Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Drassow

I am raising concern about personal abuse directed at me by User:Drassow. On 5 May Drassow wrote the following on a user talk page: "Sounds like you're the different side of the same coin for atheism. You're acting like a manchild over Slugger being in favor of a synonymous term that makes sense contextually." [[1]]. They used the term "petty manchild" again against an administrator User:JzG [[2]]. I asked Drassow to explain or apologise but they blanker their talk page with the words "Still don't care dude" [[3]] Can someone advise on how I proceed please? Thank you in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I really dislike writing anything here as rule... but OK, I'll just float something from the teachers (and parents) playbook.

Scenario 1

• Child performs attention-seeking behaviour
• Teacher reacts to attention-seeking behaviour
• Child thinks "this is working", and continues attention-seeking behaviour

Scenario 2

• Child performs attention-seeking behaviour
• Teacher pointedly ignores attention-seeking behaviour
• Child thinks "this is not working", and discontinues attention-seeking behaviour

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that a warning may be in order about WP:PA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Exceptions are valid when at the editor's talk page or at an administrator noticeboard to discuss behavior. —PaleoNeonate – 13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree in principle but not in practice. The user in question has been previously adequately warned. With this kind of behaviour, in my opinion, any response at all would be a reward for attention-seeking behaviour. Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

It's indeed not a very welcoming statement... —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:, you seem like a knowledgeable type of person. Do we allow userboxes featuring terrorists?--AdamF in MO (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I see you already pointed at WP:UBX on their talk page. @Drassow: Would you care to explain the intention, especially while under scrutiny at ANI? —PaleoNeonate – 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's vague and arbitrary logic used to remove my satarization of a clearly ego-driven meta of the userboxes. Shall I delete anybody's userboxes that I find divisive or abrasive? Any cabal referencing userboxes are divisive by definition, hypocrite. Drassow (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You really believe that more personal attacks and making a point with a terrorist infobox after being reported is the same as traditional Wikipedia humor? —PaleoNeonate – 05:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/958633021... —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Drassow)

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

Mindful that he's literally above just abused another administrator as a "hypocrite" for asking a perfectly civil question, then I would support this proposal. I don't appreciate being called a "manchild" - I am an adult thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread is to far up the page to get any traction at this point, probably. —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think people would be reluctant to support an outright ban this quickly, but a final warning at minimum is deserved for that comment above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

He will certainly just ignore it and blank it off the page. That’s if there’s an admin with enough bandwidth to pay attention to it. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Support CBAN. Else issue a final warning and a notice that the warning must not be removed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm no longer convinced that a warning would change anything, considering that the response so far was WP:BATTLEGROUND... —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support immediate community ban, due to this diff. Yesterday, Drassow retaliated against Adamfinmo for this ANI by removing a userbox from their page, with the edit summary Do you like it done to you? This user is clearly unable to edit collaboratively. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

He was given a warning and blanked the page while adding "Find something better to do than vandalize my page". The guy is making a mockery of expected behaviours, and showing utter contempt for administrators. If everyone starts doing this then the whole thing begins to unravel....Contaldo80 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment This didn’t get much traction from the admins and no headway was made with Drassow. That’s a real shame. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect etymologies

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

@Gderrin: Do you really think Wimpus is bluffing with all that jargon at Talk:Balanophora? What makes you think Wimpus is wrong? Sure, edit warring is bad and people should be nice, but the real issue concerns putting false information into the encyclopedia backed by possibly incorrect sources. One of you is doing that and it must stop. Can you show an example of Wimpus adding incorrect information to an article or posting incorrect information on a talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Johnuniq:. Thanks for your help. "Can you show......?" No, I can't, because Wimpus doesn't add information to articles, only reverts what others have added. Here and in other articles, Wimpus removes reliable references without discussion. The reference I added is a book written by Maarten J. M. Christenhusz, Michael Francis Fay and Mark Wayne Chase and published by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. In my opinion, it should not have been reverted, whether or not another editor considers it to be incorrect, without discussion first. Incidentally, I replaced my earlier reference to Wiktionary (on 30 March 2017) with a reference to a book by Roland W. Brown. Wimpus also reverted that without discussion, leaving the article without an etymology. It would be great if Wimpus were to add etymologies to articles that don't have them, rather than only reverting articles that do. Gderrin (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin:, your statement: "No, I can't, because Wimpus doesn't add information to articles, only reverts what others have added." seems to be at odds with the edits I have made the last few days:

1. [4] Adding the etymology as provided by the describing author.
2. [5] Replaced incorrect etymology of Balanophora by using different source.
3. [6] Replaced etymology that does not mention any words, by etymology that mentions the Greek origins.
4. [7] Reinstated the source I had previously added that mentioned the Greek and Latin origins, instead of Gderrin's etymology that fails to mention the Greek origin.
5. [8] Reinstated the original etymology/referevce of the describing authors, that was removed by Gderrin (reverted earlier by Gderrin without any discussion).

@Gderrin, could you try to answer the question of Johnuniq ("Can you show an example of Wimpus adding incorrect information to an article or posting incorrect information on a talk page?") again? Wimpus (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin:, could you still answer @Johnuniq:'s question? I have mentioned in my request to intervene that "I have corrected hundreds of edits in which Gderrin, misread, misinterpreted or misquoted his sources, as he seemed to have confused several linguistic entities in Latin and Greek (cases, adjectives, nouns, compounds, verbs, participles).", but you have not responded yet to this accusation (or provided any counterevidence). So, do you agree with my assessment, or do you think you have made far less mistakes? And would the number of mistakes you have made be considered as a threat to the reliability of Wikipedia?

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

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

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

A ton of examples

1. [9] λεκάνης means "of a dish", not "dish" (confusion of nominative and genitive case) λεκάνης = lekánēs not lekánē (incorrect rendering of Greek) source does not mention full compound 2. [10] source does not write phitros but phitra. 3. [11] corona (=noun) is translated as "crown" by Brown, coronata is not translated as "crown" (=adjective) by this source. 4. [12] caro (=noun) is translated by Brown with "flesh", not carnea (= adjective) 5. [13] kamptos is not translated with "to bend" by Brown. full compound can not be found in Brown 6. [14] globula is not mentioned by Brown. 7. [15] full compound not mentioned by its source (Brown) 8. [16] indicating that lepidota is Greek (while that feminine form would be written as lepidōtē (λεπιδωτή). Incorrect inference of information of source. 9. [17] source does not indicate that the adjective orbicularis is the diminutive of the noun orbis. 10. [18] source does not indicate that the adjective campanulata is the diminutive of the noun campana. 11. [19] source does not mention word caudiculum. 12. [20] misidentifying word-part as diminutive full compound is missing in the source 13. [21] source does not mention arborella 14. [22] source does not mention that adjective capitellata is the diminutive of the noun capitulum 15. [23] source does not mention mimulum. 16. [24] source does mention full compound own translation of compound is incorrect 17. [25] source does not indicate that adjective foliolosa is a diminutive of noun folium own translation would relate to a noun, not to an adjective. 18. [26] source does not indicate that adjective crenulata is the diminutive of the noun crena. 19. [27] provides genitive case, but gives translation for nominative case 20. [28] source does not mention specific orthography smaragdyna. smaragdyna is not Greek (and is also not suggested by the source) as the Greek feminine ends on -ē (σμαράγδινη) 21. [29] source does not mention ágrostos. full compound can not be found in source 22. [30] source does not indicate that perfect participle globatus is an infinitive full compound can not be found in source 23. [31] incorrect translation incompatible with information from source 24. [32] source does not translate sepalum with plural sepals (but with singular sepal) compound can not be found in source. 25. [33] source does mention full compound own etymological analysis seems unlikely (and contradicts other source, that mentions full compound) 26. [34] source gives circum for "around", not "circus" 27. [35] gives genitive case pugionis, but provides translation for nominative case pugio. identifies something as a suffix, while the source seems to indicate that it is just a noun 28. [36] source give other translation ("neighbouring" instead of "neighbour") 29. [37] gives genitive case pholidos, but provides translation for nominative case pholis. full compound is not mentioned by the source. 30. [38] full compound is not mentioned by the source clavia is translated as club-bearing while that is the translation the source uses for claviger. clavia can not be found in the source 31. [39] full compound is not explained by source antenni is not mentioned by source (antenna is the form mentioned) source writes -fera and not fera. 32. [40] etymological explanation refers to Diosma, while that is not mentioned by the source. 33. [41] identifies dienema as Greek form, while Greek feminine ends on -os (διήνεμος) 34. [42] translation of gamos as gamete can not be found in the source 35. [43] identifies a word-forming element as "compound" 36. [44] confuses feminine singular montana with neuter plural montana, with providing a translation based on the latter (that is incompatible with the epithet of the plant) 37. [45] full compound is not explained by source translation of granum as granite is not provided by source. 38. [46] source does not indicate that perfect participle stricta is an infinitive 39. [47] source writes kalos, not kalo 40. [48] translation applies to nominative and not genitive case. 41. [49] confuses nominative and genitive case. 42. [50] compound not mentioned by source. suggest that compound would derive from unlikely flora [=goddess of flowers] instead of more likely flos [=flower] suggest that florum is the plural of flora 43. [51] suggests that densiflora derives from Latin medius full compound is not explained by the source 44. [52] compound can not be found in source suggest that compound is derived from flora, that is actually mentioned by the source as the "goddess of flowers". 45. [53] compound can not be found in source suggest that compound is derived from flora, that is actually mentioned by the source as the goddess of flowers. translate flora as "flowers" instead of "goddess of flowers" as mentioned by the source. 46.[54] full compound is not explained in compound translation for mutator (=changer) of the source is misapplied to other word mutatus 47.[55] translation of puber in source is misapplied to puberula 48. [56] word despectans is not mentioned in source participle despectus is translated as ínfinitive 49. [57] full compound can not be found in source (while wording in Wiki-article suggests otherwise) 50. [58] full compound is not explained by source. ouris can not be found in source 51. [59] flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower) full compound not in source 52. [60] other translation than in source 53. [61] mentioning of "bi" as part of "pinnatifida" (that is actually impossible) compound not explained by source 54. [62] γλυφή (gluphḗ)' can not be found in source it seems that Wiktionary as source was replaced by Brown as source, without changing the actual content, leading to a mismatch between text and source full compound not mentioned by source 55. [63] flora (goddess of flowers) instead of flos full compound not in source 56. [64] source indicates that the words are Greek, not Latin full compound is not explained by source 57. [65] calycina can not be found in source translation of calyx is misaplied to calycina in Wiki-text 58. [66] confuses nominative and genitive case full compound is not explained by source 59. [67] iphthima is not Greek (ἴφθιμη). Incorrect inference from source 60. [68] sphacelatum is not mentioned by Brown as Greek word 61. [69] confuses genitive with nominative case full compound is not explained by source 62. [70] misapplied translation as given for Brown for podion to pedion full compound is not explained by source 63. [71] confuses nominative and genitive case full compound is not explained by source 64. [72] confuses nominative singular with genitive plural full compound is not explained by source 65. [73] confuses (considering translation) philos with philia confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 66. [74] Brown write holos, not holo full compound is not explained by source 67. [75] Brown writes mesos, not meso full compound is not explained by source 68. [76] pterus is not mentioned by Brown full compound is not explained by source 69. [77] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 70. [78] full compound is not explained by source labels Latin word triplex as Greek (not supported by source) 71. [79] full compound is not explained by source Brown writes ochros, not ochro. Brown writes pteron, not ptero 72. [80] full compound is not explained by source misapplied Brown's translation of philia to phileo. 73. [81] Brown uses melas as nominative, not melanos. full compound is not explained by source 74. [82] flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower) full compound not explained in source 75. [83] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 76. [84] confuses for two nouns the genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 77. [85] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 78. [86] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 79. [87] Brown writes aden not adeno Brown writes lasios not lasius full compound is not explained by source 80. [88] Brown writes rutilus, not rutilis. full compound is not explained by source 81. [89] confuses genitive and nominative case 82. [90] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 83. [91] confuses genitive and nominative case full compound is not explained by source 84. [92] Brown writes phyllon, not phyllum (on specific page) full compound is not explained by source 85. [93] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. full compound is not explained by source 86. [94] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. full compound is not explained by source 87. [95] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. full compound is not explained by source 88. [96] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 89. [97] Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia. Brown translates ovalis with "egg-shaped", not with "egg" full compound is not explained by source 90. [98] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 91.[99] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 92. [100] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 93. [101] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 94. [102] Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 95. [103] confuses genitive and nominative case Brown writes -florus, not florus full compound is not explained by source 96. [104] Brown writes niger, not nigro. Brown translates montanus as "of mountains" not "mountain" full compound is not explained by source 97. [105] Brown writes forma instead of forme full compound is not explained by source 98. [106] confuses florum (= of flowers) with flos (=flower) full compound is not explained by source 99. [107] Brown writes cauda, not caudum 100. [108] translates montis (= of a mountain) with "mountains". Inconsistent with source.

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

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

@Gderrin:, I am still waiting for a response. It is impossible to deny that something went wrong in the aforementioned 100 edits that I have provided as an example. Wimpus (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, @Gderrin: refuses to respond to the accusations and continues to make edits that conflict with the sources used. Wimpus (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Qui tacet consentire videtur. Wimpus (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

@Wimpus: Your 00:56, 19 May 2020 diff at Balanophora changed the "name is derived..." from:

the Ancient Greek words balanos meaning "acorn" or "glans" and phoros meaning "to bear"

to:

the ancient Greek words balanos (βάλανος), meaning "acorn" and pherein (φέρειν), meaning "to carry"

Your point 4 at Talk:Balanophora explains your position. However, not many editors would see a substantive difference between the above two explanations as "to bear" and "to carry" seem equivalent. Is the main point phoros vs. pherein? I understand you are saying the underlying issue is a systematic problem, but is this example worth a dispute? Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(Johnuniq), not this specific example, but it shows that:

1. it is part of a pattern that Gderrin adds over and over again different etymologies in the same Wiki-article, without being aware that these etymologies differ, while he considers each single etymological edit he has made as "correct"/"reliable".

2. difficulties arise when someone is being unable to compare different sources, as he is unfamiliar with the specific linguistic content. I am unable to discuss with Gderrin theses linguistic issues, and Gderrin only resorts to statements that his sources are reliable (even the blog he added yesterday (that included a non-word in its etymological analysis), while initially denying that he used a blog).

3. it can be detrimental to Wikipedia, when someone "invents" an etymology by comparing the full name to a list of single Latin and Greek words without actually knowing what he is doing. Gderrin didn't respond previously to administrator Someguy1221's question: "I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon".

So, I am actually concerned that Gderrin will continue to add incorrect etymological information to Wikipedia, without even noticing. So, I kindly ask an administrator to intervene.Wimpus (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, in the context of an article about a plant, rather than an article on etymology or linguistics, referring to the Latinized component -phorus, which can easily be sourced, e.g. from Stearn, W.T. (2004), Botanical Latin (4th (p/b) ed.), Portland, Oregon: Timber Press, p. 466, is sensible.

I have engaged in discussions with Wimpus before, sometimes at length. He seems to be unable either to understand or else to accept why his edits are a problem. He clearly could improve etymologies, and I agree that they often need improving, because modern biologists lack the knowledge of classical languages that would have been common in the past. However, he appears to prefer to remove them, even when they are sourced, if the source does not meet his exacting requirements, which as far as I can tell, include requiring them to

1. give the exact form of the source word or words in the original language
2. explain the full compound.

On (1), I do not believe that readers of articles about plants need the original Greek or Latin. I like to see it, but it should not be a requirement.

On (2), Stearn's Botanical Latin, the "bible" for the scientific names of plants, has an extensive glossary providing meanings for components of names. There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name.

In summary, I agree that the originally added etymology for Balanophora could be improved, but cannot agree with the way that Wimpus acted. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, considering your remark: "There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name." Gderrin has used this approach in his first three attempts in the aforementioned example of Balanophora, but presents three different etymologies that differ on orthography (balanus versus balanos; phora versus phoras [=d-stem]), language (phora as Latin or phora as Greek) and meaning (phora as "bearing" or as "crop"). Do you think that using this approach will lead to consistent results, irrespective of someone's knowledge about Latin or Greek? As I have tried to show with this example: I have serious doubts. Wimpus (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: the key issue seems to me to relate to the old "verification not truth" slogan. (See the essay WP:VNT.) Our task is to present verified information.

• If Gderrin or anyone else has misrepresented the source, then correct that misrepresentation – this is unarguably correct.
• If the source gives an incorrect meaning according to other more reliable sources, then add to the text accordingly. Respect WP:NPOV; it's what the sources say that matters, not what we think, so if multiple meanings are widespread in sources, all need to be reported.
• Removing an explanation of meaning altogether because the only available source(s) are not completely precise (e.g. saying that -phorus is Greek rather than Greek-derived) does not help our readers. Our mission is to report what reliable sources say. Sometimes this might mean putting up with imprecision, but by careful omission you can usually manage to present correct and fully sourced information.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, thanks for the answer, but my real question was: "Do you think that using this approach will lead to consistent results, irrespective of someone's knowledge about Latin or Greek?" Wimpus (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wimpus: Peter coxhead answered your question rather well, actually. Perhaps you misunderstand it? Or is it because he didn't jump on your bandwagon of dumping on Gderrin that you won't accept it? Or did you miss it because it wasn't the "yes/no" you were expecting? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to regardless of their knowledge level. It has policies and protocols in place to ensure consistent results and reliable information is the end result. Peter's answer nicely summarizes the key policies/protocols. TelosCricket (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@TelosCricket:, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to regardless of their knowledge level.". The procedure Peter coxhead suggest, requires a higher level of competence of the editor, than is required when you are merely quoting verbatim a source. In the example of Balanophora, you have to understand that it is 1. a compound, 2. that the compound consists of two parts, 3. that the compound would probably consists of Greek words. As, Gderrin didn't used a source, trying to explain the full compound is probably dependent on some pre-existing knowledge. In case you would ask me to give an etymological explanation of the Persian خوارزمشاهیان‎, I do not know where to start. Is this a compound, it is a verb, an adjective? I might try to find a Persian dictionary, but the Persian language might contain all kind of linguistic categories and rules, I might be unfamiliar with. I will actually be prone to make mistakes. In case I would not find this Persian word in a Persian dictionary, it would become a hazardous task to find the single elements of which this Persian word consists. My request related to WP:COMPETENCE: "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." I have tried to explain that Gderrin editing in etymolgical sections creates significant errors and therefore it is necessary for an administrator to intervene. Wimpus (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree. First, errors are a content matter, not an administrative matter. Second, Gderrin is not the problem here. You and your approach is. Over and over, when you point out an error, Gderrin does indeed try to correct it. But you demand perfection and wage a war of arbitration until your preferred version is the one that remains. Peter Coxhead's answer was a way to work within the policies and protocols of Wikipedia to correct errors. Stop assuming bad faith on Gderrin's part. Stop questioning their competence. They are clearly very competent, and in most of the cases where you have gone after them, the corrections are minute and subtle. Most readers wouldn't even understand the difference. You may be an expert in Ancient Latin and Greek, but that doesn't mean you exclusively get to edit etymolgical sections or decide who else gets to. Stop trying to correct Gderrin or get them to stop editing in your sandbox and start helping them make the encyclopedia better.TelosCricket (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have only encountered Wimpus and Gderrin in the last couple days but wanted to chime in here. I've been going over their edit histories in the days since I first encountered them both and I don't think I'd characterize this dispute as a content dispute (as you, @TelosCricket: did in your comment below). The primary source of conflict seems to be Wimpus's fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules, guidelines, and mission, as well as their unconventional and strongly held opinion on exactly what an etymology section in an article should be.

Wimpus frequently deletes entire sourced etymology paragraphs, which might include 4 or 5 derived words, with edit descriptions like "OR etymology" or "xxx is not a Latin word" when the only problem with the copy in question is something as small as one word using the wrong case (eg. Greek genitive 'lago' vs. nominative 'lagos'). In some cases it's not even that there is anything wrong with the copy, instead Wimpus seems to take issue with listing any form of a word because they cannot find the precise case intended by the original author listed explicitly in the source cited. When I reverted some of these unnecessary deletions Wimpus's first response was to engage in an edit war, which seems to be a pattern of theirs. In the cases when I have gotten Wimpus to talk about their issues with an entry they have been relatively civil and clearly knowledgeable; they seem, however, to lack (and be unwilling to gain) a basic understanding of what information belongs in a Wikipedia article, what the point of a word's etymology section is, or what to do when a dispute arrises. One alarming practice I've noticed by Wimpus is their seeming unwillingness to discuss issues with an etymology on the Talk page of the word in question. Instead they seem to keep any discussions on the talk pages of individual editors. While this may be a good faith misunderstanding of how talk pages should be used, in practice it makes it much more difficult for other editors to be aware of disputes and help form a consensus.

Wimpus's unwillingness to expand their understanding of what information is valuable to the readers of Wikipedia; their propensity for flaunting Wikipedia's standards for conduct; and their quickness to delete copy from an article that could easily be improved, and contains useful information as is, does not (in my eyes at least) describe a content dispute, it describes a disruptive editor whose actions reduce the information available to Wikipedia's readers and make it more difficult for other editors to improve articles. I have no specific course of action to recommend but wanted to provide an additional voice to the conversation. Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skoulikomirmigotripa: You can not correct an error made by a source, by simply writing something else, that can not found in the specific source, without providing any additional source. In case that would be your standard pratice, you should immediately revert such dubious edits. I can easily correct all kind of etymological mistakes as can be found in etymological sections, but that would create a non-correspondence between the text in the Wiki-article and the text as can be found in the original source. Wimpus (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Skoulikomirmigotripa:Ah, well, hope blooms eternal, or something like that. I made the comment below because I had honestly hoped that it could be settled as a content dispute without either editor being sanctioned (e.g., a boomerang). Both are valuable to the project in their own way. But, you are right, there is a conduct problem. TelosCricket (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@TelosCricket: Sorry friend, I hate making things complicated and I completely agree with you that both are valuable, or at least could be. I wouldn't have spoken up except that what's going on seems like a chronic issue and seems so damaging to articles in a section of wikipedia that already gets notoriously too little love. –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Wimpus does not appear to have understood the comments by TelosCricket, Peter Coxhead, Johnuniq and Skoulikomirmigotripa above and has decided to escalate the situation by harassing me, such as [109] (above) and on my talk page [110]. I acknowledge that Wimpus may be knowledgeable about Latin and Greek, but do not think that implies the right to harass, cast aspersions or assume bad faith with comments such as these, suggesting that I am a liar. Nor does Wimpus have the right to revert or delete the referenced contributions of other editors such as here, here, here and other places with derogatory edit summaries and without prior discussion on the article’s talk page.

I propose a 24-hour block to send a clear message to Wimpus that it is unacceptable to harass other editors and that reliable sources are not to be deleted or reverted without prior discussion. Gderrin (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I picked (at random) no 56. from Wimpus' list: The name Plectorrhiza is derived from the Latin words plektos meaning "plaited" or "twisted" and rhiza meaning "root". Without even opening the source, I can tell that "plektos" is Greek, not Latin. Checking "rhiza" it is also Greek, the Latin word for root is "radix". I found a source that actually gives a proper etymology for "Plectorrhiza", and as I suspected, it's Greek. See pg. 550 of Native Orchids of Australia: The generic name was coined by Alick Dockrill in 1967 and is apt, because it refers to the tangled roots which are such a prominent feature of the mainland species (Greek plectos, plaited, twisted, rhizos, a root). If someone is inclined to add it in to the article. I am illiterate on the subjects and will not be trying my hand at it right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, so the etymology should have been corrected, not it, and the source removed. Gderrin (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Etymology section break

@Wimpus: You must stop anything that looks like poking Gderrin. The situation at Wikipedia is that the victor takes the spoils, and correctness (actually, belief in correctness) is overruled by consensus. Unfortunately this topic is too technical for mortals to follow and I have seen a couple of editors claiming that something on the internet verifies a particular statement regarding etymology, so you are outnumbered. It is traditional at this noticeboard to not care about content but I am concerned about the possibility that inaccurate information is being added to articles and I would like to make another effort to examine, say, two examples (not a hundred examples!). Are you aware of two articles with what you believe is a significantly incorrect statement regarding the origin of a name? If so, please quote the incorrect text, with a link to the article, and a brief explanation of why the text is wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Two earlier mentioned examples:

1. [111] "The name is derived from the Ancient Greek balanus (βάλανος) meaning "acorn" and phorá (φορά) meaning "crop"‎."
   1. No source is given for the full compound. His analysis in "balanus" and "phora" is merely a guess.
   2. Wiktionary is used as source.
   3. According to his source (Wiktionary), balanus is Latin and βάλανος is Greek.
   4. He uses the very (considering this specific etymology) unlikely translation of "crop" for φορά. Acorn-bearing (that would be more probable according to other sources) is different from something like "having acorn-crops".
2. [112] "The specific epithet (atroclavia) is derived from the Latin words atra meaning "black" and clavia meaning "club-bearing", referring to the prominent dark-coloured ends of the sepals."
   1. full compound is not mentioned by the source (Brown, 1956)
   2. clavia is translated as club-bearing while that is the translation the source uses for claviger.
   3. clavia can not be found in the source

It find it troubling that someone is "inventing" etymologies and refers to sources that do not support the actual content that is cited. Wimpus (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary-links are accessible. No etymological information can be found for Balanophora on Wiktionary.

Brown (1956, p. 213): "L. clava, f. club, cudgel, graft; clavula, f. dim.; claviger, -a, -um, club-bearing:"

Clavia nor atroclavia (or atroclavius) can be found in Brown, only a word with similar ending, like laticlavius (Brown, 1956, p. 486): "having a broad stripe" (according to Lewis & Short derived from clavus, not clava). In Latin. clavus also referred to a "purple stripe on the tunica". Whether atroclavia would be "having a black club" or "having a black stripe" shouldn't be a guess. Brown can be downloaded from archive.org, see here. Wimpus (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks, I'll look at this. Meanwhile, you must stop referring to other editors. The issue is content in articles and we assume other editors are working in good faith to improve articles. That means, no more "He uses" etc. (the issue is what text is in the article, not he). Please don't add anything here unless it strictly concerns these two examples. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may add a bit of context to example 1 (Balanophora). I'm not completely familiar with the beginnings of this content dispute, but I think it may be useful to take a look at the recent edits to the Page's etymology section may be useful. Keeping the focus on the content itself, I'll just say that I believe that have been at least 2 well sourced fixes to issues listed in example 1 have been implemented and have since been reverted. The Talk page's conversation on the issue may also give useful context. (Please forgive the lack of links and any errors, this is a mobile post) –Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology further discussion

As has been pointed out before, there are three issues that relate to Wimpus that need to be sorted once and for all:

• Personification and attacks on other editors, particularly Gderrin, who edits in good faith, albeit not always as precisely as would be ideal.
• Constant removal of etymologies that should instead be edited to improve or correct them.
• Wimpus's refusal to accept, against consensus, that when no source exists for the complete scientific name, reliable published sources (like Stearn's Botanical Latin) can be used for the components, provided it is made clear what is sourced and explained.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we know. I'm going to make an effort to check some actual content using the two examples in the previous subsection. Please only put comments there that strictly concern those two examples. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

---

@Gderrin and Wimpus: This is a significant concern. I see these issues:

• The two examples at #Etymology section break above seem to show what Wimpus has referred to as "[inventing] an etymology by comparing the full name to a list of single Latin and Greek words". However, they are from 2016. There are a hundred other claimed examples above which cannot be evaluated by uninvolved/uninformed people such as myself.
• Peter coxhead above states that Stearn is authoritative and "has an extensive glossary providing meanings for components of names. There is no reason not to use this approach to explaining the meaning of scientific names via their components when no source exists for the complete name." Peter coxhead supports Gderrin's edits and opposes Wimpus's approach of removing rather than improving etymologies they consider improper.
• My humble opinion is that editors should not explain an etymology by consulting what amounts to a dictionary (Stearn's glossary). Such an approach seems to conflict with the realities of Wikipedia, namely that we have to rely on reliable sources and not use synthesis (original research). That's not just a rule we should follow—it's fundamental to the fact that anyone can edit and it would be unacceptable for a new editor, or any editor, to add derivations with a source for each word, but none for the topic. However, my opinion is just that—an opinion. The issue would have to be resolved at a suitable noticeboard such as WP:RSN although it would be disappointing if established editors were not able to see that it not ok to invent derivations from personal knowledge backed by dictionaries.
• There are at least two other editors who believe Wimpus is too pedantic and wants the source to say exactly what is added to the article. Further, Wimpus's approach has received very little support (is there any?).
• Another reality of Wikipedia is that consensus rules, even if the consensus is that original research is fine. It could be argued that any such claim of consensus would be faulty because if uninvolved editors were to investigate, they would agree that OR is prohibited. However, the practical situation is that uninvolved editors are unlikely to get involved in this esoteric topic. That means Wimpus has to back off even if correct.

Sorry, but I don't see what can be done regarding this mess. No one should add etymologies without a source for the topic (at Balanophora that would be a source describing Balanophora). Yet no one should be abrasive or edit against consensus. Wimpus should be aware that Wikipedia's procedures are flawed and it is the noisy editor who will eventually be sanctioned, while the polite editor will be supported and merely asked to fix any problems they might have introduced. If new examples of the problems arise, I would be prepared to look and possibly advise about how to hold a central RfC that might throw light on what articles should say about etymologies. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you. In the light of what else is happening in the world ..... Gderrin (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you for your analysis.

• Considering your remarks: "Wimpus's approach has received very little support (is there any?)."

In the previous request, administrator @Someguy1221: mentioned:

"I also have to ask if it is the norm in etymologies to invent one by comparing the name of a taxon to a list of Greek words. I understand this is a fun exercise, but I question whether this practice can ever fundamentally satisfy WP:V in the absence of a source explicitly stating "this is the etymology of the name of this specific taxon"."

Peter coxhead is claiming consensus, but there seems to be at least three dissenting editors.

• This is not the only issue at stake in those two examples. The information in the text did not fully corresponded to the sources cited. Balanus is not Greek but Latin according to the source, clavia is not mentioned by the source and a translation of claviger was misapplied to clavia. Besides the whole issue of OR, making such mistakes is a clear example of disruptive editing: "...misrepresents reliable sources". Gderrin has not shown that in those two examples, that the information as cited, did truthfully represented it's sources. And I do not think that there is a clear consensus that it is okay to misrepresent sources.

The same issue was mentioned earlier by administrator Someguy1221:

"I do not believe you have provided a convincing explanation for how the content removed by Wimpus was actually supported by what was cited. When your argument includes the obviously false claim that none of your sources predate the content for which they are cited (like citing a 1956 book for the origin of the name of a species described in 1974), it is difficult to take anything you say at face value. I would honestly have trouble believing you at this point without the provision of a direct quote from each source to convince me you are not misreading, which also saves me the time of having to find and evaluate a source myself."

Two recent edits of Gderrin similarly show (08:21, 30 May 2020 and 21:48, 30 May 2020) that sources are misrepresented.

• [113] "The specific epithet (polyanthemos) is from the ancient Greek poly- meaning "many" and anthemos meaning "flower'."
  • According to the source: "Eucalyptus polyanthemos: Greek poly-, many and anthemon, flower, of the inflorescences.
• [114] "The specific epithet (peninsularis) is from Latin, meaning "a narrow body of land", referring to the distribution on the Eyre Peninsula."
  • Without consulting the source (as I do not have access to this source), I seriously doubt whether peninsularis, instead of peninsula is the word for "a narrow body of land".

In the first example, I can easily correct the mistake, in the second example I have to ask Gderrin for a full quote. But in tens of other edits, I have to ask Gderrin similarly for full quotes as I seriously doubt whether he did not misread/misrepresented his sources. In case we can not fully trust an editor, why shouldn't an administrator intervene? @Johnuniq, couldn't you ask other administrators to chime in? Wimpus (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@Johnuniq: Stearn's Botanical Latin and its glossaries do not amount to a dictionary. Stearn is the "bible" for Botanical Latin. If a botanist wants to make up a scientific name, they are almost certain to consult Stearn, and his judgements on various issues are part of the ICNafp. If you can find a botanical taxonomist who will agree that Stearn is not a reliable source for components of scientific names, I will be amazed. Obviously if a source for a complete scientific name exists, this should be used (although noting silently that these sources simply copy from one another, including errors, and are almost certain to have produced many etymologies via components). But if none exists, and the components are sufficiently obvious, my view is that the consensus has been up to now that an explanation can be given in terms of the components. The kind of wording I have used is something like "A [the original author] did not explain the origin of XY. The component X- means ...^[1], the component -Y means ...^[2]" We can certainly have an RfC on whether this is acceptable, preferably via WP:TOL with notification to all of its sub-projects.
Not having access to Nicolle (2013), I don't know whether it actually says that peninsularis means "a narrow body of land". It wouldn't surprise me if it did, since I regularly encounter explanations that are not wrong (as this one isn't) but which omit steps. If it does say this, it should of course be corrected to "The specific epithet (peninsularis) is from Latin peninsula, meaning "a narrow body of land", referring to the distribution on the Eyre Peninsula.^{[ref to Nicolle][ref for addition, e.g. Stearn]}" The question is why Wimpus didn't simply make this correction, rather than complain, yet again, about another editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coining a name in Latin is something different than analysing a Latin name. In case an author coins a name on -clavius, it can possibly refer to clava, clavus or even clavis (e.g. arteria subclavia is the artery below the collarbone [collarbone = Latin clavicula, diminutive of clavis = "key"]). We can not reliable reconstruct, whether clava, clavus or clavis was intended, without the help of a source, that discusses the full name.

In the case of peninsularis, Gderrin subsequently suggests on the talk page: "The epithet peninsularis is from Latin, meaning "a narrow body of land". (The Latin word is peninsula.)" that "from Latin" is sufficient to make clear to our readers that "a narrow body of land" does not pertain to peninsularis. I find it odd, that in this case he selectively omits essential parts of the etymology. In case, I would have added Stearn, I would have added all kind of additional information, while the onus was on Gderrin to non-ambiguously represent his source. And I would have created a discrepancy between Nicole and Stearn, while in this case that would be a false suggestion. Wimpus (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, your suggestion that I shouldn't complain about ambigous edits and should alternatively made a correction to Eucalyptus peninsularis by checking other sources, seems misguided. Here, you can see that in this case Nicole possibly referred to peninsula instead. Gderrin should have mentioned right away, that the translation was pertinent to peninsula instead of peninsularis. You can see in other instances, Gderrin simply removed (without mentioning a thing on the talk-page) the Greek words I have added here and here. Is it really worth the trouble to perfect Gderrin's recent etymological descriptions that lack any Latin or Greek words/elements as in: [115] "The specific epithet is from ancient Greek meaning "a meadow or well-watered, fertile spot" and "loving".", [116] "The specific epithet (pachyphylla) is from ancient Greek meaning "thick-leaved".", [117] "The specific epithet (paedoglauca) is from ancient Greek, meaning "child" or "youth" and "pale blue or grey", ..."? Gderrin could probably remove (without seeking consensus) those Greek/Latin words or word-elements. So, it is not a matter of simply making a correction. Wimpus (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As is almost always the case in these discussions, the underlying issue is what the purpose of the etymological information is. I believe it is primarily to explain the meaning of the scientific name to our readers, the overwhelming majority of whom are not interested in the precise word from which the name is ultimately derived. Thus what matters most is to know that pachyphylla means "thick-leaved", so there is nothing wrong with just saying (in my slight rewording): The specific epithet (pachyphylla) is derived from ancient Greek and means "thick-leaved". The way forward is to have an RfC via WP:TOL to consider:

• The purpose of etymological information about scientific names in organism articles.
• How exactly to explain and reference the information, given that there are potentially different kinds of source, which I rank in priority order as:
  • The original author's explanation (which in recent years is not infrequently inaccurate as to the classical language involved)
  • Glossaries of scientific names that give an explanation for the complete name in context (e.g. in the genus for a specific epithet)
  • Glossaries of scientific names that give an explanation for the complete name but not in context (e.g. the whole epithet but not in that genus)
  • Glossaries that give components of scientific names but not an explanation for the complete name in context.

What is not useful, again in my view, is to discuss this at AN/I. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not fully versed on the current version of this debate as I've only had time to read half of it, and that's probably all for now - I am even busier at work now thanks to the epidemic. Coming back to it after a while though, I think that this debate has been made more technical than it needs to be. If someone started adding explanations for why people had certain names, and cited books of names explaining their general origins, we would reject that content immediately as only the person or his parents can explain what the name means. If someone edited an article on an invention and tried to explain what a part did by citing a source predating the invention, and then defended the source by saying the parts have very similar names, we would reject that content immediately. Someone who insisted on doing either of these repeatedly would eventually be banned from Wikipedia if they failed to heed warnings, and this would not be a controversial decision. But then people start debating Ancient Greek and no one wants to participate.

So we have a niche area of Wikipedia with basically three interested editors, and two of them are okay with blatant original research. The fact they don't see a problem citing sources predating the content being cited should be enough for anyone to see what the problem is. And if there's not going to be an agreement on that, there's no point even starting the real technical debates over source reliability and proper derivation. You can just cite something that's close enough, guess that it's true, and no one will care. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: sorry, but your analogy isn't right. Consider my first name, "Peter". Why my parents decided to call me "Peter" is one matter. The meaning of "Peter" (rock or stone) and its etymology are different matters. Of course we cannot say why the original author decided to give a plant the specific epithet "petrensis" unless they explicitly say so, but we can say, referencing e.g. Stearn, that "petrensis" means 'found among rocks', and it has this meaning regardless of the genus the plant is placed in, or whether the original author made a mistake and thought it meant something different. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But in case your name would be "Petriclavius", we can not reliably assess without consulting a source for the full name, whether Petriclavius is derived from clavus, clava or clavis (cf. laticlavius < clavus, atroclavia < clava according to Gderrin, subclavia < clavis). So, it is still OR to select one of those three options, without citing another source. And possibly, different describing authors might arrive at the same epithet when coining a name, despite having used different building blocks. Wimpus (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And in case we would analyse the name "Peter" without consulting sources that would specifically deal with the English name "Peter", various Wiki-editors could arrive at πέτρα, πέτρος, πετρόω, πετράεις, πετραῖος, πετράς (Boeotic for τετράς = fourth day of the month) or πετρανός (- Lat. veteranus) by browsing through a dictionary. Your suggestion leads to inconsistent results (how could you otherwise explain the first three etymologies of Balanophora that differed significantly). Wimpus (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Someguy1221, given your limited time, I do not expect that you will continue to participate in this discussion, but your response clearly shows that editors (but probably also administrators) might be reluctant to join this conversation, due to all the technicalities involved, while in other instances, they would probably be more outspoken and would probably reject these edits. As in the aforementioned two examples, I hoped that these clear-cut cases of "misrepresenting sources" (as the text and the sources are incompatible on various points) would give an administrator enough ammunition to intervene. In the previous discussion, Gderrin seemed to avoid giving a full explanation of what actually happened in his edits. In the current discussion, Gderrin similarly does not seem to make any effort, in explaining those contested edits. I find it rather baffling that he utters sentences like: "In the light of what else is happening in the world ....." in response to Johnuniq's analysis. An editor could ask Gderrin to explain why he has misrepresented sources on such a large scale and could try to find a solution that would actually protect Wikipedia. Instead of topic ban, an administrator could alternatively ask Gderrin to add his etymological explanations first on the talk-page with a verbatim quote from the source, before adding this to the main space. Wimpus (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Sorry, but "two of them are okay with blatant original research" sounds to me like blatant original research! Gderrin (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize as I am almost certainly going to get the indentation wrong, but I wanted to contribute. First, I want to note that a draft for a RfC about etymologies was started here. Due to all the nonsense 2020 brought, I had to put it aside. Second, I agree that using Stearn (and other such sources) to derive etymology is OR and probably shouldn't be done. However, Wimpus's behavior, especially toward Gderrin, is not appropriate. Being technically correct does not give one permission to belittle others or poke them as Wimpus has been doing. That needs to stop.

• Question can we all agree to stop etymological edits (that means all parties, not just Gderrin) until the Rfc is complete? That may take a while given everyone's time constraints, but I will make the effort to significantly revise the draft. TelosCricket (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@TelosCricket:, I wouldn't mind to stop temporarily making any etymological edits. My intention with this request was Gderrn to stop making any etymological edits, but this would temporarily have the same effect. Do not hesitate to contact me, in case of linguistic questions. Good luck. Wimpus (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Gderrin: At 12:09, 31 May 2020 above you wrote "sounds to me like blatant original research". That suggests a lack of engagement with what has been said, so let me clarify the situation now that Someguy1221 has confirmed my understanding. Editors may be blocked for persistently adding original research to articles. If anyone is inventing etymologies based on their personal knowledge backed by individual words in a dictionary, they are violating WP:SYNTH (i.e., they are performing original research). If that persists before an RfC with significant input supports the procedure, I will issue blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I do apologise if you or @Someguy1221: took offence at my rejoinder. I should be trying to calm things down, rather than reacting to what I saw as an insult. Neither I, nor @Peter coxhead: nor any of the other "plant editors" I know have invented etymologies based on our personal knowledge, with or without the use of a dictionary. I would contend that neither Stearn's Botanical Latin nor Roland Brown's Composition of Scientific Words is a dictionary in the usual sense of the word. They function to translate Greek and Latin words and word-components into English. I did not know about the RfC proposal. I do hope that might improve the situation. Happy to comply with @TelosCricket:'s request. Gderrin (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• From the discussion above, and until a satisfactory counter-explanation is available, I regard inventing etymologies from a dictionary ("glossary") of words and word-components as original research and it must stop. @Wimpus: Please do not take this as an invitation to remove existing etymologies, not unless there is consensus on talk. Everyone should wait for a widely notified RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I am not going to make any etymological edits in the meantime. Wimpus (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

VeritasVox

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

For the past year, VeritasVox has been a true WP:SPA at that article. Just now, this editor violated WP:3RR:[118][119][120][121] by attempting to downplay and whitewash Evola's status as a antisemitic conspiracy theorist. From the article's talkpage, this is apparently based on VeritasVox's personal interpretation of primary material. Note in that same section VeritasVox's comparison of Evola to Hitler, etc. and claims that mentioning antisemitism in the lead would be a "childish slur". Evola wrote a forward to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion where he said "The problem of the authenticity of this document is secondary and has to be replaced by the much more serious and essential problem of its truthfulness".

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

• What do you think an appropriate sanction would be, a topic ban from Julius Evola, or something more encompassing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I note in passing that in 2018 there were 6 comments on the proposed topic ban, 5 of which supported the ban, while the other of was a non-voting comment which cited WP:BITE. It's almost two years later, so BITE doesn't apply. (Also "VeritasVox" means "The Voice of Truth" in Latin, and I think we're all aware that editors who put "Truth" in their usernames turn out with great frequency to be a problem, as they usually carry a POV and are often here to RGW.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It's funny you mention that, I was thinking of your past comments about "truth" in usernames when I was filing this.

As for sanctions, this editor is now a SPA who's willing to violate 3RR to whitewash an article about an obscure fascist, and has, as far as I can tell, never introduced a reliable source to to the article. At other articles, they seem to think Twitter is reliable. They are clearly willing to cite academic sources, though, based on whatever this is, using a source from 1920 to stick up for those poor, beleaguered ancient Sumerian slave-owners. To me, all this is WP:NOTHERE. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've started with a partial block from the article, that will stop the edit war. I am ope to suggestions re topic bans or even an indef block. Guy (help!) 22:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Deeply amusing that User:Grayfell seems to think that the fact that I have studied the code of Ur-Nammu in the original language means that I support sumerian slave-owners. This is another example of this editor's personal grudge against me - an editor who has in the past labelled editors arguing against his views on this talkpage as 'nazi-apologists' and posted screeds about the 'real-life consequences of nazism' as somehow supporting his edits to the detriment of all other opinions on this article.

My objection is that 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' is imprecise, and seems to reek of 'childish name-calling,' as I actually said. My edit is as follows;-

'Evola frequently criticised both capitalism and communism as subversive manifestations of the modern world, and is noted for his prologue to the second Italian edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where he placed this critique within the context of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.'

This is not a statement denying that this was a conspiracy theory or that it was antisemitic - it is stating that Evola in this prologue integrated this view within the wider theoretical framework of his thought. To say he was an 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' is a simplistic statement that obscures the fact that his prologue levels the conspiracy therein not simply at 'the jews' but at the fundamental postulates of modernity, integrating this within much wider themes. I aim, as ever, at precision.

If your judgement is that I should be banned from editing this article, so be it. But I humbly request that Grayfell also receives a parallel ban, as his influence has been continuously toxic, rude and unhelpful, visibly tinged with a personal, ideologically rooted bias which I feel has made any dispassionate analysis of this figure impossible. This may allow further development of the article in question outside of what has become largely a personal crusade - I admit, for both of us. VeritasVox (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You can "admit" that it's a "personal crusade" for you, but you are not in any position to make the same claim about Grayfell. Not being him, all you can do is express your (very convenient for you) personal opinion that it's a "crusade" for him, you cannot "admit" that it is. But, in any case, since you do admit to crusading, it seems as if Guy's partial block of you is appropriate. Any other violations of editing propriety you'd like to admit to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to also invite the administrators, in support of the points above, to examine closely how Grayfell has chosen to frame his complaint. Note the tone and language that is being used - the framing, immediately, of me and this article in terms of the 'wasting time defending' and of (presumably) those disagreeing with him as 'the alt-right and some racist or apathetic new-agers.' I can assure you that similar rhetoric can be found in every discussion he has engaged in on the talkpage. VeritasVox (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, you know who else integrated his anti-Semitic conspiracy theories with complaints about modernity and other "wider themes"? The author of Mein Kampf. In fact the distinction you draw is one without a difference, since for the fascists, Nazis and other virulent anti-Semites of that time, the Jews were largely (if not entirely) to blame for the problems of the modern world. For them, it all went back to the Jews. What this means is that your attempt to water-down the claim of anti-Semitism against Evola is merely an attempt to whitewash him, presumably so that he will continue to appeal to modern types who like to think that their anti-Semitism is a little less virulent and a little more nuanced.

I suggest that if no one has a taste for a site ban, a topic ban from Fascism, Nazism, and anti-Semitism, broadly construed, would be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• VeritasVox has repeatedly mentioned my passing comment, from over a year ago, that Nazism is ideologically incompatible with Wikipedia's values. This is not a controversial point, and that this is framed as "gotcha" is a pretty good demonstration of why yet more protracted discussion is likely to be futile. Evola had "almost servile admiration for Himmler". This is his legacy, and his uninteresting opinions about communism/capitalism are merely extensions of this. His significance isn't his philosophy or poetry. His legacy is far-right terrorism, like Terza Posizione.

Note also, that VeritasVox still doesn't seem to understand sources, as having studied the code of Ur-Nammu in the original language is not a reliable source. For the record, having read Evola, in any language, is not really a reliable source either. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The reductio ad hitlerum is incredibly simplistic, and neglects fundamental ideological differences in far-right thought. The fact that someone is an anti-semite doesn't mean we pidgeonhole them into imprecise definitions of their thought because we don't like them. This is an encyclopedia. Evola was antisemitic. 'Anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' however is, in my view, wrong because he commented on a work featuring an established antisemitic conspiracy rather than creating his own, leaving aside his obvious departures from various other elements of fascist thought. Grayfell - exactly what acts of terrorism were Evola known for?

On Ur-Nammu - yes, that was more a reaction to you deciding to interpret my edit on sumerian legal terminology as me trying 'to stick up for those poor, beleaguered ancient Sumerian slave-owners' which is an excellent example of your bad faith personal attacks and condescension. VeritasVox (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I should also make the rather obvious point that 'VeritasVox has repeatedly mentioned my passing comment, from over a year ago, that Nazism is ideologically incompatible with Wikipedia's values.' is a willful misrepresentation - I'm saying that you invoking Nazism as being incompatible with wikipedia's values to attempt to win an argument over this article on the talkpage is an example of 1. your personal belief that you are waging a war against your 'nazi' opponents who disagree with you 2. essentially a personal attack by proxy and a shining example of your really quite incredible belief in the bad faith of any/all edits you personally disagree with. Which, ironically, is somewhat totalitarian. VeritasVox (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• VeritasVox is essentially a "free rider", someone who utilizes Wikipedia as a place to comment and debate without actually contributing to its improvement. They have only 268 edits in 2 years time, and only 40 of those edits (14.9%) are to articles. The rest are to Wikipedia space, talk pages and their own user pages. They use our facilities without providing the quid pro quo of editing and improving the encyclopedia. [122] And the mainspace edits they've made aren't spread around. Half of those edits -- 21 -- are to the article under examination here, Julius Evola. Then there's 8 to Code of Ur-Nammu, 7 to Rungis International Market, 2 to D. H. Lawrence and 1 each to Ur-Nammu and Eanna. Meanwhile they have 44 edits to Talk:Julius Evola - more than twice as many as their edits to the artlce. And those 39 edits to Wikipedia space, more than any article, and almost as many as their mainspace edits in total.
  In short, VeritasVox is not here to help us build an encyclopedia. They are a net negative to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

'Without actually contributing to its improvement' is rather subjective, as is 'net negative.' I simply don't edit much. Do you now want to ban anyone who doesn't edit much? Volume/frequency of edits does not make a person more correct or more objective in their views. Your level of hostility towards me seems strange, however, Beyond My Ken. Does this arise from similar assumption to Grayfell about my personal character and attendant ideological purity, or are you actually examining my edit objectively, as an editor should? VeritasVox (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course they're "subjective", they constitute my personal evaluation of your worth -- or lack of it -- to this project. How could they be anything else? Your contribute little or nothing worthwhile, and we'd be better off without you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense, I've made several decent contributions. Minimally, but still. Thankfully, despite your pretensions to the contrary, you are not the sole arbiter of 'worth' on wikipedia (which appears to suspiciously align with not disagreeing with your opinion) and I await the judgement of the admins, who presumably pay more attention to the matter at hand than this juvenile measuring of the length of one's contribution list. VeritasVox (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am, however, the sole arbiter of my views on whether you are worthwhile or not, and I find that you are not. (Please reply again, as it will give me yet another chance to repeat that you contribute very little, but nevertheless debate and contest a lot, making you a free rider, something we really don't need.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, obviously? Really quite a bizarre response - you wish to attack me and my character but me responding to these attacks means you are correct? An odd dialectical method. VeritasVox (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know you delight in debating, that's the crux of the problem. Wikipedia is not a debating site, it's a free online encyclopedia, and we -- or at the the vast majority of us -- are here to improve, expand and protect that encyclopedia. You are clearly here for other reasons, to debate and obfuscate and defend Fascists. We don't need that, and we don't need you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly how did my edit 'defend' Evola? Exactly how have I 'defended fascists,' particularly in my other edits on, for example, Sumerian legal codes? Exactly how is that remark not a vulgar ad hominem that deserves immediate censor from the admins? You betray nothing but a belief in your own ideological superiority. Examine seriously your integrity as an editor if you choose to make such accusations. VeritasVox (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of advice, I wouldn't go too far in attracting admins to this discussion, because it's very unlikely that that's going to end up with the result you want. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I started to make a list of all the edits in which you defended Evola by softening descriptions of him and his philosophy, making him look more reasonable, etc., until I found that pretty much all your edits did that. So here's a list of all of your edits to the article [123]. The interested reader can judge for themselves if you are "defending" Evola or not, but that's sure what it looks like to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I trust in their dispassionate analysis, which has undoubtedly qualified them for their status. My advice to you would be not to resort to personal attacks, and so easily make the assumption that others are editing in bad faith. Quite embarassing that I have to point this out to someone of your apparent experience. I defend my edits as improvements to the article in question, naturally - your fixation on my 'defence' seems to be hinged on a desired 'offence' on the topic in question. I simply seek a balanced article. VeritasVox (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Where have I said that you are editing in bad faith? Nowhere. I've said that you do not edit much, that your contributions to mainspeace are negligible compared to the number of comments posted elsewhere, that this makes you a free rider and a net negative to the projecta, and that your edits to Julius Evola have been in defense of a Fascist's reputation. These are all true, and none of them accuses you of editing in bad faith. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

' You are clearly here for other reasons, to debate and obfuscate and defend Fascists.' Ie. you judge my raison d'etre to be 'defending fascists' which, once again, I have not done. This editing in bad faith and an accusation of bias - indeed, a borderline accusation of fascism. I deeply resent the fact that you appear to be unable or unwilling to draw the distinction between someone editing an article on the topic of a fascist intellectual who disagrees with another editors views, to someone who is advocating for said fascist. This breed of editorial dogmatism corrupts the development of articles on controversial subjects in particular, and you appear to be unwilling to countenenace any narrative other than the one you have chosen - that I am somehow 'defending' Evola. Once again, look at my most recent edit - an objection to imprecise terminology that seemed more concerned with inaccurate pidgeonholing. At no point do I deny Evola was antisemitic, or that he wrote the prologue for a prominent antisemitic conspiracy theory. You know precisely what you are doing, and are driven by personal animus against someone who you seem determined to brand as some sort of crypto-fascist for disagreeing with your own view of the topic, of which you appear to have no deeper knowledge than a rather rudimentary comparison to Hitler. If the admins feel I have spent too much time on this topic, so be it - but I feel that your uncivil conduct must also now be addressed. VeritasVox (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably best if we let others weigh in at this point, anyway. This is getting us nowhere. VeritasVox (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• As noted on the SPI I filed against them, about a quarter of all of VeritasVox's edits have been to Julius Evola and Talk:Julius Evola. They've been blocked from editing there for four days now, and, despite having plenty of time to edit Wikipedia, judging from the volume of their edits here, they have not made one single edit to any other article, although they found time to post on the talk page of the probable sockpuppet. This is not only evidence that they're essentially a WP:SPA, it's also pretty good evidence supporting my contention that they're a free rider who uses our resources to debate without giving anything of substance back to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Any normal Wikipedia enthusiast, barred from editing their favorite article, would be editing elsewhere, if only to demonstrate to the community that they are a productive editor. That's not the case here, so I reiterate my conclusion that VeritasVox is a net negative to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Meh, I'm an occasional editor at best who hasn't edited for quite a while. I'll likely get back into it when this fracas has dissipated. Also frankly I thought it best to wait until this was over and done with, as I don't particularly want this spilling over into whatever other topic I choose - particularly as someone has already absurdly tried to frame my edit on a sumerian legal code as being in defence of slaveowners.VeritasVox (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (VeritasVox)

• Support topic ban from Nazism, Fascism, and anti-Semitism, broadly construed. That would be in addition to the block from editing the Evola article recently imposed. (Disclaimer: I supported a topic ban from Evola in the 2018 discussion). The behaviour has not improved in the intervening two years, so it makes sense to enact the restriction. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support broad topic ban per K.e.coffman; this editor appears to be a net negative to those topics, and has continued to be for too long. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Since a lot of text has gone over the dam since, I want to point out that my support for this topic ban can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I also note that today a brand new editor named User:Soupsmarx made their very first Wikipedia edit to Julius Evola, [124] reverting back to a version before VeritasVox's edits were removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• If a checkuser finds them to be the same user, then I think we should just indef (with agreeing to this topic ban being the only condition which we'd consider unblocking). Sockpuppetry at this point would require a mixture of bad-faith and incompetence that shouldn't be allowed to edit any articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• SPI filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Serendipitous given the conversation here, but I am not Soupsmarx. Feel free to check IPs, admins. VeritasVox (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just as a point of information, CUs don;t need your permission to check. If the evidence presented is sufficient, they will check. They can also block on the basis of behavioal evidence, or the possibility of WP:Meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, well of obvious knowledge. VeritasVox (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as stated by K.e.coffman Some of the arguments they've on the talk page to try to cover up Evola's antisemitism require either a level of strong ignorance (that should have been repeatedly corrected by now) or else... Well, in either case, he shouldn't be editing articles relating to those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly how is stating he wrote the prologue to an antisemitic conspiracy 'covering up'? VeritasVox (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your responses, one additional colon each time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Admins, any comment on attitude displayed by Beyond My Ken during the course of these discussions, or do we tolerant juvenile behaviour like this? VeritasVox (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you simply cease responding, as the juvenile comments would be ones like your calling BMK "well of obvious knowledge" and the like. This attitude of needing to get snark in is part of what's going to result in your topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid if I'm going to be accused of 'defending' a fascist, I am going to respond as much as I am able. VeritasVox (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

At first you wouldn't even admit that much, and merely stated on the talk page that you wanted "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" removed on the grounds that it's not included at Giovanni Gentile (who actually criticized Germany's anti-Jewish laws instead of writing the intro to the Bible of antisemitic conspiracy theories). It was only after this undeniable fact was pointed out that you still tried to tone it down to suggest that it was really just part of a larger and more important discourse on capitalism and communism. Now your response is trying to cover up the cover up. Going through the talk page archives, we have you trying to cover up his views on rape because "this is an attack on Bannon/Trump by proxy," which suggests WP:RGW was the initial reason for involvement with the article. Talk:Julius_Evola/Archive_5 shows this carried on for a while after an RfC finished. As can be seen at archive 4, you very quickly began spouting off WP:OMGWTFBBQ as if they're magical commands that will force other editors to do what you want rather than remind them to follow how they understand those pages. (There's also the interesting comment by you that "minimizing anti-semitism is not" [fine]", as this is an attack on israel/jews by proxy", though it should be noted that the overlap between ethnic Jews, members of Judaism, Israelis, and Zionists is not complete). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Cherry-picking, I used bad initial examples, fine. Minimizing anti-semitism isn't fine, but that's hardly what I was doing - I was offering a more precise definition that contextualised this theme in his work. You may disagree with that opinion, but there's no reason for ad hominems, beyond a desire to paint your opponent as 'fascist' for disagreeing with you. You don;t want to discuss my edit further, you simply wish to assume bad faith - this has been the constant theme of this article in general - dogmatism on the part of one/two individuals unwilling to seriously discuss the matter at hand objectively, and instead satiating their delusions of 'fighting nazis' by constructing these grandiose narratives. A cursory examination of any of my edits shows they are founded entirely in either a desire for precision, a critique of the supporting source in question, or in the correct terminology. If I am to be banned, so be it - but please don't delude yourself into thinking this is anything other than using admins in the place of discussion. VeritasVox (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

And yes, Ian - I changed my opinion after you reasonably objected to it. I considered this, and I offered what I believed to be a reasonable compromise which Grayfell immediately reversed with no explanation apart from 'Hardly' and no engagement on the talk page. Who is acting correctly - I in offering a constructive edit which is a compromise between our positions, or Grayfell in reverting this with a single word? VeritasVox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Incidentally, if anyone's interest has been piqued on the topic of Evola, this is a very good lecture by a renowned Sufi cleric who mentions/contextualises him in part - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ien1qo_qI — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeritasVox (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - It looks like the last discussion got archived due to apathy. The length of this section, and raw quantity of junk, is only going to drive-away any editors who might be interested in the topic. The article needs reliable sources, not WP:OR. For several years, VeritasVox has been interested in interpreting primary sources, but not in improving the article based on existing scholarship. Nothing good can come from this approach. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Statements above violate the law of holes quite badly. Guy (help!) 22:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This editor is clearly here to push a prejudiced agenda. Zakaria1978 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can this account be blocked without an SPI, just as NOTHERE?

This SPA Ulaş parlak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does the following since the creation of the account: 1. Adds flags to food articles against MOS. 2. Changes "Ottoman" to "Turkish". 3. Uses misleading edit-summaries calling his edits as "fixing typos". 4. Eliminates other countries and substitutes "Turkey" as the origin of the food. I think this is a sock of Shingling334 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but since this is a case of WP:NOTHERE, I would request that it be indeffed on NOTHERE grounds. Thank you. Dr. K. 00:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this sockmaster or the behaviour, but yes, if you are confident that it is them, you can block without an SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. The thing is I'm not an admin, and I think this account's edits so far merit a NOTHERE block, notwithstanding the SPI. If you agree with NOTHERE, could you possibly indef them? Thank you. Dr. K. 00:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Got you confused with DrKay. Yeah, again, I haven't looked closely at this case (and in the middle of something else), but if you're concerned with socking, take it to SPI. If they're being disruptive enough for a NOTHERE block, I'd suggest AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Dr. K. 00:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes think someone should create WP:List of users with really, REALLY confusingly similar names (like Dr.K. and DrKay). EEng 04:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: my nomination. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Red link now blue: WP:List of users with really, REALLY confusingly similar names (like Dr.K. and DrKay) EEng 02:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, that was funny. Can we create yet another list for EEng, EEng1 and EEng CN? Dr. K. 02:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess, if those other users actually existed. Is there some hidden meaning there which I'm missing? EEng 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like it may be possible to distinguish the drs. kay by presence of a sense of humor, at least. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am the first one to appreciate EEng's humour, in fact so much so that once I posted on AN to have him unblocked, so no unnecessary and misguided digs about my sense of humour, please. EEng, I wrongly capitalised the second "E" on these usernames. They actually exist. Dr. K. 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is the thread that got EEng indeffed for making one of his irreverent humorous pictorial comments, and for which I defended him and repeatedly demanded his immediate unblock at AN, back in January 2016. Dr. K. 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

JBL, I appreciate your intent but you've got it wrong. The deletion was a bit weird, process-wise, but it's more of just a misunderstanding than anything else. [125]. All friends here, I assure you. EEng 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, EEng, don't worry -- I've got lots of friends who lack a sense of humor. --JBL (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

EEng, no need for clarifications. There are those who understand and support your sense of humour and have the record to show it, and there are those who just blabber on at drama boards for no good reason. Dr. K. 16:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Do I have to turn the hose on you two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's been years since I've looked at Shingling334 but if there wasn't a risk of clutter and confusion, I'd say tag them. I know we've got some "probable sock" category and tag, but an even less certain "maybe?" category and tag could be useful for cases like this. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ian. I opened the SPI, so the tagging will be done by the attending admins and clerks. Dr. K. 01:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dr.K. is well versed in the topic area, and uncanny in spotting socks and meat puppets. Their judgement is usually pretty sound. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• I can spot Shingling334 a mile away, this is definitely not him, the behavior is very different. This seems to be a new user, I don't see any evidence of sock/meat puppetry. Most of their edits have been minor MOS violations, adding the Turkish flag to infoboxes, which I've warned them twice about. The main problem is unsourced claims of Turkish origin of various things, and removing sourced mentions of other countries, particularly Greece and Armenia, going against WP:NPOV, e.g. in Basbousa. They're currently at a level-2 warning about that, and haven't edited since then. So far they haven't made any positive contributions. It's just crude nationalism and tendentious editing, without regard for sources, rational arguments, or communication. They've only been editing for a couple of days, but it doesn't look like they'll have a bright future here. --IamNotU (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mea culpa. I admit I didn't do this with surgical precision. Thanks go to all who commented here and to the crack team at the SPI desk whose time I wasted. Take care all and stay safe. Dr. K. 21:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's not like we'd expect Dr.K. to operate with surgical precision, right? EEng 03:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Lol. Touché. Although, I'm not an MD. :) Dr. K. 16:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack continued undiscussed mass removal of sources

In the past hour or so, despite discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293 having not been formally closed (and no RfC or listing at WP:RS/P), [[User:Horse Eye Jack |Horse Eye Jack]] has undertaken mass removal of references to CGTN, even in strictly non-political contexts such as sports, historical writers, or infrastructure / public transport metadata (not pertaining to controversial projects such as OBOR): sports ([126], [127]), infrastructure ([128], [129]), writers ([130]). As HEJ has been subject to a prior report on mass removal of mainland Chinese sources (including CGTN) in contexts not pertaining to BLP, despite the false invocation of BLP, for which they were reverted (sample 2) they are well-aware of the scrutiny that they have incurred. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't mean to post this at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic given that COVID-19 pandemic is where this dispute originated[131]? I’m sure we can all agree that CGTN, a source which has been caught red handed by WP:RS spreading misinformation about the pandemic, is not an appropriate source to use for factual statements about the pandemic. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be meaningful if the user Horse Eye Jack actually focused on the material (he does not, so it is not in accordance), but the edits is focused on mass removal of certain sources (regardless of the content, even the most noncontroversial, or factors such as the presence other RS). See [132][133][134][135][136] for a few examples. --Cold Season (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think out problem with one of the infrastructure numbers is that its not just a statement of when a line opened or that a certain station exists but of how many people rode the line in a given period of time, I still don’t feel that CGTN is a reliable source for that statement of fact. I also have been attributing and tagging where I think appropriate like [137]. First glance removal is only for BLPs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zaathras

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

• "yea, you can fuck right off with that."
• "stepkids are still one's own kids, jerk"
• "We don't report a negative, twit"
• "your personal opinion is piss-all important"
• "Go outside and jerk yourself a soda"
• "You're not an admin, back off"
• "First off, you have no authoritative backing to issue warnings, so we can laugh that one off."
• "It'll lead to a block or ban for you buddy bro, if you keep using templates incorrectly."

Buddy bro? Last time I saw someone tell another to "fuck off" it resulted in a 24 hour block, making me suspect the cited behavior isn't considered acceptable here. - Alexis Jazz 18:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaathras needs a short break from AP2 to rethink their approach. I’ve not found their approach to be as helpful as could be. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I took serious umbrage at Rufs10's misuse of an SPA tag on another user, though I see I could have expressed myself better, and in other parts of the Biden topic ares as well, so my apologies for that and will endeavor for calm in the future. The "jerk yourself a soda" is a funny line from Bugsy though. Rufs10 came in guns hot to my own talk page though and I responded in kind. I stand by the last 2 diffs. Zaathras (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's get the facts straight. I did not misuse the SPA tag in the talk page discussion at Talk:Joe Biden#RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header. I attempted to put the SPA label next to user:BetsyRMadison's comments. Any person can objectively look at her contributions and come to the conclusion that she is an SPA. 251 of her 364 total edits have been to a page with "Joe Biden" in the title. That's nearly 70%! That's not say, she necessarily is doing anything wrong (as I've made clear several times), but the closer of a contentious discussion need to be aware of potential SPAs . I also am not the only person to use the SPA tag within this discussion [138]. Yet, Zaathras took it upon himself to revert me twice when I put the tag into the discussion. As for coming in "guns hot", all I did was use a standard warning about removing other's talk page comments [139]. Zaathras has an attitude problem and I am not sure why he is staunchly defending an SPA which he has no clear connection to.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)\

Yes, let's get the facts straight, for the record, I am not an "SPA." As of May 26, when Rusf10 accused me of being SPA, I'd been a volunteer at WP for 32 days. In those 32 days I rarely do any actual "editing" but rather I primarily discuss "current events" on talk pages. Rusf10's statement "Any person can objectively look at her and come to the conclusion that she is an SPA " is wrong. Scjessey disagreed with Rusf10 on the talk page (here [140]) and said she does not think I resemble an SPA. And, to be clear, the vote that Rusf10 says "the closer of a contentious discussion need to be aware of potential SPAs" is a vote that Rusf10 brought to the talk page, Rusf10 has a vested interest in, and my vote is opposite of Rust10 (which is what Scjessey addressed in her comment on the talk page). So I am curious why Rusf10 is so staunchly trying to falsely accuse me of being an SPA, going all the way to this level, when other editors have disagreed with Rusf10 for tagging me with that.

Also, for the record, right before Rusf10 accused me of being an SPA, Rusf10 had gotten confused on the mathematical "Plurality Method" and incorrectly claimed something had a "plurality" of the vote when it did not. So, in good faith, I explained to Rusf10 how the "Plurality Method" works. I assume good faith with Rusf10 but I will note here that it is very coincidental that after I corrected Rusf10 on the "Plurality Method" is when Rusf10 wanted to tag me as an SPA.

Finally, as for the other person Rusf10 says accused me of being a SPA, since April 14 - the time I was accused, that person had devoted 79% of their time on article pertaining to Biden, so under Rust10's theory, that other person is an SPA too. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: I'm actually male, but I am certain I would make quite a fetching female if schooled in the appropriate attire and makeup. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To Scjessey - Dang! I am so sorry for that! I'm sure you're right, you'd make a fetching female if schooled. Thanks for having a sense of humor, I'm embarrassed {blushing} BetsyRMadison (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This needs to go to AE. I see multiple BLP issues, severe incivility. That arena is hot enough and does not need further heat.--MONGO (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO:AE does not solve problems. It is the problem. I have much more faith in our larger community of editors to resolve problems. AE may have been started with good intentions, but it has become a kangaroo court.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of these are unambiguously way over the top. There's a little bit of controversial precedent for leeway on usertalk pages, but tacking on "twit" and "jerk" to edit summaries in mainspace? Or "go outside and jerk yourself a soda" on a talk page? That one's a first for me ... quite shocking. At minimum a clear warning is in order here, if not a short block. It can be easy to get the idea that AP2 articles are battlegrounds by the way some people talk, but for a relatively newish user, it needs to be clear that's not how to operate (and that if someone is misbehaving, take it to a venue like this rather than attack them -- which really just makes things worse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have topic banned Zaathras from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics for six months. That will probably suffice to make the point that battle-ground behavior is not appropriate at Wikipedia, and particularly not for a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Or "go outside and jerk yourself a soda" on a talk page? That one's a first for me . You should look up Soda jerk, then. --Calton | Talk 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with the term. Gee whiz guess he was just being friendly then. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Not to get overly technical, just slightly technical, according to WP article "Bugsy,"[141] That quote is recognized by American Film Institute 2005: AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes: Virginia Hill: "Why don't you go outside and jerk yourself a soda?" – Nominated. I took it as Zaathras attempting to ease the tension with humor. Humor is good, especially for easing tension. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

• Thanks. Never saw that one. What an excellent example of why trying to insert humor (or pop culture references, or culture-specific idioms, or sarcasm) into active disputes and/or powder keg topics is at least as likely to do harm as help. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• You're welcome. You could be right, but to me this may be an excellent example of why, when a person who may become blinded by one's own passion to be right & have everyone agree with them, they should step away from their computer and laugh a little, as opposed to fueling their internal anger by hunting for reasons to complain about a person who disagrees with them. The way I see it, a "powder-keg topic" is just a topic where someone has 'self-personalized' the topic to a point where they feel they are the topic. When that happens, they become so blind with passion, they abandon all logic, and vent their rage toward anyone (possibly everyone) who disagrees them. Sad really. In my view, when that happens, it's best to step away, put things in proper perspective, and laugh (which is what I feel Zaathras was trying to do). As Psychology Today[142] puts it, "laughter can boost the immune system, relax muscles, aid circulation, and protect against heart disease. It can abet mental health, too; laughter can lower anxiety, release tension, improve mood, and foster resilience." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Zaathras has now "banned" me from their talk page. I'm actually not sure why exactly, but then again, I don't really care. It's nothing to actually act on right now, but I figured you might want to make a note somewhere to take that into consideration in case Zaathras makes an appeal at some point.

@BetsyRMadison: To answer your question on Zaathras' talk page: calling other editors "jerks" and "twits" as well as telling them to "back off" is what I consider working against other editors. Banning an editor from their talk page for unclear reasons isn't exactly "working with" other editors either. - Alexis Jazz 18:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To Alexis Jazz - You did not answer my questions (here [143]). This morning, you went to Zaathra's personal talk page to give me a message (here [144]). I have no idea why you went to Zaathras' talk page to give me a message, but you did. And in that message, you told me that you did not report Zaathras because of anything he said in the 8 comments you posted in your complaint (above here), but instead, you told me , "But that wasn't even what I created the report for. Zaathras was not working with other editors but on several occasions against them. That doesn't help the project, so I reported it." That's when I asked you why you did not mention anything about that in your filed complaint (above on this page). And, I asked you for specific examples, and which projects you were talking about. I also told you that I don't know how it helps you resolve your real concerns when you do not mention them so that Admin Johnuniq could help you resolve your real concerns.

It seems now, for some reason, you're not answering my questions but instead you're complaining that Zaathras told Rusf10 to "back off" after Rusf10 went to Zaathras' personal talk page to threaten Zaathra's (here [145]) and after Rusf10 forcefully personally attacked Zaathras . When Rusf10 did that, you did not go to Zaathras' talk page and accuse Rusf10 of "working against other editors" but instead you (here [146]) went to Zaathras' talk page to tell Rust10 that you would file a complaint against Zaathras for telling Rusf10 to "back off." Sure calling editors a "twit" and "jerk" are minor violations of WP:CIVILITY and should not be done, but you already told me that's not why you reported Zaathras. And truthfully, you didn't seem too concerned WP:CIVILITY when Rusf10 threatened Zaathras & personally attacked Zaathras, but that's besides the point.

I cannot and do not speak for Zaathras, but it's very possible that Zaathras banned or blocked you from his/her talk page because, perhaps, when you went to his/her talk page to give me the message you gave me, it may have seemed to Zaathras, that perhaps you were attempting to use his/her personal talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Look Alexis, I have no idea why you went to Zaathras' talk page to give me a message. I don't know why you came here, to your original complaint page, to give me a message. I don't know why you told me that your real issue with Zaathras has nothing to do with the 8 comments you put in your complaint (above here). And I don't know why you won't answer the questions I asked you earlier. Like I told you earlier, you and Zaathras both work hard to improve WP articles and I feel you & Zaathras both deserve to have your real concerns discussed and resolved. In my view, it will be impossible for you to get your real concerns resolved if Admin Johnuniq & Zaathras never know what your real concerns are. Since you haven't answered my questions, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask you a new question: is your real issue/concern with Zaathras simply that Zaathras does not agree with you on things? Is that why you did not mention your real issue/concern that you have with Zaatrhras in your original complaint here? BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: You can't ping people by linking their talk page. Linking a user page or using the {{ping}} / {{re}} template (which link the user page) works.

I said I didn't report Zaathras because of the discussion/reverting of the SPA thing with Rusf10. I didn't even look into that, I have no idea who (if anyone) was right or wrong there.

When Rusf10 did that, you did not go to Zaathras' talk page and accuse Rusf10 of "working against other editors" but instead you (here [141]) went to Zaathras' talk page to tell Rust10 that you would file a complaint against Zaathras for telling Rusf10 to "back off."

I haven't told Rusf10 anything on Zaathras' talk page. I made this report here, and when a report is made here it is mandatory to notify all users involved. See the top of this page.

Sure calling editors a "twit" and "jerk" are minor violations of WP:CIVILITY and should not be done, but you already told me that's not why you reported Zaathras.

No, that's exactly why I reported Zaathras. Along with the "fuck off", "piss-all", "back off", "buddy bro" and other generally hostile behavior.

And truthfully, you didn't seem too concerned WP:CIVILITY when Rusf10 threatened Zaathras & personally attacked Zaathras, but that's besides the point.

WP:OTHERSTUFF (also, personal attack? where?)

I have no idea why you went to Zaathras' talk page to give me a message.

You said "out of the 8 diffs Rusf10 is complaining about" on Zaathras' talk page. Rusf10 didn't complain about 8 diffs. I did. I corrected you. - Alexis Jazz 23:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: I infer from a quick look at the above that you are arguing with an editor who takes a different view regarding American politics. May I suggest taking a lesson from real life: how often have you seen such arguments lead to productive outcomes? In real life, people argue with each other to pass the time and/or to impress third parties. Those reasons are not much use here—apart from those who fiddle with commas or categories, everyone who edits a Trump or Biden article is likely to be a true believer and debating them is a waste of time. Just stick to talk-page discussions focused on content with respect to core policies: WP:RS + WP:DUE + WP:BLP. It would be better to leave User_talk:Zaathras alone for now—an appeal at the moment would certainly fail, while it may very well succeed after a period of constructive engagement elsewhere, as appears to be happening. This ANI report concerns certain blatant problems listed in the OP (original/opening post) and there should be nothing more needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Category removal before discussion closed

On May 22, User:Rathfelder nominate a number of categories involving Climate change denial for deletion [147]. That discussion is still going on, and has not been closed.

Today Rathfelder is making mass edits to remove those categories from articles. [148]

Their explanation on my talk page is:

"The current discussion is bound by the earlier discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive289#RfC:_Category:Climate_change_deniers. Please join the current discussion if you have some constructive suggestions." [149] Referring to an August 2019 discussion.

My feeling is if the categories in question were supposed to have been deleted by the August 2019 discussion, then why did Rathfelder think it necessary to nominate them for speedy deletion? And since when does a discussion at BLPN have jurisdiction over the deletion of categories?

In any case, they're removing them before the closing of the deletion discussion, edits which should probably be mass reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I added these categories in ignorance of the earlier decision. It is quite clear what the decision of the present discussion will be. We do not categorise people by opinion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Many, many discussions on Wikipedia turn around to the opposite of what appears to be the obvious conclusion at some point (I can point to two or three on this page alone), that's why we wait until the discussion has been closed by a neutral party who assesses the consensus. You've jumped the gun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We do categorise people by opinion, hence the whole Category:Conspiracy theorists tree. Number 57 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• If there is a violation then it's on me not Rathfelder, since I am the one who alerted Rathfelder about earlier decisions. But I believe there is no violation because (a) it seems to me that the initial nominator for speedy deletion was not Rathfelder but BrownHairedGirl (see the actual discussion); (b) there was a CfD as well as a WP:BLPN discussion in 2015, as mentioned in the intro of the second (2019) WP:BLPN discussion (c) WP:OPINIONCAT says remove the category from persons' biographies and this will apply even if the category is not deleted (Rathfelder avoided deleting for some cases where somebody might argue that the opinion was a defining characteristic); (d) WP:BLP says material can be removed immediately and without discussion if it's contentious and poorly sourced, which was sometimes arguably so, for example the sole evidence for categorizing Vicky Hartzler was that she tweeted "Global warming strikes America! Brrrr!".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• None of the posters above has described the sequence of events accurately. I am tired and headachey so off to bed soon, so I don't have time to diff-farm ... but no, I did not nominate any of these categories. Read the discussion.

However, the issue is simple: once Rathfelder had nominated the categories, they should not have begun to depopulate them. That's the closer's job, if the result is delete. And Rathfelder did depopulate: see 135 edits.

This is one a series of recent instances in which Rathfelder has been disruptive at CFD. If I feel less headachey tomorrow and this discussion is still open, I will post some links to that. But just note three facts:

1. To each of the nominated categories, Rathfelder correctly added a CFd tag (see e.g. [150])
2. Each CFD tag says:

   Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.

3. Rathfelder made 135 edits emptying the categories.[151]

Is that wilful disruption? Or is it yet more of Rathfelder acting incompetently, like their spree of disruption in April on Dublin categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Although there may be BLP issues here, I don't think they justify going around the normal processes for handling category deletions, i.e. any depopulation and deletion should be left to after closing. Likewise, if something is clearly snowing, let an uninvolved party decide that and close early rather than going around the normal processes. Even if Rathfelder was the one who added the categories and now realises it's a mistake, once it's as CSD it would be better to let the discussion play out. Rathfelder is free to disown their actions in the discussion. In the even the community finds the categories should stay, we don't delete them and re-add them so the editor who originally added them can say they now regret their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's not acceptable to anticipate the results of discussions. Deb (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is entirely concerned with the consequences of the decision made last year to delete similar categories. I announced my intention to purge them in the discussion and there was no objection. If the eventual conclusion is to keep them all, which seems very unlikely, I will reinstate them. Meanwhile it seemed important to identify the articles which generate real difficulties, as opposed to the large number of articles about politicians which merely mention climate change denial in a non-defining way. Purging of disputed categories is not a very unusual practice. Rathfelder (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The purpose of the CSD is to come to a consensus about what to happen with the categories. This will be based on our policies and guidelines, including in reference to previous discussions where relevant. This is what seems to be happening in that discussion and it should be allow to play out. If the decision is made to delete the categories then they will be depopulated and deleted. Until that happens, you need to stop mass editing without clear consensus. Acting as if a decision has been made when it hasn't is indeed an "unusual practice". And polluting edit histories with 2 edits when there should have been none is a silly suggestion. To put it a different way, just calm the heck down and let things play out as they will, rather than getting all itchy fingers and doing something prematurely. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Smeagol 17 on Alita: Battle Angel

Smeagol 17 (talk) is continuing to make the same edit over and over again on Alita: Battle Angel that undoes the product of a previous discussion on the talk page with no consensus. He's been reverted several times, been pointed to the relevant healthy and productive talkpage discussion on the very topic he's trying to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alita:_Battle_Angel#Unsourced_claim_box_office_point_from_edit_summaries, and been personally warned to stop making the same edit with no consensus which he's ignored https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smeagol_17#May_2020. When directing him to the talkpage to discuss his opinions, he wrote a throwaway sentence that didn't explain anything at the end of an already finished discussion and continued to make his same edit. When directed to start his own new discussion on the talkpage, he resorted to a personal attack before stating a random general fact that for the life of my I can't equate to any point he's trying to make anyways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alita:_Battle_Angel#Some_here_do_not_understand_that_studios_do_not_get_the_entire_Box_Office_gross before making his same edit again claiming his point had been clarified despite nobody even replying to his post. As revertions, the evidence of prior talkpage discussions on the same subject, user warnings and the opportunity to open his own talkpage discussion have proved fruitless, can someone else please take a look at this? Davefelmer (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• With all due respect, Davefelmer, you suggested on two separate occasions that they just aren’t aware of Wikipedia policy and that they should make a seperate thread as is protocol. It would be helpful if you actually cited the specific policy and protocol to which you were referring. KyleJoan^talk 04:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I did write on the talkpage before being directed to by anyone, as is easily seen. Got no response both times. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Merely writing on the talkpage and getting no response does not give you carte blanche to go about continuing to make unconstructive edits and ignoring previous discussions, as has been explained. It is precisely the fact that you got no response and thus no consensus to undo changes that were already established through previous discussion that means you don't do it. It is also not my nor any other editor's job to swiftly or otherwise answer anything you write on the talkpage, especially when said response is titled as a personal attack/dig and I can't even infer your general point or rationale in the response. Davefelmer (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I just corrected your timeline. Also, keeping obvious nonsense from the lead section of a prominent article is more important then not stepping on your toes. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Other than the fact it looks like an edit-war there, this sounds more like an WP:DRN issue. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem; you are not the arbiter for what is 'obvious nonsense' and what isn't. That is editing in bad faith. When your edits have been reverted and you see talkpage consensus for the prior version, you must get a new consensus on the talkpage before making any changes. If you do not get that consensus, you don't make the changes. It can be frustrating if you personally dont like the way something is presently written, but edit warring is never the correct response to it. Davefelmer (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbiter? I just simply thought you posted in the wrong noticeboard as there is the specific noticeboard I pointed to above for content disputes. It does seem kinda trivial that you can't come to a simple compromise, everything always seems long winded with you guys know. Govvy (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, that reply was meant in response to Smeagol 17's last comment. Davefelmer (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You did not respond to my arguments and show no understanding of my point or issue at hand, but instead of asking for clarification you revert and threaten me with administrative action, misrepresenting the timeline of our interactions. Sorry, but your behavior shows that archiving consensus with you on this issue will be impossible, at least by myself. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I’m not obligated to respond to your arguments on a talkpage. You are the one that is obligated to get consensus for a change that already had consensus if you reach an impasse. From me or from other editors on the talkpage. If that takes a while to come, it takes a while to come. If it doesn’t come at all, then it doesn’t come at all. That’s not up to me, those are just the project rules. And secondly, I don’t even understand the point you’re attempting to make on the article talkpage in the first place so I can’t offer any input. Davefelmer (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not obligated to wait for your consent to remove clear nonsense (that you yourself added), especialy as you clearly do not want to talk about the substance of the problem, instead presenting your personal wishes as wikipedia policy. Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You don’t need MY consent, but you need a general consensus. I may have added in the changes personally, but they were the product of a discussion on the talkpage that has been linked both here in this thread and to you personally. If you want to change an established edit, you need consensus. Whether you believe the current version is ‘nonsense’ or not is up to you but it has no bearing here. Please read WP:CONS. Davefelmer (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So, you and wallyfromdilbert represent wikipedia consensus? Where did you made an effort to incorporate my legitimate concerns? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

once again, it isn’t everyone’s duty to address anything you say. Wally and I are not sole arbiters of Wikipedia consensus but we engaged in a talkpage discussion on the very subject you are talking about and came to a consensus on the wording used. I don’t even know what your concerns are, you haven’t so much as made a clear point that I can personally see to reply to, and neither wally nor mysticdan, who has also been active on the page and replied in this very discussion, have seen fit to reply to you either. That should tell you something. You simply opened a discussion where you threw a dig at a user in the title, made a random comment about a break even point in the body that has no relevance to anything, didn’t raise any question or addressable concern of any kind, and then are wondering why nobody has responded. Davefelmer (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not wondering why you don't reply. I am wondering why you do not understand the simple point. And instead of asking to explain what you do not understand, you engage in your current behavior. The others mentioned do not revert my edits or report me, so please do not hide behind them. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

nobody is hiding my guy, you were the one complaining about nobody replying to you on the talkpage. If you’d like to expand or edit your talkpage comment to explain how what you wrote has any relevance to the article and what you are proposing to edit something to and why, I’ll be happy to take a look at it this evening. Davefelmer (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I not complaining about nobody replying on the talk page. First, it is you who are compaining about me, after you reverted my edits and reported me without engaging on the talk page. Second, I am not proposing to edit something, I already did it and you reverted it. As for explanation: how about you re-read the page-linkend deadline articles and read what I linked on the talk page, then re-read your proposed edit. Maybe after that you will notice that you calling the film break-even point budget is nonsence. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I see the filer of the complaint more at fault here. Smeagol attempted to engage on the talk page, and there was no response. Either this is WP:SILENCE, or it's a bad faith refusal to engage and stonewall any attempt at reaching consensus. Also, edit summaries claiming that the edits are vandalism[152] are unimpressive behaviour. I don't see why this has been brought to ANI at this stage either. Number 57 11:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve said, I don’t understand the point he’s trying to make on the talkpage. Hence instead of saying that I wanted to wait to see if another editor would engage with him. Also, how do you see it as more my fault when there’s a clear discussion on the talkpage linked in this thread that concluded with the inclusion of the very information he’s trying to revert? On top of the fact that when he did finally post on the talk page, the post was titled as a personal attack. I also don’t understand your point about labelling edits as vandalism. The edit summary you link to clearly shows me calmly reasoning with the other user and citing the previous talkpage discussion agreement to include the information he’s trying to revert. I really don’t understand this response. Davefelmer (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The "rvv" in your edit summary could be interpreted as shorthand for "revert vandalism" Mysticdan (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah no I meant it simply as revert. I didn’t even notice I added an extra ‘v’ in the beginning. In any case, I made the explanation as clear and informative as possible. Davefelmer (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't revert someone, telling them to get consensus on the talkpage, refuse to engage with them on the talkpage when they open a discussion, and then proceed to revert them again by stating they don't have consensus. Above, you wrote Merely writing on the talkpage and getting no response does not give you carte blanche to go about continuing to make unconstructive edits and ignoring previous discussions, as has been explained., but the reverse is true, too: refusing to engage on the talkpage with someone making good faith efforts to reexamine consensus doesn't give you carte blanche to simply revert their edits as being against consensus. As Number 57 said, that's classic stonewalling. Grandpallama (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Problem with an Editor on the Deep Learning Super Sampling article

Hello, I currently have a problem with the User talk:62.248.185.87 editor on the Deep Learning Super Sampling article. He keeps stating that the article is an advert I wrote (maybe he thinks that I'm working for Nvidia). He seems to think that the article contradicts itself and put tags about it, but he do not propose anything to improve it. He keeps in this non-constructive attitude whatever improvement I try to add on the article. He wanted the article to be deleted from the beginning.

Besides, this user is extremely aggressive towards me since his first edit. The first thing he wrote on the talk page (and the second on Wikipedia, except if his account is a sock puppet) is: "Article is self-contradictory, lacks verifiability, uses vague, non-descriptive language and is written like an advertisement". It looks like an insult to me, and he has not stopped to use this kind of language in the article talk page. I tried to improve the article at the beginning but: first it was never enough for him, second he did not participate in any way except by throwing trash at whatever I tried. When I asked for advice on any proposal from him, he did not answer. But it was OK for him to write on the talk page that I wrote nonsense after I edited the article. I'm not editing on Wikipedia to be insulted by complete strangers.

His last remark is "These repeated baseless accusations while refusing to read or address edit summaries is not even remotely close to good faith participation". It is funny to write something like that for an editor whose only edits are on the talk page of this same article to explain that what I wrote is either baseless or is an advert, or removing parts of the article itself.

In have more than 14000 edits on wikipedia, and I created articles on a variety of subjects (I know I can make mistakes when I edit, and I accept critics, but not insults). He is not a registered user (OK it's his right if a prefers to edit that way), he is very aggressive, and almost only posted thrash on the talk page for this same article. He has also started to insult another editor who just tried to say on his talk page that he should be more careful when talking to other editors here Hervegirod (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have informed 62.248.185.87 (talk · contribs) about this discussion and told them I would semi-protect the article unless they engage with the discussion on talk. Please forget about the aggressiveness for now and explain at Talk:Deep Learning Super Sampling why the IP's concerns are unwarranted. You might also ask them why they remove text which they apparently think is inappropriate, but still tag the article in the same edit (diff). Please ping me from article talk after two or three days if the problem has not been resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not tag the article in the same edit in which I removed the claim. What you are looking at there is a edit reversal of a reversal of 2 edits made by a previous editor. You really ought to get things such as this correct if you are to make moderating decisions. Currently you are forcing me to defend myself against false accusation you have made - even though you are supposed to act as an neutral arbiter of disputes. Those edits were put in separately and concern different parts of the article. Making false accusations against me does not help resolving disputes and does not bring forth a sense of trust.

I removed a sentence from the page simply because they are not in the supposed source material. I brought this issue up on the talk page up all the way back in 13th of April, only to get told that Hervegirod does not remember where the claim they added is from, (adding such claims of the type is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy), and later Hervegirod had another article inserted as a source material and the wording slightly altered. The new referenced material on a quick word count is an 2716 word long article, something which is important later. I obviously read the referenced material in detail and with plenty of attention, and thus discovered that the claims were still not in it! Furthermore the article actually went on to pretty much say that the claims in the Wikipedia article are untrue! Hervegirod wrote that the quality is the same, but yet the article made no such claim. The performance was not shown to double on the quality preset, it went from 57 to 91 fps, even though Hervegirod insists that it did. And thirdly none of the testing even was at the claimed 4k output resolution.

I have furthermore repeatedly referenced, explained and expanded on this both in the edit summary and in the talk page of the article - yet have not gotten any answer to it - not even once has this point been addressed by Hervegirod. Separately despite all of this, my edit of the removal of the non sourced and dubious claims were then reverted by CrazyBoy826 less than 60 seconds (diff)(!!!) after I originally made the change. It's not physically possible get yourself acquainted with an approximately 2716 word article in 60 seconds. Thus as the user making the reversal clearly had not read the article or familiarized themselves with the edit, it could be undone, which is what I did, and that's what you are looking at there. So you mischaracterized my edit, but let's set that aside and focus on the issue at hand.

The claims made by Hervegirod above contain mostly untruths, half-truths and mischaracterizations. Key among them is the insistence in claiming that removal of untrue or non sourced material is somehow "non-constructive". The very opposite is true. WP:PROVEIT says this 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. This criteria has not been filled even remotely, despite me giving a very generous month and a half to fix the issue. Removing untrue claims is not "non-constructive" in any way whatsoever, the very opposite is true - It's arguably some of the most constructive changes one can make in Wikipedia. It is simply not my responsibility to find a source for Hervegirods claims. How could I find a source for Hervegirod's claims if Herverigod is unable to find sources for their own claims?

Here's some of the other mischaracterizations and half truths: Claiming that I keep stating the article is an advert that they wrote. I never claimed that the article is an advert they wrote. I wrote on the talk page that it's written like an advertisement, which is the same exact words as used in Wikipedia, such as Template:advert. Furthermore I even referenced some of what the related templates, such as WP:Weasel said and how it was parallel to the article at the time. It's not really accurate in the first place but "kept stating" is something that's would have been done multiple times. I have not really said it so in the first place let alone KEPT stating it. That's an inaccurate characterization of me, which is for the record almost the only thing Hervegirod comments on, my character. Of course the actual fact that they repeatedly insert something in to their own article that's not supported by their own sources or apparently even true would not make a good argument.

Claiming that I wrote that they wrote "nonsense" on the talk page of the article: There is literally 0 mentions of the word "nonsense" there and I never described anything that they put on the talk page as nonsense. That claim is literally just outright untrue!

Claiming that I have not "propose anything to improve it": I did not just propose to improve it, but I actually did improve it! Removing untrue and non sourced claims from an article definitely improved it and I feel good about it.

Claiming my last remarks were the ones written above: That's a complete mischaracterization of my message. My message was almost entirely about the claims which I took off from the article - the only reason I wrote that was due to him repeatedly attacking my character while refusing to engage in dialogue about the actual claims they had written in the article. The message I responded there literally contained nothing about the claims themselves. Hervegirod asked me, and I quote "Do you ever read what people answer to your questions?" - there was no reason to assume I had not read the answers. Also pointing out errors in, such as the cited source not containing claims they had written on the article is not vandalism and accusing me of it was entirely unwarranted.

Claiming that I'm starting to remove parts of the article: I removed a single sentence which contained two non sourced and dubious claims. That's a broad over description and yet another mischaracterization.

Claiming that my only edits are on the talk page: If my only edits would be on a talk page would we be here?

All in all it's a character assassination which doesn't address the fact that the removed sentence claimed something which was not only unsupported by the claimed source material, but actually contradicted by it. Unlike claimed in the sentence, the performance did not double on the quality preset in the game control, it went from 57 fps to 91, far from doubling, and the results was never described as "same quality" in the article, and that's besides that the testing never even was at 4k output resolution unlike they wrote on the article!

Lastly it's not correct to say that I have not engaged in the talk page. It's quite the opposite. I explained in detail how the cited source material did not contain the claim made in the article, only for Hervegirod not only not to respond, but to come to complain here instead. Saying that I should engage in comment page doesn't actually alter what I've done so far as I've already done it, but I'll keep doing it and await for Hervegirod to start doing the same, instead of just complaining here. Good starting point for that would be to admit that the source material for their claims doesn't contain what they wrote in the article, and therefore the removal was justified. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Many of us are over the thrill of arguing with a wall of text from a random angry person. I'll look at the content issue later and try to extract whatever meaning there is from the above. It will be necessary to state what the problem is (problem = article content and edits thereto) in a digestible manner. That will be sorted at article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I attempted some improvements there. Definitely issues on both sides, and too much argument to read. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

IP making unsourced and badly-sourced edits to Ashkenazi Jews and edit warring, refusing to discuss in Talk

An IP (User:217.132.62.197) is persistently making unsourced and misrepresentative edits (based on misinterpretations of a source and claimed personal experience) and ignoring explanations in edit notes in Ashkenazi Jews. I reverted them three times but do not want to violate the three-revert rule (by reverting more than that, which is my understanding of the rule) but they don't seem to be willing to listen and seem determined to misinterpret a source by adding their WP:OR and ignoring its fairly clear conclusions. (If I have violated the 3RR rule, I will of course, self-revert until this is resolved.). I would have engaged them in Talk, but I am unsure whether one can ping an IP (and this IP seems largely unwilling to listen/engage and has made strange personally-directed and somewhat uncivil/accusatory comments such as this [[153]] and this [[154]] with unsupported assertions in response to my source-based notes such as this one [[155]]). Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Here is the page's edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ashkenazi_Jews&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skllagyook (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you.Skllagyook (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Also the same IP (217.132.62.197) seems to be making the same poorly/inaccurately/misleadingly sourced and disruptive (or potentially disruptive) edits to the Ashkenazi page of the Hebrew Wikipedia. I reverted once (or rather modified/added to their edit to make it less misleading) but wish to avoid an edit war. What can be done? Can something be done by you/from here? Or would I need to address this on the Hebrew Wikipedia equivalent of ANI (if so/if it exists, how can I find it)?

See (can be translated into English automatically with many smartphones of with Google translate): ::https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/מיוחד:היסטוריה/יהדות_אשכנז

Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No, nothing can be done here. Sorry, I do not have sysop privileges there. Their reporting platform is at he:ויקיפדיה:בקשות_ממפעילים. El_C 23:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft space hoaxes

Apologies if this doesn't constitute as an 'urgent incident' or something similar, but I already asked about what to do over on the help desk.

There's a user, Michael grutsch, who has been making plenty of drafts that are either fancruft, hoaxes, or things that are not relevant to Wikipedia and are more suitable for a fan-Wiki (mainly referring to drafts created to put up the full transcript of a non-notable episode of a cartoon of Nickelodeon). I've mainly known about this since I had seen an article they created, SpongeBob in RandomLand, was a completely non-notable episode of SpongeBob and even had the plot/summary of the episode 100% copy/pasted from the SpongeBob Wikia page. I had proposed that article for deletion (was using Twinkle, I believe I was meaning to use 'XFD', but accidentally went on with 'PROD' instead) and it was later deleted and moved to be a draft. However, this is just one draft. There's many drafts created that many, if not all, will never pass. Regarding the fancruft info, there's drafts where it literally states, ""Class Fight" was made by Michael grutsch for an Idea for the loud house season 5, along with the other episodes he made, since he gonna become a producer when grows up." Here's the drafts in question for the info I outlined above:

• Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House) + Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House)/Transcript
• Draft:Pogo Trouble (Oddbods)
• Draft:First Day of Middle School (The Loud House) + Draft:First Day of Middle School (The Loud House)/Transcript
• Draft:Lori goes to College (The Loud House)
• Draft:Lynn High (The Loud House)
• Draft:Papa Louie 4: When Wings Attack (Flipline Studios)
• Draft:SpongeBob in RandomLand (SpongeBob SquarePants)/Gallery
• Draft:Papa Louie 3: When Sundaes Attack (Flipline Studios)
• Draft:Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants)/Transcript
• Draft:First Day of Middle School (The Loud House)
• Draft:It's My Party (The Odddbods Show)

Not sure if I got them all or if I'm missing any... I'm also not sure if this amount of fancruft or draft hoaxes is enough to warrant a block or anything, but it's clear that most (if not, all...) of these are not what Wikipedia is intended for, and is instead, more suitable for a fan-run Wiki. Apologies again if I shouldn't have immediately came here for this issue and instead nominated the drafts to be deleted, but I thought I could come here seeing how I had reported a similar issue here in the past. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of these are clearly hoaxes since The Loud House hasn’t finished its fourth season so barring the editor being a writer of producer of the show they can’t know summaries for The unannounced fifth season.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt, but the season five drafts are basically fan-creations- "...was made by Michael grutsch for an Idea for the loud house season 5..." Magitroopa (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If they were in user space, they could be deleted under WP:CSD#U5, since this user appears to putting material up just to have it on the web. If they were in article space, there's WP:CSD#A11. There's not a criterion for draft space, though. So, one option would be to nominate then (as a group) at MfD.

The other option...while my optimistic side would like to think the user will straighten up and become a productive editor, if they keep making pages like this, they'll wind up blocked (WP:NOTHERE), and the blocking admin can delete them in the cleanup. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it isn’t too soon, if they’re dinking around in mainspace like this and this, latter seems to include more hoaxes. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Like I mentioned in my original post here, the "SpongeBob in RandomLand" article I had gotten deleted had a plot 100% copy/pasted from SpongeBob Wiki- that "Reef Blower" edit has the plot 100% copy/pasted from here as well. The "Release" and "Reception" sections are 100% copy/pasted from there too. Another one from this edit with the plot copy/pasted from here. I guess we'll have to see if their edits like this continues. Magitroopa (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: The copy-paste is a separate issue. There, the user is attempting to create a page about a real episode—although it's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The material they copied is licensed for free use; however, they don't attribute the source when they copy. And that would be an easy fix, so that isn't really enough to warrant admin action. The real issue, IMO, is abuse of draft space as a personal webhost. There's also an active thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that I've just commented on about this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've vetted the drafts. Some appear to relate to actual episodes or games; they've been left alone for now. Some were galleries or transcripts for actual episodes. They were empty, but there's no way to populate them without infringing copyright, so I speedy deleted them per WP:IAR. Where the creator said the stories are his ideas, I've trimmed the infoboxes to remove the association with actual production and nominated them for MfD.
  The MfD can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Class Fight (The Loud House). —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Question - Does someone want to check the weather in Tierra del Fuego? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced contents

Please have a look at the pages Ambalavasi and Polyandry in India an anonymous guy (2402:3A80:12A2:3CD1:557B:CB9F:7074:22DC) blatantly removing sourced contents by saying "not in the source".

[[156]]

The statement he removed was clearly mentioned in the provided source [2] of the article Ambalavasi here [[157]]

[[158]]

This statement also clearly mentioned in the provided source [13] and [11] of the article here Polyandry in India [[159]] and [[160]]

The same edit is also done by IP's 106.200.38.139 and 2402:3A80:530:DF60:4D00:555C:CA7A:45C. The editing behavior shows both the edits are from the very same person. Please block this user.Outlander^07@talk 18:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Californianinexile

User:Californianinexile is systematically deleting sourced information on articles on upcoming elections and not responding on their talk. Could somebody take a look? Abductive (reasoning) 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may add, multiple editors including myself has tried to reach out to him again and again but he's just keen on removing our hard work. Smith0124 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've warned them that at the very least the need to provide some sort of explanation in the edit summary when delete large blocks of text, and reminded them that they need to be willing to communicate per WP:BRD. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the edits they were doing, but it looked like they were rapidly deleting large chunks of info without explaining why. Abductive (reasoning) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've informed all editors since the start of this month of 2020 United States gubernatorial elections (the article mentioned on CIE's talk page) of discretionary sanctions & tagged the article's talk page.

As an aside, the colour scheme used on the article violates WP:ACCDD - "Don't use color as the only means of conveying information". Cabayi (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous way was completely unreadable. Also, this is a rule constantly broken on election articles with the result maps. Smith0124 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Californianinexile (talk · contribs) was created in September 2018 and has never edited a talk page. They are currently blocked for 24 hours but that should be extended if they resume unexplained deletions, or unexplained anything if their edits are challenged. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well his block expired and guess what then happened on 2020 United States Senate elections. No surprise. Smith0124 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Partially blocked from 2020 United States Senate elections 'til after the election (6mo). Hopefully CIE will engage in discussion & the block can be lifted, but past conduct doesn't look promising. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Cabayi and Johnuniq: - Californianinexile has moved on to doing the same at 2020 United States gubernatorial elections : [161].   // Timothy :: talk  18:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I reckon blocking article-by-article will not be effective. An TBAN is in order, IMO. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Given that Californianinexile (talk · contribs) hasn't responded on any talk page, or even shown any sign of reading their own talk page, a TBAN would be futile. I've blocked 'til after the election. It looks like forcing an unblock request is the only way to start some interaction. Cabayi (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Cabayi: I believe this problem maybe continuing with a new account - User:Wowza97 - [162].   // Timothy :: talk  20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ponyo got there first with a CU block but didn't state the master. I assume it's CIE? Cabayi (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've now left a note confirming such on Californianinexile's talk page. Note that from a CU perspective Californianinexile has a large network of IP ranges available to them and has edited extensively both logged in and out. Semi-protection of their primary article targets will be necessary if you want to impede them from editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Semi-protected gov, house & senate for a week. Cabayi (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

...and adjusted the block to an indefinite block for the extensive sockpuppetry. Cabayi (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate or CIR mis-editing of COVID data

• Spencer1594 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/United_States_medical_cases_by_state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Washington (state) medical cases by county (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it's time to escalate this to administrators. I and others have warned this editor repeatedly, directly on their talkpage, in edit summaries, or on article talkpages [163][164][165][166][167] that they should not try to totalize data where there are many Washington State counties missing, including King County, which is the largest by population. But they persist [168][169][170]. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I left the user the general sanctions notification and a warning that challenged edits must be discussed. Please notify me (e.g. a ping from a discussion which does not show consensus for a repeated edit) if there is an ongoing problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

They also were doing this on the US state cases table ([171], [172], [173]; the last one was literally 1 hour after responding (incomprehensibly) to my request to stop [174], and their next edit after that was reverting Bri on the WA page) although they at least stopped disrupting the US table the second (third?) time Bri and I asked. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

John Smith2 - here only to promote book sales

Special:Contributions/John_Smith2 (talk) appears to only exist on Wikipedia to promote book sales. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and deserves an indefinite block (WP:NOTHERE). He did 13 trivial edits over 10 minutes on 2 September 2017 to get autoconfirmed, and since then his edits have consisted of adding books he is promoting to the further reading sections of articles. The current book being promoted is:

• Malik, Jamal, Islam in South Asia: Revised, Enlarged and Updated Second Edition, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have had a look and given the user a COI warning and a one-off warning for advertising. If he continues to edit in this way, a block may be in order. Deb (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Problematic BLP editor

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

This is the 2nd time I'm reporting Rolleygiacalone to ANI for this very issue. Despite a block then and my repeated requests (1, 2, 3) and warnings for them to source their edits (1, 2), they have continued unabated. The edits in question, while small are controversial with regards to BLP articles and are seemingly thumb sucked from somewhere but only they seem to know the origin.

Here is an example of such an edit: an initial is added to a name even though the existing source makes no mention of it and no new or updated source is added. More examples can be seen here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on and so on.

It should perhaps be noted that this editor also created an article, since deleted that was deemed to be a blatant hoax so I'm not quite sure they are here to build an encyclopedia. Then of course there is the issue of their complete lack of communication, something they were warned about when blocked previously by 331dot and something they have ignored completely. I'd greatly appreciate an admin taking a look. Robvanvee 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted the editor opted to remove the ANI notice to this report as well as a final warning and personal plea from SummerPhDv2.0 moments after filing this. Robvanvee 10:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked again as they were given a final warning on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks 331dot. Robvanvee 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't find an appropriate speedy deletion category, but Now 100 Hits: Summer is obvious WP:CRYSTAL (see release info, indeed 26 June 2020) with possible IP block evasion. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can't see how it fits any CSD criteria. I did move it to draft space, as it isn't clear it is notable and it is crystal balling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds uncomfortable and ... possibly dangerous. EEng 07:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User Barbarossa51

My personal assumption is that this is a sockpuppet of previously indef'd user Mielato72. Both vandalized the same article within the span of a few days and did no edits anywhere else. --85.76.133.183 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Brianjd (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't file a case as an IP. I doubt anyone will care enough to lend a helping hand here, so I guess this will be all. Thank you very much in any case. --85.76.133.183 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mielato72. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Vmavanti incivility and personal attacks

In this deletion discussion, Vmavanti attacked another editor who !voted a different way, writing "What are you, eleven?" Later they wrote about opposing !votes, "These are bot responses." I would have ignored this except after I closed the discussion, they went on my talk page suggesting that I am a bot. The user has made many contributions to WP so they must be aware of WP:NPA. buidhe 13:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is so childish it hardly merits a response. It is a very bad idea for non-admins to close discussions, certainly not without very good reason, which was not given. The crux of the matter was sources, and that needed to be discussed more fully. Are we against Talk now? I was encouraging people in the discussion to read more carefully. For that, some would like to put me on trial. This has a faintly historical ring to it...
Vmavanti (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: It is a very bad idea for non-admins to close discussions, certainly not without very good reason, which was not given is at odds with community norms: see WP:NAC. A reason, too, is not required: all that is is that the closer is registerd, competent and experienced, all of which apply here. Your nomination, in fact, was so erroneous that no-on else agreed with you, and one of the few things that non-admins can close are discussions where the result is beyond doubt a clear keep, as was the one you initiated. Of course, you will always find one or two admins who disapprove of NACs, but the community disagrees with them at this point in time. All the best. ——Serial ^# 14:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have got so fed up with this editor's incivility and personal attacks, not least by his characterisation of other editors as "childish" when it is in fact he who behaves in a ridiculously childish manner, that I am afraid to disagree with him about anything. See, for example, his responses here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not very conducive to an atmosphere of collegiality, etc. ——Serial ^# 15:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see they were blocked a year ago for personal attacks or harassment and warned against doing it again. Here comes another one. Blocked one week. Bishonen | tålk 20:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC).

Harry munday

Harry munday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Harry munday been going around on articles about certain camera models and pasting advertising and manual like content [175]. Text describing bias opinions about a company and WP:NOTGUIDE (eg. "Sony's Terrible Warranty and repair services" and "Optical Filter Stack (UV/IR cut or colour filter) (40-100USD per unit) (not provided by sony)") I already warned them on my talkpage about not making those kind of edits which they later blanked out. After reverting both of my reverts [176] and [177] they then posted some passive-aggressive message on my talkpage about "Sony Community Notice. I didn't want to keep reverting and turning it into a edit war but I can't be wrong that this kind of content shouldn't be on Wikipedia? --Vauxford (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for 3RR(++) violation on the Sony α7R III article. Hope they learn from this relatively mild sanction, otherwise WP:NOTHERE may be invoked. Favonian (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I misread the dates; not 3RR but definitely edit-warring. Block changed accordingly. Favonian (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Favonian What should I do if he continues reverting the edit after the 24 hour block? --Vauxford (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Report him again. No guarantee that other admins will be as harsh as I hinted, but his two attempts to remove this discussion from ANI probably won't count in his favor. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Favonian, at the very least there will be escalating blocks. That is pretty special behaviour there. Guy (help!) 22:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Wjrz nj forecast

Repeated WP:DE mass changes adding WP:OR WP:CBALL content. WP:IDHT ignoring WP:V and WP:CS. WP:CIR. Prior ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#User:Wjrz nj forecast repeated addition of WP:OR WP:CBALL for similar behavior.

Refs in the edit below are links Playbill and general info on Broadway production, not specific WP:V details that "the show suspended production due to the COVID-19 pandemic":

• Chicago (musical)
• Mean Girls (musical)
• Girl from the North Country (musical)
• Jagged Little Pill (musical)
• West Side Story

...and dozens of others.

Antagonism towards other editors re: guidelines above: 1 2 3

User's edit summaries:

• "There’s a source now, I hope everyone recognizes how perfect these edits are"
• "I know some people don’t like me making any edits, but I’ve added a source so I hope I don’t get deleted"
• "Sources are so cool"
• "Don’t like my edits? Meow"
• "Now you can’t block me for unsourced editing! Beat you there!"

AldezD (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, yesterday they went back to talk pages where they had edited and apologized for their edit summaries here, here, here, and here. Schazjmd (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Username note: WJRZ-FM is an actual radio station in New Jersey, so this username is probably a violation of WP:Usernames. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reported to UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have talked to someone about my username already. However, if it is a violation, I would be happy to change it, just let me know. I don’t see what’s wrong with my sources. I’ve been talking with User:Paul Erik about how I can make the sources more useful. Please leave any information about how I can add content on my talk page, if you see I was happy to change it. I apologized for my edit summaries, and if there is a way to delete them, I would like to do that. Could someone please explain why this was taken to the administrators? Thank you. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bot-like behavior by User:YUMSUKLIB

User YUMSUKLIB is replacing Citation Needed templates with very low quality references [178], [179], [180], [181], [182]. Nonsensical edit summaries, bot-like tempo. Recommend an indefinite vandalism block and a mass revert of the user's entire edit history. Geogene (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Warned. A block would be overkill at this time. I've left the user a friendly warning. I have, however, rollback'd their edits. If in the midst of that mass undoing there were reliable sources which were removed, I apologize for that collateral damage. Hopefully, the user will take the time to review the reliable sources guideline I linked for them, and self-correct for any future edits. El_C 18:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

We now have Special:Contributions/YUMSUKLIB, Special:Contributions/PaulineNdhlovu, Special:Contributions/Omon Ize-Iyamu, Special:Contributions/Atuha and Special:Contributions/Nikemove. El_C 20:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, indeed all acounts are newbies and looks indeed like typical spambot editing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have indeffed those accounts (and will continue to do so) pending an explanation as to what is going on. El_C 20:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I read somewhere (possibly now archived) that these edits are part of an edit-a-thon; I'll see if I can find the link. There are definitely concerns with the edits, even if they can be attributed to an organized event, as I've seen many sources being added that are nowhere close to meeting WP:RS and in some cases they are simply Wikipedia mirrors as citations.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

meta:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref is one of the tags. DMacks (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it is not working, as there are many edits which are too low quality to be retained. El_C 21:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This page lists User:FNartey (WMF) as the main contact for the project. He should probably be made aware that Step #2 (i.e."Find a reliable source that can support that article") of "How to Participate: Five Basic Steps" isn't being met in a number of cases and the clean up effort will be a substantial drain on volunteer time if every citation added has to be doubled checked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps User:FNartey_(WMF) who seem to be the initiator should be contacted, I am not quite sufre if this idea 1Lib1Ref makes really sense if they only add low quality refs ... CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Without any Wikipedia training, it seems like a recipe for failure. El_C 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is also creating quite a lot of copyvios. I had to spend nearly an hour yesterday cleaning up after Special:Contributions/Hope Nakapite. Number 57 21:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio issues also with Special:Contributions/Muleta_Mutemwa. El_C 21:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of citations issues also with Special:Contributions/Risper_Chemutai, Special:Contributions/Mmaua. El_C 21:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to jump in here - the source added to the only page affected by this that I watch - Kimono - just seems to be a Wikipedia mirror of a much earlier version of the same article. If someone's running part of this event through bots, I have no idea where it's getting the sources from, as linking back to a scalped, shittier version of the same article running on another website is obviously self-defeating. Might as well put "source: my common sense in my brain", or something. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

MKCheserek (talk · contribs) also seems to belong to this group. They have racked up two blocks in two weeks of editing. Despite multiple warnings and explanations on their Talk page, there has been no communication from them with the exception of an unblock request. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: There is also Ngangaesther making edits such as this which most definitely is not a reliable source. I really don't relish the thought of going through 500+ edits to catch what amounts to spam links.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have left FNartey a comment about the issues we've been encountering (User_talk:FNartey_(WMF)#ANI_report). To summarize, while I applaud the sentiment behind this effort, I feel as if it could have been set up and executed better. Our African articles are currently being overwhelmed — at the moment, I get the sense that this is possibly doing more harm than good. An emphasis on better Wikipedia training (copyvio, reliable sources, etc.) must be part of any future such efforts if it is to benefit the project in a concrete and real way. El_C 22:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging their other account Flixtey as well, as they appear to be more active there. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Weighing in with concerns. I hadn't seen this thread, but I've cleared over 30 CopyPatrol notices in the last hour or so, all of which have that tag. I am well aware that I ought to respond carefully, because while every edit I see with that tag is problematic, I'm working at Copypatrol where most edits listed are problematic, so if I just saw 30 out of a project producing 10,000 good edits, we need minor tweaking and education, but if it is 30 out a few hundred, we have a situation that needs to be stopped.

FWIW, everyone of the edits I reverted was not a close paraphrase by someone who needs some guidance about writing in one's own words, most were simple copy and paste from place like britannica.com. Whoever is in charge needs to do a reboot.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

C. Odumegwu Ojukwu is a prefect example into how this isn't working. El_C 12:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

+ to what Sphilbrick has said. Copypatrol is getting totally swamped with edits relating to this. I've warned about 6-7 different users who are taking part in it. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, i find most of the comments very valid as some users may not have completely understood the trainings. In spite of our preparation with the audience through series of webinars we realised some erroneous edits that we tried to correct through posts from their community leaders. These worked as some realised their mistakes and learnt through process. I don't think any of these editors had any malicious intent and I acknowledge that some of the edits may have added to workload of volunteers. 1Lib1Ref has shown significant editor retention as well as editor reactivation in the past and we are optimistic with further training of this cohort we could increase the number of editors on en:wiki in the future. I had discovered, too late last week, that the audience needed other skills besides Wikipedia skills (how to evaluate digital source materials). We want to acknowledge the really strong demonstration of why we need to increase training with this audience and community. This kind of professional development is why our partner AFLIA exists in the African context. We are working with the leadership of AfLIA to provide further training in the next couple of months through this grant proposal to ensure their contribution in subsequent years will be better than that of this years', and we are taking the lessons from this round into our next iteration to ensure that our audience is adequately prepared on issues as these. Pointing out responses to an earlier conversation on the subject --FNartey (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

FNartey (WMF), Thanks for the response. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks from me, also, FNartey (WMF). If I could conclude this with a two fold suggestion: better Wikipedia training is key, including perhaps an initial throttling of volume by each participating account. And also, better notification to the English Wikipedia community (i.e. at WP:AN, WP:VP, etc.) that the effort is underway. As you can see from this very thread, most of us could not figure out what was going on for some time, to the point that I had to block several of these accounts from editing (now unblocked), pending an explanation. An explanation which, incidentally, none of the accounts provided themselves (perhaps a template/tag about the programme being placed on the userpages of participants would also be useful). Anyway, thanks for all the good work you do and good luck to all of us with the next iteration! El_C 17:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism and rude behavior by Pappé

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

Hello, I'm reporting Pappé because he's not here to build an encyclopedia. The vast majority of his edits are full of WP:OR and his WP:POV. Some examples of his attacks are: (Bullshit article obviously made by dishonest person who switches 'North Africans/Maghreb' into 'Berbers' out of the sources., You seem to be emotionally very sensitive about this subject. 1930 is 21th century and modern enough, Take yours or go back dealing Moroccan topics., Stop deleting facts. 'Atlas' you are a Moroccan nationalist., Moroccan nationalism out) Calling someone "XX nationalist" is definitely insolent. After expanding and removing OR from that article (Kutama). This is how I'm rewarded! Being called a nationalist. This behavior is not only in En wiki, It's also in Fr wiki (Contributions, Talk). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pappé (talk · contribs) edits infrequently and has not responded to concerns raised on their talk page. I think an indefinite block is in order. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have indeffed the user for battleground behaviour and lack of communication. El_C 09:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism and mischief by Justanothersgwikieditor

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

This user is not sincere in improving the BLP "Chai Keong Toh". Some of his mischief [[183]], [[184]] include:

1. Adding information that are unsourced

2. Vandalism and distorting information

3. Imposing his views without reliable sources

For "1", he added unsourced material " He left IDA in 2016 to join Singapore Power (SP Group) as CTO and vice-president." After my complain, he removed it.

For "2", he vandalized and distorted several information on the article. Changed "United States" to "United State]". He also changed a publication article from  "Towards A Greener And Energy-Efficient Internet" to "Green Internet - Dated 2009" for no good reason. He also added "He will subsequently be the Chief Engineering & Technology Officer (CETO) of IDA" which is distorted information. The source provided points to the person being concurrently holding both positions, i.e. Assistant Chief Executive and CETO at that time. He also replied "1,610 google results versus 19,600 google results as no overwhelming". Clearly, 19,600 is 10x more. This indicated his mischief and twist of fact.

For "3",  he insisted adding "Singaporean" without reliable sources, making claims that was the BLLP's name on birth registration (no proofs/sources), and claiming his race (again no proofs/sources). He insisted adding "newly created position" by stating it is "more important", without backing why and how he knows it is more important? He has moved and changed the BLP name from "Chai Keong Toh" to "Toh Chai Keong" without reliable sources and without first discussing with other editors. He made the move using WP:BOLD instead of WP:RS CanadaMaple123 (talk) 05:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

CanadaMaple123 - per the instructions at the top of this page, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Simply mentioning that you're mulling it over a few days ago probably isn't sufficient. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I will strongly suggest you read through the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Vandalism, WP:BLP, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:BRD.

1. I admitted that I added material that is unsourced, the reference I got is a poor source so which I did not added in the reference and I added the information, forgetting to add a citation needed tag to that line. On your first notification [185], I had removed it [186] per WP:BLP.
2. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism From changing United States to United State], to be exact, the change is ''[[United States]]'' to ''United State]'' [187], is an editing error where instead of 2 closing brackets are removed, the s and and the bracket are removed, this is not vandalism. Also, with the change of title of the reference Towards A Greener And Energy-Efficient Internet to Green Internet - Dated 2009, the change is made with reFill 2 [188]. The title looks innocently correct and I admit I should have looked more carefully during preview. The reference is [189] which the page is titled Green Internet - Dated 2009 while the material title is Towards A Greener And Energy-Efficient Internet. This particular edit made 15 changes or more by reFill 2 but that particular reference is by Chai K. Toh. The references stated that Toh was appointed as Assistant Chief Executive in 2015 and another article published in 2015 clearly stated his position as Assistant Chief Executive. The other reference states that he is both an Assistant Chief Executive and Chief Engineering & Technology Officer. It is a minor conclusion that he was firstly appointed as Assistant Chief Executive and then Chief Engineering & Technology Officer. If my phrasing makes it deem that he is no more the Assistant Chief Executive, I am more than happy to rephrase it accordingly. I also like to point out that CanadaMaple123 is twisting my words and hence creating mischief, He also replied "1,610 google results versus 19,600 google results as no overwhelming". Clearly, 19,600 is 10x more. This indicated his mischief and twist of fact., this is in reference to a google name search based on Toh Chai Keong and Chai Keong Toh, respectively which can be evidently seen here [190]].
3. In the original article [191], it was written Chai Keong "C.K." Toh FREng is a Singapore-born computer scientist, engineer, professor, and chief technology officer. which typical translated Toh as a Singaporean. As per my usual editing, I changed Singapore-born to Singaporean which was subsequently challenged. On CanadaMaple123's provision of source on his Chief Engineering & Technology Officer title [192], information was obtained he is a Singaporean which I am happy to accept as a source for his nationality. For context, the claims that was the BLLP's name on birth registration (no proofs/sources), and claiming his race (again no proofs/sources) is based on User:Juancarlos.canoescriba's remarks that Web records showed this person consistently used "Chai Keong Toh" for over a period of 20+ years. [193]. Singapore agencies, companies and education institutes uses official records of names for press releases and based on the reliable source provided by CanadaMaple123 states Toh is a Singaporean, Toh is a common surname in Singapore for Chinese Singaporean, see Toh (surname) for reference. It is a conclusion that I have drawn and replied in the talkpage and not in his Wikipedia page. For the newly created position, it is stated inside the reference, that the position is newly created. A google search on IDA's Assistant Chief Executives [194] shows that there are various Assistant Chief Executives for various groups and I think this is important to point out that this is a new position, Assistant Chief Executive (Engineering And Technology), and not a succession. This is a content dispute.
4. In reference to my statistics and the references provided so far, 1,610 google results, government agency and a business federation press releases, there are plenty of strong reliable sources. As what CanadaMaple123 has pointed out, it is a WP:BOLD move, supported by reliable sources (WP:RS). As per CanadaMaple123's post on User_talk:Lectonar#Page_revert_and_protection, Lectonar had said it is a WP:BRRD situation. On the page name change, I admit I may have been a bit hasty and decided to seek consensus by raising a move request.

Before the page move request, three new editors who are related to the page topic and vote for a consensus to move the page back to its original name and were banned for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CanadaMaple123/Archive. CanadaMaple123 was banned for three days and the unblock request is another story. After being blocked for sockpuppetry and lifting of ban, CanadaMaple123 continues to WP:CANVASS for votes[195].

In all, this is a content dispute and should not have being brought to ANI. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Justanothersgwikieditor: - I am reporting on your editing behavior. I am glad you admitted to [1] adding unsourced content, [2] changing United States to "United State]", [3] Changing the publication article title, [4] doing name change in a hasty. Too many of these are "mistakes", which I felt an experienced editor like you is hard to understand. I am a relatively young editor (less than 1 year). I also felt you are a bit of a bully, keep reminding people wikipedia policies when you yourself violated some. You have given 4 references, 1 existing, 1 found by me, and 2 given by you from an organization called IMDA. But IMDA is not IDA. Also, 4 references are insufficient to change a person's name. Kindly declare your COI. Do you work for IMDA? Do you have a COI with the BLP? Please add value and reliable content to the BLP instead of making contentious changes. Note: As a young editor, I frequently consult other editors for help and I learn from others. CanadaMaple123 (talk)

@CanadaMaple123: Item 1 has been sufficiently discussed. Item 2 is a normal, common editing mistake which is acceptable and not vandalism, we fix things as we go about it. You are accusing me of vandalism for this. Item 3 is an automated process which depends on tool to automate the filling of references which I am supposed to check and confirmed. I admitted I slip in checking in this. If you will read the wikipedia article IMDA Infocomm Media Development Authority(IMDA) , IMDA is a merger of IDA of and Media Development Authority. I hereby declare that I have no COI with the page topic and IMDA, IDA and MDA. I will like you to declare your COI with page topic and the three editors (if they are friends, fellow students). Again, I like you to refer to WP:BRD on the changes I made. I made changes, we discuss whether should something be included or excluded and I edited accordingly. Changes that you wanted and I do not agree on need to be discussed on page talkpage and not on ANI. Already, please read up on WP:CANVASS. You invited editors, admins and attempted to influence them to force through the changes and then started an ANI against me for vandalism and mischief for which there is none. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding on, I did not provide any sources or references with regards to IMDA. The two sources are already in the article before I started editing and the articles while stored in the www.imda.gov.sg website, they are referring to IDA press releases. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: - Key point is do not edit if there is no value added or nothing new (backed by reliable sources). Avoid editing as if it appears to be WP:VD or WP:PA or impulsive editing. I do not have a COI and I do not know the other editors. Also, I realized you had made many many small or one-off edits (from your contributions history). This appears you are ramping up your edits count? I usually just edit once and publish it once I am very sure all the changes I have made, after checking on the preview page. I am not interested to have many edits count to get BARNSTARS or badges. I focus on reliable content development for the encyclopedia. I also create new BLP pages. Finally, I am not convinced by your edits and contentious name change you made to the BLP "Chai Keong Toh". CanadaMaple123 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Casperti

Casperti has been disruptive since the time he started editing Wikipedia. His main interest is his engagement in Pashtun-related POV pushing. To this day, he has made at least 28 reverts on Pashtun alone.[196]

From few hours ago:

• "Aman Kumar wants to threat for its POV push".[197]

"Undid revision 959870650 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk) should stay for a while since there is an user who still does not want to proof its WP:EXTRAORDINARY out of POV"[198]

"Do not make any accusations on me further like claiming censorship that just a sign of showing WP:NPOV from your side."[199] (no such accusations were made)

First of all not all of them are related to the same issues. I watch the Pashtuns page so if something happens which needs a rv then I rv. Second of all your only edits to this page are reverts of me. So if you claim I have POV then you are as POV as I am if that's what you claim.--Casperti (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The page ownership and WP:IDHT is visible elsewhere too. He went ahead to file a report against an editor on WP:AN3 even when no 3RR violation took place, nor there is a clear case of edit warring, though Casperti is himself the one who has made 5 reverts in 30 hours.[200][201][202][203][204]

He has been reported enough times on WP:AN3,[205][206] but none of it helped him to cease his disruption.

Long term edit warring, together with ethnicity based POV pushing and frequent violation of WP:NPA shows this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all there is clearly a discussion ongoing on 2 issues where you want to silence me. Second of all number 230 is not a revert but was done per User:Anupam's request see here [207] besides it was placed by myself so..... and two revert were made for 2 different issues not the same issues. Shashank5988 and you are ignoring comments by me and other users when reached a consensus here:Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved for almost 9 months. By reading those comments it is known why you do not like it. Anyways threatening does not help anything just help all of us at the talk page where we are active for a while till we solved the matter with (again) non-sided comments so no disrupting anymore by any party till we reach a consensus (again) Casperti (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And now he is edit warring to restore a blatant personal attack against multiple users[208] made by an IP address, and claiming there was "no trolling". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? edit warring on a talk page? you are just deleting its comments. If you think it is a Troll then ignore it. come on just give valid reasons. Especially Shashank5988 and you too are known to threat everyone with noticeboards. Like come on at least provide some serious things except for "IT DIDNT GO MY WAY" Casperti (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Casperti has caused long-term disruption to this project through ethnic POV pushing over a wide-range of articles. At this point, only a topic ban from all articles pertaining to Afghanistan-India-Pakistan would be helpful. Eliko007 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Casperti on Afghanistan-India-Pakistan articles

• Support. Casperti seems to ignore the opinions of all other editors when they try to discuss issues with him. He also has a clear bias against users of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, frequently removing cited material.[209] Eliko007 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

When the person was right I immediately stopped and gave its way so stop accusing. We just provided out sources with each other and the other user was right. then it ended so what is the problem? Did I go on? If someone is right then he/she is right Casperti (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Since when are you allowed to setup out here a topic ban section in this noticeboard?Casperti (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to propose a topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for clarity ANI and AN are the 2 basic places where community topic bans may be discussed. (Arbcom can also impose topic bans, or they may be imposed by uninvolved administrators in cases where discretionary sanctions apply.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Initially I thought that problem is only with Pashtun-related articles but POV pushing concerns entire South Asian subject, and  one can easily observe edit warring by this user for adding poor content on other pages. [210][211][212] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are you putting some already ended discussions here? Where I gave in to/were solved..this is Wikipedia....What do you want to achieve? Casperti (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Casperti's edits seem to be driven by prejudice against a specific religious group, which is why he finds an excuse to remove them from articles pertaining to Afghanistan [213] Zakaria1978 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Zakaria1978, you have been known to revert everything I do see here [214]. Anyways I think this is just a collection of editors who do not like when I edit. Including WP:SLEEPER. Admin that checks this please take a look at the edit stance of these editors they are people whom I had discussions with and did not like it. But anyways I don't think this is even possible at all so why am I even reacting out here...Casperti (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless there are objections by anyone else but Casperti, I am ready to forgo the community process (and the 24-hour wait) and enact a discretionary sanctions-backed topic ban immediately. I'll wait a few hours for others to respond, however. El_C 09:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Admin @El C:, please let a non-partied decide in this special case. All these 3 people had "conflicts" with me. Please check it individually and check what edits they included. They have included random edits they did not like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please let some third party decide. This edit here [215] was quickly solved when the user gave the sources here [216] so nothing disruptive afterwards. [217]&[218] are purposeful chosen but both of them are solved by the respective talk pages here Talk:Nowruz and Talk:Shah. You can check them up, if there is disruptive editing let me know. I always cooperate in talk pages. I will ping the respective users that were involved there too: @Wario-Man: and @Wikaviani: you ask these users for the if I cooperated or just went on editing on these two topics one was for the Solar hijri calendar. When the users gave arguments/sources I just accepted it. Please read them. This edit here pointed by the last user Zakaria1978 [219] is just right. Source given said nothing about Hinduism 12 and [220]. For Zabulistan there is a long discussion going on where I am not part of it solely that one edit which these users are much aware of @HistoryofIran: and @Xerxes931:. So we have at least the people for the respective topics, where I am accused of doing disruptive and not cooperative, to decide. Please wait till someone reacts within 24 hours. Casperti (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Allow me to react within 24 hours: @El C: frankly, anyone who believes that "User:Khestwol and User:Anupam should pay visit to psychiatrist" isn't trolling needs their judgement questioned. I think your proposal, therefore, to be a good one; removing warriors from their preferred battlefield can't be a bad strategy. ——Serial

^# 11:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That comment is not placed by me at all. I said if it is trolling try to ignore instead of deleting it and the comment was not made by me it was unsigned by a random IP. Casperti (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: This Noticeboard is made shortly after I setup this noticeboard fill in by me here [221]. This is more to attack me personally as user. Other admins have reacted on that too. Please check it out. Casperti (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for letting us know about discussion. That said, AFAICT, even in that discussion while there is some concern over what others have done, your actions seem to have received the most attention. More concerning is that it's not clear to me from your comments you understand that. Also I think you're missing the point of what SN54129 is saying. Yes we know you aren't the one who left that comment. But you specifically said "view is view no matter what. It includes arguments not trolling". So you were claiming that someone who said that wasn't trolling. Personally I'd approach this from a different way. I don't care whether you want to call it trolling or what. Anyone who is making such comments isn't welcome here and you shouldn't be fighting to preserve their comments. Why don't you just ignore such editors instead of fighting to preserve their comments? Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit I could have done it otherwise but the user that openend this discussion was known for deleting discussion at that talk page as you can see here [222]. Including comments of others and User:El_C had reverted it by himself here [223] so you can see why I reverted it. But I should have looked it more carefully and I could have prevented it I admit that. But for the admin that watches the page keep an eye on this noticeboard [224] that provoked this one. Where other admins could see there is problems from both sides. We all care for the quality of the page, they are planning to use some Rfc's. So, to be fair on all sides keep an eye out for that page. Casperti (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment : Casperti has sometimes been disruptive and i have disagreed with them several times, but i must say that when asked to discuss on talk pages, Casperti often engages in constructive discussions, thus, i sincerely think they can be a net positive for the project if they promise to desist from edit-warring and engage in collegial discussions better than they did untill now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support because of his disruptive behavior and unwillingness to engage with other editors constructively, I support banning him from all articles related to Pashtuns. Khestwol (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems a bit unfair. I had you and Anupam on the other noticeboard that provoked this noticeboard. Your view is a bit one-sided. anyway it is better to watch out that other noticeboard to see what the best is other Admins are forming a solution because banning one editor and not the other will not prevent such actions (by other users) further. As for now I do not carry anything out on the page so that claim. This noticeboard and that noticeboard is approximately about the same problem. Casperti (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Commenting here because I have been dragged without any reason for at least two times by Casperti here on this thread. This WP:BATTLE should stop and if Casperti is capable of editing (which I think he is not) then he must prove that he can indeed edit other subjects than continue being a self-admitted SPA ("I don't want to edit other pages"[ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pashtuns&diff=prev&oldid=884175056]). Shashank5988 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As expected and mentioned on the other noticeboard. You would react too. Casperti (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Length of the sanction

I still intend to apply discretionary sanctions, which does not require community consultation. Still, I'm interested in what length a topic ban participants lean toward. Personally, I'm debating between a 3- and 6-month topic ban from the IPA topic area (I originally weighed a year-long topic ban, but I'm willing to consider a shorter stint per Wikaviani). El_C 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You want WP:ARBIPA for the wikilink. Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the opinion of users who do not like me as an editor. Heavy weighed in this. But please take a look at the other noticeboard as well. Because now I cannot discuss in the talk pages because blocking me does not solve the problem on 2 source issues in Pashtuns. Check other noticeboard here [225]. It looks like I am the only one thats gets punished without having any solution for the problem. Anupam goes free out while edit warring can be clearly seen from two sides.Casperti (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

El_C, at this time, I don't see a better remedy than an indefinite tban from IPA articles. Casperti created their account for the sole purpose of removing "Hinduism" from any article related to Pakistan and Afghanistan as can be seen from their very first edits (they are a minority in the area, with many being driven off through the partition and later by the Taliban). After a six month tban, this behavior would most likely continue. I would give them the option to appeal their tban, although that should be done with community approval, especially given the WP:COMPETENCE issues that this user has, with not even realizing what they did wrong and instead trying to fault other editors. Eliko007 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, i find your above comment too harsh. I worked with Casperti several times here, on Wiki, and while we often disagreed, i would say that this user does engage in polite and constructive discussions when they're asked for that. I see nothing in their behavior that would justify an indefinite TB. I did not vote here and to be honest, El_C's proposal of a 3/6 months TB sounds well-balanced enough. Also, if you guys still find Casperti disruptive after the TB, feel free to file another request here, but suppressing indefinitely any chance of this editor to edit topics they like would be irrelevant for now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS

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

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

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

Background includes:

Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints

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

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

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

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

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

From User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then back to challenging MEDRS/RS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPYVIO by Truthwins018

I was about to warn this user for copyright violations, then I saw he already got away from a pretty solid SPI and has been already warned over copyrights.[226] The user is basically here for WP:RGW who is still engaging in mass copyright violations per his recent edit.[227] See results of his recent edit that how much he has violated COPYVIO. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit war at Bergen Community College where editor is inserting (and reinserting) COPYVIO material

The article for Bergen Community College has been updated about a dozen times by an IP editor, with sourced material removed and extensive sections of COPYVIO material added (from this official source; it also appears elsewhere on official sites). A series of reverts was undone by the same IP editor, who made clear in this edit that "This is all official College data and information coming directly from the source - the College. Please stop reverting to past versions." I'm sure that the editor believes in good faith that the edits are adding official material, but the WP:COPYVIO issue is not being understood here (as well as a possible WP:COI problem). Alansohn (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Which was followed shortly after by another revert, this time with the edit summary "This is all official College data and information coming directly from the source - the College. Please stop reverting to past versions. The content in the presidential brochure is owned by the College copyright, as is the information being posted to Wikipedia. I represent the College and have the express permission to do so." The COPYVIO is clear and now it's obvious that WP:COI is also present, as well as WP:3RR problems. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted and revision-deleted the copyvio, and I (and several others) have put warnings on the IP's talk page, which the IP has seen, since he or she has subsequently posted there. I'll try to explain further there. (If I messed anything up with the revision deletion, any other admin is welcome to fix things up—I'm not as familiar with the process as I should be.) Deor (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has seems to stop. I have told them about Copyright, and COI, and paid editing. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 18:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

IP user 73.49.85.51 is adding the word "alleged" to the article on Tareq Salahi in relation to the 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches. In their edit summary, they have said this is required by a lawyer in Los Angeles and to contact that lawyer. diff Emk9 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess we have to. A lawyer says so. (A lawyer who writes illiterate stuff such as "in accordance to". Allegedly.) EEng 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(sigh) What does the source say? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite call this a legal threat, but it's getting distressingly close. Has anybody actually tried, you know, talking to this IP editor beyond edit summaries? creffett (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I just gave them my standard WP:42, BLP/help combo. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Mahasundari devi legal threat

Mahasundari devi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has threatened legal action if his user page which contains content about his grandmother (there is an article at Mahasundari Devi) is deleted. I have told him he needs to discuss concerns on the article talk page, that he cannot have article content on his user page, and asked him to read WP:NLT. Awaiting his response. I don't want to be overly hasty about blocking, but I thought I should mention it here. Hopefully, he can be guided w/o blocking. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

Disruption by users: ReliableAssam, Encyclopedia-ein and IP editors.

In the last couple of days the following users—ReliableAssam (talk · contribs), Encyclopedia-ein (talk · contribs), 2409:4065:e96:261f:4c97:65eb:a420:c75a (talk · contribs), 106.203.144.76 (talk · contribs) have taken to vandalizing articles related to Assam, specifically Assam, People of Assam and Kamarupa and a few others. These are all new users and seem to have proliferated after Logical Man 2000 (talk · contribs) was blocked for sock-puppetry. These new editors seem to be picking up the gauntlet exactly where Logical Man, DinaBasumatary (talk · contribs) and PerfectingNEI (talk · contribs) left off, with exactly the same arguments and view points. It is very difficult to engage with these editors in any discussion and no amount of citations or references seem to get to them.

I wonder whether something can be done to protect these pages from this kind of attack. I shall provide more evidence as required. @JzG:.

Chaipau (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, I think a CheckUser might be the best person to comment first. Not that I;m averse to blocking if you can show me some substantially similar edits? I am old, tired and lazy... Guy (help!) 23:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

False accusation. I have cleaned exeggration and some POV push from Kamakhya , Kamarupa kingdom and Assam. I don't know if it is wrong to use of already available citation to counter POV push. ReliableAssam (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

For example - Ahom claim to construct a wall Natamandira. But the image is specifically for Kamarupa statue or idol. This is clearly a misleading claim. I can click a photo with Ex-President Obama but I can't use his photo for my use. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kamakhya_Temple&diff=959545964&oldid=959542008 .ReliableAssam (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this?

Bizarre stuff happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rattler (G.I. Joe) - Bunch of new users posting brief statements that an article should be kept, the users are then getting blocked, and the !votes are then being reverted as imposters. Other editors are then coming along and adding back the (still-struck out) !votes and leaving more. Users involved are User:Mubashgu, User:ST47 z, User:61Jump, User:Feelota, and User:FuriousEagleGye. As the first three have been indeffed, I'm only going to notify the latter two. Can someone come in and straighten out what in the world is going on here? A sock check might need to happen. Hog Farm (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: All five have been indeffed now. Hog Farm (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If any additional accounts are created to edit AfDs with the same M.O., just report them to AIV for immediate blocking with a link to this report. I've semi-protected the AfDs they were targeting today, but they'll probably just move on to others.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page confusion, attacks and counter-attacks in spit/merge discussion

Can someone with more patience and a better understanding of the subject matter -- which appears to be essentially interracial marriage in China -- please take a look at:

• Talk:Interracial marriage#Move/merge discussion at Talk:Miscegenation, and
• Talk:Miscegenation#Split and create new 'History of Multiracial People' article

The problems I see are:

• 1. Several of the participants do not seem to be able to write and format their comments in a way that is understandable;
• 2. A large percentage of the discussion has moved into WP:NOTAFORUM territory;
• 3. Editors are attacking each other as sockpuppets, to the extent that two SPIs have been filed here and here, and perhaps others I'm not aware of;
• 3. Worst, these elements are all mixed up together in individual comments.

The suggested splt/merge is complicated enough that it would be a difficult discussion to begin with, even without these factors confusing things. I'm wondering what, if anything, can be done to keep the discussion focused and under control. The answer is not obvious to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there any discretionary sanctions which cover this subject matter, or China? I couldn't find any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)