what happened 3 months ago on 26 January, the it is clear to anyone that my edits on B. B. Lal were accepted as valid while Tayi Arajakte was frequently violating WP:BLP[81] together with an obvious sock SPA named Inderpalsingh55. Tayi Arajakte was double downing on talk page to justify his BLP violations and falsely claiming a SPS (which never supported his text) to be a non-SPS by wrongly naming a different publisher than the actual publisher.[82] Tayi Arajakte met whole definition of WP:DE there.
To claim that I was wrong with my attempts to correct this BLP violation and misrepresentation of sources is entirely misleading and only speaks of your own intent.
I am not taking lead on any article but being bold and complying with the necessary policies per WP:CON and WP:BRD.
This report is baseless and yet another attempt by the OP to get rid of me even though he tried it before and failed with the baseless SPI he filed before. Wareon (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph of WP:EDITWAR states that claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Per my own comment on the talk page of B. B. Lal, Droogan 2013 is published by A&C Black which is not an SPS. Do you think this is difficult to check? I have also quoted from the references on the talk page, more than once on how they supported the text, BLP doesn't preclude addition of material which may be perceived as negative. My only edits on that page were after your first removal and I stuck to the talk page since then, which is how one follows BRD.
Between 26 January and your edits in late April, you have mostly edited infrequently except for a period around 21 and 28 February so it is very relevant here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you really saying I should leave problematic edits on main page just because reverting it can be misconstrued as edit warring? That made no sense. On here I had explicitly linked "this self-published source" to which you replied here as "there is no indication that source is self publishing". Now you are extricating yourself out of the misrepresentation of the source you did on the talk page.
Contrary to your faulty calculation, I have edited the entire February and also edited on March and April. You are only making your report even more baseless with these false claims. Wareon (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It was one of the four sources used. You never addressed any of the other sources while continuing to remove material cited to them in the edit war as I've already displayed in this report. My stance on the use of that source in particular was to ignore it after a different user demonstrated that there was an indication that it was self published. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
My message was more detailed than that and I had explicitly noted that "The sources do not support any of these labels". ANI is not for clariying some outdated content dispute. Wareon (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This is not about clarifying any content dispute. This is about your conduct. You "noted" something that was demonstrably false, which when demonstrated to you, you chose to ignore it as you are doing here and continued to edit war on the page. Not to mention you threw frivolous accusations at Joshua Jonathan of competency issues similar to what you are doing here as well. For instance, according to you, I have "faulty calculations" because I said your edits were infrequent, you have 3 edits in March and 3 edits between 1 to 25 April.
I wouldn't have brought up the January incident if you weren't repeating similar behavior on COVID-19 pandemic in India. Seeing as this is a pattern, one could probably find more if one were to dig deeper through your edits, I have only highlighted the ones that I remember witnessing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
P.S: Regarding, "Are you really saying I should leave problematic edits on main page just because reverting it can be misconstrued as edit warring? That made no sense."
You have been here since 2019, you were warned about edit warring and have cited the policy including WP:3RRNO itself (Special:Diff/1002834911). None of the reverts above are that of obvious vandalism, they are very clearly content disputes where you don't approve of the addition, I find it really hard to believe that you don't know that your actions constitute edit warring. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
You are misusing this noticeboard to clarify my position on the content dispute. I was accusing Joshua Jonathan of incompetence because he wasn't understanding he was misrepresenting sources but unlike you he agreed that he was wrong.
Instead of cherrypicking WP:3RRNO, you need to stop ignoring that one is exempted from reverting BLP violations and that's why I wasn't blocked despite your frivolous warning.
My edits were in line with WP:CON and WP:BRD. You need to realize that it was a wrong move of you to file a report over these few non-DE diffs.Wareon (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate in any meaningful way that on how sources were misrepresented and how it was a BLP violation? The exception would apply if it really were a case of misrepresentation which wasn't. This is increasingly looking like behavior described under WP:GASLIGHT.
The diff you have brought up was long after you had left the conversation and was part of a suggestion for an alternative which Joshua Jonathan implemented and I agreed to. The page was put under full protection in the meantime and you were told to stop.. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no on-going edit warring on COVID-19 pandemic in India. I agree with Wareon that his reverts don't violate a particular policy and he used talk page to defend his position and fully complied with WP:BRD. Now that we are on this issue, I would request extended confirmed protection on COVID-19 pandemic in India which will reduce the amount of reversions. AnM2002 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with Tayi Arajakate - Wareon has taken lead in becoming the self appointed guardian to not let any criticism of the government come in the page. They don't care about sourcing, determining consensus on the talk page or their wrong warnings that they pasting over at everyone's talk pages. They also don't understand basic WP policies. I have edited the page a total of 2 times but got the warning of edit warring on my page talk from them [83]. They should be warned and be asked to keep away from this page for at least couple of months, failing which they should be blocked. Roller26 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Jose Mathew C:, @Kashmorwiki:, @ViperSnake151:, @Jasksingh:, @TruthGuardians:, @Homolego: for their inputs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller26 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Roller26, I have to say two things. Firstly, pinging this many people is close to canvassing, I would suggest removing them although I am unsure if it removes the pings or not. Wareon appears to have left discretionary sanction alerts on their talk pages en masse, but that's not a warning and is generally allowed. I had missed the inappropriate templating on your talk page though.
    Secondly, I think Wareon has been warned enough times already, at least seven times, going by the templates on their talk page. I'd say it is time for a block especially considering their behavior towards others. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    Block for what? By exposing your own BLP violations and continued denial of your clear misrepresentation of sources, you are in no position to request any block. If you really want to count warnings then, you have been editing for less duration than I and have been warned far more times and also blocked for disruption. Isn't your own case much weaker even if we use your own metric? Wareon (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    You need to be able to back up your accusations. Misrepresentation of sources would constitute claiming something that isn't reflected in a source, something that you did, not anyone else. For instance, claiming that "source do not support any of these labels" and continuing to insist the same here even after I had quoted, exactly where they did. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Regarding my block, I don't deny my fault neither do I try to hide it. I was partially blocked from a page for edit warring once and haven't repeated since and I certainly don't have more warnings than you. If you are going to accuse me of misconduct, open a report against me and demonstrate what I've done, instead of trying to distract from your conduct issues here. As for the reason I'm seeking a block for you, it's for your persistent edit warring, your tendentious behavior in discussions, your frivolous accusations at others in general and your attempts at gaslighting in this discussion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    You need to avoid asking others to rehash themselves. Those allegations have been already proven as per my comment above. Wareon (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    See WP:CANVASSING and WP:ASPERSIONS. Wareon (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have not had the time I would like to monitor Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India, but Wareon's editing there has concerned me, as has that of a few other editors. That India is experiencing a severe spike in Covid is now global news; and very many reliable sources have discussed the drivers of this spike. Needless to say such material is always going to be controversial, but given how much coverage it has received, it is patently obvious it needs to be in the article in some form. Wareon's editing has amounted to nothing more than stone-walling all material critical of the Indian government, while doing nothing to build coverage. this edit, for instance, removed content that was largely supported by sources; the only issue was that "in some of the election rallies" should have been "at one of the election rallies." Yet Wareon removed the content claiming it "wasn't genuine", and demanded a talk page consensus, and subsequently did not participate substantively on the talk page. I'm not yet certain that sanctions are needed, but a recalibration in their approach is needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I had made it clear on the talk page that the content contradicted the scientific views and actual research on the subject. There was no consensus to reject my revert. Criticism that contradicts actual research on the subject should not get undue weight, which I made clear on the talk page. Wareon (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Vanamonde93, it's quite weird that most Indians don't seem to be critical of Modi over this. Muslim Indians are more forthright about this than Hindus, in my experience, but given Modi's well-publicised oppression of Muslims that's hard to unpick from the background noise. My team in Bangalore have nearly all suffered personal bereavement, with three deaths of close friends or immediate family last week alone. A friend in Pune died last week. It's worse than the original outbreak, by all accounts, yet they honestly don't appear to blame the government. I don't know whether this is Modi's personal charisma or just typical Indian fatalism. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    JzG, I could speculate, but I'd rather do that where I won't be accused of violating NOTFORUM...happy to email. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The diffs presented by Tayi show clear tendentious editing in my opinion. It should be actionable under the ARBIPA sanctions, slightly faster than proposing a TBAN here IMO. ProcSock (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • None are actionable because they don't show which policy was violated. People are allowed to revert what they see problematic as long as they are ready to comply with consensus even if it reaches against them. But the diffs provided from Wareon regarding BLP violation and misrepresentation of sources by Tayi Arajakte is certainly sanctionable. Do you have any justification why Tayi Arajakte shouldn't be sanctioned for them? You need to read entire report more carefully before creating a conclusion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    None are actionable because they don't show which policy was violated. The assertion is that this is WP:TE, classed as disruptive editing and actionable as such if true. Now Special:Diff/1019734385, for example, shows the opinion of Wareon that it was "deemed valid by Twitter" and removed for "violat[ing] Twitter's rules". Sources: [84][85] Now, first it's unclear whether this is even true, or whether it was simply restricted within India. It appears both sources are saying it's the latter. (Certainly, I can still access about half of them, and I live outside India.) But in any case, neither source tries to place emphasis on this point, so presumably Wareon has inferred this from the quotation of Twitter's general comment on how it deals with censorship requests and decided the point belongs in the article. So already you have a few issues here. When you consider this edit, which added undue/OR verbosity, it's harder to assume good faith on edits like Special:Diff/1019734142 which remove reliably sourced 'verbosity'. So yes, this appears to be tendentious editing. Whether it deserves a TBAN, a (logged) warning, or no action, would be up to an admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    These diffs are deeply concerning: the second is routine improper POV-pushing, and the first is deeply problematic. At a minimum, a strong warning is required here, but honestly it's hard to believe a topic ban isn't inevitable. --JBL (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    But at that time reports only concerned Twitter, before it was revealed that Government asked more social media to delete the concerning posts. Whether they deleted them or blocked only in India is indeed unclear. As for this edit, it appears to be entirely valid per multiple reliable sources. [86][87] It is indeed problematic to rely on mere media reports for deciding about a "superspreader". I note that you have ignored the multiple questions I asked above. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel, what misrepresentation of sources? Wareon removed the term "historical revisionism" from B. B. Lal which was cited to Droogan 2012 and Ahmed 2014 with an edit summary claiming that it was not supported by any sources. Both the citations supported the material, so I restored it, added 2 more references (news articles) and engaged solely on the talk page from there on after it was reverted by Wareon.
To your credit, you did reasonably demonstrate that Ahmed 2014 was an SPS but to your discredit you ignored Droogan 2012, just like Wareon and went on to claim that the news articles must have copied from Wikipedia in a particularly patronising comment stating "you are long enough to know that we must avoid using random news sources". In response, I acceded to not using Ahmed 2014 and stated that your suggestions contradicts WP:NEWSORG. After which you never responded.
Quotations from the three citations for reference:
Tandom, Aditi (25 January 2021). "Former Japanese PM, Indian-American scientist Kapany on this year's Padma Vibhushan list". The Tribune.

Lal is well known as a Hindu historical revisionist and as former the director general of the ASI, was the first to excavate at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, besides carrying out excavations at the sites associated with the Mahabharata.

"5 from Karnataka, former Japanese PM among 119 Padma winners". Bangalore Mirror. Indo-Asian News Service. 26 January 2021.

Indian archaeologist and Hindutva historical revisionist B. B. Lal

Droogan, Julian (2012). Religion, Material Culture and Archaeology. A&C Black. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-4411-8431-3.

A case in point is the corruption of the archeology of South Asia by politically motivated religious groups. Hindu revisionist historians in India have ... to supplement historical texts that condone or promote the exclusion and even victimization of non-Hindu religious groups. B.B.Lal, the former Director General of the Archeological Survey of India, has used the term blut und boden, a patriotic connection between one's blood and the soil of one's homeland, in connection with supposed religious continuity in the archeological record of India.

Frivolous and unsubstantiated accusations is in itself sanctionable, such as the ones made by Wareon, which you have repeated in their defence. The alleged "BLP violation" is currently present in the article and its citations have been updated to four academic books including Droogan 2012. If this is a BLP violation as you say, why is it that you stopped engaging on the talk page? Things you don't like don't become BLP violations. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can see that I had explicitly linked "this self-published source" to which you replied here as "there is no indication that source is self publishing". This, together with your BLP violation[88] and your baseless claim that these evident diffs are "Frivolous and unsubstantiated accusations" shows your own attempt to mislead others or otherwise show your own WP:IDHT. Wareon (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The preview of Ahmed 2014 which you have linked above gave no indication that it was self-published. You failed to demonstrate that it was an SPS through your link, I had to later check for the name of the publishing company present in the preview and could not find any information on it which is when I changed my stance on the use of the source. This was irrelevant considering there were three other reliable sources supporting the material, so yes it's a frivolous and unsubstantiated accusation.
Source misrepresentation is when you claim something which is contradicted by the link presented as you did with Droogan 2012 and the two news articles, claiming "Source does not mention those words" was a pretty blatant case of that. There is in fact another instance on the same talk page where you provide two sources to claim that the subject of the article had apparently received appraisal from scholars (Special:Diff/1002831327) which was later shown to be a misrepresentation (Special:Diff/1003055677). Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see what ANI can do about slow-mo reverts of obviously subjective edits which required consensus and existing consensus certainly supports reverts by Wareon. Tayi Arajakte should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. You shouldn't be reporting another editor when you are yourself guilty of clear policy violations. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel's conduct

edit

Combine the above with their own activities on B. B. Lal and their defence of Wareon here, and we can probably see a pattern emerging. Seeing their arguements on B. B. Lal, it also appears that news sources become reliable and unreliable to them per their own convienence and against community consensus. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This topic area does not need more editors hindering the development of that article, which should be in a much better state given recent events and the fact that it has 22k pageviews per day and people are looking for critical information in these times. Aman's conduct includes inappropriate MEDRS stonewalling, doing original research and arguing that BBC, Reuters and The Guardian aren't reliable[89], but Sputnik (a deprecated source) and Xinhua are, whilst somehow accusing others of doing the OR? In addition, there's several other highly dubious edits, together with their edit summaries.[90][91][92] Slightly above in this ANI it appears Aman has been misrepresenting sources, using low quality sources & opinion pieces to rebut HQRS reporting, and possibly attempting to derail discussion under the pretence of boomerangs.[93][94] Would appreciate if Aman could account for these. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat and personal attack. I would also appreciate a userpage protection.--Visnelma (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

protected and editor warned. — Ched (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly removed relevant material fromSydney Shoemaker. The user has been asked twice now to explain the basis for the deletion and to seek consensus on the TALK page. The user has done neither, simply reverting repeatedly. I think this user should now be blocked.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I just left a level 3 warning on the IP's talk page. (And an ANI notice, which Philosophy Junkie failed to do.) Looking at the IP's history, they've been removing this content for a year or so, so if this continues, a block of more than the usual day or two may be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have never suggested blocking anyone before, so did not know the procedure. My apologies for that. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The IP kept at it and is now blocked for a week. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

LupEnd007 first came to my attention in 2009 with some good editing at Auto-Tune, for which I gave my personal praise. Twelve years later on March 17, I found some big copyright problems caused by LupEnd007 at Heavydirtysoul and I went to LupEnd007's talk page to discuss the issue. My post was not answered. I also stated my concerns at Talk:Heavydirtysoul#Persistent_prose_problems, but LupEnd007 did not reply there, either. Instead, I got a message on my talk page saying don't go off the deep end and call LupEnd007 a vandal for this kind of stuff. LupEnd007 said they would improve their work.

An example copyvio problem:

  • "an aggressively fast-talking opening track which nonetheless boasts an unexpectedly melodic chorus."[95] – The Upcoming source says "the aggressively fast-talking opening track Heavydirtysoul, which nevertheless boasts a surprisingly melodic chorus."

In the last few days, Mcguy15 has been struggling with LupEnd007's copyvio at Shy Away. Because of LupEnd007's additions, Mcguy15 measured a doubling of possible copyvio as reported by Earwig tool. I rolled that article back to its condition prior to LupEnd007's involvement.

Here's a chart of Earwig's assessment of a selection of LupEnd007's copyvio percentages:

Article – pre- => post-LupEnd007

A completely different copyvio problem from LupEnd007 is the addition of non-free audio listening examples without "contextual significance" per WP:NFCCP. Every audio example intended for listening should be described in the article to provide context, but LupEnd007 has been uploading examples and adding them to articles without context, usually by placing them without explanatory text in the infobox.[96][97] And according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, each music sample must be limited to 10% of the song duration or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. LupEnd007 has uploaded 15% of the song at File:Notion.ogg and 17% of the song at File:Corona.ogg, and other uploads are also too long.

With this person I have met strong resistance to correction and collaboration. They refuse to participate in talk page discussions about their behavior. The only thing they do on their own talk page is delete comments by others. I am at a loss what to do. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here! I'll just mention I have nothing extra to say here that Binksternet didn't say or I didn't say at Talk:Shy Away Mcguy15 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I strongly recommend making a case request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. It is a taskforce specifically intended to find and remove copyright violations by someone or group of someones. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Please block Jbiiai from editing the user talk page. FF-11 (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A legal threat was made by 70.106.244.186 in an edit summary [98]. The user (without sources) replaced content on the Bhandari (caste) page, and threatened legal action on the claim that the previously sourced content hurt "religious sentiment and creating disharmony". The page is also under two separate administrative sanctions, WP:ARBIP and WP:GS/CASTE. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There was an edit war going on on that article so I've protected it for a day. I'm not sure about the threats the IP editor was making, whether or not they fit the legal threats standard because it wasn't the typical "I'll get my lawyers to sue you!" language. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
That is a clear-cut legal threat. "PIL" means public interest litigation with regards to India. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I came across this edit summary (* typography: ᶞᵉʳᵉ∄ˣⁱˢᵗˢᴺᵒ page p͡f; instead ᶞᵉʳᵉ∃ˣⁱˢᵗˢᴬ page p̪͡f), which I felt was ill-advised (and am not sure why it was allowed by software). I attempted to discuss this with the user, but am not getting anywhere. Is this use of Unicode characters allowed? If not, can somebody else attempt to explain this to the user? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:力, it's helpful and civil both to assume WP:GOODFAITH and to keep all comments from a single user on the same colon-indenting level.
I thecurran tried to explain to User:力 that although the translingual logical symbols:
• ∄ ◌ and
• ∃ ◌
:are very powerful and useful, not everyone realizes that they mean:
• there exists no ◌ such that and
• there exists a(n) ◌ such that respectively,
:but a pronunciation guide can help them to glean their meanings.
By the way, I'm not an admin but; since this thread is about me; I want to keep track of how this thread develops in real time, so would You please tell me how You folks keep on top of threads about You that aren't written on your own talk pages?
Many kind thanks in advance for all of your effort and consideration! thecurran (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Thecurran: You admit that not everyone understands the meaning of these symbols, and you have also been made aware of the fact that it can be difficult even to see them clearly. That means that even if the symbols are easy to understand and clearly visible to you, you should avoid using them in edit summaries, since an edit summary is there to help your fellow editors understand what you did in the edit. Responses such as this are not very helpful, either – even if you thought that the logical symbols were helpful in the edit summary, it wouldn't make sense to replace regular letters with Unicode symbols in a response to an editor who has just asked you not to use Unicode symbols. It rather seems like an attempt to make some kind of point. --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
bonadea, the superscripts are the pronunciation guide. They're there to help people. They're all perfectly sized on a regular device. Translingual symbols help second language users; translingual symbols should be globally encouraged, not abused for being "too clever", because we want to extend our reach to all possible levels of English.
Specifically, the edit in question was on a page about phonetic characters. The superscript characters to guide pronunciation were originally invented by phoneticians and placed in Unicode for phoneticians, so phoneticians are familiar with them. Thus, in this specific field, the superscripts are highly appropriate. ⓪Are 力 and bonadea phoneticians?
bonadea ⑤What's unhelpful about enumerating text to highlight particular sections?
This issue should never have come here at all because it fails to meet the chronic criterion. 力 jumped the gun moving it here when it's less than 24 hours old.
I am not admitting that the superscripts are hard to read. To be honest, 力 has been pretty uncivil and forceful by never answering the answering same question① about legibility even once when asked 3 times. User:力 also ignored the call for clarification of question② twice without any answer. thecurran (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thecurran, I don't think this needs to be at ANI: this is a single instance, most of your edit summaries seem fine from a quick skim through your recent contribs. For what it's worth though, we don't expect editors to be conversant in the use of phonetic and/or logical symbols, we just hope that they have a decent grasp of standard English. I teach English, but when I look at that edit summary, it means nothing to me at all - from looking at it, I can't work out what you did or why you did it, which is the purpose of an edit summary. Probably better to stick to your usual style. GirthSummit (blether) 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Going to ANI did seem a bit harsh when I filed this (I mean, I'm not asking for a block), but I wasn't sure where else to go to have other editors comment; I certainly couldn't "report" him to the Teahouse. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
⑥Girth Summit, what exactly do You see?
I see the "∃" character expanded out to say "there Exists a".
I also see the "∄" character expanded out to say "there Exists no". thecurran (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thecurran Please don't use people's signatures to ping them. You can use the ping template as I've done in this post; there's more discussion of this at WP:PING. I've amended your post.
To answer your question, I see some small letters, not all of which are in the normal 26-letter alphabet used in modern English, surrounding a backwards E. One of them is a thorn I think, which makes the 'th' sound, right? I don't know why the E is backwards, and crossed out in one instance, but if I take my best guess at reading it as if it were in normal language, I would get: 'There exists no page p͡f, instead there exists a page P̪͡f'. It feels a bit like a cryptic crossword clue written by Yoda. GirthSummit (blether) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thecurran, I'm going to repeat power~enwiki's original request to you: please stop trying to be clever. Your behavior with respect to these characters is somewhere between "quite obnoxious" and "seriously disruptive", and you should knock it off. --JBL (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The entire point of edit summaries is to provide a brief description of your edit so that other editors can understand what you're doing. It should be fairly obvious then that using translingual logical symbols, which the op admits that "not everyone realizes that they mean ..." is not a good way of writing edit summaries. It's also worth thinking about things like accessibility, I have no idea what kind of mangled rubbish a screen reader would produce if you asked it to parse "ᶞᵉʳᵉ∄ˣⁱˢᵗˢᴺᵒ page p͡f; instead ᶞᵉʳᵉ∃ˣⁱˢᵗˢᴬ page p̪͡f" but it's unlikley that it would be understandable. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Thecurran: Responding to two points in your response to me. The superscript characters to guide pronunciation – it took me a while to realise that the tiny flyspeck characters you refer to as a "pronunciation guide" are supposed to be IPA. I am familiar with IPA, I am not a phonetician but I do occasionally teach phonetics, and I think this use of IPA in superscript is not helpful at all. Not for me, not even if it had been correctly transcribed, and evidently not for a number of other editors either. Are you arguing that if a user has such a shaky grasp of English that they can't understand the phrase "there exists no", they would be helped by having the phrase transcribed phonetically? As for the advanced logical symbols, they are not expanded in any of my browsers, neither in edit summaries nor in the text here. What's unhelpful about enumerating text to highlight particular sections? That is not what's unhelpful. Writing your responses partially in Unicode characters instead of using letters ("operating systems" is an English phrase, no need to use IPA) is not helpful. And there is a sexist aside in this post as well, which is something you will hopefully avoid in the future. --bonadea contributions talk 12:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think thecurran was being sexist in that comment, but instead this is a prime example of why their attempt to help non-native speakers has backfired and made it look bad. Judging from my limited knowledge of Chinese characters, they were trying to use 人 as person, and using "ruby text" to write it as (wo)man. With the superscript text, I read it as woman without brackets first too. Honestly, just writing clearly is easier than trying to use obscure symbols that then need explaining in half letters, half IPA. LotT (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Thecurran: Unless there is strong objection by others here, I will indefinitely block you if there are any further edits such as diff (absurd "Ĭnformātion: ăddəd Unĭcōdₑ blŏck" summary) or diff (global search of ANI for "Thecurran" and replace with "thecurran", including in comments by others). Such an indefinite block would be removed when there was an undertaking that further disruption will not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
⑦User:Johnuniq, what is going on?
⑧Girth Summit literally corrected my mistyping of Girth Summit's name in this thread to the way Girth Summit wanted me to type it, establishing a precedent of editors having permission to correct mistypings of one's own name; so why are You proposing an indefinite block against me for correcting the way that others have misspelt my own name?
I haven't even finished typing my apology to Girth Summit yet. This kind of thing never happened happened on Wikipedia 20 years ago.thecurran (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Girth Summit, Ī'm sorry for gĭvĭŋ Yoū ðə ĭmprĕsʃion ðăt Ī was pərhăps tryĭŋ to stēal your sĭgnaturₑ ∨⁽⁼ᵒʳ⁾ to ĭmpərsonātₑ Yoū. My ăctūal ĭntĕnt was to prŏpərly ʃōw Yoū respĕct θroūgh ðə wĕb ĕtĭquĕttₑ of ōnly refərrĭŋ to new acquāintances by ðə endonyms ðey'vₑ chōsən for ðĕmsĕlvₑs; ăs oppōsₑd to ðə exonyms gĕnərātəd by oðər 人⁽⁼ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ⁾ ∨⁽⁼ᵒʳ⁾ computərs. For ĭnstancₑ, bonadea—līkₑ mysĕlf—appears to prefər ¬⁽⁼ⁿᵒᵗ⁾ to căpĭtalīzₑ 1sĕlf ∧⁽⁼ᵃⁿᵈ⁾ 力 appears to ĕnjoy usĭŋ charactərs ŭnavāilablə to usərs joinĭŋ 20年间⁽⁼ʸᵉᵃʳˢ⁾ agō, ʍĭch ŭnfortunatₑly forcₑ ðə văst majorĭty of Ēŋlĭʃ spēakərs to resort to cŏpy-pāstĭŋ 力's tīny sĭgnaturₑ ðăt's raðər hard jŭst to hīghlīght ŏn a phōnₑ for said cŏpy-pāstĭŋ ĭn ðə 1ˢᵗ plācₑ.
⑨How ŏftən mŭst ĕdĭtors targĕtəd by quĭckfīrₑ 力 gĭvₑ ŭp ĕntīrəly, ēvən ʍĕn skĭp‐ðə‐plĕasantries 力 jŭst hăppəns to mākₑ a jŭd͡ʒmənt ĕrror līkₑ ĕvery oðər 人⁽⁼ʰᵘᵐᵃⁿ⁾ does?
⑩How many potĕntially go͝od ĕdĭtors hăvₑ alrĕady sĭmply quĭt Wĭkimēdia vŏlunteerĭŋ altogĕðər 1ᶜᵉ ðey'vₑ ĕncountərₑd 力's ʃo͞ot‐1ˢᵗ‐⇒⁽⁼ᵗʰᵉⁿ⁾‐ăsk‐quĕstions apprōach? thecurran (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq, please try not to indefinitely block me for fixing my own typos. Thecurran (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please indef block them after the above trolling. Fram (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thecurran: I would indefinitely block you for posting the above gibberish which is either trolling or a severe lack of understanding about communication requirements, however I'll be away from keyboard and I'd prefer not to block unless able to follow-up within a few hours. Perhaps an admin who will be here might like to take over. My guess is that Fram's mention of trolling is unrelated to the comment you struck in diff. Really, any more junk in comments or edit summaries will be the end. It's not clever, it's not funny. Stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Thecurran: You've been a – seemingly productive – editor here for a long time. Now you've been brought here because people don't think your edit summaries are great.
To me, it seems it would have been the easiest thing for you to just to say you'll stop using silly unicode characters (that may look funny to some) in edit summaries.
Instead you start trolling people by writing a whole message to Girth Summit in that style. Why are you risking an indef block? I don't get it. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - I was close to blocking you for the above, hesitant to do so to allow you time to explain yourself. GiantSnowman 10:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:bonadea Ī'm sorry for offending Yoū with my use of the term "(wo)men". My actual intent was to simplify writing the non‐gender‐specific term "women or men". Ī thought that it was a straightforward use of parentheses ∨⁽⁼ᵒʳ⁾ brackets, which show that "person(s)" is a common simple way of writing "persons or person". Ī endeavour always to be equitable ∀⁽⁼ᶠᵒʳ ᵃˡˡ⁾ genders. Ī'vₑ personally lŏst university standing for campaigning vocally to open up bōθ a queer space ∧⁽⁼ᵃⁿᵈ⁾ women's space on campus so that the 人⁽⁼ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ⁾ in my heart could hăvₑ ≥ 1 sanctuary in our līvₑs. Ī'vₑ ēvən hăd folks try to burn me alive ʍĕn Ī spoke out against homophobia in the 1990s CE. Within Wikipedia, Ī'vₑ stood against the misgendering of an American Samoan fa'afafine who tragically lost her life after a very public "outing" and horrific transgender abuse. Thecurran (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Please stop picking me apart because of an ĕdĭt summary that never should hăvₑ come to ANI in the 1ˢᵗ place. This is legitimately unfair ∧⁽⁼ᵃⁿᵈ⁾ unjust. 😥 Thecurran (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh, blocked. GiantSnowman 10:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Deliberately continuing the behaviour at ANI that is the subject of the original report is trolling. Good block from GS and good unblock decline from Yamla: continuing to use the language in an unblock request that caused the original block is also trolling. 2X trolling, shame on them; 3X trolling, shame on us... ——Serial 12:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Great Shaker is personally attacking me while I was trying to improve the quality of article by adding content in Comments on race vs. racist comments section of following page : Talk:Winston_Churchill. In his words :

Interesting that someone with only thirty-odd edits is so assertive about what things are generally included in biographical articles. Churchill's character, including the more controversial aspects, is more than adequately described in the article already. As you are a new and inexperienced editor, you may not have read the whole article thoroughly before trying to make your WP:POINT.

I think this behaviour is not accepted at free community like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been here a week, and you have 40 edits. There's nothing wrong with No Great Shaker pointing that out, and suggesting your inexperience as a possible reason that you may not have evaluated the article's content well enough. These are not personal attacks, they are reasonable evaluations of the circumstances of the editing dispute. Another editor also agrees with NGS that your additions were WP:UNDUE, making a rough working consensus against your position. Given that your suggested addition to the article was the below, I agree that they are UNDUE:

Extended material

Controversy

edit

India

edit

Churchill often made controversial comments about Indians, particularly in private conversation. At one point, he explicitly told his Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, that he "hated Indians" and considered them "a beastly people with a beastly religion".[1] According to Leo Amery, during the Bengal famine of 1943, Churchill stated that any potential relief efforts sent to India would accomplish little to nothing, as Indians "bred like rabbits".[2][3][4] His War Cabinet rejected Canadian proposals to send food aid to India, asking the US and Australia to send aid in their stead; according to historian Arthur Herman, Churchill's overarching concern was the ongoing Second World War, leading to his decisions to divert food supplies from India to Allied military campaigns.[5] The inadequacy of official policy in tackling the Bengal famine has been widely noted and criticised. The Famine Inquiry Commission provided a detailed analysis of the policy failures both of the Bengal government as well as of the Indian government. The famine became a focal point of nationalist criticism of British imperial policy in India.[6]

Judaism

edit

An article from 1937 under the name of Winston Churchill that blamed Jews for their own persecution has ruffled a long-held view among Britons of their wartime leader's pro-Jewish sentiments. Some experts on the history of British Jews dismissed the article, saying its existence has been well-known and it had never been published because Churchill rejected the views of the ghost-writer who composed it.[7][8][9]

According to World Jewish Congress :

The UK's wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill, suggested the Jewish people were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer", according to a document made public for the first time. A historian at Cambridge University has uncovered an article written by Churchill in 1937, three years before he became prime minister. Entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution", the document was never published after Churchill's advisers stepped in, saying that publication would be "inadvisable". The document lay buried in the university's Churchill archive for more than 60 years until the historian Richard Toye discovered it while researching a new biography. Its sentiments include a complaint that cheap Jewish labor was "taking employment from English people".[10]

References

  1. ^ "The Independent. 30 January 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2019". 30 January 2015.
  2. ^ "The 10 greatest controversies of Winston Churchill's career". BBC News.
  3. ^ "Churchill's legacy leaves Indians questioning his hero status". BBC News.
  4. ^ "Leading Churchill Myths". winstonchurchill.org.
  5. ^ "The International Churchill Society. 13 September 2010. Retrieved 2 December 2019".
  6. ^ Sen, Amartya (1981). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (PDF). CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD. pp. 78–79.
  7. ^ "Churchill took swipe at Jews in 1937 article". The New York Times.
  8. ^ "Long lost Churchill paper on Jews uncovered". Reuters.
  9. ^ "Churchill claimed that 'Jews invited persecution'". World Jewish Congress. 10 March 2007.
  10. ^ "Churchill claimed that 'Jews invited persecution'". World Jewish Congress. 10 March 2007.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On a point of order, there is no notice of this discussion on my talk page (note – one was placed several hours after this discussion began) and I only know about it through my watchlist and checking 256Drg's subsequent contribs. I have not received a ping either, as it happens, although my username was linked above. As I am in effect reporting 256Drg for disruptive editing, I will place a notice on his talk page. I have several points to make about 256Drg's disruptive editing, numbered as follows:

  1. The disputed content is certainly undue, as two more editors have agreed, and that was the consensus reached in various discussions on the subject of Churchill's alleged racism (in fact, his "racism" was an aspect of his definite imperialism and merely typical of the ingrained and inherent views about "lesser races" that prevailed at all levels of British society until the 1960s – thankfully, racism is now a minority attitude in Britain). As I have said elsewhere, these more controversial aspects of Churchill's character are included in the article, even though his main biographers barely mention them, because the article seeks to provide a balance. Also, the article has a serious WP:LENGTH constraint and this had to be addressed before the article could be nominated for WP:GAN last year. We must be very cautious, therefore, about sizeable additions and especially if they are controversial. In contrast, there was another addition earlier today which does not cause undue or length problems, so it is surely acceptable.
  2. My point about an editor with "only thirty-odd edits" is relevant because 256Drg is not behaving like a new user. He joined on 26 April and began by inviting about a dozen or more editors to join a Historical India project – for example, this one. I'd have said this is a form of WP:SPAM, using Wikipedia for headhunting purposes.
  3. Next, he turns his attention to Ashok Laxmanrao Kukade, an article which is subject to WP:BLP. He adds an infobox and triples the size of the article. He demonstrates knowledge of WP:CITE in one edit but does not provide citations for the rest of his input despite the requirements of WP:BLP, even though he claims to understand BLP. I have tagged the Kukade article for BLP sources.
  4. This edit at Chandragupta Maurya was rejected by two experienced editors because of failure to match the acknowledged source and use of non-neutral wording.
  5. Another edit at Kanhoji Angre was reverted because it breached WP:NPOV.
  6. At Jallianwala Bagh massacre, 256Drg made another disputed edit which included an unexplained removal of content that was later reverted.
  7. At Shivaji, he twice removed an entire section without providing an adequate rationale and professed to know all about WP:NPOV, not something with which a new user would be so readily familiar.
  8. I have warned him about his disruptive editing on his talk page and he has made the curious response that he has only been warned for a single edit (in fact, four separate issues were raised) and that he "knows the tricks". He continues to ignore WP:SIG despite the warning about that.
  9. Finally, running to ANI and shouting about personal attacks is not the sort of attitude or behaviour that sits too well with a new user. There are four cautions or warnings on his talk page and several reverted edits, especially by Alivardi who may wish to comment here. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
A further point is that 256Drg uploaded File:Dr. Ashok Laxmanrao kukade.jpg and the source for the image is Twitter which I believe is non-WP:RS and I am unsure about copyright as regards images on Twitter. I'd appreciate it if someone with knowledge of image upload and copyright would consider this as it is an area I know little about. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking at that image there does not appear to any evidence that the photograph has been released under a suitable creative commons license, so should probably be deleted. It would also not currently meet the non-free criteria. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Spy-cicle. I'll leave it for now while this ANI is current but I think it will need to be raised at the COPYVIO page. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This image and three others uploaded by 256Drg have been nominated for deletion at Commons because they are beleived to be in direct breach of the non-free criteria as Spy-cicle has already pointed out. See also Talk:Ashok Laxmanrao Kukade. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker has already touched on this, but I think it's worth bringing up more fully the potential POV-issues with several of 256Drg's edits. Adding an extensive section regarding the anti-Indian opinions of a prominent British figure on the one hand, and then removing the entire "Controversy" section for a prominent Indian individual on the other, suggests to me an intention to push a specific narrative on the site. Adding to that the unexplained removal of British criticism of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre seems to show that 256Drg needs to be more aware of the importance of neutrality when editing. Alivardi (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
As a new user I suggest you familiarise yourself with the policies of Wikipedia:Five pillars, particularly that of WP:NPOV as all articles must meet this policy (including WP:UNDUE). I do not think that really consistutes a personal attack that a new user may want to familiarise themselves with the core policies, especially on such an important/controversial article. Also when reporting a user at ANI, you must leave them a notice on their talk page as noted as the header of this page (When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.)  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker Please explain me the policy that "Controversy" section is not added to Winston Churchill article but guys are reluctant to remove it from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article. Although it is clear that in Winston Churchill's case, the controversy is created by Churchill himself. On the other hand, in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. I also invite RegentsPark to provide the explanation. I repeat again, that I don't mean to use Wikipedia in abusive way. Instead, I have found many articles with great POV inclination (which is definitely a case of abusive use of Wikipedia). No Great Shaker some of my edits are reverted due to similar issues, reverting an article does not mean I am wrong. I may be new to Wikipedia but I study a lot about historical events. Also, I had given authentic and ample amount of references to my edits except first few where I did not know about the policy.
Also, please stop attacking me. Respect the free speech! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
User:256Drg, please see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Please also see WP:SIGNATURE. ——Serial 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
(Note: I was pinged by 256Drg). @256Drg:, regarding what is or is not in Churchill's article vis-a-vis Shivaji's article, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article builds its own consensus. I must say that I agree with Alivardi above that your comments here and here, diametrically opposite as they are in their reasoning, do indicate a need to push a certain agenda. Finally, I took a look at No Great Shaker's comment that you're objecting to in this ANI complaint and don't see anything that is a personal attack. You are new and inexperienced and it does appear to be the case that you're trying to make a WP:POINT. Accurate, probably. Personal attack, not. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments collapsed

Anyway, the accusations made by User:256Drg are completely unfounded and won't go anywhere, ever. On the converse, I don't appreciate No Great Shaker's bad faith SPI investigation against me, his disallowance of me posting to his talk page when i was the subject in question (or one of them, anyway), or his lack of a response when I posted my rebuttal against his points at the formerly mentioned SPI. Of course, as to the second point, he can remove any talk page message he wants to, but it's unfair when they're talking about me. versacespaceleave a message! 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

and you can add a false warning by the user for "harassment" which can be found in the page history of my talk page. versacespaceleave a message! 15:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace Your comments, apart from your first sentence above, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You are obviously stalking me and seeking what you think are opportunities to whinge because five experienced editors agreed at ANI that you are potentially a sockpuppet, hence the SPI where, admittedly, the checkuser investigation was inconclusive and you were given (rightly) the benefit of the doubt. Accusations of bad faith do not help your cause unless they can be justified – see WP:AGF. Instead of sniping, why don't you open your own ANI and make your complaints official? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker i don't know if you're supposed to reply to collapsed comments; remove if necessary first of all, stop saying that multiple editors "agreed that I'm a sockpuppet". This is not the case. At most they had suspicions. Second, I outlined my bad faith accusation completely at the SPI discussion which I linked. You're missing the point of why I didn't open a complaint in the first place. There is no admin action I want to be taken. Your accusation of "stalking" is also extremely bad faith, unless looking at ANI counts as such. versacespaceleave a message! 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
You can reply to collapsed comments. You have conveniently overlooked the word "potentially" which confirms that we were suspicious, not certain. Do not try to twist things. Because we were suspicious, the SPI was initiated. Sometimes an SPI returns a positive result and the culprit is indeffed; sometimes the result is negative or inconclusive. The point of SPI is that reasonable suspicions must be addressed because the community do not want sockpuppets in our midst. Nothing "bad faith" about it but by shouting about bad faith in a discussion that is completely irrelevant to your case and circumstances, you are not helping yourself at all. If you are not stalking, why did you come to my talk page and start whingeing and why have you followed me here to continue whingeing? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
If you are not stalking, why did you come to my talk page and start whingeing and why have you followed me here to continue whingeing reading an SPI thread is not following you. The most recent time that I checked the SPI (a few days ago) I went to your talk page since I had wanted to see if you had anything else to say about me, and lo and behold, ya did. Don't be mad that I found you speaking on me. And why do you think I'm here to "help myself"? I've specified I do not want (or care) if action is taken? Can you read? On the topic of reading, my apologies for missing the word "potentially" as I only read the top of your post diagonally. After the CU came back inconclusive, you requested yet another one, despite my constant assurance (with proof) that I wasn't a sockpuppet. At least leave a reply, for god's sake. Your friend AssociateAffiliate wasn't assuming very good faith, either, but that's a different topic for another day. versacespaceleave a message! 16:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
According to you, a ping should always be done when someone is mentioned so I have added the ping to User:AssociateAffiliate that you somehow forget to include above. I'm sure he will be interested to know what is in store for him on "another day". As for my decision not to reply to you, that is my prerogative. In any discussion or conversation, there has to be an endpoint and I had nothing else to say so why prolong things unnecessarily? Please keep going because this is an interesting example of the enough rope syndrome. I'm done for tonight, though, and very busy tomorrow so it will probably be Wednesday before I can look in again. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: I didn't ping you because I know you're watching this page. I'm not watching yours or AA's talk page, and as a courtesy I want to know when I'm being discussed. The end-point could've been "hey I was wrong, maybe we should close this discussion" and not "Can a wider range be scanned by the checkuser tool?". Admitting being wrong is not "prolonging things unnecessarily". If your "endpoint" is being so desperate for a block that you beg for a second CU scan, you should re-evaluate your participation at SPI. I have no interest in entertaining your other arguments. versacespaceleave a message! 22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
256Drg, you are not being attacked. You have made numerous ill-advised edits which several people have found to be disruptive and these are being investigated here because you apparently have a problem with being challenged about them. No one is denying you free speech on the discussion pages but you cannot do or say just whatever you like in articles. Your issues around so-called controversy sections have been addressed here by the other contributors and I have really nothing else to add. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • versacespace Thanks for the intervention. Please read the paragraph I mentioned above. I agree that Wikipedia is not a free speech forum and I am definitely not aware of the complete set of rules and guidelines of it. But according to [[99]] article should be neutral in POV. Please give me the explanation of the different strategies used for two articles : Winston Churchill and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. I can point you out thousands of articles with biased POV.
RegentsPark thanks for your comment. Please guide me on how the consensus of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article has been achieved. How can there be consensus to add a section which does not relate to the character's biography without a WP:POV?. It is clear from the section of the article that some media house has printed an article which created a controversy. Tomorrow anyone will comment or print on any famous character. Will you add that to the article? WP:POINT article clearly says that the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns, which I did on both the articles. But now I am getting to know that different policies and consensus have been applied to different articles. Please explain to me is that a neutral point of view?
Also, from the paragraph written by No Great Shaker in the starting of this discussion is a clear indication that he is trying to attack me because I added content to the Winston Churchill article. It is very usual for beginners to make some mistakes. But pointing out those in such a way and bad faith SPI investigation against me is clearly an act of personal attack!
Regarding the references you gave to me about two different comments which according to you are opposing in character, Please read what I already said many times : it is clear that in Winston Churchill's case, the controversy is created by Churchill himself. On the other hand, in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@256Drg: Please sign your posts. At least three different editors have already asked you to sign your posts, so it would be good if you'd start doing that. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
His failure to comply with WP:SIG is either deliberate refusal or WP:CIR. Either way with those and in addition to all the foregoing, plus the WP:AGF breach just above, I have to conclude that this person should be indef blocked. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • bonadea Sorry about that. As I told earlier, I am new to platform and I am currently learning about it. I will sign my comments from now onwords.
  • It is clear from No Great Shaker comment that he does not want me to stay here on Wikipedia just because I disagree with his views. It is obvious that I did not have intention for not complying with WP:SIG, instead I was not aware of the policy.
  • I am not breaching WP:AGF policy. I am just giving historical facts with the references. I am not making up them. If the one who should be blamed for WP:AGF and WP:POV, it is No Great Shaker since he doesn't want to add the right information to the article. It is clear that he wants to protect the image of character and is abusing his powers on Wikipedia against new comers.
  • Another person who should be blamed is RegentsPark who is clearly breaching WP:POV and Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing policy and damaging the reputation of the character by adding and protecting the false information on article.
  • Also, as I mentioned above, No Great Shaker is personally attacking me in various ways. Another example of that is mentioning Alivardi in this case who had no relation to the discussion and pining him on talk page to invite into the discussion (see here). This is a clear case of ganging up against a newcomer in order to protect the contents of the article in WP:AGF. It is clear from above evidences that No Great Shaker is a Wikipedia:Disruptive_user who is intolerant against the ones who does not agree with his WP:POV.
  • To conclude,
Thanks! ---256Drg (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
So, everyone who has responded on this thread has told you that there was no personal attack, and you choose to ignore them and to up the ante by making accusations against one of those people, RegentsPark, who happens to be an administrator. Despite the fact that you've been here for a handful of days, have a sprinkling of edits, and are "currently learning about" Wikipedia, you feel free to proclaim that two editors with vastly more experience than you are bringing down the trust and credibility of Wikipedia with their actions. Someone who does what you have done is either incredibly arrogant, enormously unaware of their own ignorance, or trolling. Given that, and your clear PoV editing behavior, I would suggest that you do not have the necessary qualities to edit here, so you may as well be indefinitely site-banned to save us all future problems that would come from allowing you to continue to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding personal attack, I have made my case which I thought is happening with me on site. Administrators are the judges. I believe they will take proper action.
  • Beyond My Ken It is true that I am "currently learning about" technical details and policies of Wikipedia. But it does not mean that the WP:AGF and WP:POV charges against both No Great Shaker and RegentsPark are false. Also, it does not mean that I am not aware of historical facts and/or editing/adding content without proper referencing. Pointing out my inexperience on site does not free above users from charges.
  • The point you made about me being arrogant, ignorant or trolling and my POV inclination is baseless. It seems that you have not read my above comments carefully. Tell me what is wrong with my argument of using different strategies for Winston Churchill and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj articles. Using different strategies is a case of WP:POV. It seems that these guys don't want to address this issue and play around with the other aspects of discussion.
  • I again repeat the point where this issue has started.
  • I removed the Controversy section from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article which was baseless since there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. My edit was reverted by Alivardi with comment content from the "Legacy" section of an article generally does not refer to events from an individual's lifetime (see here).
  • I then added Controversy to Winston Churchill article which was again reverted by No Great Shaker with comment : This stuff has been discussed several times ad nauseum at article talk page and there was no consensus to include it, though obviously a new user would not not know that (see here)
  • When I started discussion on talk page of Churchill's article, instead of giving the reason on why it should not be added to article, No Great Shaker started commenting on my inexperience on Wikipedia.
  • My concern is it is clear that in Winston Churchill's case, the controversy is created by Churchill himself. On the other hand, in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. So to anyone who is not inclined to a particular POV should see it as a clear POV inclination.
  • After that No Great Shaker has accused me and recommended banning me first to which I responded.
  • I urge everyone to please give me reason on why Controversy section should not be added to Winston Churchill article and it should not be removed from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article.

Thanks! 256Drg (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, those sort of questions are not dealt with here, they are dealt with on the relevant article talk pages. What is dealt with here are questions about the behavior of editors such as:
  1. Should No Great Shaker and RegentsPark be sanctioned in any way for supposed violations of WP:NPOV and WP:Disruptive editing. The answer to that question is "No".
  2. Should 256Drg be site-banned for trolling, NOTHERE, disruption, battleground behavior, and so on? My opinion is "Yes", but the community will have to decide about that. You're certainly helping things along by continuing to pursue this particular course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken Thanks for explanation. I am well aware that these sort of questions are not dealt here but on talk page. But these guys are not even in the mood of listening to my argument on talk page. Instead they are commenting on my inexperience on Wikipedia, trying to find out amature's mistakes I made and threaten me to ban. So the point I am making here is about this the questioning behaviour of editors and nothing else. That is the reason I had to come here to seek third party intervention thinking that administrators from Wikipedia will look into the issue in an unbiased way and resolve it. But now I am getting disappointed here as well since no one is willing to comment on the issue. Instead everyone is threatening me of blocking my account on site. What is the alternative anyone have now apart from thinking that this is place is filled with people of strong polarised ideology?
  • After this much of abuse and personal comments I still have a small hope that someone here will listen to me and look into my concern...!!!!!

---256Drg (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

256Drg, as I said when I signed off last night, I have very little time for WP today but, as I'm making an early start, I'll respond to the above. Please also see the message at Talk:Ashok Laxmanrao Kukade re the images you uploaded (I've already mentioned this above). It would seem that you may be in breach of WP:NFCC in addition to the many other concerns raised about your activities.
You have been told several times by experienced editors why your edits at Churchill and Shivaji have been rejected but you have apparently chosen to ignore what you do not want to read and are hoping we will all go away and let you do whatever you like. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. As Beyond My Ken said earlier, your attitude is unacceptable. You may well be a troll, as BMK suggests, or a sockpuppet who is trying very hard to appear new and inexperienced. Or, as BMK also suggests, you may be either arrogant or ignorant (or both). Whatever your problem, it is not something we want on Wikipedia. There is no doubt that you ignore anything you don't like until you feel forced to comply with it. For example, how many times and by how many people were you told to comply with WP:SIG before you finally did so? Any genuine newcomer who is keen to learn about the site would have read SIG and taken it on board immediately (okay, they might still forget once or twice) but you pointedly ignored it half a dozen times until finally Bonadea got through to you.
You claim you are not breaching WP:AGF policy because you are just giving historical facts with the references. That is obtuse – no one has said you breached AGF when you added or removed article content. You breached AGF when you openly accused me of But pointing out those in such a way and bad faith SPI investigation against me is clearly an act of personal attack, although you are not the subject of any SPI investigation. Instead of being prepared to discuss the problems that have been raised, you play the victim and claim that those who are cleaning up your mess are the villains of the piece. Read again what Beyond My Ken says above about ignoring everyone else who has taken part in this discussion and then trying to turn the tables, even accusing RegentsPark, a sysop, of breaching AGF and POV!
You have been told several times that you do not have consensus to add your controversy section to Churchill because the matter has been discussed in the past and the decision was taken to mention his alleged racism without any undue weight. As you have been told, these controversies are already in the article, mostly in the Legacy section, and the coverage is deemed sufficient. As one editor said in a recent discussion, the controversies do not define Churchill. They are incidental but worthy of mention – Churchill was, after all, only expressing views that were ingrained in the vast majority of British people during his lifetime because of the empire. The real issue with Churchill was not racism but imperialism, an entirely different concept that IS given substantial coverage in the article.
The other thing you refuse to recognise, despite RegentsPark trying to explain it to you, is that each article generates its own consensus. Therefore, what is good for Shivaji might not be good for Churchill and your strange contention that a "controversy section is included in many BLPs" is out of order (especially as neither of these two articles is a BLP).
I didn't know much about Shivaji until yesterday. I was previously aware that he was a Maratha ruler in the 17th century but that's about it. I've read the article and it's very interesting. The presence of the controversy piece in the Legacy section is entirely appropriate as both Alivardi and RegentsPark have tried to explain to you. The two disputed publications were about Shivaji and so mention of them is relevant. If you think the piece should be removed, you need WP:CONSENSUS via the article talk page. You cannot just remove something because you personally don't like it and this is where Shivaji differs from Churchill. In one article, consensus favours inclusion of a modern controversy piece; in the other, consensus does not. POV doesn't come into it except when someone like you attempts to ignore consensus.
I don't think there's anything else worth adding. It will be interesting to see if 256Drg actually READS this message or if, again, he chooses to ignore it. I doubt if I will be available again today but, for the benefit of the closing sysop, I stand by my view (and that of Beyond My Ken) that 256Drg does not have the necessary qualities to edit here and should be indef blocked. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
What NGS said. And I don't often agree with BMK, but he summed it up succinctly in his original post in this thread. What's that Churchill? Oh yes. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I do get it right every now and then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Para 1 : No Great Shaker yes I know that the image I have uploaded is under review. I had uploaded it from my personal collection but I didn't have url for it, so I gave Twitter URL. There is nothing wrong with it. Administrators will take action on it according to what they think.
  • Para 2 : Again personal attacks!!!
  • Para 3 : The actions are started by you! I was never interested in having a war of words with you but read the first post in this discussion. It is clear indication that you don't want me to add genuine information on article. I was prepared to discuss the issue, but you started pointing out my inexperience on Wikipedia instead of giving genuine answers to questions (read here). I am not playing victim but I am sure there are many people who fall victim into the traps.
  • Para 4 : Consensus is generally reached when you defend your opinion by discussion and not by pointing out lack of experience.
  • "Churchill was, after all, only expressing views that were ingrained in the vast majority of British people during his lifetime because of the empire.. The real issue with Churchill was not racism but imperialism, an entirely different concept." This sentence is clearly a POV! According to you, Churchill might be very ideal but there are vast majority on Earth who are still haunted by his misdeeds. You don't create an article according to your own mindset. Just give facts of what he has done or he has said. Which you are not willing to do by hiding his misdeeds.
  • Para 5 : "Each article generates its own consensus." This thing you said is right but it seems you don't want to follow what you said. That is the reason I had to do all this! I never refused consensus. You did not want to discuss it as I mentioned above. My contention is not strange. It seems to you because you think in a particular way. I will explain it in following paras -
  • Para 6 : "The two disputed publications were about Shivaji and so mention of them is relevant." I have tons of references to publications who have reported about misdeeds of Churchill. Will you add to it? No. Because of your 'consensus' which is only generated by a certain POV guys coming up together.
  • "You cannot just remove something because you personally don't like it" I did not remove it because I didn't like it. I removed it because there is no relation between biographical article and some random publication publishing random thought about character I stated it many times. Please read what I stated before commenting.
  • "In one article, consensus favours inclusion of a modern controversy piece; in the other, consensus does not." Exactly! That was my point. Consensus can not be reached in one and can be reached in another because of biased point of view. It can be a collective biased POV of few guys. Reluctance to listen to other side of argument proves it. Kudos to your comment. Now you have accepted your own POV bias by yourself.
  • Para 7 : Again personal comments. What should I say about it now!!!

I wonder if there is anybody here who will support me even if they know I am talking the truth. Also I know the fate of my account. Still I am giving the last fight. ---256Drg (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how serious a copyright violation is. Your four (not one) images are not under review – they are under investigation.
It would seem that any criticism of you is a personal attack. So, for example, we ask you to sign your talk page posts and it's a personal attack?
Your comment about paragraph 4 is frankly laughable – of course that statement is POV, it's on a talk page where people exchange, er, points of view.
How else can we achieve WP:CONSENSUS than by interested parties coming together and reaching a consensus? If you want to amend a consensus, you must go to the article talk page and present your case there in the hope that enough interested parties will come forward and support your, dare I say it, point of view. Of course, if you should achieve a consensus of, say, five to two then that would not be because your five people are biased, now, would it?
I have read your point of view about the relationship between the biographical article and "some random publication" and I don't agree with you because it is not some random publication. Your point of view has no credibility because you are seeking to dismiss content citing no less than eight reliable sources. On the other hand, in Jallianwala Bagh massacre, you introduced a source that is decidedly non-RS – it has been removed to safeguard the integrity of the article though you will no doubt call that a personal attack. The only reason why you want to remove the Shivaji content is that you don't like it and never mind what anyone else thinks – this is why BMK above refers to your clear PoV editing behavior.
I doubt if there are (m)any people here who would support someone who so flagrantly disregards site policies and conventions. I'll have to go again now but will look in later today if I can and hopefully this thread will have been closed by then. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@256Drg: One important difference between the situation in two articles is that the "controversies" section you added to the article about Churchill consisted of repetition of content that was already in the article and is still there (and, importantly, half the text you added was a copyright violation!), while the content of the "controversies" section you removed from the article about Shivaji is not discussed elsewhere in the article. This has already been pointed out to you on the article talk pages, but you have not responded there. The article talk pages is where you should be discussing the content, provided that you are genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia and not simply promoting a particular point of view. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Para 1 : Yes, I know about CV. You have already made a case by asking to investigate the matter. Asking for signing a post is not a personal attack I agree. It was done by bonadea as well but I am not saying a word about it. But putting pressure by pointing out the faults is surely a personal attack. (See what you have done on the top of this discussion).
  • "Your comment about paragraph 4 is frankly laughable" It might be laughable for you but not for billions of people who have suffered due to the misdeeds of guy. Talk page POV statement, the fact that you are not listening to anyone who differs from your view and not allowing to add content which you do not agree with are making it clear that you are acting on site with great bias.
  • "How else can we achieve WP:CONSENSUS than by interested parties coming together and reaching a consensus? " For that you have to listen to another party. And not pointing out faults and making personal comments. I agree that POV is needed while discussing the contents of article. But reluctance to add/discuss content which does not suit you is clearly a biased behaviour. Also putting pressure on newcomer is not the way!
  • Para 2 : "I have read your point of view about the relationship between the biographical article and "some random publication" and I don't agree with you because it is not some random publication. Your point of view has no credibility because you are seeking to dismiss content citing no less than eight reliable sources." Again the same thing!! Please read Para 6 of my last answer. I have many reliable sources where there is information available which certainly you would not like. Will you add to article?
  • "On the other hand, in Jallianwala Bagh massacre, you introduced a source that is decidedly non-RS" I agree with it. But now I have what you consider as 'reliable sources' which I will be adding to the article in next few days.
  • "The only reason why you want to remove the Shivali content is that you don't like it and never mind what anyone else thinks" That is laughable!! See who is saying that.
bonadea thanks for the answer. I agree that in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article, the content is not listed anywhere. But my point is that it is also not related to the character. Why do we add it then? One possible explanation is the points I stated above. I was willing to discuss there but relevant guys were not interested in listening to my point.

---256Drg (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

relevant guys were not interested in listening to my point You have only made one contribution to the discussion at Talk:Shivaji#Removal of controversy section, and in that post you used inflammatory language and expressed an assumption of bad faith ("whoever made this edit had an ill agenda"). You did not respond to the reply you received there. "Not agreeing" is not the same as "not interested in listening". --bonadea contributions talk 13:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you've summed him up very well there, Bonadea. If you don't agree with him, you're not interested in listening to him. If you advise or criticise him, it's a personal attack. If you apply consensus, it's POV. If you revert his edits, its a breach of good faith. Not, I think, the sort of chap we need as an editor.
I really have nothing else to say here and I'm taking ANI out of my watchlist. If anyone needs to ask me anything, please ping me or drop me a line at my talk page. I have little availability today but might be able to spare more time tomorrow. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker : "If you don't agree with him, you're not interested in listening to him. If you advise or criticise him, it's a personal attack. If you apply consensus, it's POV. If you revert his edits, its a breach of good faith." - That is the case with you not me!256Drg (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

256Drg to be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. They have made it very clear they are only here to argue their own POV and disparage anyone who disagrees with them, while stonewalling any attempt to help them understand Wikipedia policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support based on 256Drg's comments in this thread, I think we can be fairly confident that they are here mainly to be disruptive and to push a POV (can't figure out in which order). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. WP:NOTHERE has twelve criteria and of these dirty dozen, 256Drg is definitely guilty on counts 1–5, 7 & 8. Also 6, 9 & 10 if, as I suspect, he is a sockpuppet. Nos 2 & 4 apply because of his blatant attempts to use WP as a recruitment centre for his offsite project. Only nos 11 & 12 are inapplicable. The converse of NOTHERE is WP:HERE which has four criteria and he fails all four, essentially on the grounds of self-interested agenda pushing and absence of co-operation. The lead paragraph of WP:BUILDWP emphasises the need for editors to work within compliance of Wikipedia's policies and procedures adding that because Wikipedia is a collaborative community, editors whose personal agendas and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed. 256Drg is not interested in compliance or co-operation, only in pushing his own POV. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. Their comment of "I wonder if there is anybody here who will support me even if they know I am talking the truth. Also I know the fate of my account. Still I am giving the last fight." (my emphasis) equates to WP:WIN to me. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as incompatible with Wikipedia at this time.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per 256Drg: WP:BATTLEGROUND (diff) + WP:ICANTHEARYOU = wasting everyone's time. ——Serial — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Another evidence of ganging up against me : No Great Shaker is saying on this post that File:Dr. Ashok Laxmanrao kukade.jpg is under investigation and that is why I should be blocked. On the other hand he asks administrators of https://commons.wikimedia.org/ to delete the files because I am under investigation on this notice board! (see here). Kudos to the 'tricks'!!! 256Drg (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Calling closing sysop. Could an uninvolved sysop please close this as soon as possible because it has surely gone on long enough now. The weight of evidence and support for the indef block proposal must be enough for closure. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - They removed something from an article as if they were censoring Wikipedia. There's more than enough evidence that they can't be here and be helpful. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support; their seemingly vindictive blanking of content on Shivaji (on top of everything) else suggests to me an inability to edit in good faith. Alivardi (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. That they mentioned I know the fate of my account. only further proves they don't plan on admitting they're wrong and will simply continue making the same edits against consensus if no action is taken here. They have also shown they won't consider that others could be right and seem to believe everyone here is personally attacking them. Bsoyka🗣️ 21:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will not be getting banned how much you guys support! Since allowing me to stay here will definitely portrait the 'Tolerant' behaviour of Wikipedia. But I know now that everyone is watching my activity closely and they are not allowing me to add/remove any information. Also, no one here will support me either to build so called 'Census' since I am threatening their biased POV. If I repeatedly revert three edits, I will be banned by my misdeeds and not by Wikipedia administrators. Now basically I am left with an account which has virtually no use! What a game! I learned a lot from this. I am sure many guys will as well.
Although Wikipedia claims to be free of POV, they select administrators according to the POV and ideology which is best suited for Wikipedia by interviewing them for several weeks. After that Wikipedia refrains from intervening since that job is done by selected administrators. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where this much hypocrisy is entertained because blind minded people. The virtual protection that Wikipedia has is a result of protecting wrong history.
I am from the place which has never invaded a single country/civilisation to exploit their resources or forced to accept certain point of view no matter how back in the history you go. It has always given many gifts to the world which helped humanity. Unfortunately the same place is invaded by some evil forces to exploit the resources (which I think no one will deny in their minds, although they will comment denying it below) and robbed off! The land was also the victim of forced POV for hundreds of years.
But now the time is changing fast. We are rising and it is evident from past few decades that no one will be able to stop the rise! Even though bad things happened to us and are still happening, we are not of the mindset of taking revenge! Instead we would like to remove evil thoughts and not evil people.
I know that you guys are all masters of history and know a lot more stuff than me. Please go through our history without any prejudice and tell us whether we had wished anything wrong for anyone! (You might point to some random incidences but those thoughts were not accepted by society). Instead you will love the fact that many ancient texts makes us realise about the truth of this world.
May be you will neglect what I am saying here because we don't have power yet and you think us as subordinates. But you will listen to us soon! It does not mean by force, it means by attraction and glory!
I did not mean to offend anyone personally here. Instead I was pointing to some views and mentalities (which according to more than half of the population in the world thinks are harmful) which should be removed from this world.
Finally I wish good to all who were arguing with me. especially No Great Shaker who was really annoyed by what I had done here. I did not mean it personally. :-)
I am signing off from here now with a quote since you guys have left me no choice! Lol!!! :-D
- सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः। सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु मा कश्चिद्दुःखभाग् भवेत्।।

---256Drg (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked User:256Drg per the overwhelming consensus here to do so for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Rick. Much appreciated. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user (first edit 4 February 2021) making rapid changes (often multiple edits per minute) to dozens of major policy pages and essays, including:

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Many of these edits involve adding errors to pages for no apparent reason[100] then quickly undoing them.[101] Previous warning:[102] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
According to the user this is because they were unaware of how the "copy and paste" functionality works, and now that they've been aware, they will no longer do it. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I am inclined to withdraw this with the option of refiling if the behavior resumes. Does anyone object to me doing that? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Mcfoureyes made the above promise on 06:59, 4 May 2021,[103][104] and again on 14:50, 4 May 2021.[105] They have not edited since then. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
No objection from me, Guy Macon, seems to be the good-faith thing to do. Just for the record, this is not the same behaviour I asked Mcfoureyes to refrain from or consider carefully – my message was about trivial or unnecessary edits, a mild annoyance at most. He/she seems to have taken at least some notice of it, as no more edits of that kind have popped up on my watchlist. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm all for assuming good faith, and that should be done here, but we need to consider that performing such edits is an obvious way for an editor to become extended confirmed sooner that would otherwise be the case. I have seen this kind of behaviour in editors who wish to edit in areas, such as the conflict in Israel and Palestine, which are subject to extended-confirmed restrictions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking more carefully, they are not a new user. Their very first edit[106] starts with "Answer to previous message: Aren't the changes I made to Ley Lines and Shangri-La based on...". I wonder if the previous account was blocked? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't look good regarding the partial block.[107], [108] --DB1729 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't you just hate it when a friend at his workplace printer accidentally logs in to Wikipedia and in an amazing coincidence just happens to make an edit that is identical to one you were topic banned from making? I know I sure do! Those workplace printers are tricky devils...
If indeed Mcfoureyes is trying to become extended confirmed sooner than would otherwise be the case, he is doing a great job at it. Just look at his recent edit history. Dozens of tiny changes, each one published as a separate edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't an EC thing, he was far past 500 by the time you reported the issue here. Izno (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well that's that dealt with! Good faith has its place, but clearly this wasn't it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to roll back all edits (that haven't been edited by someone else) by both usernames? The actual edits are a mix of useless and OK-but-we-can-live-without-them, with just a taste of actual bad edits for flavor -- but there are a lot of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

massRollback perhaps? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
That should do it, if it needs to be done. Very useful for out and out vandals or spammers. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone block Kelsey.obrien.1048 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please? They are nearing 200 acts of obvious vandalism in the last 90 minutes. Clearly an LTA and clearly in need of an immediate indef. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Their userpage appears to be a partial clone of User:Salem.leo.1, blocked October 2017 as a sock of User:Angela Criss. Narky Blert (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

See User talk:Kelsey.obrien.1048 where, since the block, the user unsuccessfully pinged myself, Deepfriedokra and ZLEA. They name four main accounts and express an interest in the standard offer. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just beginning to think Angela Criss had stopped creating socks. - ZLEA T\C 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angela Criss filed. Narky Blert (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


After failing to verify sources, user:Solider789 is continuously conducting vandalism by multiple editing on Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991) in spite of ongoing discussion.[109] He's also deleting or manipulating discussion content on the talk page.(e.g [110][111] 14.231.163.204 (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What I see with the talk page is you repeatedly removing a section and them restoring it. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing_others'_comments you should not be removing their comments, or your own once responded to. Also, good faith edits are not vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish:Yes, it is Solider789 (and also an IP who's probably himself) remove it here [112] and here [113]. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that Solider789 and IP 2001:EE0:41C1:18FE:685F:FD23:31F5:7268 are the same.[114] 14.231.163.204 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to look a bit more, but some sources I have to rely on machine translations. I can see though, for instance, Soldier789 who has inserted a Chinese victory to the infobox several time is citing a source that says China lost on the battlefield against Vietnam, but also prevented Vietnam from developing... In general, the Japanese saw this war as a Chinese side that had completely lost and had to withdraw to the country. It is a typical event of the will and determination of the Vietnamese people against the war of aggression caused by the Chinese side. This is assuming the machine translation is reasonable. It also appears that the IPv6 is the user, judging from some edit summary usage, but obviously we'd need a checkuser to be sure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But why did you (.204) deliberately refactor Soldier's comment? ——Serial 13:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: It was the last version before his act of vandalism.[115] He started to refactor the discussion here. [116] You can see the time of editing to get the point. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Check. Apologies for doubting you, .204. ——Serial 14:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Solider789 needs to stop editing or removing others comments. The IP needs to stop the personal attacks by calling content disputes WP:vandalism. (If you're telling us there's an ongoing discussion, it seems clear it's a content dispute so the changes to article whether they should have happened are unlikely to be vandalism.) Both sides need to resolve the content dispute via discussion and stop with the edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: Solider789 continuously made dubious editing without explanation, and when someone discussed with him about that, he just wasted the discussion. He was explained and knew that his action went against the policies but still proceeded anyway (in fact he didn't even care to raise objection). In other words, it was equivalent to "removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to [Wikipedia's] core content policies" as defined by WP:VANDAL. This was vandalism. And now when he stops deleting the discussion and pretends to follow the rules, you say that there is an "ongoing discussion"; that surprises me a lot. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
By your own admission there is discussion. If this discussion started to late that is probably a problem, but it happened before you posted here since you were talking about it. If there is discussion and the editor believe their edit is improving Wikipedia, whether it actually is, this means their edit was made in good faith. It may still be a terrible edit but it's not vandalism. As long as you continue to make such personal attacks, plenty of editors like me mostly ignore anything else you say. If it hadn't been for the fact Solider789 was deleting talk page discussions, such an obvious problem, frankly I would have just suggested we block you if you didn't stop making personal attacks. So let me repeat for one last time. Stop making such personal attacks. There is no reason to. Edits can be terrible without being vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This IP is puppet of someone, such as Khang Hy Vương or German People, we should ban him Solider789 (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No doubt for this, the IP is real puppet, his edits were vandalism Solider789 (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Solider789, can you explain why here and here you used for a citation claiming Chinese victory an article that says the opposite? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk), The Japanese said: "But on the other hand the Chinese army brought enormous losses to the northern border area and effectively blocked Vietnam's development path." The Japanese told China to lose because Vietnam had not withdrawn from Cambodia in 1979, but as in the lower part of the results I recorded, Vietnam was reconciled with China after losing influence in Cambodia in 1989, Vietnam also had to make peace with China because its Soviet ally is collapsing in 1991. As for the timeline, the Japanese only talks about the real fight, because in 1989 everything had basically calmed down. Solider789 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This is just a synthesis again, but anyway I think it should be left for the article talk page. What I mean here is that he's just pretending to be obedient and to follow the policies. Had he really wanted a good faith discussion, he would not have deleted the talk page section as such. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed to "Chinese strategy victory". Solider789 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

China lost on the battlefield against Vietnam, but also prevented Vietnam from developing... In general, the Japanese saw this war as a Chinese side that had completely lost and had to withdraw to the country... It can be said that the Chinese side lost the battle because they did not carry out their first intrigue: to save the Pol Pot government in Cambodia. But on the other hand, the Chinese army brought great losses to the northern border area and effectively blocked the development path of Vietnam. That is the source you cited for a Chinese victory? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I delete in the talk page because sometimes I have different answers for different intentions, this IP always wants to drown people. Solider789 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk), so I changed to "Chinese strategy victory". Solider789 (thảo luận) 17:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this IP is puppet of Lệ Xuân, see the history of that page. Solider789 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "Chinese strategy victory" is sensible because the Japanese said that eventually China won over Vietnam for destroying the North of Vietnam and obstructing Vietnam. Solider789 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This IP address always removes the information from the Sino-Vietnamese conflict (1979-1991) and distorts the results from the Cambodian campaign. I suspect this is a puppet of a recently banned account. Solider789 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverse protection and close discussion

edit

Although it's unfortunate the IP insists on calling stuff vandalism without real evidence, with Solider789 being a now blocked sock I suggest it'll be best to just reverse the protection and close this discussion. (The socking allegations the IP cam IMO be disregarded unless they are made by an editor in good standing.)Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another obvious nazi, 68.206.248.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this one is sticking to talkpages so I'm not sure if it counts as vandalism so reporting it here instead—blindlynx (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked for 31 hours for disruption. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This IP has been trolling on Jewish-adjacent topics for some time with talkpage forum posts like this [117] [118] [119] and [120]. I don't see much likelihood that they're going to improve soon. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I've lengthened the block a bit. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
For future reference should I revert talk entries like this in addition to reporting them?—blindlynx (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do, yes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Will do!—blindlynx (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NEONN123 (talk · contribs) continues to add unsourced material to articles and just flat out creating unsourced articles. They've been left lots of warnings (multiple level 4 warnings) and a very blunt personal note here. No change and most importantly, no communication with anyone else. I'm requesting they be blocked until they start communicating and indicate clearly how they will be changing their editing style. This has become a substantial waste of my time, reviewing their edits each day. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tyran33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New SPA engaged in whitewashing/censoring Turkey-related articles with complete disregard to sources. User is possibly related to the recent off-wiki coordination. WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. - Kevo327 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on the rest of his edits, but I agree with the changing of "invasion" to "action against" in this edit. The source doesn't say invasion at all, and uses the phrase "military action". — Czello 10:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
after reading your comment I went ahead and linked the main article that details the invasion with multiple sources. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC) -(this is about the first republic part, not operation ALTAY) 11:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I recently split off a portion of the stampede page into a separate page called crowd crush. User:Moonraker12 subsequently reverted my edits. The reversion itself is not why I have come to ANI; the problem comes with the message that Moonraker12 left on my talk page, and subsequently linked to in an article talk page, which includes this accusation: you have failed to provide attribution on the talk page, effectively passing off the work of the editors at the original article as your own ([121]). In actuality, the attribution instructions at WP:CWW only require an appropriate edit summary at the destination page, which I included ([122]); I additionally followed the suggested practice of leaving an appropriate edit summary at the source page ([123]). I therefore assert that Moonraker12's accusation is not factual. Given that, and given the serious nature of plagiarism, I contend that the accusation is defamatory, and therefore violates WP:NPA.

I asked Mooonraker12 to strike the accusation ([124]). His response was to strike the single word "effectively" and replace it with "apparently" ([125]), which in my estimation is equivalent to no change at all. A public acknowledgment here is important: editing the encyclopedia is difficult if editorial actions, conducted in accordance with established policy, result in spurious allegations of fraud that are never retracted. Einsof (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Einsof: The comment was heavy-handed, but Moonraker12 raises a valid concern about copyrights and attribution in doing a page split. That said, there are easy ways to remedy the situation...if it needs remedied at all, since the initial edit summary did provide a backlink.
I notice that the article split has been reverted; it seems like there are some issues that need worked out at Talk:Stampede. All parties are reminded to assume good faith while discussing the content and relevant policies. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC) amended 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Moonraker12 raises a valid concern about copyrights and attribution in doing a page split. Just to be clear: you are saying that Moonraker12's assertion that I was "effectively passing off the work of the editors at the original article as [my] own" is valid? Einsof (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Einsof: In light of the edit summary provided below, I feel that you complied with the requirements. My apologies for missing that diff and edit summary before making the comment above. —C.Fred (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
While I feel that the revert was appropriate per WP:BRD in that the discussion was still ongoing, my opinion is that Einsof satisfied the attribution guidelines per WP:CWW with their edit summary ([126]). While the wording was not precisely as suggested in the introductory paragraph as the "bare minimum," the source article was clearly mentioned, and suggests that the split was done in good faith. I feel that the claim by Moonraker12 that Einsof was passing off the work of the editors at the original article as your own is unjustified. --Kinu t/c 01:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. As to the wording, WP:PROSPLIT#Procedure instructs editors to use the edit summary "split from [[article name]]", which is different from the suggested language in WP:CWW and closer to what I've used here. Einsof (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see how someone might find the edit summary slightly ambiguous, but this is more of a nitpick. It's clearly close enough to what it should be that you cannot justify making a personal accusation of bad faith. Even if you think the edit summary needs to be more explicit, jumping straight to accusing the editor of a malicious copyvio is an inappropriate personal attack. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Having been notified of this ANI, I presume I should make some reply. Einsor feels I have accused him of plagiarism; I was in fact accusing him of shoddy workmanship, for the reasons I stated: and my observation about 'passing off the work of others' was because I didn’t find an attribution notice on the talk page, which I would have expected to be there precisely to avoid the appearance of such a possibility. But as it seems the attribution guideline only requires, as a bare minimum, an explanation in an edit summary, I have acknowledged Einsor has done the bare minimum to absolve him of plagiarism, and I amended my comments accordingly. I still feel the lack of clear attribution gives the wrong impression, hence my comment about the appearance of the matter; If I am to be accused of defamation, I had best be careful about the words I use... Moonraker12 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think this clarification is sufficient to put the matter to rest. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    There is still a problem here of Moonraker12 apparently working from a private definition of attribution that doesn't match up with policy or other documentation, and then accusing other users of running afoul of it. What does Moonraker12 mean here by "clear attribution"? Apparently that means [127] that Template:Copied should be placed on the source talk page. But the documentation for that template explicitly says that Adding this template on the talk page is not a substitute for attribution in the page history using edit summaries. The template's explicit purpose is only to prevent attribution—which comprises the edit history of the source article, not a banner on its talk page—from subsequently being deleted, which frankly was never going to be a possibility for a page titled stampede. The stated rationale for Moonraker12's personal attack does not hang together. Einsof (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Swarm, Einsof: I’m unclear; is this matter closed, or do I need to reply? If the former, please let me know and I will withdraw my response: If the latter, I would say:-
First, my comment about 'clear attribution' meant only that a notice on the talk page makes an article split clear, without having to trawl through the edit history to find stuff. It isn’t an either-or-situation; if I was carrying out a page split I would do both, and judging by the 15,000-odd pages where the Copied template appears, a lot of other people do too.
Second, I have already said I was not accusing Einsof of plagiarism and have acknowledged the point; Is he prepared to acknowledge the insufficiency of his own actions (failing to make clear his intent, or to wait for any response, and carrying out a cack-handed slash-and-dump split that left a article titled "Crowd crush" that talked mainly about human stampede, and a Stampede article that said next to nothing about them)? Does he feel the need to apologize for his cock-up, or to resolve to do better next time? Otherwise I can see very little reason to discuss this further. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have already said I was not accusing Einsof of plagiarism: and yet your accusation of passing off the work of the editors at the original article as your own, which still has not been struck, clearly matches the definition given in the opening sentence of our own article on plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.

Einsof (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This is just beating a dead horse. Moon concedes that he misunderstood the attribution requirements, so he was in the wrong there, but he still feels your edit summary was not sufficient, which is not that big of a reach, because you did not explicitly state that you were copying or splitting content from a specific article as the source, your wording came across as a bit vague. Again, this is mostly a nitpick, but at the same time there's not a lot of leniency on how copying text within Wikipedia is attributed, it is straightforwardly a copyright law requirement and attribution should be as clear as possible. There's literally no need for an extended debate here, Moon needs to be less quick to jump to accusations of malice, and you need to be more explicit in your wording when copying within Wikipedia. Simple solution on both sides that will avert further drama, so if you can both just set aside your egos, take a lesson from this, and move on, there's literally nothing further that needs to be resolved here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I've spotted some very sophisticated vandalism in the AfD logs that I feel needs admin attention. Apologies if this is the wrong venue but I wasn't sure where else to raise it. I've noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sink Salad keeps getting relisted despite User:Goszei following the process correctly when the AfD was created. I investigated to see why this kept happening and noticed some suspicious behaviour in the edit history. See this edit from an IP address where they sorted everything in alphabetical order to be 'helpful' but interestingly forgot to bring one of the AfDs over; Sink Salad!. The same thing then happened yesterday; sorting it in alphabetical order but 'forgetting' to bring Sink Salad over, therefore, forcing it to be relisted and meaning that the AfD would need to continue for another 7 days before an admin would decide to close it.

I do feel it necessary to declare that I have voted in this AfD so want to make it clear that I'm not trying to canvas, however, it's quite clear that someone is trying to sneakily relist the discussion themselves rather than allowing an admin to do so. Thanks. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The omission of an item once when reordering the log could be a simple mistake, but to omit the same item again is difficult to put down to anything other than vandalism. The log should not be reordered anyway. All browsers have a "find" facility that allows you to find a particular entry, whatever order they are in, and some people may rely on logs being in reverse chronological order. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I've closed that particular discussion. This is a type of messing about I haven't come across before - I wonder if anyone has noticed it happening before. GirthSummit (blether) 12:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User reporting: Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think Pmffl's freedom to edit my replies and overzealous tendency to "remove" everything he deems "redundant", "fat", "bulky" in a whole range of articles related to Web technologies should be taken care of until it's too late. ANI notice diff.

WP:TPO/WP:UNCIVIL violation
Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
Page: User talk:Pmffl (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
The timeline of what have happened:
  • 16:06, May 8, 2021) "Notable engines as subsections (remove bullets): removing weird @me with unrelated link. Just simply propose what you want without weird crap."
  • 16:07, May 8, 2021: "Flow engine: removing non-sequitor - there is a template and Comparisons article for this"
  • 20:25, May 8, 2021 — Me requesting on his talk page to stop editing my replies
  • 20:27, May 8, 2021 "No, for reasons in my commit comments there. Stop @ing me with really sloppy crap. in the talkpage. I cleaned it up to be sensible"
  • 20:55, May 8, 2021 — "restore AXO comment that I shouldn't have removed, plus more info in my response"
WP:TPO/WP:EDITING/WP:ZEAL breach
Page: JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
In the past (2020) Pmffl has made various questionable, unWP:PRESERVEing or simply WP:SNEAKY-bordering edits to a legitimate content which might have been otherwise kept under WP:IMPERFECT provision, or get improved otherwise:
  • 20:58, February 6, 2020 "remove redundant sidebar" — There is no sidebar listing the same information.
  • 21:25, February 6, 2020 "almost entirely obsolete + largely self-promotional" - Cut out a list of books of mostly historical value from the Read further subsection .
  • 17:33, February 7, 2020"Development tools: rewrite to be concise and remove the obsolete" — Cutting out some (legitimately?) sourced details on JS debuggers software.
  • 20:58, February 8, 2020 "more concise and polished, remove tangents)" - Removing sourced information

Example of what actually was "polished"

\

In 1993, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), a unit of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, released NCSA Mosaic, the first popular graphical Web browser, which played an important part in expanding the growth of the nascent World Wide Web beyond the NeXTSTEP niche where the WorldWideWeb had formed three years earlier. In 1994, a company called Mosaic Communications was founded in Mountain View, California and employed many of the original NCSA Mosaic authors to create Mosaic Netscape. However, it intentionally shared no code with NCSA Mosaic. The internal codename for the company's browser was Mozilla, a portmanteau of "Mosaic and Godzilla".[1] The first version of the Web browser, Mosaic Netscape 0.9, was released in late 1994. Within four months it had already taken three-quarters of the browser market and became the main web browser for the 1990s. To avoid trademark ownership problems with the NCSA, the browser was subsequently renamed Netscape Navigator in the same year, and the company took the name Netscape Communications. Netscape Communications realized that the Web needed to become more dynamic. Marc Andreessen, the founder of the company, believed that HTML needed a "glue language" that was easy to use by Web designers and part-time programmers to assemble components such as images and plugins, where the code could be written directly in the Web page markup.

Although it was developed under the name Mocha, the language was officially called LiveScript when it first shipped in beta releases of Netscape Navigator 2.0 in September 1995, but it was renamed JavaScript when it was deployed in the Netscape Navigator 2.0 beta 3 in December.[2][3] The final choice of name caused confusion, giving the impression that the language was a spin-off of the Java programming language, and the choice has been characterized[4] as a marketing ploy by Netscape to give JavaScript the cachet of what was then the hot new Web programming language.

There is a common misconception that JavaScript was influenced by an earlier Web page scripting language developed by Nombas named Cmm (not to be confused with the later C-- created in 1997).[5][6] Brendan Eich, however, had never heard of Cmm before he created LiveScript. Nombas did pitch their embedded Web page scripting to Netscape, though Web page scripting was not a new concept, as shown by the ViolaWWW Web browser.[7] Nombas later switched to offering JavaScript instead of Cmm in their ScriptEase product and was part of the TC39 group that standardized ECMAScript.[8]

  1. ^ Payment, S. (2007). Marc Andreessen and Jim Clark: The Founders of Netscape. Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4042-0719-6.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference press_release was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "TechVision: Innovators of the Net: Brendan Eich and JavaScript". web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 2008-02-08.
  4. ^ Fin JS (2016-06-17), Brendan Eich - CEO of Brave, retrieved 2018-02-07
  5. ^ "The History of Programming Languages". oreilly.com. O'Reilly Media. 2004. Archived from the original on 2016-07-12. Retrieved 16 July 2016.
  6. ^ "What Is JavaScript?" (PDF). wiley.com. Wiley. Retrieved 16 July 2016.
  7. ^ Noorda, Brent (24 June 2010). "History of Nombas". brent-noorda.com. Retrieved 16 July 2016.
  8. ^ Eich, Brendan (21 June 2011). "New JavaScript Engine Module Owner". brendaneich.com. Retrieved 16 July 2016.
WP:ZEAL/WP:REDHISTORY
Other edits made by Pmffl are plagued by deletions. I will just list them here for further assessment. This should NOT be counted as an accusation. This should be probably a subject to another investigation into a low profile WP:VANDALISM and discovery of good-WP:FAITHed edits.

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thepharoah17 is going bit far by mentioning that I would admit of being a me "a racist user" during an AE enforcement discussion on his topic ban evasion in Kurds and Kurdistan. I am sure no racist user, I am fairly tolerant to quite a large amount of criticism but this is a bit too much and simply not true. I therefore would like to see some admin action on them. They were formerly blocked for a week for a topic ban evasion, now this personal attack is now not I don't like you or something like that, maybe there is an admin who has acted on similar behavior before.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I redacted the comment now what do you want from me?! Thepharoah17 (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thepharoah17, if you make a comment that is so unacceptable that you have to redact it, then "what do you want from me" doesn't really strike the right tone. You might could apologize, and that might help in you not getting blocked for making unacceptable comments. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
What do the Admins see as pertinent for a behavior like this? An approval of such gaming the system and disruptive editing? I and also admins have better things to do than to solve issues involving accusations by you on editors in Kurdish articles. They were blocked for a week before for T-ban evasion and they should be blocked for more this time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Paradise Chronicle I suggest letting the admins at AE deal with it rather than starting a new thread here. FDW777 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought personal attacks might find more attention here, but as you say. Let's wait for the AE ruling. / To clarify: the racist remark came AFTER the start of the AE discussion which there was seen by Sysop Bishonen who acknowledged there was a topic ban violation and a racist remark but then advised me to clarify the report further. (I must admit the report had a few flaws, but the Topic ban violation and racist remark were clearly perceivable).Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
See WP:Forum shopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Knew about it, never read it before, though. Learned something. Thanks. Got to be more tolerant when being accused of Islamophobia or being a racist it seems. I'll do that, then. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
If it is repeated, please notify me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In the past few days, editor Green light3 has continually added the "Criticism" section back to the article Ikigai.

The section was first added here. I reverted it here, as the edit summary on the section's addition led me to believe it had the potential to be a WP:COPYVIO; I couldn't find anything upon a search of "Dan Butler's page ikigai", but I still thought it best to remove the section until it was certain it wasn't a copyvio.

However, user Green light3 added it back here, after which a point I reverted this with a longer edit summary, explaining my actions as cautionary, as no proof had been provided that it wasn't a copyvio. The section was added again, before Myasuda removed it, with the explanation that the section had been added in the first place by a suspected sock.

It was added in again, and then removed by myself, linking to Myasuda's diff with the suspected sock edit summary. This got reverted again.

I feel like I should've potentially brought this up sooner on this board, as I don't know whether my actions have been unencyclopedic or not, in regards to how many back-and-forths there have been over this one section, but I did genuinely think that at a certain point, the editor would get the message, though this didn't happen. The fact that a more experienced editor than myself supported its removal also leads me to think that the section is justified in being removed.

I think my actions were cautious and on the right side of things, but I'm not sure. I don't, however, know how to resolve the situation, and I'd appreciate some advice. Thanks. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Green light 3 is likely a vandal account. Their edits are not being done in good faith. I reverted this user on Blue Zone. The user [128] edit summary was also deceptive. They deliberately removed Loma Linda, California from the Blue Zones, even though it is considered one of the five. I added it back then they reverted me again claiming there is no evidence in their edit summary which is bizarre because it is obvious Loma Linda is one of the 5 blue zones and is mentioned on the article. This was also a nonsense edit [129] the user added the Buddhist faith as one of the Blue Zones which is not true. Their recent edits on Ikigai were problematic and ruined the citation formatting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There's an open investigation involving Green light3 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zongqi.—Myasuda (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead sentence at Ikigai seems broken (I assume ikigai is one thing which would mean there is a bad comma and inadequate wording). Hey Nishidani, if you are free, how about some very brief copy editing? @Green light3: Your edits are challenged and that means you must add a new section to the article talk page and attempt to explain why your proposals should be used. You must wait for consensus before repeating challenged edits. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: - They still haven't stopped. See this edit here, after I had filed an ANI report, and this edit with the false edit summary of "undoing vandalism". Green light3 is pretty clearly a sole-purpose account who is WP:NOTHERE. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This morning, I tagged User:Benjamin2662 for speedy deletion, because it was a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It appears to have been deleted, then promptly re-created as an apparently-identical page by Benjamin2662 (talk · contribs). It has now been tagged again for speedy deletion, by @GPL93. This has been contested: see User talk:Benjamin2662#Contested_deletion.

It's sad to see what appears to be an academic abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion ... but whether or not the editor is actually the subject, I suggest a WP:NOTHERE block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Uncle G and GiantSnowman. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Uncle G:, I have re-tagged the accounts accordingly so we have a centralised log. GiantSnowman 15:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
He is not quite notable yet, but I wouldn't rule it out in the future. (coauthor of what is clearly a major textbook, and several medium-cited papers in reasonably good journals) Obviously the article would have to be written by someone else. (especially since most of what he did write is a copyvio from the university site). DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheesy McGee (talk · contribs) was blocked by me on 6 October 2020 for 48 hours for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs. That block was increased to indef by @Yamla: later that same day, and then the block was removed by @ToBeFree: on 11 February 2021 (following a number of failed block appeals) pursuant to ROPE.

Today Cheesy McGee has re-appeared on my watchlist adding more unsourced content to BLPs (e.g. 1, 2 - but there are many more diffs). After I issued a final warning, they tried to source the changes - but only by adding references which do not even mention the individuals in question. Either they haven't checked the reference to see whether it applies, or they know it does not but are adding it any way in an attempt to deceive is.

Based on this recent and their past conduct, and the clear indication that they do not understand or care how to adequately reference content about BLPs, I believe Cheesy McGee should be indefinitely blocked. GiantSnowman 11:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support indefinite block. Based on the unblock conditions, I believe Cheesy McGee agreed to an indefinite topic ban from editing articles (including drafts) about living and recently deceased people and from making statements about such people in other articles, broadly construed. It's hard to find a single edit from them that did not violate this topic ban. If the problem was just the two edits pointed out by GiantSnowman, meh, maybe I wouldn't support an indefinite block. But it looks like they agreed to unblock conditions with no intention of following them. Cheesy, am I misreading anything here?!? --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I added, and sourced to the best of my abilities. For this it is LITERALLY impossible to give sources for the final because it was cancelled and both teams were named winners, so obviously nobody will be mentioned. I'm not going to lie, but I would say it'd be rather unfair to say "they've obviously accepted the rules with no intention to follow them, so we should indefinitely block him", this is so far from the case. When I made the initial, unsourced edits, I was rushing through it, and then I reverted snowman's edit by adding one of, maybe a handful, sources. I'm not sure how you want to go about it regarding the 2019-20 Challenge Cup Final and Honours, but as I said, it's not really fair to suggest an indefinite block when there's no sources naming names, except ones which show the squads for previous rounds, which is how I determined who would get it in their "Honours" section. Do what you want with me, but an indefinite block for adding a title when no sources actually give individual names, is far too harsh. As for other articles, while yes, I agreed to stay clear of them, I have followed the rules and have provided sources when I create or edit player articles. I fully own up to that. Cheesy McGee (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source for something to the best of your abilities then simply don't put it in Wikipedia. And read the condition that you accepted when you were unblocked. You have very obviously breached it by making edits (whether sourced or not) about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not a sysop but I am a member of WP:FOOTY and I don't see how a football biography can be constructed without sources which, in turn, must be cited as part of the construction. It isn't difficult and it is essential per WP:V, so why not just do it? A recent example is Gregg Hood which has attracted the refimprove banner. You must have got the information about his time with Caley and Partick from somewhere, so why aren't the sources cited? No Great Shaker (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
For Gregg Hood, I have sourced what I can, but as you know, the further back their careers go, the harder it is to find sources for most things, and I was unaware that you can make a special draft or whatever it's called, until I made the Neil MacDonald page. But I believe the above is related to the 2019-20 Challenge Cup Final, which kinda falls into the cracks in regard whether to include it or not to. One one hand it can be included because, well, it's a final, and they're getting medals for it, but on the other hand there's nowhere naming who gets the medals. As I said previously, I own up to it, but when certain sources don't exist (or are dead) or name names, an indefinite block seems harsh. In terms of Gregg Hood, I felt that he was deserved of an article due to playing full time for Inverness and playing in a professional league, however again, Match Reports that can be used as sources from the early 2000s don't seem to exist anymore and likely haven't for a good few years, if at all. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
No, you haven't provided citations for Gregg Hood's Caley and Partick careers, leaving two sections completely unsourced. You must have read that content somewhere and per WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS you must provide inline citations so that we know it isn't WP:OR. This applies to all articles you create or expand. If you are in the position where you know something is true but can't find your source immediately, add a cn tag and then look it up as soon as you can. Or, as Phil said above, if you are really stuck for a source, don't input the content until you can find one. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, Gregg Hood is a living person, so Cheesy shouldn't have been writing about him anyway. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP especially, yes. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block. Having just copyedited Gregg Hood and tagged it for citations, I believe WP:CIR is going to be an additional concern because the editing standard is very poor and, on the basis of that article, it won't just be citations that are needed but extensive revision of prose, grammar and structure across many articles. As a result, and given what seems to be a "can't be bothered" attitude shown here, I agree with GiantSnowman and Yamla that the editor should be indef blocked. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    (deleted per WP:G5 with explicit consent from the copyeditor; see deleted history) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block, support explicit topic ban instead (struck per comments below Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)). Cheesy clearly wants to contribute, but is not hearing that information on living persons must either have a reliable source, or if there's no source then it must not be added. Those are the only two options - writing about stuff you "just know" and leaving it to be sourced later is not acceptable for BLPs, period. A topic ban from BLPs is all that is needed here, not an outright ban. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Cheesy is already under a topic ban for BLPs, right now. It didn't work. --Yamla (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I had forgotten that, thanks for raising. So they have been flagrantly breaching their topic ban for 3 months now? Definitely cause for an indef because they don't seem to get it. GiantSnowman 15:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, then, why are we even having this discussion? If they're under a topic ban and they've repeatedly violated it, you don't need a community discussion to drop the banhammer. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
1) I was unaware when I posted here; 2) I am under ArbCom sections which mean I cannot re-block a user; 3) even if 1 and 2 were not factors, I would still seek community input on something like this. GiantSnowman 16:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, those are good reasons (I probably argued in favour of #2). Anyway, I had to log in to my admin account anyway, so Cheesy is now blocked indefinitely for so flagrantly violating an unblock condition, for their edits being BLP violations in and of themselves even absent the topic ban, and also for the personal-attack-laden WP:NOTTHEM rant below and elsewhere. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As, probably, the only one who does work on the Inverness CT pages, I'd kindly ask you didn't make this an indefinite block. I've tried to ask others to give assistance when I'm not able to edit for whatever reason, but it seems the pleas have gone to waste. So indefinitely blocking me means those wiki pages will dry up until someone can actually be bothered doing it, as appears to have happened in (if memory recalls, the 2007-08 season), which was left not even a third done, and was only finished by me the other month. But sure, if you want fixtures and goal stats to go un-updated due to nobody being arsed enough, by all means, block me, but it's your loss. Can't see half of you editing it through the season, cos you seemingly more care about blocking people than actually doing anything worthwhile. If I had gone absolutely bonkers and started claiming the guy blew up the moon and kicked an old lady, then I'd see your point for wanting me blocked, but I haven't, I've stated what mere slivers of sources I can get my hands on, and if it means I'm repeating the Soccerbase website as a source, then so be it. You complain about segments being unsourced and "don't include information if it's unsourced" but then throw a tantrum because "It's not long enough to be worthwhile" like where the fuck is the middle ground here? Seriously, touch some fucking grass rather than spending your lives behind a keyboard complaining about this that and the other on a footballer from the early 2000s, that like most players on this website, nobody gives a flying shit about anymore. You got mad that I didn't provide sources, now you're getting mad that I AM?!? Seriously man, it's jokes. I trawl through Google trying to find a CRUMB of information, but all this shit is so old that there's no articles, but guess what, I STILL need to provide sources out my arsehole because some newspaper company didn't have a website in time to put out an article, or better yet, expect me to be able to time travel so I can get a source before the article was pulled 5 years ago. Apologies for the rant but dear jesus do you take the enjoyment out of a minor hobby that's taken me through lockdown, it's a fucking encyclopedia, stop acting like you'll be executed by the owner because someone didn't manage to fish out a source because the thing happened before the internet was common. Cheesy McGee (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Rant continued here. --Yamla (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry, Yamla, can easily provide a source for that 😉 Cheesy McGee (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If Cheesy had said "sorry, won't do it again, help me get better at this" I would have had sympathy. This means an indef block is the only option. Shocking. You've brought this upon yourself Mr McGee. GiantSnowman 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Cheesy McGee: either you didn't understand the above discussion at all which strongly supports a block since you're still not getting it. Or you need to explain a lot better what your plan is going forward. Even if you are not indefinitely blocked, your BLP topic ban is not going to be lifted. Instead you need to respect it from now on or you will be blocked. So kindly explain how you plan to work on Inverness CT and footballers from the early 2000s without violating your topic ban. I can't imagine there are that many footballers from the early 2000s who passed away more than 2 years ago Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy info: 16:38, 5 May 2021 Ivanvector talk contribs blocked Cheesy McGee talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy, and repeatedly editing in violation of an unblock condition topic ban from all BLP edits) Tag: Twinkle Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
All   Done. Thanks for the ping and the notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

In this they were published adityans were the oldest and highest nadans but it is not truth adityans were one among the nelamaikkarar nadans. Like that many nelamaikkarar nadan family's were living in the surrounding of tiruchendur. Adityans were one among today's richest nelamaikkarar nadan family so they use to donate to tiruchendur temple because of this the temple people used to gives more respect to adityans so that they are not only the oldest and highest nadans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me1420 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note: this user, Me1420 (their contributions), has made repeated disruptive edits to the page Nadan (Nadar subcaste). The user has been warned several times today and has not justified their edits. Not familiar with the subject at all, but user has not provided sources yet seems to be well-versed with WP pages (such as this page). PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. on Nadan (Nadar subcaste). Me1420 go to Talk:Nadan (Nadar subcaste) and explain there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Some of this I've copy pasted from the talk pages. I was working on a sandbox page for an article and it was deleted by Jimfbleak for “Unambiguous advertising or promotion." He repeatedly has accused me of working for the company and having a conflict of interest. I am an editor for a rather well known crypto news org. So was the person helping me edit the sandbox page (I believe it was ColonelCrypto). To avoid a conflict of interest, neither of us has any crypto investments nor are we affiliated with any crypto company (at least in a COI sense). I simply believe 0xProject are notable and wanted to improve Wikipedia. I believe 0x technology could revolutionize DeFi. They could fail miserably too though. The sandbox page had a criticism section based off research from Cornell. This critique was publicized in an article in Forbes which was also referenced in the sandbox page. I completely agree some of it sounds far too promotional. This is because most of the available information on the 0xproject is promotional. I dumped text and sources in the sandbox so I’d have it all in one place. The plan was to make it encyclopedic but the page was deleted. I was not even allowed to address these issues with Jimfbleak before he deleted the page. After I asked Jimfbleak if he could please restore the page or provide me with a copy of the page he said there was "no evidence of notability and no references." I don't think he took much of a look at the page. There was a list of references at the bottom including articles from Forbes, Bloomberg and many others. I'm sure I could find more but the page was deleted. Could someone please restore the page? Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You could try asking for undeletion at WP:REFUND. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
DaxMoon, thanks for ping. I asked twice whether you had a COI without a reply until I saw this ANI. I now see that you have denied having a COI on your talk page as well, but since you didn't ping me from there, I wasn't aware of that. However, what you chose to copy to you sandbox wasn't just factual stuff, some of it was absolutely blatant spam. Why did you think that would be useful. I'm happy to abide by any decision made here, assuming you don't take up Beyond My Ken's suggestion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You bet. You never asked if I had a COI. There was never any room given for a dialogue. First you said I needed to declare if I had a COI. I didn’t so I didn’t declare anything. Then you stated, without reservation, that I had a COI. If you would’ve asked I would’ve told you. I completely agree some of it sounds like spam. Never meant for any of that to actually be part of the article. I was just copying and pasting from various sources so I’d have it all in one place. Some of it was from 0x promo material. Purely there for ease of access to info. Didn’t foresee it being an issue since it’s a ‘sandbox’ of sorts. Jimfbleak it looks like we got off on the wrong foot. Could you help me try and sort this out? If you restore the page I’ll do a spam sweep in the next day or two and perhaps you could take another look and tell me if there are any other issues? DaxMoon (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
DaxMoon, please ping me when you post a message you want me to see, otherwise it's just chance if and when I see your messages. I agree, I don't think this needs ANI and I'll continue on your talk page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Amigao (talk · contribs) is engaging in prolific edit warring and aggressive revert behaviour across a number of controversial China related topics, where he appears to be pushing a specific POV.

He has a habit of repeatedly dictating the flow of changes to specific articles, making changes which are controversial/disputed and subsequently reverting any other user who challenges them. He makes changes unilaterally, but then requests anyone who challenges him uses the talk page [131] [132] [133] [134]

This has also involved up to 11 reverts on a single article, CGTN (TV channel) in the space of than a week [135] against a number of users. He also reports those who challenge him, but receives no consequences himself.

This behaviour needs to be taken into account. He has been blocked before and received warnings- 1.210.71.154 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added full protection to CGTN (TV channel) and Genocide denial while this is being looked into. This user does have many warnings for edit warring, but I don't see where they've gone as far as needing to be blocked. If I'm wrong, let me know and point me to the article that I need to look at. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrottieTrue, this editor has filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Incivility by User:FDW777, which was closed without action. Unhappy with the closure of that thread, they started a new one at the closing admin's talk page, as well as emailing other admins. The thread can be seen at User talk:ToBeFree/A/3#User:FDW777.

It contains one post from me at 07:35, 5 May, where I explain precisely why this dispute is, in their words, "more heated", namely their persistent attempts to flout BLP policy regarding the dates of birth of living people. At 21:07, 5 May in that discussion they said, amongst other things, That is my perception of the editor, an opinion. It is not "casting aspersions". It is therefore strange that, according to them, my opinion of them is a personal attack/incivility/casting aspersions, yet their perception of me is not. I chose not to highlight this point to them, since in the same post they also said I am attempting to disengage from the conflict so I decided further reply from me would simply prolong matters and chose to ignore them.

Since that post, the only potential interaction I have had with this editor is three posts to Talk:List of living former United Kingdom MPs.

After the close of the thread on ToBeFree's talk page, they started one at User talk:Peacemaker67 at 12:55, 6 May, currently visible at User talk:Peacemaker67#User:FDW777, and includes the rather telling reply to them at 08:44, 7 May, which says Have you considered that your own behaviour is the primary cause of your situation?

Since then, they posted a harassment warning on my talk page at 03:25, 7 May. I am unclear as to what this refers, since I've had zero interaction with them for almost 48 hours at that point. At 12:17, 07 May they decided it would be a good idea to edit war after I had removed it, asking them not to post there again. I legitimately walked away from this editor over 48 hours ago, yet their forum shopping and poking the bear continues unabated. Perhaps someone could encourage them to do what they said on 5 May and disengage from the conflict? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to do a point by point rebuttal to the reponse below, but However, as the last three messages at my Usertalk have been left by FDW777, this feels like the latest in a line of targeted attacks on me is worthy of a reply. 07:35, 3 May is a discretionary sanctions notification, which can be given if an editor is making problematic edits relating to BLPs. As they were adding dates of birth in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, it is hardly an unreasonable notification. 15:46, 03 May is the notification of a report at WP:AE, this is a mandatory notification. 14:44, 07 May is the notification for this thread, again this is a mandatory notification. There are no targeted attacks of any description. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Response from TrottieTrue

edit

This is really getting very tedious now. I think FDW777 knows the rules of WP inside out, and spends more time on that part of WP, rather than the editing of articles, which I what I have spent most of my time on WP doing. It appears, therefore, that I am an Exopedian, and FDW777 is a Metapedian. I think there is a lack of perspective from some WP editors and admin about how their decisions may appear to an Exopedian: if someone like myself has spent most of their time engaging with the encyclopaedic content of WP, they may not have spent time reading up on policy and guidelines in full. My aim in editing WP has been to improve the project, and share information with others. I did fall foul of this recently by violating BLP policy, but it was done with the aim of improving WP, and perhaps because I didn't fully understand the policy, which might appear illogical to those outside the Wikiverse.
However, I prefer a more consensual, collaborative approach, and this is not the way that users like FDW77 work: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We all have different personalities and ways of working; WP is, in many ways, a project largely run by solo working, so we don't have the set-up of a real-world project. The approach of FDW777 is to WP:Assume bad faith and tick me off, without attempting to improve the articles at hand, or even politely engage to explain the problem. The approach of other administrators is to place BLP Policy violations above everything else, which means that in pursuing my "misdemeanours", FDW777 is allowed to commit several policy violations: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
Witness the way that FDW777 raised the details of the arbitration enforcement in a user talk page even after I had accepted the decision and the case had been closed. My complaint about them at ANI was not about that decision. It was about their general conduct: as soon as an editor published a list article which they felt violated BLP policy, the first thing they did was criticise it, which I think is somewhat disrespectful of the editor who created it. Their comments at that page are snappy and unhelpful: other editors at that Talk page and the ANI have mentioned that they weren't aware of list articles needing to be fully referenced, so I am not alone in querying this (although I am the only one FDW777 has chosen to target).
FDW777 is continually trolling me by repeating the baseless allegation that I have an "unhealthy fixation" with MPs' dates of birth. This is a personal attack, focusing on the content creator, not the content. FDW777 writes of their one post at ToBeFree's talk page: ...where I explain precisely why this dispute is, in their words, "more heated", namely their persistent attempts to flout BLP policy regarding the dates of birth of living people. They fail to mention that this one post features the comment your stubborn refusal to listen in order to pursue your unhealthy interest ih the dates of birth of UK MPs. I am told that this is 'casting aspersions': "It's clear that their mission seems to be to police others on WP, and complain." That is completely different to continually being told I have an "unhealthy interest" in something, which is a rather snide accusation.
I think FDW777 is "Wikipedia:Gaming the system": they know it inside out, they have admin and other experienced editors "on side", and therefore, they know how to misbehave in a way which is likely to be unhelpful to me. My defensive reaction (especially when it appears I am not being listened to) therefore helps their case more.
I would argue that this post is actually an example of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, even if it isn't out-and-out incivility (their other comments on that talk page are rather uncivil too).
My harassment warning posted at the talk page of FDW777 was to politely raise the issue of their behaviour and ask that they stop, since no-one else is interested in doing anything about their behaviour. FDW777 could have taken it on board; instead, they removed the comment altogether, and issued the instruction not to post there again (again, thinly veiled threats seems to be their style). That it had apparently been over 48 hours since any interaction between us is irrelevant: I felt the impact of their behaviour needed pointing out. I had hoped an administrator might be sympathetic, but as this has proven not to be the case, I raised the issue myself. Regarding my reversion of that removal, I readily admit that I was unaware of the protocol around removal of posts on an editor's own talk page. Again, to an Exopedian like me, this is a guideline/rule buried deep in WP which I had not seen. I am prepared to admit when I am wrong, something that FDW777 does not seem able to do. Metapedians expect that everyone else (ie. Exopedians) know WP Policy inside out; in my sixteen years of editing, I have focused on trying to improve the content of WP, and received very little thanks for my efforts (and yes, I'm aware that's not why people volunteer). It doesn't help when admin et al constantly bamboozle me with "WP:xx" links to pages, as if beating me over the head with bureaucracy and guidelines.
My notice placed on the talk page asking FDW777 to refrain from harassment (which is what their behaviour feels like) was an attempt to draw a line under this conflict. FDW777 is playing the innocent party by acting as if they have done nothing wrong. I think there is a lot of WP:GASLIGHT at work here.
FYI, I am only too happy to "disengage from the conflict". However, as the last three messages at my Usertalk have been left by FDW777, this feels like the latest in a line of targeted attacks on me. At the List of living former UK MPs talk page, they wrote: The only reason I knew about this article was becuause I had Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom on my watchlist. Not because of any pressing interest in the vast majority of UK politics, but because of the discussion you started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Dates of birth for politicians and an IP User to try and circumvent the BLP policy in order to feed your unhealthy interest in the dates of birth of UK MPs. The list article arose from a suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. That FDW777 does not have "any pressing interest in the vast majority of UK politics", yet they were watching the Project page because of a discussion I started there, strikes me as incongruous. That comment features a baseless accusation in bad faith, and suggests that they decided to criticise the list article as soon as it was published, because of my input into it. I do not believe that is "casting aspersions". It is an interpretation the comment, not an accusation.
I placed the warning template on the editor's talk page because it was clear that no administrators were going to take their behaviour seriously, and therefore I thought I should raise it myself with the editor.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

edit

Assuming that FDW777 is fine with this, I propose an indefinite two-way interaction ban between TrottieTrue and FDW777, or at least a one-way interaction ban that prevents TrottieTrue from pushing their point again and again, on multiple administrators' talk pages and at User talk:FDW777, the former of which is forum shopping and WP:IDHT behavior, and the latter of which has now reached a harassing level of persistence. Per WP:IBAN, "a no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've said, I walked away 48 hours ago. The only person carrying on any disupte right now is TrottieTrue. I would have no problem with a two-way ban, providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment. FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a large degree of bias from ~ ToBeFree above, and they are clearly taking sides (again making me out to be "the bad guy"). As before, they are singling me out as the guilty party and ignoring any wrongdoing by the editor in question. FDW777 is also practicing forum shopping (see their comment here. To claim that I am guilty of "WP:IDHT behavior" is patronising, and dismissive of my justified POV. If there is any harassing, it comes from FDW777 (again, I repeat, they are gaming the system by behaving badly in a way which they know admin will overlook, and then when I complain, labelling it "harassment"). In this situation, I am prepared to accept an indefinite two-way interaction ban, providing that I am still able to edit articles about UK politicians without any impediment.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue, I would actually say that ~ ToBeFree is bending over backwards not to take sides here, by proposing "a no-fault two-way interaction ban". As you won't even accept that without demanding conditions I think that we need to look into who is at fault (a clue - it is not FDW777) and impose sanctions against that editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
"I would have no problem with a two-way ban, providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment."--FDW777
"In this situation, I am prepared to accept an indefinite two-way interaction ban, providing that I am still able to edit articles about UK politicians without any impediment." I'm not sure there is any difference between either of these "demands".--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
There is little difference between the demands, so, as I said above, we need to look at who is actually at fault. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
So I make a similar demand to FDW777, and you're implying I'm at fault. Clearly no bias going on here.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • All things being equal—notwithstanding TrottieTrue's wall-of-text reply in the section above, but very much noting their BATTLEGOUND response here (accusations of partisanship, gaming etc., total lack of introspection)—I think I'd see more use for a one-way I-ban against TrottieTrue; it seems unfair to entangle FDW777 with an I-ban over a situation not of his making, that he is no longer part of, and that another party reignites. If there is blame to be apportioned, it seems pretty one-directional to me. ——Serial 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course, FDW777 is completely innocent, and it would just be "unfair" to do anything to them. I don't appreciate the aspersion being cast by saying there's a "total lack of introspection" - given that I've admitted where I'm wrong, that is patently untrue. I think FDW777 has evidently brought this situation on themselves. The "lack of introspection" perhaps reflects more on this editor; ToBeFree has previously stated that "FDW777's behavior may not be ideal".--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't work: the same admin later in the same conversation commented, apropos you, that there may have been misconduct on both sides, but you're currently not in a good position to request sanctions against the person who has enforced an important policy regarding your persistent breaches of WP:BLP ——Serial
I wasn't specifically requesting sanctions; and as you've quoted, "there may have been misconduct on both sides" is a tacit acknowledgement of FDW777's behaviour. Just because one party has been sanctioned, it should not preclude the other party's behaviour from being looked at.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Since both editors agree to an indefinite 2-way interaction ban, there's no need for any further discussion here. *poof*, by the powers vested in me as an uninvolved admin, your wishes are granted, there is now an indefinite 2-way interaction ban. @FDW777:, @TrottieTrue:, please indicate below that you've seen this, and that you've read WP:IBAN. It is possible for people editing in overlapping areas to continue to do so while an IBAN is in effect, but it is not painless, and you need to be aware what is OK and what isn't, or it just comes back to ANI again with dueling "He violated the IBAN. No, she violated the IBAN" reports. I'll log it when both of you have agreed below (and when I can remember where to do so). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have seen this and read WP:IBAN. There are exceptions, including "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons", which should satisfy FDW777.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well that's weird and annoying. I opened my edit window before SN's post; I don't know why 5 posts by FDW and SN didn't cause an edit conflict. Anyway, it unfortunately looks like I just plain ignored SN's comment, when really I didn't see it until now. Still, since they both agreed, I personally don't think discussion on 1-way vs 2-way is useful. If they both agree below than I'll enact it. If not, then I'll walk away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    WP:Editing restrictions, that is. :)~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have seen this and read WP:IBAN. (See above.)--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Given the small number of editors presently editing articles relating to Northern Ireland politicans, I don't believe it's fair to saddle me with an editing restriction that prevents me from reverting, or even mentioning why I may consider the edit to be problematic, any of TrottieTrue's edits. As Serial Number 54129 said, the current situation is not of my making. FDW777 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      Then you might want to strike "I would have no problem with a two-way ban" above. Good luck, both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It's hardly fair to truncate my post, which continued with providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
A two-way IBAN could potentially impede your editing about Northern Ireland politicians. It's up to you, but in your position I would not accept it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@FDW777: It's not a matter of fairness; I'll admit it did not occur to me to interpret your caveat as "I accept a 2-way iban, as long as I can continue to interact with TrottieTrue if I think she's doing something wrong". I just assumed you meant "as long as I can continue to edit in that topic area". Perhaps my suggestion to strike that part out was snarkier than I intended. My bad. Since you made it clear now that is what you meant (and she's kind of made it clear her his acceptance was similarly limited), my simple "nip it in the bud" action is no longer acceptable. To be honest, the smartest idea in this thread is your suggestion buried somewhere below that you both agree to walk away with no official anything, although I kind of suspect that wouldn't have worked out either. It's just that 1-way ibans seldom work, unless they're treated as 2-way ibans in practice. This seems like a setting you up for a future "FDW777 is following/reverting/commenting on an editor who cannot respond to his comments, thus taking advantage of a 1-way iban" thread here. I would definitely stay far away from her him, if I were you, even if a 1-way iban is enacted. But like I said, good luck to both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happiest if I never have to mention TrottieTrue's name again, so I have no intention of taking advantage of any one-way ban. I'd prefer to simply move on to more constructive things. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: According to User:TrottieTrue they are male, so you might want to fix your misgendering. FDW777 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, not quite sure what made me think that. I originally misread their username as "TrudieTrue", and I think maybe even when I realized I had the name wrong, the gender had already stuck in my head? Anyway, thanks. Fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I am male. "To be honest, the smartest idea in this thread is your suggestion buried somewhere below that you both agree to walk away with no official anything, although I kind of suspect that wouldn't have worked out either." That could have worked, except that some very vindictive editors would rather punish me. I've given a lot of my time for free to the project (yes, I know the counter argument that everyone has), but punishing me in this disproportionate way will put users like me off. Fair enough, you'll have WP to yourself. I think you're right that 1-way I-bans are fundamentally problematic; it punishes one user, and allows the other to take advantage. No matter what FDW777 might say, they could easily use this to their advantage. I actually think a number of editors on this thread are behaving in a bullying manner; if I don't play ball and accept everything FDW777 says, then they will punish me. Is that a constructive course to take when dealing with an editor who has contributed a lot to the project? Doubtless, it counts for nothing, but this is not how a volunteer organisation treats people who give up their time for nothing. The fact that civility and avoiding personal attacks are seen as less important is deeply concerning.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll suggest a simple propsal without the need for any I-bans. TrottieTrue said here on 5 May I am attempting to disengage from the conflict, which I took to be a good point to stop discussing with them. All I ask is that they stop forum shopping this issue that has been addressed already, return to editing and I'll do likewise. Since they already said they want to disengage, just do so and stop creating threads about me. FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I had stopped "forum shopping", but it seemed reasonable to point out how FDW777's interactions come across to me in the form of a template warning, especially as no administrator has been prepared to call out their behaviour (had that been done, I wouldn't have left a warning template; wilful ignorance of FDW777's policy violations hasn't helped the situation, making it appear as if there is bias, and pushing me into a corner). I've made my point, even if FDW777 saw fit to remove it. Perhaps FDW777 can disengage too, and stop creating threads about me. What I ask is that FDW777 engages with editors in a civil manner, and in good faith, without making personal attacks, such as referring to my interest in a topic being an "unhealthy fixation".--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Serial's analysis on the situation. On sourcing, Companies House is absolutely unreliable as a source for BLP DOBs. I believe CH acts solely as a registrar for the record and publishes whatever is given to it. It does no fact checking. It can't even be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF because it's not necessarily the BLP publishing the information (it could be a company secretary etc, it could even be mistaken identity) (and indeed, CH does no identity verification either IIRC). I think this situation has been blown out of proportion, but I don't see any evidence of misconduct by FDW777. (if it exists, please provide it, succinctly). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The BLP violation has already been resolved, and I have moved on from that (it's a distraction from the real issue to keep referring to it). What I have raised is FDW777's misconduct - which was tacitly acknowledged by another editor. Namely, Wikipedia:Personal attacks: here, repeated here and here. I have listed other violations elsewhere. this illustrates harassment (admitting they are watching a Project page they have little interest in because of me, then criticising that page as soon as it is published). See also the topic suggesting that the ArbReq be reopened. This is threatening language - see WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and WP:Civility.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with ProcrastinatingReader about Companies House. I have registered two companies there and it accepted whatever I said about the directors with no fact-checking at all. Just a few seconds' thought should tell you that they would have to increase their staff by orders of magnitude if they were to check everything that was written on the registration form. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue has moved on from using Companies House to UK Who's Who, which has similar issues regarding the subject proving information to the publication. WP:RSNP lists it as 'no consensus' on the reliability of the source. Better than Companies House, but certainly not ideal, especially for trivial BLP details regarding hobbies such as "McNair-Wilson's recreations are sailing, pottery and flying". I don't find any fault with FDW777's follow through on the BLP concerns at all. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have barely used CH at all compared to WW. This is beginning to feel like a smear campaign against me and my editing. The point is that CH are regarded as "public records"; WW does not fall into that category, so it is irrelevant to raise it here. Who's Who, a widely respected long-running publication, evidently does not regard Recreations as "trivial". I think it adds some human interest to those articles. Few people can find any fault with FDW777, it seems.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777's objection to formal I-ban

edit

The reason I object to a formal I-ban is as follows. As the history of John Finucane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows, nobody even bothered to remove the blatant WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, apparently showing the lack of people interested. So, if for example TrottieTrue made another edit, that wasn't an obvious violation of BLP but I still disagreed with, I'd have no way of reverting the edit or even discussing it. I consider that an unfair restriction when the current situation is not of my creation, and the ongoing nature of it is not caused by me. All TrottieTrue has to do is stop posting about me, something they implied they'd do at 21:07, 5 May but then ignoring when forum shopping by creating a new thread at 12:55, 6 May. This situation can be resolved quickly and simply, just by TrottieTrue stopping talking about me. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, FDW777, the two-way I-ban would undoubtedly disrupt your work on the subject. But what Levivich, Phil Bridger and myself are proposing is a one-way I-ban: this would prohibit TT from interacting with you, but not you from your article work. ——Serial 17:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Where is Levivich proposing a one-way ban? I can't see that.
FDW777, what we would not be able to do is "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". I don't think it stops us from changing each other's edits in a constructive (ie. non-reverting) way, or discussing it (without mentioning me). Your concern over John Finucane was a BLP violation, which a two-way I-ban would not prevent you from reverting. "This situation can be resolved quickly and simply, just by TrottieTrue stopping talking about me." If by "talking about" you, you mean creating discussions about you on WP, I have already stopped doing so. Accepting the warning template on your usertalk page would have resolved this.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I confirm that that is what I would propose. I don't see any reason why FDW777's editing should be restricted in any way. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: thank you. However I am not solely confirmed about my work, as John Finucane's history shows nobody else seemed to care about the blatant BLPPRIMARY violation (other than the people at AE), so where are the people who would deal with lesser issues? If these were articles with lots of people keeping an eye on them that's one thing, but it seems wholly unfair to hamstring me with an editing restriction that prevents me even discussing why I object to a particular edit. FDW777 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@FDW777:} To confirm, the one-way I-ban will not hamstring or otherwise constrain your editing whatsoever. ——Serial 18:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

One-Way IBAN Proposal

edit

whereas TrottieTrue is restricted from interacting with FDW777 per WP:IBAN per The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user.

TrottieTrue, when you say bias from other editors you're pretty much admitting that multiple "other editors" have an issue with your editing. If there are multiple other editors taking issue with what you're doing - then perhaps you need to take a good look at what you're being told. Stop doing what others object to, and maybe you won't have these problems. Just IMO. — Ched (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
And yet I haven't had any problems of this nature with other users in sixteen years of editing. Multiple editors are taking the side of FDW777; that isn't the same thing as them having an issue with my editing generally. My POV is being completely shut down by other users, who have a blind spot when it comes to FDW777, or simply place BLP above any other misdemeanour.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, i almost forgot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive332#Disruptive_and_uncivil_IP_user%2C_including_vandalism and just noticed that was you too. ANI thread archived to your dismay, AN thread created to complain about incivility. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
What's your point? That editor has actually vandalised at least one article, and you agreed that in future you should be notified of their behaviour.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue, I, for one, don't have a "blind spot" when it comes to FDW777, an editor who I don't remember having any previous interactions with. It's just that nobody has provided any links to any of that user's edits that are problematic, as opposed to yours. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
That previous discussion is particularly enlightening. For example this post where it is stated I accepted their initial post on my Talk page about not using Companies House as a DOB source, but the editor in question has since appeared to have an obsessive fixation on this issue. Clearly TrottieTrue did not accept the post about not using Companies House as a DOB source, otherwise we wouldn't be here. And it further beggars belief that they object to my use of unhealthy fixation (which with hindsight, could have been expressed better) when they themselves describe another editor as having an obsessive fixation. Pot, meet kettle! FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
We've finished the discussion about Companies House. At least you admit that your wording "with hindsight, could have been expressed better". An "obsessive" fixation is rather different to an "unhealthy" one, the latter making judgements about a person. "Pot, meet kettle!" is also rather unhelpful. You may well be successful in preventing me from interacting with you, in which case that would mean you could do or say what you like to me. This whole incident feels like a pile-on against me, in which editors suffer from a lack of perspective, being unable to see the forest for the trees. There is no need to continually attack me for a closed incident. Personally, I think personal attacks and incivility are far worse than BLP policy violations.--TrottieTrue (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I had detailedly warned you that exactly this would happen, and you chose to ignore the advice completely. Your last sentence is concerning, as after all tbe warnings you still question the importance of the BLP policy. There is no civility exception at WP:3RRNO nor at WP:WHEEL nor at WP:BANREVERT nor at WP:BE nor at WP:CSD nor at WP:Notability nor even at WP:BANEX, but all of these policies and guidelines have special rules for BLPs. On Wikipedia, civility is objectively not more important than removing BLP violations. I don't understand how this can be unclear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, you're trying to bamboozle me with endless WP pages. I am perfectly entitled to think that incivility and personal attacks are worse than BLP violations: the latter is not always directly targeting someone. There's a lot of Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" going on here, and a distinct lack of empathy in this situation from other Wikipedians; they can only see it in black and white, with me as 'bad' and FDW777 as 'good'. There are evidently a lot of editors who wish to punish me for my procedural 'transgressions' (which have already been dealt with) and overlook anything that FDW777 does. It's very unbalanced. It's coming across like a clique ganging up on me - and please don't tell me to do some introspection. This is classic gaslighting by a powerful clique. And yes, any clique will deny they are a clique, and my response will be painted as 'sour grapes'.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@TrottieTrue: By definition a BLP violation affects a defined living person. While BLP can apply to groups, it's only when that group is small enough that it can be reasonably construed that the issue affects them. 'All Democrats/Republicans are traitors' is not a BLP violation. 'Joe Biden/Donald Trump is a traitor' is potentially a BLP violation, possibly also 'All members of Biden's/Trump's cabinet are traitors'. Maybe the person making the edit isn't intentionally trying to cause harm, but that doesn't make it much better. Uncivil comments often aren't trying to cause harm either. I'm horrified by your attitude so that comes across in this post and maybe it's uncivil in parts. But it's not my intention to cause you harm. It's just because I'm horrified by what you're doing and saying and my anger comes across sometimes. My only hope is that you stop with your horrible attitude and the harm you are causing other living persons via your editing, but my wish as with nearly everyone I meet here is that they have a great day and long and happy life. And even if I think they aren't welcome here, I would hope they find something which works for them. And posting claims unsupported by a reliable source sufficient for BLP purposes is not a "procedural 'transgression'". It's a major violation which no experienced editor should tolerate. I originally had some sympathy for you because your clearly mean well. Indeed I was originally thinking of posting something like 'hey you clearly mean well, but BLP is very important, even if you don't understand why you need to accept that to edit here which means you need to accept our stringent sourcing requirements and not simply add stuff because you think it's important to a biography even if you haven't yet found a suitable source' and without commenting on the iban. But that's gone out the window with your latest comment. An editor like you, who even if they want to improve Wikipedia doesn't give a fuck about those living people they harm with their terrible editing should not be welcome here. And to be clear, I don't give a fuck whether you think this is uncivil. You are the one harming others by your editing and not giving a damn about the harm you cause. You chose to edit here, so you should fully expect that you will have to engage with editors here when you edit poorly. If sometimes those interactions are slightly uncivil maybe that's not ideal but editor's have differing ideas of what's uncivil, and also we accept that editors sometimes lose their cool when dealing with major problems. If you're clearly in the wrong, you could also avoid it by not being clearly in the wrong. The living people you are harming mostly didn't choose to have an article here, and they definitely have no choice when someone like you adds nonsense or stuff which isn't supported by a reliable source. They shouldn't have to come here to tell us to remove the crap you are adding. We should be doing it for them since we are the ones who chose to edit here. The fact you care about the harm you suffer from these uncivil comments but have such utter disdain for the harm you are causing the living people who aren't involved and had no choice (other than possibly in becoming notable and maybe in whatever it is you're trying to add although clearly someone's birthday was never their choice) just shows how ridiculous your argument and attitude is. And I have zero power here, half of the editors here I disagree with a lot about other issues and sometimes even BLP issues. I don't recall the name FDW777 other than from this post, for all I know I've never interacted with them. So fuck off with your clique nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, I did not harass you. That's a huge misrepresentation. I posted a couple of comments in response to your reversion. Anyone who looks at the links above can see that. Forbidding me from interacting with FDW777, but allowing them to interact with me, is incredibly unjust.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per Levivich, BLP vios place far above any other misdemeanours, and this is the appropriate action. I strongly suggest TrottieTrue starts using reliable sources for their edits on BLPs or this will escalate. Their action in seeking me out because I had a disagreement with FDW777 over an article they had nominated at GAN was also poor wikibehaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support As I articulated above, the editor clearly doesn't give a damn about BLP. Whatever else minor violations by others their editing is the problem. I would also support a topic ban from BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support topic-ban TrottieTrue from BLPs and a one-way iban with FDW777. The time for dropping the stick was a long time ago, although it's never too late to stop digging. (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please try to get through to this editor, who is repeatedly insisting on changing "British" to "English" on multiple biographical (mostly BLP) articles. It is a problem that has occurred before with this editor, who has been advised of the accepted practice (of describing UK nationals as British unless there are good grounds not to do so), but seems very unwilling to take the advice to that effect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

18:24, 7 May 2021 Discospinster talk contribs blocked Lil Pablo 2007 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia) Tag: Twinkle. User has submitted an unblock request. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The blocked JustANameInUse turns up on new IP's every few weeks to accuse editors of being "vegan activists". This has been raised 3 times at ANI previously. He is now using this IP [136] to accuse editors of being vegans. Can an admin please block his latest IP? On his own talk-page he has confessed to being blocked before [137]. This user is very disruptive he previously used these IPs [138], [139] that have been blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

An ANI complaint was filed last month against this user [140]. The admin blocked his IP and agreed to extend the block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As can be seen on this IP talk page, the user Psychologist Guy is not being truthfull and is using wikipedia rules to wage war against what he sees as an attack on his ideology while addmiting to being in contact with a known vegan activist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Greger&diff=991010461&oldid=990995208 93.141.96.10 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me you have been block evading, using more than one (at least three) accounts of IP's and have had a battleground mentality that has led to blocks.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Since it can be seen by this IPs talk, you are ready to make accusations based on nothing but supposition and an assumption of what happened. I dont think you are qualified to decide anything and it looks like you are protectin one of your own. And your accusation of battleground mentality is just an opinion, not an argument. Standing for yourself is not combatative, it is normal. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
93.141.96.10 you can just drop me an email and I will let you know what diet I eat in my personal life. It is not relevant to Wikipedia who you think is a "vegan activist". You have been going on and on about this for months which seems to be an obsession of yours so instead of block evading repeatedly calling me and others "vegan activists" just can personally email users who have made their email public if you really need to discuss it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
So you can doxxx me? Are you serious? You even admitted to being in contact with a known vegan activist doctor on his talk page to straigten out a rumour. That in itself should be bannable. Forgive me for connecting the dots. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
IP address blocked for one month. No need for checkuser tools to see this is a clear case of WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Forgive the post-close comment, but I think the IP has a point: last week I found a vegan activist living under my bed, ready to pounce on a moment's notice. (Apparently the communist infiltrator who used to live there had moved on.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

IP account(s) keeps adding back Transylvanianism to List of active separatist movements in Europe and Regionalism (politics) even though I explained to them (with links to newspapers and journals) why Transylvanianism is not relevant for those pages (see the messages here). They replied to my first message to them but not to the following ones and they are now just reverting me without justification. IP I interactuated with the most is 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but 2A04:2413:8003:B380:B54A:99E2:5B5F:61E1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has also reverted me on those pages. The person behind has way more IPs, as one can see on the histories of List of active separatist movements in Europe, Regionalism (politics) and Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  Blocked – for a period of one week. Partially blocked the range from the Main article space. Likely, they're just having difficulties keeping up with their changing IPs/new talk pages. I noted to the user that registering an account will resolve this. El_C 13:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This user has been here over three years but has very few edits. All of them are self-promotion. He doesn't seem to be paying any attention to warnings on his talk page. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate at COIN than at ANI. The user has made some edits that are not promotional (example). However, a lot of the user's edits do have something to do with promoting his books. --- Possibly (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for now. As they don't seem to read their talk page, it may take months for them to notice the block, long after this thread is archived. We can then have an unblock discussion about promotional editing, and we can ask Mholowchak to agree not to cite themselves anymore as a binding unblock condition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

On the page Equality and Human Rights Commission, IP 80.2.22.215 declared the use of the word “transphobic” to be derogatory language for “gender critical” views, ie, the view that trans women are men seeking to sneak into women’s spaces and do horrible things to them. Snokalok (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In compliance with the no nazis page, I’m filing an incident report here rather than simply reverting the edit.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone please block the CU-confirmed socks Bembo Bold and Critique & Calculation, and also semi-protect Owen_Williams_(artist) from the IP socks? Their persistent editing of the article is disruptive for the Afd. Also, they're socks.--- Possibly (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Personally I would like to see editors like this permanently gone from Wikipedia. Bembo Bold is responsible for adding a controversies section to Yukon Arts Centre, so they've basically been using WP for promotion (Owen Williams (artist)) and to unduly point out Owen Williams' conflict with the YAC.--- Possibly (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, editing an article that is being discussed at AFD is perfectly fine and very much not disruptive. The only disruptive actions to an article are renaming without fixing up the article links (which people like me often quietly fix), redirecting or merging, blanking, and otherwise removing the AFD notice. Read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. The sockpupetteer did none of those, with any account. You and xe were in an edit war, but there was no disruption of AFD, neither by editing the article nor in the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is the first or second time I have reported to ANI, so please tell me if anything is wrong. Basically, on Comparison of DNS blacklists, there are editors that are going on a slow revert war.
EmpiricalSemaphore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
EmpiricalTroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Navapab3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
UrsMair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In the war, EmpiricalSemaphore is saying that these are accounts that are employed by UCEprotect in order to promote the site, which they think is fraudulent. The other accounts say that the site in not fraudulent, and that while questionable, is not a fraud. This is too complex for AN3. While warring, the others (accounts that are not EmpiricalSemaphore) leave personal attacks in edit summaries. Who has done wrong and why? These three accounts that are reverting appear to be related to each other. aeschyIus (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • The three accounts that are not EmpiricalSemaphore appear to be the same user, or at least closely linked; the edit-summaries are all written in the same pretty-good-but-clearly-not-native English. My inclination would be (a) to block all of those, as if they're not socks they are obviously editing in a way indistinguishable from that, and (b) to revert the article back to the pre-edit war status quo. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Black Kite - I agree with both. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    I concur with Black Kite and Oshwah on this. Block all three. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Oshwah, would it be wise to tag these accounts as socks? This isn't simple vandalism and it may help in order for future reverters to see this agenda. aeschyIus (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    AeschyIus -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    And could you please create the sock category? aeschyIus (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    AeschyIus -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • RBL block lists are used by hundreds of thousands of internet service providers worldwide to block spam. They are a good thing that I think we can all agree are a necessity. However, one of them - Uceprotect - collects ransom payments via a secondary "whitelisted.org" site. After I - as well as my local, small-business clients - were affected, I began researching. I found it was Uceprotect. I almost paid the ransom because my clients are legitimate and it was affecting their business. But the more I researched, the more I found out about Uceprotect. It is mind-numbing what they have been able to get away with and for how long. The amount of legitimate communications (and likely ransom payments) they have gotten away with over the last 20 years has to be absolutely staggering. I think the page will need a lock because I do not think Uceprotect will go away easily. I think the scam is far too profitable. Easy internet search reveals a two-decade long pattern of abusive, childish and unstable communications from the proprietor - even to IETF, a standards-making body. EmpiricalSemaphore (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to add, I believe many of the hundreds of thousands of internet search providers use Wikipedia as a legitimate source of block list providers. I think it is tragic that a scammer is able to make themselves appear legitimate by exploiting Wikipedia. So the internet service providers incorporate Uceprotect which then enables Uceprotect to expand their scam. I do believe the page needs to warn internet service providers about this so Uceprotect can be systematically removed. Thank you. EmpiricalSemaphore (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My goodness! That is so not how to write an article. I encourage people here to take a look at the article. The concerns at Talk:Comparison of DNS blacklists#Procedures are vastly understated. The article has a box for link-spam. Then there's an entire section for the disputed entry, a table above the table of contents, citing a page on GitHub as a source and giving GitHub as its author, external hyperlinks peppered everywhere, and no independent sourcing for pretty much anything. Uncle G (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Arg! I know! How do we configure it properly? I'd love to correct everything as this is important at a base, global level. You've probably been affected and called up your internet service provider to inquire why you were blocked or spammed. Perhaps this type of page isn't the best use of Wikipedia since it is completely subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmpiricalSemaphore (talk • contribs) 03:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion by UrsM-Second

  • First I, UrsMair have nothing to do with Navapab3 nor Empiricaltroll. I‘m not a sockpuppet.

It is annoying to see that my account were blocked, while EmpiricalSemaphore was allowed to vandalize UceProtect‘s record again.

UceProtect has existed for 20 years, and while controversial, it is certainly neither illegal nor fraudulent nor do they extort people. The always repeated lie, that one has to pay to be removed doesn‘t make it the truth. See http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php

Some people tell lies and myths about us. Most of them run into trouble with us, because they were, or still are, learning resistant. The most frequently told lie is that a listee will not be removed until they make a payment. The truth is: Every IP listed will expire 7 days after the LAST abuse is detected, and FREE of charge.

The optional immediate removal is not available at all in the following cases:

1. If the owner of the IP or the ISP has declared to dislike this option.
2. If abuse has been seen from IPs listed in Level 1 or the backscatterer blacklist within the last 3 hours.
3. If a network area is listed in Level 2 and the listing limit has been exceeded by a factor of 10 or higher.
4. If an AS is listed in Level 3 and it is in the top 5 of the Level 3 charts.
5. If the listings in Level 2 or 3 are still increasing.

Only if these 5 criteria do not apply, there is a payment option available for any listee that does not want to wait 7 days but needs to be de-listed immediately.

If they were a pay to be removed list, anyone would have the payment option then.

The edit done by EmpiricaSemaphore afer 7 th April 2021 is nothing than badmouthing and vandalism of UceProtect‘s Wikipedia Record, which existed for nore than a dekade.

He did admitt that he and his clients are impacted by collateral listings, which means either Level 2 or Level 3, which means there is a clear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

UceProtect‘s mission is to stop the botnets, which can‘t be done by listing single IP addresses only. It is necessary that providers act quick on infected machines. While this is ok for most provoders, unfortunateley there are still a few hundret that do not care about massive abuse that is coming from their networks and ranges.

To let UceProtect users chose how strong they want to filter, there are 3 different levels, which are described in detail on the links that are also on Wikipedia. The record on wikipedia also states and did always tell anyone that removals are automatic and free but expressdelisting for a fee is optionally available.

There is no other blacklist known to me, that defined and published their listing criterias such in detail.

Level 1: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=3
Level 2: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=4
Level 3: http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=5

So how can a list that gives such detailled informations be classified as scam or fraud?

Talking about Levels 2 and 3:

Provider protection prevents Impact Counters rising more than 1 per 4 hours during the first 24 hours and 1 per hour up to the 48th hour after an IP got Level 1 listed.
If more than 6 Impacts are shown for an IP, that means the Provider ignored abuse for more than 24 hours, and is considered very bad.
If more than 30 Impacts are shown for an IP, that means the Provider ignored abuse for more than 48 hours, and is considered inacceptable.

There is no legitim excuse for any provider out there, to let an infected bot online for more than 48 hours. If they do, they are risking to get their ranges escalated to level 2 and finally their asn to level 3.

That means: Users impacted by collateral listings in levels 2 or 3 should complain to their providers. Unfortunateley some of them do not understand who is the source of their problems and blaming UceProtect instead. That are those that are badmouthing UceProtect on Websites, Fora and social media. Anyway, you can find badmouthers for every blacklist, if you really want.

As one of the other guys mentioned, at the timebof this writing UceProtect‘s Level 2 is the most accurate blocklist according to intra2inet‘s blacklistmonitor https://www.intra2net.com/en/support/antispam/index.php_sort=accuracy_order=desc.html

Therefore the record on UceProtect should be rollbacked on Wikipedia as it was before 7 th April 2021 without any wrong claims, that it would be a fraud or scam. UrsM-Second (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)— UrsM-Second (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC). MarnetteD|Talk 04:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked IP edits to this page from 115.189.0.0/16. Hope this helps. -- The Anome (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: You're going to want to expand it to WT:Administrators' noticeboard. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I've now made it sitewide. -- The Anome (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, to any admin wanting to poke at this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanCherek&diff=prev&oldid=1022512990 is interesting. The account that is named, as far as I can tell, still has userpage access. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that edit was made prior to the whole-site rangeblock taking effect. See Special:Contributions/115.189.0.0/16 for the whole contribution history. -- The Anome (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It was. Look at the edit summary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It goes without saying that they also utilize the I.P. range of 122.56.192.0/20, which ToBeFree graciously blocked for one month. There's no substance to literally anything they've said and the edits are from a high school, which tells us everything we need to know. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Since they seem to have been remarkably persistent in their other IP range, I've also extended the 115.189.0.0/16 block to a month. -- The Anome (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor DuncanRoads seems to act like he is the owner of page Nexus (magazine), claiming to be "Duncan Roads" who is the alleged owner/editor of the real-life magazine. He made a change at the article which removed useful information which was then reverted by me. I directed him appropriate policy pages that he may find useful and to discuss his edits, and then he proceeded to harass me in his edit summary.

Diffs of edits:

I'm posting here, fully understanding that I may get dinged for biting a newcomer, however their actions seem pretty hostile (most evident from their profane edit summaries and there continuous refusal to discuss their changes) but I also want to discuss what is the best course of action forward for this user so he doesn't run into any more problems in the future. DL6443 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've softblocked the account, given a template COI welcome, and semi-protected the article for a week. Fences&Windows 00:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Fences and windows: Thanks for your quick correspondence. I hope that, should this user decide to change their username and return to editing that they behave in a more civil manner, adhering to WP:COI policy. If their behaviour resumes we can simply continue this discussion further. --DL6443 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iletemhang (talk · contribs) seems to be WP:NOTHERE.

  • Linking West Africa to Central Africa and vice versa, removing sentence about Obama without removing the source (diff)
  • Removing parts of sentences, leaving incomplete sentences (diff)
  • Changing "Primarily African American" to "African American" against the referenced source (diff)

All three cases mentioned above have the edit summary "Fixed Typo" / "Fixed typo". There are more examples; I checked all their edits that had not yet been reverted and had to revert or fix all of them. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If this report doesn't get action, consider also reporting to WP:UAA: that's "I let em hang". Yngvadottir (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

With the edits they are making AND the username...yeah. Blocked as a VAU block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 176.88.29.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has always been making false information on Microsoft-related articles, and keeps undoing my edits. Can we indef-block this IP?

Diffs:

Purplneon486 (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • The edits aren't clearly vandalism, but they are disruptive. On a number of Windows-related articles they've piped links in violation of WP:EASTEREGG, for example on Microsoft Edge where they changed [[Windows 7]], [[Windows 8|8]], and [[Windows 8.1|8.1]] to [[Windows 7|Windows 7.x]], [[Windows 8|Windows]] [[Windows 8.1|8.x]], creating "easter egg" links for both "Windows" = Windows 8 and "Windows 8.x" = Windows 8.1, and as Purplneon486 reports, they're also slow-motion edit-warring across multiple articles. They've been adequately warned and I agree a block is in order, but we don't block IPs indefinitely. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP as I'm pretty sure I know who the master is. Email me if you want me to connect the dots, Ivanvector (or it's in the log if you have access to your SPI-goggles). -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone may want to look into this editor's activities in case there some connection between the underlying accounts being labeled deceased. Probably the account should be blocked, I'll be reverting every edit they made. -- GreenC 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Blakecowrie0389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Adding template for double checking. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This is obviously some sort of LTA, just block and be done. YODADICAE👽 15:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked, a clear case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have expected an apology instead of [157]. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

If you threatened to end my Wikipedia career I doubt you'd see an apology from me. I don't understand why you've brought this here. Tiderolls 16:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure ANI is the place to ask for forced apologies. YODADICAE👽 16:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Because Karma1998 has serially fabricated unverifiable sentences, and edited them into Wikipedia articles. So, the problem is WP:OR, and they are not a newbie to ignore such rule.
When they tell me I am whining, instead of them pleading having been mistaken, I guess something is wrong with their attitude. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you reporting yourself for personal attacks, tgeorgescu? The user asked you to leave them alone, I suggest you do so. You've already reported the OR issue to the appropriate noticeboard. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Then detail that instead of demanding an apology here. No one can see what the issue is without diffs. YODADICAE👽 16:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, [158], [159], [160], [161]. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It is in no way obvious what about these edits requires admin intervention. Can you elaborate? Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, first diff was [162]. It was doubly offensive, because they reverted my revert. As explained at WP:NORN:
After the 9th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.
has been changed to:
After the 10th century BCE the tribes and chiefdoms of Iron Age I were replaced by ethnic nation states, Israel, Moab, Ammon and others, each with its national god, and all more or less equal.
Although none of the WP:RS has changed. So, it wasn't just WP:OR, it was edit warring to include WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
tgeorgescu, I think you would do best to withdraw this thread, as apologies are meaningless if they are issued under duress, and concentrate on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Yahweh. Only when that completes and if you feel that not enough action can be taken at that noticeboard should you come here, with a properly titled report. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll do. Thread can be closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@Phil Bridger: @Praxidicae: @Tide rolls: could you tell this @Tgeorgescu: guy to stop harassing me and reverting my edits without any particular reason? He's been stalking me for two weeks by now and when I underlined my point of view, he derided me in a childish way, even when I offered credible evidence for it. -Karma1998 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
So, you have 8 diffs with WP:OR: [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170]. Karma1998 is not a newbie, so they are supposed to already know these aren't good faith edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to sound dismissive (I largely agree with you, though with some caveats), but I think this thread would be better suited to WP:ANI. If you file a thread, I will relate my experience checking one of Karma's edits there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
So, you have 8 edits pushing WP:OR, even edit warring to keep it, in 18 days from the start date to the end date, end date included. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you wait for? I have provided diffs, it is time that you provide your own diffs to make your case against me. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Karma1998 has edit warred against me and MPants at work to include WP:OR stated in the voice of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
And this is how I answered their edit war at Talk:Kingdom of Judah: Yup, there is no smoking gun tying Khirbet Qeiyafa to David. So, archaeologists do not know anything about Khirbet Qeiyafa being a Davidic site, that's all guessiology. They may speculate it's tied to him because they have freedom of speech and academic freedom, but not because they would have evidence about that. It's called guessiology not because they lie, but because they have no evidence for the claims they're making. If I claimed they lie, the WP:BURDEN would be upon me to produce evidence for showing them wrong. And that's precisely the problem: there is no direct evidence for any of those claims, nor for their refutations. Neither the thesis, nor the antithesis can be falsified right now. And that's the problem of the three chronologies: none of those are falsifiable.The gist: Hitchens's razor says What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Of course I don't have to be ashamed of that! tgeorgescu (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP 91.211.65.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a mass nationality-changing spree, from "British" to "English", on a host of music-related articles. Not "vandalism", not "edit warring", but disruptive. Any suggestions? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not so silly q. Do they have RS? Roxy . wooF 14:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
No, just unexplained changes. Long-established consensus is to identify UK people as British unless there are strong reasons not to do so (e.g. playing for national sports team, or elected to national parliament). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Clear block evasion by Lil Pablo 2007 (talk · contribs). Blocked, and LilPablo's unblocked request declined. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Acroterion - Are you sure it's the same individual? The IP (in edits like this) seems to have a good command of the English language, whereas Pablo 2007 doesn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that LilPablo's English was poor, but it's a startling coincidence. The IP is in France, which may or may not be relevant, and the rationales are remarkably consistent - in any case, this kind of undiscussed mass change is disruptive, whether it's one editor or two. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
LilPablo is now checkuser blocked nd the IP is blocked as a proxy. Acroterion (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I reblocked the IP address, 91.211.65.101, as a proxy. I want to be clear, I'm making no checkuser claim that this is LilPablo, only that this IP address is a proxy. I literally don't know if LilPablo was editing via that IP address, though behaviourally, it's certainly suspicious. --Yamla (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Understood, I don't expect you to be able to make any confirmation other than by behavior, but it's clear that somebody's been up to something, and I suspect the English is intentionally fractured. I was primarily responding to jpgordon's CU block of six named accounts. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
We've had a few of these types over the years. DuncanHill (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
There are a lot of these. An edit filter may be warranted, I doubt this is the last we've seen of this.Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Acroterion I just requested an edit filter LOMRJYO(talk•contrib) 14:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Solavirum has violated his topic ban (from any pages or discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan (WP:ARBAA2), broadly construed) for a third time by writing "30,000+ buildings and 250+ villages burnt to the ground by the Greek military and Greek/Armenian rebels" on the Turkish War of Independence article,[171] in addition to several other edits on this Armenia related article and it's talk page. Solavirum is also citing unreliable sources from famous Armenian Genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, including for claims of Turkish civilian deaths being over 42 times higher than what the previously cited source says. This shows that Solavirum is not only violating his topic ban yet again, but that he is also simply WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia.

Previously, Solavirum was blocked for two weeks on 7 March 2021 for discussing the subject on his talk page and asking another user to make WP:PROXYING edits for him.[172][173] He was also was given a warning by the topic ban enforcer El C not to test WP:BROADLY ("Don't even mention the topic area in any way, whatsoever."). Within a week of the block ending, Solavirum violated the topic ban again, including Armenia-related info on Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan[174] and in his own sandbox[175][176] which also falls under WP:TBAN. For the second violation, Solavirum was let off with a warning. --Steverci (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Solavirum: I've not edited that part. I've only added Turkish and Muslim civilian deaths in the Western Front, A.K.A. in the war against Greece (640,000). The article is about Turkey, mainly. I've not mentioned Armenians once in my edits in that page. The diff you've shown was a revert. That village burning part was in the article before even I edited the article for the first time. Then, McCarthy is a Western academician widely referenced in Wikipedia. Not only Turkey, but also other topics, and his work on Turkey is not solely about the genocide. If you have a problem with the author, go to the noticeboard. No, if you have a problem with Turkey, you're the one not certainly being here to build the encyclopedia. You've made several requests about me within the frame of few months. The previous request of yours was also concluded on the basis that it was not much of a violation as you put it. But, for an unknown reason, you engage in WP:WITCHHUNT against me. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Are you being serious right now? What is this whataboutism deflection fallacy you're engaging in? You have clearly been warned not to test the boundaries of WP:BROADLY [[177]], yet you have violated it as shown by your diffs. And now you're casting aspersions on the person rightfully calling you out? I agree with others that SolaVirum clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Drmies BrxBrx, contributers, please consider my comment above. My sole work in the article was about the Greco-Turkish side of the war. Never once in the article I've mentioned or implied the word Armenian, or referred to the genocide. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Solavirum, this expansion and this edit obviously mention "Armenian". That this edit is a revert is immaterial: it's still an edit in an area that is forbidden for you, and Turkish War of Independence certainly falls under your topic ban, broadly construed. And I might be inclined to say, well, the "Armenian" part is minor in these edits, etc., were it not for two things: a. the topic ban said "broadly", and b. you are here denying that you broke the rules of the topic ban. The Turkish war edit isn't uncontroversial either, as the history and the talk page indicate. And not just that--you're also accusing others of a "witch hunt". Putting all this together, I see no other option but to block you for two weeks, and I think that many will consider that relatively mild. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    • He has already gotten a two week block recently for violating this topic ban, combined with a strict warning not to test broadly again. --Steverci (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Steverci, I know that. You wrote that already. The editor was warned, and now they're blocked. Please note that emailing administrators expressing the desire to negotiate blocks is frowned upon. If you want to make a NOTHERE proposal, then do so; that is not what you did here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Drmies I never expressed the desire to "negotiate" anything. This is just becoming a recurring cycle: Solavirum is reminded what the topic ban entails, soon clearly violates the ban, writes a lengthy explanation why he didn't "actually" violate the ban, gets blocked for a short period of time, assures on his talk page that he finally understands it this time, rinse and repeat. At what point is he no longer making honest mistakes? How could he have not realized an infobox with the Armenian flag is related to Armenia? He did not learn anything from a block of only two weeks last time, so I do not understand why the same mild sanction is being applied again. How many warnings does someone need before they clearly just don't care about the topic ban? --Steverci (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
          • As far as I can tell this is only their second block for a violation of the topic ban, and while the last one was partial, this one is site-wide. So it is not the same sanction, though you might think it mild. The purpose of blocks, and the purpose of DS/AE sanctions, is not to kick editors out; it's to make them edit differently. I am not going to block someone indefinitely, certainly not per NOTHERE, after a couple of infractions that, at least from where I stand, seem minor. If you and others want to make a case out of what precisely they were using as sources, go for it, but that's not a matter for ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Original AE statement

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 18:09, 16 April 2021 - arguing based on "circumstantial evidence" (from a MEDPOP source about a Twitter group of, unsurprisingly, non-experts...) [combined with copious amounts of personal opinion and inferences]
  2. 07:09, 9 April 2021 - making a very prominent "Note to closer" (well after the discussion was stalled) based on unreliable and MEDPOP sources.
  3. 12:44, 24 April 2021
  4. 12:52, 24 April 2021 - proposing two long UNDUE sections to bring FALSEBALANCE about a FRINGE position, despite being told in the immediately preceding that even one sentence might be too much (on what is the main topic article); despite being suggested alternatives, and supposedly ignoring such objections.
  5. 15:14, 22 April 2021; - favouring MEDPOP sources (newspapers) over MEDRS (what is cited in WP:NOLABLEAK) - see also the subsequent explanations about this, including the clarification from Guy Macon
  1. 16:03, 19 April 2021 - attempting WP:SYNTH based on interpretations of twitter posts and MEDPOP sources (the other examples, particularly in the MEDRS section, also show plenty such SYNTH.
  1. 10:10, 17 April 2021 - making one long report, based entirely on the popular press, arguing mostly based on WP:SYNTH and even misinterpreting some statements which are in the sources they cite.
  2. 15:34, 24 April 2021 - after being warned about MEDRS, they repeat a comment based on substantially the same sources, which again argues pretty much the same things, and is based on WP:OR. Here, in addition, we see a clear attempt at WP:CANVASSING by selectively pinging a few editors sympathetic to their viewpoints.
  3. One long section at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation - re-arguing points raised in the previous RfC, despite being told that theirs was a misinterpretation and despite being repeatedly asked for MEDRS and providing none.
  4. 15:46, 19 April 2021 - claiming, despite the multiple MEDRS presented, that the WHO report is not scientific consensus (this section of the NOLABLEAK essay clearly shows that it is; and despite me making a long, researched comment quoting from multiple MEDRS just after this...
  5. 16:46, 19 April 2021 - ...they repeated a very similar comment just one hour later.
  6. 16:32, 22 April 2021 - This (with the two previous diffs) shows that, after being repeatedly warned about their misuse and misinterpretation of a specific statement, sticking to the same point (which they had already expressed a month prior, 02:15, 17 March 2021; here.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

So, CutePeach has been here for about 1 month, supposedly here after they saw a post on Twitter, saying saw: "[a] conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your [Wikipedia's] brinkmanship on this topic". 08:19, 18 March 2021. Per their own admission, this kind of thing is still being off-wiki canvassed(16:22, 24 April 2021; It would be better understood in the context of this ANI [178], which was all over Twitter.). Edits such as one of their very first ones (08:09, 18 March 2021) also already show a knowledge of prior events (along with further accusations of brinkmanship, obfuscation and censorship) very suspicious for a new account, which shows again the extant of the off-wiki canvassing.

Due to the fact the articles are ECP'ed (after previous socking and disruptive editing in the area, and under the GS allowed for COVID), most of their contributions which show evidence of a problem are concentrated on two talk pages: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. So far, about a quarter of their total edits have been to these two pages. These have been solely to advocate for the plausibility of the "lab leak" hypothesis; and, apparently, attempts at discrediting the WHO and the whole of the scientific community (because they, unsurprisingly, show the same skepticism about unfounded and unsubstantiated hypotheses, despite their popularity in the popular press...) - going as far as adding a tendentious header about "disregarding the WHO" when the post below it makes exactly the point that we shouldn't disregard it and that even if we did, it would change strictly nothing about the MEDRS consensus. They have, unsurprisingly, been repeatedly appraised of our policies, including WP:UNDUE; WP:NOR; and, most importantly, WP:MEDRS. And yet, despite all of this, they have yet to cite a single such source, preferring the company of the popular press and of twitter posts...

Given the repeated, persistent requests and warnings made to them about our content policies, and their failure to abide by them, their behaviour is nothing short of "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I'm heavily involved in this, but at some point editors which keep arguing the same FRINGE points are just disruptive time sinks, and they need to either accept the point and move on to something else (for ex., they've been repeatedly suggesting things which could go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, and yet their involvement in both of those pages is nearly non-existent), or be more formally topic banned from the area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The AE thread was closed (wrong venue?). So bringing this over here. The issues are as in the header: some editors are seemingly inclined on advocating for the hypothesis of a lab leak (despite statements from the WHO in their report deeming it "extremely unlikely" and multiple other reports in MEDRS such as Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities. source: "SARS-CoV-2 and the pandemic of COVID-19". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 97 (1144): 110–116. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138386 and Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory. Yet, it is difficult and time‐consuming to rule out the laboratories as the original source completely. It is highly unlikely that SARS‐CoV‐2 was accidentally released from a laboratory since no direct ancestral virus is identified in the current database. source: "SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories". Reviews in Medical Virology: e2222. doi:10.1002/rmv.2222), based on WP:SYNTH from twitter comments and WP:MEDPOP sources. This has been going on for about a year and is again reaching levels of WP:BLUDGEON proportions; and despite multiple topic bans and blocks for socking (ScrupulousScribe) and off-wiki harassment (Billybostickson), the situation is not abating, and in fact there is distinct evidence off-wiki canvassing is still ongoing (see for example the admission of WP:MEAT at the SPI, here). I request the community consider a couple of things:

  • What needs to be done in regards the enforcement of the general sanctions in the COVID area (can we make AE an acceptable venue for this?)
  • Whether any additional clarification in regards to the applicability of WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS in the COVID area are necessary
  • Whether any sanctions are necessary (topic bans, ...)
  • Whether this is still the wrong venue and we need to go to ArbCom

Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I had topic-banned Billybostickson a while ago, and Empiricus-sextus recently, for their disruptive behavior in the COVID-19 area. It is extremely difficult to apply WP:GS/COVID19 sanctions for conduct in this area, as all discussions about conduct are mixed with endless content debates that are simply continued during noticeboard evaluations. The most recent example was the ANI discussion leading to Empiricus-sextus's ban. It is also extremely difficult to draw a line between repeated iteration of valid arguments and WP:IDHT behavior, especially when there are legitimate reasons for supporting one's argumentation with walls of text. The usual reaction from editors in RandomCanadian's position would be giving up to argue with IDHT editors; I have no idea how they manage to invest this amount of time into dealing with such cases. They're not without blame either, calling a discussion opponent "overly naive" (Special:Diff/1018401000) and describing their behavior as "trolling" (Special:Diff/1018404449). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll say the same thing here as at the other AN/I thread created by RC earlier this week, about the same subject, and spawned from the same talk page argument:

Over the course of the last several months, it seems like every few weeks another extremely verbose thread about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has come to spew bile over a different noticeboard. Frankly, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can sustain caring about this for so long, in either direction; how extremely online can we get? But, moreover, it's hard for me to empathize with the argument that letting "Those Guys" have "Their Article" is inherently evil, or that "having an article about some stupid crap that was in the news" is going to somehow get people killed (note that we have articles about Strategery and planking). I've said this same thing at probably a dozen noticeboard discussions at this point -- it seems like a content dispute. This, to me, is evidenced by the fact that every noticeboard thread about it devolves into a prolonged argument about content. The fact of the "other side" being unreasonable is probably related to it being brought up dozens of times, to the point where any reasonable person would become exhausted and find something else to do.

I hope I can be forgiven for saying basically the same thing again, since this seems to be basically the same thread with basically the same content. jp×g 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One major difference is that I do not think that Strategery or Planking have killed 500,000 Americans and millions around the world. Further, there is very real concern that the so-called "lab leak" hypothesis is primarily political in nature. But the biggest issue is that Wikipedia has some very firm rules about what we write about on medical topics, how we write about it, and what sources are allowed. In this regard, WikiProject Medicine is rather different than most Wikipedia topics. See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, you are right that they didn't kill 500,000 Americans. However, the term "strategery" was mostly used in reference to the foreign policy of George W. Bush, including starting a series of wars which our article cites as having been responsible for upwards of 800,000 deaths (not Americans though). This may seem like a pedantic point to make, but I don't think that a bunch of people dying should significantly change our general editorial standards (if they are bad, we should change them for all articles, and if they are good, then they should work fine even for serious topics). jp×g 20:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Look, my personal views on the GWB administration are both unprintable and irrelevant to this discussion. But as I said above, the most important aspect here is WP:MEDRS. However, I think that there is a valid public health aspect here as well, since disease transmission involves everyone in a way that a war does not. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that a mix of topic-banning egregious offenders, and continuing to stress the importance of MEDRS in all COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 articles is probably the best path forward. Editors who flat out refuse to adhere to MEDRS and repeatedly attempt to insert non-MEDRS articles after being warned would be good candidates for TBans. Ultimately, however, this involves one of Wikipedia's weak spots, in that experts have limited time and low tolerance of added stress, while trolls, True Believers, cranks etc are very highly motivated and often have an abundance of free time. Additionally, experts may have very real fears of dealing with some of this stuff if it becomes high-drama, I certainly wouldn't want to become "Twitter famous" and have some unstable extremists trying to dox me or bring my agency into their sights, for example.

    But in the end, MEDRS is probably one of Wikipedia's true bright spots, it's an exceptionally well-written policy for sourcing medical information. Following MEDRS means that the "lab leak" hypotheses are barely more than speculation, "unlikely, but we can't rule it out" means "we can ignore this unless truly exceptional evidence shows up". Still, given how much effort I remember it took to keep Scientologist propaganda out of psychiatry articles back in the day, it won't be easy. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, this article is the perfect storm of militant stupidity, anti-vax, racism and batshit insane conspiracism. It's being policed by a handful of diligent people who are approaching burnout. Cut them some slack, eh? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hyperion35: While I agree that persistent insistence on using non-MEDRS sourcing is a problem, I disagree with taking that so far as to say "we can ignore this". Coupled with WP:FRINGE, we have an authoritative source that says how unlikely the theory is, and it's up to us to determine if it can be placed into context on a given page that makes it WP:DUE. I've assisted in making multiple sticky edits to pages that I feel have placed this hypothesis both in proper context and with due weight. I invite you to review them and see if you concur that they meet policy, and if so to revise your above statement accordingly. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that, if you go to the talk page for COVID misinformation, you will see not one, but two talk page discussions that were non-admin closed by RC (an INVOLVED editor who was actively participating in those discussions), seemingly in the middle of a conversation, with borderline-WP:PA summary language like "This proposal was dead on arrival; no need to waste time further and entertain the newest SPA" and "Despite all the hot air from political quacks and Trump syncophants, this will not get anywhere closer to being accepted by mainstream MEDRS". Regardless of whether they are correct about the political issues, this strikes me as lacking in collegiality. jp×g 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I was probably unnecessarily rude in these comments; but I note that in each case it was just repeated discussions of topics already raised and resolved otherwise on the talk page, sometimes in the immediately preceding section...; with the same issues about MEDRS and SYNTH as the previous discussions. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not happy about being mentioned by name in an ANI case without being notified on my talk page. I only noticed this because "the other Guy" was notified. I would also note this: "...including the clarification from {{noping|Guy Macon}}". Not only was I not notified with the standard template, but RandomCanadian went out of their way to make sure I wasn't pinged. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    That was copied from the original AE post (where I was not sure you would want to join in). Feel free to add you 2cents here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I've said before, we need to have an RFC on whether a disease's origins fall under Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and, if they do, clearly add it to the list on that page so there's no room for doubt. While I think the conspiracy theories are obviously WP:FRINGE, I have seen experienced editors stridently and unequovocially say both that it clearly does and clearly doesn't. It's going to come up again and again - we need to make sure the guidelines are completely clear. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • What would be the proper forum for such an RfC; are you thinking that this is something to be held on the talk page of WP:MEDRS, or would there be a better venue? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the talk page of WP:MEDRS is fine - we might want to advertise it a bit broadly because it touches on something that is currently a big deal and which people will want to know about, but it's not actually a sweeping change or anything. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
        I agree that the talkpage of MEDRS is fine. I also agree that this isn't going to be a sweeping change - because from my experience, dealing with dozens of experienced editors, is that the consensus is pretty clear among Wikipedia editors that MEDRS applies to epidemiological information that isn't purely historical (i.e. wouldn't apply to smallpox, for example) - but if it needs to be clearly added to the list then that's the right page to discuss it on. Maybe having it clearly added to the list would enable more GS enforcement against editors who are being clearly disruptive trying to claim it doesn't apply - or at a minimum it'd make it easier to say "here's a link to the guidance, consensus is that it applies" in response to people trying to claim over and over that it doesn't. I spent some time looking at this last night when I couldn't sleep and trying to think of whether a broader discussion over different pieces of information would be useful... but I think this is at least a good start. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
        I think it will be difficult to write a functional RFC question about that. Consider statements such as "Paul Politician claimed that that <condition> is caused by <something>" or "<Medical condition> was first described by Alice Expert in <country>". Would those require an ideal MEDRS source? Or only a statement that says "<condition> is caused by <something>" or "<condition> originated in <country>"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • While I agree that a more robust decision on the topic would be beneficial, I think the concern is a bit broader and more complex than just whether the origins are biomed. Common topics of conversation have included the boundary between the scientific, political, and conspiratorial; the category particular overlapping claims fit within; which COVID-19 articles require strict MEDRS throughout, which only for particular claims that are biomedical in nature; etc. I suppose we eat an elephant one bite at a time, but the level of disagreement is broad and deep. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly), {{FAQ}} isn't visible to mobile users, but might a FAQ section on the talk page help? See Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories for an example. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm generally for FAQs as they help good faith editors. It's unlikely to stop propagandists, though. —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    AFAIK there's no FAQ at any of the COVID pages under consideration (there's a current consensus section at the main pandemic article, but other than that nothing). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd like to voice a brief concern that we ensure we don't drift too far into allowing POV to the contrary to drive sanctions and policy enforcement. I worry there's a tendency to drift dangerously close to WP:GAMING while arguing against certain edits, rather than aiming for WP:CONACHIEVE. I bring this up particularly because I have had good success with several of the named 'problem users' by being civil, referring to policy, and recognizing when they make a case for something they aren't able to put into policy terms to find that common ground to build off of. While there are truly disruptive users, I would like this to be a call to the other editors on the topic to take the time to truly improve the encyclopedia, even if it means being clearheaded and finding ways to accommodate or work with requests we don't personally agree with but which abide by policy when viewed through a neutral lens. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Aquillion and Berchanhimez that the talk page of MEDRS is appropriate place to discuss "whether a disease's origins fall under Wikipedia:Biomedical information" or similar yes/no, problem solved, job done type of approach. The talk page of a guideline is for discussions about how to improve that guideline, and specific content disputes (plural) are only relevant in so far as they are relevant to modifying the guideline text. The Wikipedia:Biomedical information referred to, is an essay, and this issue has been discussed in January on that essay's talk page. It has also been been discussed at WT:MED, which is a more typical venue. I think WhatamIdoing had a good point on the essay talk page discussion: the origin of COVID, vs the origin of any other disease, is uniquely a source of conflict on Wikipedia. I've said before that I find when editors are determined to argue about whether nor not MEDRS applies, the problem they have can generally be examined by citing other guidelines and policy instead. Given the political nature of some hypotheses, it is likely some editors will remain determined regardless what guidelines say.
I don't think this is much different to aspects of global warming or the Armenian genocide, say. It is a controversy where politics mixes against experts of varying authority. I don't really see why it matters if those experts are medical, environmental or historians in terms of Wikipedia policy or guideline. I am opposed to trying to resolve this by RFC, especially one that tries to put X in or out of MEDRS, because it is clearly a multi-faceted topic. There is an IDHT behavioural problem fed by external politics, which will eventually diminish. -- Colin°Talk 14:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not generally done, but I propose to make an exception and apply extended-confirmed protection, indefinitely, to Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I could see a case for going a step further and deleting the "COVID-19 Misinformation" article and merging what little material actually meets MEDRS, UNDUE, NPOV, etc into a single paragraph in the main COVID-19 article. This is why we have (rarely enforced) rules about content forking, because we already have too many "<Scientific Topic> Controversy" pages that seem to exist solely as a repository for rejected hypotheses and conspiracy theories that would never be allowed on the main page. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    There's plenty of content on COVID-19 misinformation; and it is a notable topic. It just so happens to be a Twitter-canvassing magnet and well I must concede arguing MEDRS and UNDUE time and time again to every new account that pops up because of these off-wiki shenanigans is getting more and more irritating. Deleting the article (and I don't think that's quite necessary or helpful: despite it being a disruption magnet, there is plenty of verifiable content about misinformation which couldn't possibly be included in the main article due to WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY concerns) would just move all of this to other talk pages (Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes it's notable enough for official sites to have released reports and educational material about it, —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's already not possible to edit the article unless you're ECP, so it's not obvious how a bunch of people being silly on the talk page would actually affect content. Meanwhile, it seems like a pretty dramatic restriction to make, for not much benefit, and with quite a few drawbacks: primarily, people who complain that their criticism is being suppressed will gain a lot of credibility if their criticism is actually being suppressed. jp×g 20:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I would think it makes more sense, not less. After all, someone who cannot edit the article is unlikely to comtribute to the talk page. Additionally, having people repeatedly ignoring MEDRS to advocate for adding non-MEDRS material that doesn't belong in the article becomes disruptive and makes it more difficult to use the talk page as it is intended. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The problem is that there's a problem, but no solution, or at least no elegant one. How are we to solve the issue of new Twitter-canvassed editors trying to push their POV with poor, non MEDRS sources? Or are we better off just ignoring them - which seems even more condescending and suppressive to me than the proposal. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for up to one year - yes it's an unusual step but it can be very helpful for the super-unstable articles. My only caveat is it shouldn't be indefinite. Levivich harass/hound 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, to prevent time-sinks like this. Let people learn their craft in less contentious articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Worth a try. The lab leak articles have been dealing with bludgeoners and sealions for months, usually new users, some of whom have been recruited by an off-wiki Twitter campaign. These folks do not follow wiki-etiquette. They do not read the room and they do not reduce their intensity when they sense there is a consensus against them. They just keep posting full steam ahead. It's a big timesink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsure Weak support, regretfully. I am sure that someone's going to be confused as to why I'm not one of the most adamant supporters of this proposal, but there have been anonymous or non-extended editors on the COVID misinformation talk page who haven't been disruptive. Even those that originally come to discuss the "lab leak" tend to get the memo when it's pointed out to them - and sometimes good edits get made based on those discussions. As I've said for the time I've been watching the page, I think the problem primarily stems from two things: the lack of clarity on the subject of this article (versus the origin investigation article), and the long time it takes to get COVID-19 GS applied to disruptive editors. The lack of clarity is something I'd love to address, but when it takes time to continue responding to this disruption it's hard to have discussions about improving the article(s) to be more clear that the misinformation article is solely about the misinformation surrounding the "lab leak" and not about the investigation into the lab leak - which should be covered in depth (the history of the investigation) at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - while the theory that it leaked from a lab is a fringe theory at this point, it may turn out that it wasn't always one and that article would be where to cover it. All in all, and back to the conduct part of it, I think this is a harsh solution that would only move the problem of the WP:IDHT and WP:Bludgeoning to other talk pages - there's probably a dozen pages where the "lab leak" could fit in - be it as a legitimate part of the content, as a notable fringe theory that should at least be mentioned (as one), or discussing those who've proposed/advocated for that hypothesis - and all of them are going to be vulnerable to the same disruption if this one page is blocked for them. I think it may be a good idea to flesh out a "lab leak explanation" to be pinned to the top of the talk page or included in an edit notice for the talk page (or both), and to allow as a general sanction the removal of any talk page post that is not in line with improving the article. Alternatively (or preferably in addition), it'd help if there were some admins who watched the pages and more quickly impose lighter general sanctions so we don't need to get to the point of ANI. When IDHT or bludgeoning is observed, if within a day or two (and after one or two warnings) an admin imposes a sanction against discussing the "lab leak" only on editors, but not the rest of COVID, it may solve the problem without something this harsh. I'm just not sure this is necessary quite yet, nor that it will be the best solution. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • After seeing ProcrastinatingReader's explanation of what would potentially be doable if disruption spreads, and under the perhaps optimistic assumption that this has given me that this is being looked at and watched by many more editors now, I support ECP for this talkpage with the understanding that perhaps a topic prohibition may be necessary in the future. I didn't want it to get here but I can't see anything else that's going to make it to where myself and others can stop spending massive amounts of time and effort trying to fight off-wiki canvassing of new editors here to push a POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose ECP, support one-year semi-protection. I don't think that an indefinite protection of the talk makes sense, though I certainly understand the reasons for protecting the page for a good period of time. If our concern is new, twitter-canvassed editors, then ECP isn't required to weed them out; semi-protection would likely serve as enough of a barrier to do so. These sorts of protections should be narrowly-tailored towards the end of prevention. I have some concerns regarding the potential for future RfCs on the page to not truly reflect community consensus if we exclude (auto-)confirmed editors; the most recent RfC relating to the lab-leak hypothesis had substantial positive contributions from editors that did not have extended-confirmed permissions. It should also be noted that there's currently no consensus on whether the lab-leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or if it is a minority, but scientific viewpoint. I would caution against putting specific sanctions on the page against discussing the lab-leak hypothesis, in light of the lack of a current consensus on the issue. In particular, if an RfC is hosted on the article's talk page, I would have strong issues with excluding autoconfirmed and confirmed users from such future discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - For 3 months or more, —PaleoNeonate – 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with regular "sunset clauses". I don't edit these pages often though I once did so see them on my watchlist. They're always magnets for dubious and determined editors who sail close to the wind. Let's do something about their sails. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per Guy. --Jorm (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This discussion is not above the misinformation article, it was about a different article. What is being proposed here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, this isn't the only talk page edited by CutePeach, and if CutePeach's behavior was the only issue, a ban would be the solution. However, this is one of many threads about disruption that significantly involved Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. That talk page is a central honeypot for conspiracy theorists and IDHT behavior. Contrary to COVID-19 pandemic, the article COVID-19 misinformation is dedicated towards misinformation, and this a) causes an imbalance of many POV-pushing editors against a minority of those who uphold policies, and b) makes it much harder to argue for proper weighting and reliable sourcing. People read about the discussion on Twitter and use this specific page to jump into using Wikipedia for pushing their theories. I'd like to prevent this from happening again and again every week, leading to repetitive ANI threads and individual topic bans after long discussions, exhausting the patience of the larger community. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (with regular "until it is no longer necessary" limitation), after taking some time to think this through. I'm not sure SP would be enough against what appear to be highly motivated editors. It might, per MH10, cause some amount of collateral damage: so, what is the cost/benefit of this? Judging from the vast majority of edits to that talk page, the cost would be minimal, and the benefit would be a much higher barrier to the off-wiki canvassing, which is a perpetual timesink, and is causing more disruption than a few genuine new editors not being able to participate (per Guy, better if they learn their craft in easier areas). Concerned that this might only move the disruption to other pages, but if that happens, we'll have precedent here. Agree with @Hyperion35: that better and less reluctant enforcement of the general sanctions (already authorised by the community, and which explicitly include mentions about MEDRS and other issues) would be a good way to proceed, but seeing that few admins are willing to get involved in this area, this seems a reasonable step. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Time is a valuable resource, and too much has been wasted already. I think RandomCanadian's take on the cost-benefit balance more or less agrees with my own, and I also agree that semi-protection isn't likely to be stringent enough. (non-admin comment) XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support too much of a timesink and a drain on fleeting volunteer resources. Must be pragmatic here. If this remedy doesn't improve the issue, or it spreads to other talk pages, an ARBPIA-like general sanction limiting discussion on the origins of COVID to ECP editors may be a next step. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    This argument to me is acceptable, even if I'm sad to see that it might be necessary. I'd rather not see an entire topic blocked for all new/anonymous editors if it can be avoided, but this would actually help in seeing whether the disruption spreads or if it's miraculously confined to this one article, and then can go from there. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, if this works well it would be another tool in the belt for managing close to unmanageable major ongoing current events pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The Talk pages of these articles have been massive timesinks practically since the actual origin of the virus. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose indefinite Other than some templates nothing on Wikipedia should be protected indefinitely, and I know that it does not mean infinite. A finite period should be used. One year and it can be revisited after that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There was a high volume of controversy on the talk page, but I disagree on calling it disruptive and umproductive and calling the pro lab leak side a lost cause proved wrong. A fair assesment, in my opinion, was that most of the volume in edits responded to genuine dynamics of discussion on the internet and popular media about the virus origin. Once the final report came out, things stabilized quickly. If people still come to the talk page to edit responds in part to a genuine dissatisfaction with the general representation of the information portrayed in the entry, not solely to wiki-canvassing. Defensive measures should include allowing plurality of opinions and editors to raise their voice, otherwise it will set a precedent for ugly behavior when the same problem arises in other areas and the power is in wrong hands.Forich (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    The final report led to a lot of this disruption - people began saying "well the WHO didn't say the words 'it's false' and as such it's not false it's true!" This is disruptive because people are using the wording of "extremely unlikely" in the report (the lowest out of four possibilities) to say that it should be considered on the same footing as the most likely possibility at this time - when in reality the only reason the WHO didn't say "it's false" is because they can't say that's false until they prove the actual origin - which takes a lot of data and peer review. How long do we need to allow people who are obviously here to right great wrongs and/or advocate for their POV "raise their voice" and make good-faith editors not want to even look at the article before we start implementing sanctions? Sooner or later, you end up with medical articles that are full of POV-pushing, quackery, and flat out falsehoods because people like myself finally got tired of dealing with it with no admin help. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The disruption related to the lab leak conspiracy theory has gone on for over a year at this point. Enough is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article itself is already protected, protecting the talk page indefinitely seems extreme.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Unresolved

 – Does not resolve the real problem, which is that there is a need more uninvolved editors here, not less.

El_C, this close did not resolve the issue. ToBeFree, I don't see how your proposal to limit discussion to Wikipedia's ever-shrinking pool of WP:XC editors is a remedy. This has never been our way of resolving WP:CONTENTDISPUTES in WP:GCONT topics. Doing so creates the perfect environment for WP:GAMING by ideologues and partisans.

There have been many edit requests from IPs on the COVID-19 misinformation talk page since the article was semi-protected, which with the 1% rule as a guide, is indicative of a genuine WP:NPOV problem. Many XC and near XC editors have started discussions on NPOV concerns, including Hzh [179], Forich [180][181], ScrupulousScribe [182], Tim333 [183], DeFacto [184] Guest2625 [185], Eccekevin [186], and Hodgdon's secret garden [187]. Numerous XC editors joined these discussions, echoing concerns of NPOV, including 1990'sguy, Adoring_nanny, Arcturus, Bakkster Man, Drbogdan, Feynstein, Hobit, Horse Eye's Back, J mareeswaran, JPxG, My very best wishes, Otto S. Knottnerus, Ozzie10aaaa, NickCT, Park3r and Vaticidalprophet. many IPs and non confirmed registered editors also started and joined discussions, but no matter who starts the discussion and where, the same group of editors always show up making the same fallacious arguments. First it was WP:N and WP:V, then it was WP:MEDRS and WP:FALSEBALANCE, and now they're claiming that the WHO DG's statements aren't to be taken as the WHO’s official position [188] [189]. WTF.

There are also many WP:ANIs in the archives, all of which look very typical of content disputes, with a few displays of bad manners. In one previous ANI [190], I saw heavily involved editor ProcrastinatingReader airing the false claim that selective 2017 quotes from Richard Ebright were being spun to endorse the lab leak "conspiracy theory", when Ebright has made many much more recent remarks in relation to the matter in many RS [191], and I am citing this as an example of how some editors are to trying to turn this dispute on content into issues of conduct for admins to sanction. Ebright is the most quoted academic on this topic, which I see Jaredscribe has made a safe place for us to cover [192], or maybe not [193]. In another previous ANI involving the conduct of another very heavily involved editor on this topic, administrator DGG acknowledged the NPOV problem and evoked Cromwell's rule [194], nodding to the content dispute that it is. Yet editors persist to draw admins into this content dispute with these vexatious ANIs. This ANI was first posted in AE [195], for crying out loud.

The best solution would be for an experienced admin to leave their ivory tower and join the discussions to delineate lines between content, policy and conduct.

Tinybubi (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Tinybubi. Many arguments for and against the measure have been named in the discussion, the proposal did contain an explanation and the discussion consensus has been evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. You had seen the discussion, chose to comment below it on 08:11, 28 April 2021 in a new sub-section instead of joining it directly, and are now complaining about the discussion result. If everyone did this, this page would become unusable. Fortunately, only few people engage in such WP:IDHT behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I have brought up some serious points for administrators such as yourself ToBeFree to consider. We are seeing editors form into factions on this issue. The above "vote" proved it. Tinybubi (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Tinybubi. I attest that it is easier to draw a picture of Mahoma in a mosque than it is to insert a well-sourced tiny mention of the lab leak hypothesis in Wikipedia. But many of us who are old editors have learned that communication and persistence leads ultimately to better articles, even if one has to concede on some points. For example, as a result of this ANI I learned that the editor @Berchanhimez: is perplexed by "people who are obviously here to right great wrongs and/or advocate for their POV "raise their voice" and make good-faith editors not want to even look at the article before we start implementing sanctions?". The irony is that he and others who think like him, believe in some conspiracy that a team of editors is trying to push a conspiracy thery with false balance into Wikipedia. The constant call for privileges of authority (reduce the pool of allowed editors, reduce the pool of allowed sources) is to me a sign of lack of valid arguments on content and policy grounds. Forich (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There's ample evidence that the COVID area (and another medical area, namely finasteride) have been the subject of off-wiki brigading of non-editors to come create accounts, and in some cases they've even been instructed on how to get autoconfirmed to be able to edit semi-protected pages. It's not a conspiracy to say that groups of people outside Wikipedia are attempting to push their beliefs into Wikipedia with false balance, and doing so by forming a team of "editors" (who are really just SPAs). You clearly haven't read any of the multitude of discussions where actual editors actually came to a clear consensus on these matters on content and policy grounds and we are simply looking for administrators to help enforce this. And the fact that you call MEDRS "reducing the pool of allowed sources" as opposed to the community consensus that it's necessary to protect Wikipedia's integrity, well, it really shows that you have no business sticking your nose into medical articles. I don't appreciate these veiled personal attacks on me and others here, and your appeal to age is absolutely absurd too. Policies such as MEDRS, FRINGE, and DUE exist to protect the encyclopedia - not to appease your personal view on what should be elevated for people to read. Please don't ping me to this topic again, especially if you're going to continue blatantly ignoring the facts of the situation to make unfounded and incorrect claims about the motivations of myself and other editors. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Berchanhimez: I'm sorry if my words were received as ignorant or of veiled aggresiveness, it was not my intention. I appreciate your efforts to "protect Wikipedia's integrity", I truly do. I disagree on there being multiple discussions ending up with clear consensus on these topics, and even if it that was the case, editors should be allowed to participate for the Nth time in Talk pages as long as they slowly learn the rules and come from a good heart. I was imprecise in saying that MEDRS equals "a reduced pool of sources", I really meant to call a tendency of a few editors to start from accepting sources as valid for Covid origin only to later move the bar higher, including criteria not specified in MEDRS such as the appearance of the Journal in certain specialized PubMed indexes or if an author has published about eroticism in other unrelated work. That's precisely why I wrote my ironic stamentent (which is not a misinterpretation of your words because its verbatim, sorry if it read harshly) because it turns the arguments upside down: if there is a claim that I am part of off-wiki brigading or that I am instructed to do editing (as you seem to suggest) imagine if you were asked to provide a reliable source for that accussation, and, when provided one, that you questioned it on the grounds that the author is not an authority on calling out wikipedia conspiracies (basically an ad hominem argument). I realize now the analogy comes off as very rude, so I will not use it again. Finally, your suggestion on where to stick my nose made me feel distressed, I hope you never receive a similar invitation from a fellow editor. Forich (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Forich, instead of casting this as a battle between two sides, perhaps you should read WP:MEDRS one more time. Wikipedia has very stringent rules for adding content to medical articles. The reasons why many additions related to the so-called "lab leak" hypothesis have been removed is based on sourcing. You are certainly welcome to your opinions, but I would caution you against speculating on other editors' motives and reasoning...especially when those speculations directly contradict the reasons that those editors have laid out to explain their views. I would finally suggest that you actually take some time to read, and re-read, the discussions and sources that have been offered up to explain why a lab leak is considered unlikely by so many experts. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hyperion35:, I am familiar with MEDRS: in this diff, for example, I propose to replace information sourced on a non-MEDRS with a valid MEDRS, which got ignored several times in the talk page, and reverted twice. In this diff, to put a second example, I go as far as proposing to edit a supplement to MEDRS so as to explicitely cover the origin of the virus, because many editors have pointed out that, in its current state, MEDRS does not explicitely refer to the aspects of the origin of the virus under contention. In other words, I am proposing that MEDRS actually says what the anti-lab leak guys say it says, so that at least it makes logic to obey the rule. Finally, your statement that I am the one "casting this as a battle between two sides" is wrong, here is an earlier agitator disclosing his veiled tactics, and here he is aiming directly at me five days later. I feel frustrated that this behavior is labeled as "integrity" by some of you, specially by taking the nerve of holding it against my reputation as an editor with integrity.Forich (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh, since you pinged me back here after I asked you not to, I'll respond to your diffs. In your first one, you replaced a strong MEDRS with a weaker one - a literature review of many sources is stronger than one thing the WHO said at one time. This may be suffering from "official-itis" - just because a source is "official" does not mean Wikipedia considers them the be all end all. The proper thing would've been to add a clarification that the WHO considers that 1 December case to be invalid (not proven to not be COVID, but not valid for their purposes). The book you call a non-MEDRS was written by a person who I can see no reason is unreliable, and was published by Elsevier, which is a respected publisher of scientific e-literature. I likely would've responded had I seen your attempts at discussion, but I think you're overstating the issue there. Further, MEDRS and its supplement WP:Biomedical_information already say that it covers Population data and epidemiology - further clarification to specifically state "the origin of a pandemic/disease" shouldn't be necessary as that's been in that page for a long time and has had consensus. Regardless, it's clear you're trying to bring content issues here instead of continuing the normal dispute resolution process for those - I am going to ask again that you not ping me again to this discussion and to continue your discussions of content on their respective talkpages. If you feel like people are "ignoring" you it's likely not intentional - you can always post on WT:MED to get some more eyes on something that you feel is being unanswered on a talk page for over a week. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response Berchanhimez, I do not know if you will read this and I won't ping you again, at least on this topic. I did not expected that you resort to the this-is-content-and-does-not-belong-here argument in your response. The diffs were clearly addressed at Hyperion35, and for the record, you ignored all my rebuttal against your serious acussations. I agree that we move on. Stay civil and constructive as always. Forich (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned, I'd just like to point out that the stridency with which discussions are closed, and deletes occur on talk pages is something I haven't experienced before. When I first stumbled on this topic area, I noted that the entire business is very unusual: I still hold that opinion. Park3r (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add something since I was pinged. I just lost faith in Wikipedia after very bad encounters with conspiracy theorists who thought I was part of an outside group and didn't come to my conclusions by myself. Anything other than STEM minus Biology can go f*** right off for me on here. It became a cesspool of ideology. Good night. Feynstein (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. It also became Uber woke. Feynstein (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dilemma for closing admin

edit

According to Alexbrn, Wikipedians disagreeing with his POV on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and his interpretation of WP:PAGs on the topic are "miscreants" who should be dragged to WP:AIN and sanctioned by the "uninvolved community" [196]. Except that the majority of editors here voting to protect the page also voted in a recent RFC to label the lab leak hypothesis a "conspiracy theory", and did not change their vote even after the March 30 report from the WHO confirming it as a plausible hypothesis [197]. So much for Jimbo’s "open community" here. Tinybubi (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have a POV on this stuff, other than it's a bleeding nuisance taking up too much time (which is why I've largely ignored these pages in recent weeks). Wikipedia is not decided by "a majority" who "vote". And yes, we've had plenty of miscreants: puppets, attack dogs, trolls and WP:PROFRINGE obsessives, who have needed to be blocked or banned. What's doubly incredible is that the article does not even just say that the lab leak stuff is "conspiracy theory": it's more nuanced than that. Not paying attention to evidence is a hallmark of the advocates' approach here. Note that Tinybubi is another WP:SPA banging this particular drum. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Just saying, Jimbo hasn't really been relevant on Wikipedia for years. And the few times he does step into a debate, he makes things worse. So an appeal to Jimbo isn't going to mean much. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the RFC you reference happened specifically in the talk for COVID-19 misinformation, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that the answers given on that page might differ significantly in the context of other pages. Most notably, both Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 discuss the topic as a WP:FRINGE alternative theoretical formulation as is appropriate for the context. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring the drum banging, "extremely unlikely" (what the WHO report says) does not sound like "plausible" theory" to me. That, in addition to the other MEDRS cited and ignored ad nauseum... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this perspective, as I've mentioned previously. This seems to clearly fit the WP:FRINGE definition of an 'alternative theoretical formulation', not pseudoscience. I'd go so far as to suggest that interpreting a WHO study into the hypothesis makes the hypothesis 'implausible' could be interpreted as a similar level of POV-pushing as the interpretation that the investigation into the lab leak hypothesis was uniquely flawed. Complete dismissal as implausible doesn't seem to match the guidelines in FRINGE, and would potentially prove Tinybubi right if there were content decisions being made on POV rather than policy. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The lab leak story is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience pretends to be science but isn't science at all. This story could be bad science. It could be wrong, just like many other ideas in science that were duly investigated and dutifully discarded when the ugly facts didn't align with the beautiful theory (see, e.g., most experimental drugs, the use of bone marrow transplants to treat breast cancer, arthroscopic knee surgery for arthritis, etc.). It currently is "extremely unlikely" to have actually happened that way, and there is significant evidence that it did not happen that way, but saying that it was possible for a virus to escape from a lab that contained that virus is not technically pseudoscience.
[NOTE: There is no evidence that any lab, much less the specific one usually named in this story, actually contained any copy of SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak started. I'm only saying that it's not pseudoscience to say that that it's physically possible for any given portable object, "A", to be ported from one place, "B", to a different place, "C".] WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been using string theory as a useful analogue for how to handle a fringe theory. Both have adherents that see either an element of existing theories that doesn't yet have a satisfying explanation, or are attempting to explain a seeming inconsistency with mainstream theories. But like string theory, the lab hypothesis lacks firm data in its support that can't be explained through the other theories, and struggles to make satisfying predictions with which further research can be based. So, just like with string theory, it should be referenced only when necessary to adequately explain a topic (the electron article doesn't include a string theory representation, supersymmetry does include discussion of string theory as it is the problem the theory is intended to explain problems with). And, to point this out again since it seems to get talked about as if this content isn't present anywhere but the misinformation article, this had led to the addition of references to the lab theory (particularly the WHO evaluation) across multiple COVID articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should be comparing string theory, something of legitimate scientific inquiry but that is largely unfalsiable, with a fringe hypothesis primarily advocated by people with no scientific expertise on social media and used as a geopolitical football. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have a more relevant analogue to suggest, I'm open to hearing it. Perhaps climate change, regarding the political football nature. But I will disagree that the lab hypothesis has no 'legitimate scientific inquiry'; if that were the case the WHO report would not have evaluated it. The challenge is, of course, separating those with scientific expertise and strong scientific sources regarding it (in this case, "extremely unlikely"), from those advocating for tangential pseudoscience they hoped to sneak under the umbrella. I'd argue throwing the baby out with the bath water is nearly as bad as allowing the pseudoscience to sneak in. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
None of the people on twitter advocating for the "lab leak" suppostion are virologists, and the virologists I've seen have been vocally against the theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
"The people arguing for it on Twitter aren't virologists" is a straw man argument.
Robert R. Redfield is cited in the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as a virologist who is a proponent of the theory (although he doesn't appear to have a personal Twitter account, he can let the mainstream press do the heavy lifting). I had meant to add microbiologist and immunologist David Relman to the section as well, so thank you for reminding me. Relman's published opinion on the topic for reference. The names Nikolai Petrovsky and Alina Chan also come up,[198] though I probably wouldn't consider them prominent enough to include in the text of an article. So that's four serious professionals within the field advocating for at least the consideration of the hypothesis to some extent, which the WHO did. IMO this is evidence it is a legitimate scientific hypothesis being researched seriously by legitimate scientists, just an "extremely unlikely" hypothesis right now. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
per The New York Times it's pretty thoroughly discounted at this point. If it is supposedly an "extremely unlikely" hypothesis, why do you continue to argue that undue weight be lent to it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
An per NPR it has "taken on new life" since the WHO report was published. I'm writing a reply on the SARS-CoV-2 talk page to cover that content specifically. But I'm curious why you characterize my comments as arguing in favor of undue weight? I very much do not want undue weight, and that applies as much to dismissing it offhand as a 'social media geopolitical football' as it does to giving it a place of prominence on a primary COVID article. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
As WAID notes, the lab leak theory isn't pseudoscience, though it has other issues. There is a parallel that I don't know if it has been considered wrt Wikipedia editing behaviour. In 1978 there was an outbreak of smallpox in the UK. In that case, the accepted version of events, after a public enquiry, was that the virus did leak out of the lab, through air ducts, and infected someone in the same building, who then died horribly. An alternative version, suggested by some, including Mark Pallen in the book The Last Days of Smallpox, is that this person visited the laboratory, possibly against the rules, and got infected while there. Scientifically, this and the lab leak hypothesis of covid are very similar. I don't see anyone edit warring about this on our smallpox articles. I note that Pallen's book is "independently published", an attribute I think would cause many people here fighting covid wars to snort their tea out of their noses. The book got glowing reviews in some infection-disease journals. In the smallpox case I think reasonable people come to different conclusions, can agree to disagree, and accept we may never know. Nobody, after all that time, is going to re-open the enquiry.
I hope you can see why I'm uncomfortable trying to create a huge hurdle for any "origin of disease outbreak". There are loads of diseases where people are trying to investigate the origin, and publish their findings and speculation in literature of varying authority. The difference between the two outbreaks here is politics, and the kind of politics where the truth is not important. Any solution to this problem has to address that, and I don't think MEDRS is the tool you want to use. -- Colin°Talk 10:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, I think we have some editors making this distinction (eg yourself & WAID), some who are trying to use policies and the carefully worded comments of the former group for the purpose of promoting this stuff in an undue fashion, and then you have some who take hardline positions to avoid giving anything to wikilawyer with. If I remember correctly, a few SPAs quoted and took out of context some of WAID's earlier comments to try argue their content into articles. Since (unfortunately) Wikipedia's processes often favour hardline positions and argumentation via strict textual analysis of policy, it seems more understandable why some might not wish to give any way to (mostly) SPAs with possibly questionable intentions (given their offwiki commentary). That would probably include the MEDRS application issue. This then also seems to blur the distinction between those engaging in neutral editing vs political POV pushing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Your comment on rule lawyering probably hits the nail on the head. It's incredibly difficult, frustrating, and sometimes counterproductive to accurately apply policy when confronted with a bad actor. Even more when it's multiple bad actors each seeking to inch the line bit-by-bit towards the POV they're pushing. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether it is "truth" or "correct application of policy" there are some involved in this area who are not interested in playing by the rules. There are two consequences though if you try then to make stricter rules (give people a bigger hammer to hit others with). Firstly, those who aren't writing about controversial subjects and who want to follow the rules, find themselves restricted when the sources they can access or find are less than the highest of highest quality. They may be wrongly told by others than you must have a systematic review from a top tier journal, say. And secondly, those who get over familiar with hitting others with a big hammer then go around removing perfectly correct and adequately sourced uncontroversial text from articles, and getting into wars with newbies who are perplexed why some "vandal" is removing information that is, to their eyes, correct and well sourced. -- Colin°Talk 17:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that in my comment which seems to have sparked this, I explicitly did not use the term "pseudoscience" but FRINGE - which does not alter the recommended course of action whether the subject is pseudoscience or speculation which is theoretically possible but not supported by the vast majority of qualifying sources. That, and my first hand looks at the posts of the Twitter SPAs which obviously doesn't bring any confidence about the methodology or motivations of these editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I have not seen any significant evidence that it didn’t happen that way in any of the RS or MEDRS we have. Not every virus sampled by every WIV laboratory would have been fully sequenced, and not every virus that is sequenced would have been immediately published. In fact, the WIV took down their database of published genomes in Sep 2019, which they haven’t put back up since. That the WIV did not hold the precursor of SARS-COV-2 is a claim that hasn’t been verified, and if you want to take them at their word, I have a bridge to sell you. The WIV’s partial disclosure of a virus most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 that they held for seven years caused quite a stir, and their leak of a diagram on an unpublished clade of related viruses has only intensified the controversy. This is all in RS now and there are more unsalutary details emerging. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Based on your response here, I don't think you should be editing articles that touch this subject. That kind of Wikipedia:Original research analysis belongs in some other publication entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man: I think a better analogy would come from an applied science field, where through the scientific method, we can test a working hypothesis, as detailed in this third open letter published last week [199]. Using the analogy of a plane crash, such as Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 or Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the Russian and Malaysian governments didn’t give their full cooperation to investigators or didn't provide enough data to investigators, which changed the balance in the paradigm layed out in WP:FRINGE. In those cases, the alternative theoretical formulation would not be the correct designation for a hypothesis formulated in the absence of access to flight recorder data or debris. The authors of our articles on those two events have taken care not to present expert opinions as facts in Wikivoice, even though there are very good reasons to believe that the Russian government are responsible for the deaths of 298 passengers and that Captain Zaharie took 238 souls with him on a suicide mission. Those articles set a high standard which we should uphold in the topic area of COVID-19 origins, a public health crisis with geopolitical undertones. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Colin: a better parallel I think would be the 1977 Russian flu, where we have MEDRS with supporting phylogenetic evidence of lab origins. In the WP:MEDASSES pyramid in relation to virus origins tracing, sources with supporting material or forensic evidence should be assessed as the highest quality, followed by those with phylogenetic or serological evidence, and then testimonial or circumstantial evidence. The Chinese government are currently refusing to subject their Wuhan laboratories to a forensic investigation, and they are not providing much phylogenetic or serological data to the WHO for analysis, which is why the US government believes it will take a whistleblower to provide testimonial evidence [200]. According to a report from The Times, the US allegedly has a whistleblower already [201], but it's not clear what they know and a bill was introduced last week requiring the administration to declassify their intelligence [202]. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: this is the earlier comment from WAID that you seek [203]. It was mentioned in a conversation I was tagged in [204]. I echo her point that we should just "not write anything about which no information is available", on COVID-19 origins. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
CutePeach, why are you trying to persuade the good people who are active on this noticeboard that Covid came from a lab? That's not the purpose of this board. I referred to another "lab leak" case as an example of an "origin of outbreak" that isn't causing grief on Wikipedia. While MEDRS does spend some time explaining a pyramid of evidence quality, part of that is to explain to editors why our best secondary sources prefer and give weight to certain studies or research over others. At the very top of MEDRS is a nutshell "Cite reviews, don't write them". It isn't our job to judge the primary evidence, but being aware of evidence-quality is useful. Your comments immediately above sound like someone trying to convince others based on primary evidence, statements, etc. None of us are here to be convinced by such arguments, nor want to read such arguments. None of us here are forensic archeaovirologists or whatever one needs to be. Solving the origin of covid is a hard problem. Let's leave that to other people, preferably lots of bright experty people, to become convinced one way or another, and write about it. And then you can tell us "Most reliable sources writing about the origin of covid say that ....". We'll go with what they are saying now, even if you personally think they are wrong and think will change their minds, and later we may go with something different. -- Colin°Talk 19:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
+1 to Colin. Anyone who is actually a bright experty person should be publishing their analyses elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Another +1. But, as a further illustration of the issue, WP:LABLEAKLIKELY has sprung up. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
So we've sprung a leak. EEng 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

edit

With the above proposal now closed, that still leaves two out of my original bullet points (which were pretty much ignored, except for some discussion about which venue would be most appropriate for the second point):

  • What needs to be done in regards the enforcement of the general sanctions in the COVID area (can we make AE an acceptable venue for this?)
  • Whether any additional clarification in regards to the applicability of WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS in the COVID area are necessary?

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The first is up to ArbCom, hopefully they will address it during the current DS review, as it has already been suggested there. The second is (probably) a no. I agree with Colin's comment, and the indication that the issue here is editor behaviour not necessarily our content policies. In any case, it is likely better discussed somewhere other than ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself and not for ArbCom or any other arb, the idea of how to make AE an appropriate venue for GS sanctions makes my head spin and so I've just avoided replying to this even though I've seen it. In theory I suppose ArbCom could just say "sure you can if you want". However I suspect that this wouldn't be too well received by the community (or at least a vocal segment of it) or at least not well received without prior consensus from the community that this is a good thing. It also feels like there might be other complications as well to mixing things the arbitration committee completely is responsible for (the current AE scope) and things it is not (community leveled GS) especially given that community leveled GS are a bit of a mess and achieving community consensus to clear up that mess is, I think, actually harder than wrangling 8 votes on the committee when we make a mess with DS. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I do think that your second point, about additional clarification of MEDRS might be useful. My view on that isn't limited to this specific page, this is an issue that pops up on a number of other medical pages. MEDRS is fundamentally different enough from the standard Wikipedia RS rules that it is entirely possible for an experienced editor who rarely touches medical articles to make good faith mistakes. After all, normally an in-depth investigatory article in a major reliable news media source, like the NY Time, Washington Post, etc, would be an excellent source of additional material for an article on, say, a military topic. In fact, I remember an excellent Washington Post investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib many years ago. But MEDRS has higher standards than that, specifically because many media reports on medical topics, even from highly reliable sources, tend to contain egregious errors and almost always include false balance (ie "expert A says M&Ms cause cancer, expert B says this is doubtful").

    Now, I don't think that this is going to solve most problems with editor behavior, because at least some of the difficulty here involves non-experts wading into a very difficult field. It will likely reduce good-faith mistakes, and it could count as a warning of sorts that might make it easier to impose sanctions on editors who repeatedly insert non-MEDRS content. Ultimately, though, even if I go to the talk page and discuss the content directly, as someone who is qualified to speak to both the medical and political sides of the issue, I can't teach these editors how to think like a public health expert. And ultimately I think that's one source of these problems, it's a CIR issue. We can persuade them that there is a consensus, maybe, but they won't accept why that consensus exists. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Procedurally, a much better way to proceed here would be to file a new arbcom case regarding COVID-19 area specifically and request that the area be placed under WP:ACDS. Arbcom could accept such a case and resolve it by motion. ACDS would basically replace (or technically, complement) GS in this area, and the main substantive difference would be that WP:AE would then be available as a venue. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My suggestion is a new stand-alone Wikipedia:COVID noticeboard that supersedes several of the talk pages on this topic, as well as FTN/RSN discussions. The board would certainly need to be semi-protected, and editors who insist that MEDRS should be ignored (not accidentally, but deliberately) should be topic-banned or page-banned. It is difficult to even track down all the discussions on COVID controversies, and I have found (and contributed to) parallel discussions occurring on multiple pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I would support this if there's a decent chance admins would intervene when necessary. Unfortunately, even when issues have been brought to the "high traffic" places such as here, it takes a lot to get action. I worry that segregating it to a less-watched noticeboard would further decrease the number of uninvolved admin eyes and thus make it harder to get action on disruption. I agree that maybe a content board would be a good idea, but that it would still need to be monitored for disruption. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

For someone who view the page about misinformation about the COVID-19. I have question, should it be placed under American politics 2 DS and places 1RR on it? I believe the proposal is reasonable because more than 50 percent of the content are more related about U.S., U.S. politics, and related pages despite having international coverage about the disease misinformation. 182.1.53.157 (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's already subject to general sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
@182.1.53.157: This sure is a weird place to make your first edit on Wikipedia. That said, I think COVID-19 is already under general sanctions, so there's no real benefit for it to be under two sanction areas at once. jp×g 05:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Just a note to everyone in this discussion that a conversation related to the applicability of WP:MEDRS has started at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information. To be useful, I think it needs more people to contribute. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Mikeymikemikey (talk · contribs) With this edit [[205]] I think enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I don't know what you're expecting to achieve by doing this? It's been two days, today is day two. Today I have merely replied to those who have @ me on the talk page. You were secondary comment to someone one who actually engaged in discussion.
I have not been abusive, I have not edited the main article, have not harassed individuals, I merely stated my argument and I explain it further to those who engage in discussion. This attempt to report me is in bad faith and wastes the time of administrators who need to deal with vandalism and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeymikemikey (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion had been closed [[206]] Despite this you choose to continue [[207]], refusing to accept policy. You have questioned the use of wp:rs (as a policy) [[208]]. Accuses users (note this is just one example) of stonewalling and wikielayering (for arguing based upon policy) [[209]]. Accusations of being part of a cable [[210]]. Nor is there any evidence you will stop until you get your way (despite the third diff).Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven"Nor is there any evidence you will stop until you get your way?" It's been two days and you assume I'm some evil doer. Is not ridiculous one can just close a conversation at a whim within a hour of it's posting? First close, the person didn't understand my point, so closed it erroneously assuming I was saying sources aren't reliable, I explained and he just ignored me at first. So I expanded. But then another closed it with a few hours because I bolded the quotes. Sorry, I didn't realise bolding that was closable offence. The point was never engaged nor debated, so the close was not due to a natural end either.
So I left, I said "I give up". Because clearly the talk page was hostile. I didn't reopen it as you accuse, I just responded to posts directed at me, which involved explaining my point I guess. Then you rudely accused me of badgering when I haven't badgered anyone.
Also, I said "Cabal" on MY page. It was not a formal accusation on the talk page of the article in question, it was just an acerbic jest because I was vexed by this hostile behaviour. The use of these Wikipedia Alerts/reports, or whatever you call it, is a blatant over reaction to a very simple request for a definitional change had the smell of partisan intimidation. As we are here, I now don't think that it's outlandish.
fyi, Stonewalling is the refusal to communicate or cooperate, I've done neither. You're using your interpretation of the Wikipedia policy to shut down communication and avoid cooperation, how is that not stonewalling?
So that's it. Two days, and this is your behaviour.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
(Note I am involved in this dispute, not commenting as an uninvolved admin). This probably ought to go to AE, but I agree that Mikeymikemikey has been disruptive with repeating the same arguments over and over, and seems either unable or unwilling to accept our policies. Their comments on the talk page appear to be demands that editors find sources to satisfy an arbitrary standard of detail in a source describing why PV is "far-right", rather than accept that many high-quality sources use the descriptor. They also seem unable to understand that, much how a square is a rectangle, a far-right organization is right-wing (or conservative), and have been repeating the argument that sources not describing PV as "far-right" but using the broader terms are somehow contradictory. Mikeymikemikey is a new editor who seems insistent on wading into a fraught topic area. While I admire new editors who wish to do this, they also need to be willing to make a good-faith effort to understand and follow our policies. Their misunderstanding or rejection of WP:RS and the suggestion that they can make personal attacks at their talk page because it's not a "formal accusation" suggests they are not.
As some background to any admins who review this, there have been multiple recent AE discussions (Vojtaruzek, filed April 16, indeffed; Pkeets, filed April 17, warned; Plebian-scribe, filed April 18, AP topic-banned; Airpeka, filed April 21, indeffed) all involving disruption at Project Veritas and its talk page. The talk page even had to be protected recently because of the number of IP editors and SPAs coming there to either soapbox or repeat the same arguments. The protection has just expired; we'll see whether the disruption resumes. But either way, PV has been a hotbed of disruption lately and Mikeymikemikey is just the latest in a long string of such POV-pushing accounts. Any extra admin eyes on the page would be appreciated, particularly given the protection expiry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, whatever, if the article with a lead like that is considered unbiased writing, then I guess it's a good thing I don't frequent Wikipedia often.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

And yes, a load of IP's and/or SPA's have fetched up to ask the same questions over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See here. This probably accounts for the vast number of attempts to whitewash the Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the last 24 hours. FDW777 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with ProcrastinatingReader.--Visnelma (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is now in the news in Turkey, so I think we can expect further disruption. More eyes on this would be helpful. FDW777 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Would it be relevant to semi-protect a talk page

edit

As some of you know, the article Turkish War of Independence is today called out as a "Wikipedia scandal" on several Turkish news outlets [211], [212], [213]. The "scandal" consists of good users collaborating to reflect reliable sources accurately (I'm not involved myself, having never edited the article, but hats off to those who have such as User:Buidhe, User:FDW777 and others). Because of this news coverage, the article sees an extraordinary amount of nationalist activity. The article was already semi-protected, and several registered users indeffed, but the talk page is also getting out of hand. Semi-protecting a talk page is unusual, but this is also an unusual situation. Jeppiz (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts myself. There are a whole lot of accounts (possible related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus) posting disruptive content on the talk, involved users' talk pages (one has been protected), and (clearly bogus) UAA reports of all places.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I protected for 3 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
re: disruption, I would recommend not filing SPIs at this point because it's just going to inundate clerks and it's unlikely to be useful. Can we just report at AIV and move on? Also perhaps a filter would do well like we did with the Caliphate scandal a few months ago. Grogudicae👽 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Just reverted an IP edit here on the same thing. I have the feeling it's going to be like the Caliphate all over again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Grogudicae, good point. How about a subpage (somewhere, anywhere) to list the various usernames, IP ranges for examination at a later date? I think it might be worth having a central page for co-ordination. ——Serial 15:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure it would be worthwhile re: IPs and accounts since many of them are going to be true SPAs and not the same person (like the WP:CALIPH crap). Grogudicae👽 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I have most of them listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus, I started much earlier today.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Greek War of Independence

edit

Over at Greek War of Independence, Meambokhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, since 11 April, mirroring the ethnic changing language from the Turkish article. Warring against multiple users. Today this account was joined by Unreadedcontent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 188.57.17.121. I have an inkling suspicion this is all related and merits attention.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend blocking Meambokhe. Edit-warring and disruptive on several articles and talk pages today. Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Now we got an extended confirmed user Aybeg doing the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi! The information I have added is referenced. I don't think there are any mistakes in my contribution. I'm not one to go to an edit war. I have no intention of that. If anyone thinks otherwise about the topic, they can discuss it among themselves. - Aybeg (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aybeg: if, as you claim, the information is referenced please provide the quotes requested at Talk:Greek War of Independence#Quotes requested. I have looked at the relevant pages of two of the claimed refereces and cannot see how the text is properly referenced, and the third reference is likely to be meaningless since it was published in 1897, a long time before "ethnic cleansing" was ever used. FDW777 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I was confused as well. Found this via AIV and incorrectly ECP'd the page as an intermediate measure against sockpuppetry that didn't happen in this way. I'm out; I hope people keep WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN in mind. The content of the article is probably best discussed on the article's talk page. Strictly separating between behavioral discussion here, and content discussion there, is probably a good idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Today, in the last 2 hours, Chelston-temp-1 has moved at least 40+ pages with no discernable consensus to confusing, lengthy games which I will detail in a moment. I wanted to start this to stop the disruption as they haven't listened to the 4+ editors on their talk page here or to the warning they received from an admin in 2019. This disruption needs to stop so we can determine what, if any moves are actually legitimate. YODADICAE👽 15:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I took WP:BOLD too far and have tried to be helpful when doing edits. I've actually put one request in at WP:RM --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
You say that, and then continue months or years down the road. You were warned after an admin warned you here and didn't bother stopping. You created a huge mess including creating weird subpages in mainspace and haven't bothered to clean any of it up. YODADICAE👽 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to try and stop, I'll go to WP:RM; hopefully this doesn't need Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean "I'm going to try and stop"? (my emphasis) - either you stop or we make you by way off a block. Which is it going to be? GiantSnowman 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll stop, but I am trying to make good mainspace contributions, even if small. Yes, I fucked up. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Quite brisk at it, between 14:29 and 14:59 they made 62 moves (+62 corresponding talk page moves) approximately a move every 29 seconds.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm wondering, given the talk page full of notices about non-notable subjects, what else should concern us. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I did try and source articles, wrote about things that I thought were notable due to third-party sources. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Glad to see I was not the only one bothered by this. I would like to express my support for the move for Volkswagen Golf (sixth generation), otherwise I see no useful moves. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I have to ask, what assurances will there be that you won't make a massive mess again in the future? Because apparently being asked by myself, Mr.choppers, Serial Number 54129, Gricehead, Amakuru, Paine Ellsworth and Magnolia677 didn't help. I'm glad you admit you screwed up but knowing that you did and continuing to do it until it was brought to ANI is a problem and leads me to believe that a topic/pban is appropriate. YODADICAE👽 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Chelston-temp-1, what made you think that moving 2017 Las Vegas shooting to 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas would be a good idea? If anything it is known for Mandalay Bay Hotel, the Harvest Festival isn't even in the lead.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Esoterix I had the same question when they moved Trolley Square shooting to 2007 Trolley Square shooting, Salt Lake City and Doping in Russia to Use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes in Russia, among others. I keep ecing here (it took me 14 tries to get my last comment in) but i'm working on putting all the moves in my userspace to show what was moved where more clearly than just the move log) YODADICAE👽 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to be topic banned/permabanned, that article move was a bad idea now in hindsight. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that there was a copy/paste move included in the mess of moves covered here. That probably needs sorting out. List of equipment of the Austrian Army →List of military equipment used by the Austrian Army. Can we not just get the whole lot reverted? Gricehead (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
We may as well just revert, this was a STFU of my own making. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggest a topic ban from all page moves, to be lifted only if Chelston-temp-1 demonstrates that they fully understand WP:AT and that they know the difference between an uncontroversial move and one that requires an RM. It seems these were made in good faith, but given that it isn't the first time it's happened, we need to put a measure in place to ensure it doesn't occur again in future. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I will re-read WP:AT, even though I tried with the page-moves, and it didn't work; I don't want a topic ban. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've blocked this user indef. As I said at his talk page, "I would really, really recommend that, if this user requests an unblock, the reviewing admin look at their long history of page move disruption, which continued for several years even after advice/warnings/blocking, and their long history of creating inappropriate pages. At an absolute minimum, I'd recommend a permanent or near-permanent ban from page moves as an unblock condition. Making mistakes because you're new is one thing; making the same mistake over and over after multiple warnings, over the course of several years, especially making mistakes that are going to take several hours of other people's work to clean up, is another. Complete lack of respect for other people's time." The final straw is noticing that they made the exact same apology ("I guess was a little to WP:BOLD, sorry") for the exact same disruption a year ago, April 2020. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Fair enough. It sounds like the WP:IDHT runs strong there, and your conditions seem sensible.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I found this after seeing his move. The move that really struck me was this move, where Killing of George Floyd was moved to Police shooting of George Floyd. Making similarly disruptive moves repeatedly after being told to stop multiple times is grounds for a ban on any page moves. If the user wishes to be unblocked they can at a minimum be banned from moving any pages, and must use WP:RM if they want a move. While I have no doubt that there are in good faith, they simply fail to grasp how and is moves should be done on Wikipedia.
aeschyIus (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I've started the list here but also posting here as I update. There are some that might be okay but by and large they don't look appropriate and are overly detailed/long:

YODADICAE👽 15:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I tried to reverse the List of modern equipment of the German Army move and made it worse by accidentally moving to List of modern military equipment of the German Army. If someone could reverse my cockup at the same time, that would be much appreciated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett - Looks to be   Fixed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Somebody from Georgia has been persistently adding unreferenced novel comparisons to film, theatre and television awards articles, primarily in the form of daggers and double daggers indicating one award winner has also won another award.[214][215] I have warned them many times but they are uncommunicative, having never once used a talk page. They have returned to articles at which I removed the NOR and have restored it.[216]

The person has been doing this kind of stuff for years, at least as far back as 2015–2016 using the nearby range Special:Contributions/2602:306:CD46:DC70:0:0:0:0/64, with this typical edit adding daggers and double daggers with an explanation of what they mean.[217] Another nearby IP doing this stuff was Special:Contributions/23.25.104.33 in 2016.[218][219] Other indication symbols might include the asterisk, the wavy equivalence sign, the plus–minus sign or the section sign.

All of this would be fine if there were reliable sources cited for the comparisons. For instance, the Burlington County Times has a comparison of how much other film awards might predict an Oscar. But that's a general discussion, not specific to each film entry. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think it's OR by itself, but it's unsourced and does violate WP:NOTSTATS and MOS:NOTES. Waiting for an administrator to block the range mentioned by OP for... 2 years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Following on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Jonesey95 and template redirects, Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) has today continued to create template redirects to the cite templates[220][221] knowing that there are multiple deletion discussions[222][223] continuing about such redirects. Continuing with a series of edits after being asked to stop and while discussion is ongoing is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If editors here refuse to impose a topic ban, can we at least agree that such redirects should not be created while discussion is ongoing? DrKay (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This harassment and failure to follow dispute resolution processes needs to stop. In both of these instances, editors have come straight to ANI without attempting to discuss these redirects with me at my talk page. Getting dragged to ANI, even when the accused editor is judged to be innocent, harms the reputation of the accused editor. The current discussions about template redirects are about redirects from typos. I have not created any redirects from template typos since the current discussions were started. The redirects I created today, e.g. Template:citar ref are uncontroversial redirects from foreign-language versions of those templates, of which there are many existing examples (e.g. {{Bokref}}). In each of those redirect pages, I explained that the templates should be changed to their English-language equivalents. I don't see this exact guidance at WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, but it should probably be added there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
comment, these are clearly not typos, but redirects that assist in translation (similar to {{cita web}} and all the rest). I have no idea why this has been elevated so quickly to ANI. Frietjes (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that I closed the previous discussion, and was asked by Jonesey95 to review this thread. I would be inclined to close this one much the same way. Although I probably disagree with Jonesey95 and agree with DrKay about the benefits of these redirects, I really don't understand the repeated decisions not to discuss it with him first. Particularly DrKay's decision to come here after the first ANI discussion closed the way it did. ANI sucks. It should be used after other options are exhausted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The issue has been raised with the editor multiple times and this is the fifth or sixth discussion on the issue to which I have contributed. Discussion at the other venues has been circumvented by Jonesey95 or met by sarcasm and scorn (as on his talk page now), thus leading to the post here. DrKay (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The issue of Jonesey95 creating redirects in general has been raised multiple times? Or the issue of Jonesey95 creating redirects from foreign-language templates? If the issue of Jonesey95 creating redirects from foreign-language templates has been raised multiple times, then that would have been an excellent thing to link to in the opening post. Or now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The issue of creating redirects to cite templates, as mentioned and linked in the opening sentence. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Then you should have realized this was different. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • These strike me as reasonable ways to deal with translations, but regardless of whether they are or aren't, this seems to be something quite distinct from the previous ANI issue - and even there, the close didn't say Jonesey95 shouldn't create template redirects. This shouldn't have been brought to ANI. Guettarda (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The previous (rejected) complaint was narrowly centred around typo redirects (and a certain alleged pattern of behaviour around them). Alternate language redirects for templates - although I personally think they need to go for similar reasons (this is the English Wikipedia; we do not need German template names in wikitext) - is a content dispute. One that has not yet been discussed in any content/policy venue AFAICS, and the creation of these is not explicitly barred by any PAG, consensus, or ongoing discussion. There are no grounds to raise a conduct complaint. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)