Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) at 05:03, 28 May 2020 (→Proposed editing restriction on Rich Farmbrough: oppoze). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    WP:OWN by Freeknowledgecreator

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

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

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

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

    I have reverted edits - for example, by you - that I have every right to regard as poor and harmful edits, and I am not sorry for doing so. You seem to be obsessed by pictures of Freud and have attributed an utterly unwarranted importance to them. That the images are "inappropriate" and "convey a false impression of legitimacy" is your baseless assertion. They are entirely appropriate images in articles related to psychoanalysis and you are wrong to remove them. Anyone who reviews the revision history of those articles will note that you have also edit warred. Your comment that the image caption at one of the articles makes "a false claim made about Freud's views on homosexuality" is itself false. The image caption is about how one person interprets or understand's Freud's views; it is not about Freud's views themselves. JzG's claim that "everyone else who has commented to date" agrees that the image of Freud is "inappropriate" is also factually wrong. No one but him supported his position at one of those articles, at the other article, (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality), Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate. I could go on to dispute JzG's claims, but it would be pointless. The bottom line is, the whole thing is a content dispute that can be resolved by discussion. Wikipedia has standard dispute resolution procedures, and they can be allowed to do their work. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2020
    JzG's statement above about Rod Dreher is a BLP violation. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that it is, if "according to the linked article" he is described on those terms. But beyond that, it seems that participants do not favour your version, so why are you edit warring to include it, anyway? El_C 20:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Rod Dreher does not describe Dreher using either of the terms JzG used to describe him. If you are "not sure", then presumably the comment by JzG should be removed, to err on the side of caution and protecting living people. As for the Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality article, you are right that most of the editors who have commented do not support the image, so I have removed it for the time being. The reasons given for opposing it have been spurious, of course. Where other issues are concerned we simply need more time to work things out and establish consensus. JzG's aggressive editing approach has not helped. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure because I was still checking. Now having checked, I suppose it's open to interpretation, but probably ought to have been phrased less sharply. El_C 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, it is a BLP violation. Let's not deny that for the sake of not hurting JzG's feelings. He is guilty of doing the same thing at Talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. I won't repeat the comment he made about Dreher there, but you can see it for yourself. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have redacted it. El_C 20:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, the article describes Dreher as promoting a racist book, this [1] makes rather a nicely nuanced case for him trying and failing not to be racist. The fact that he's anti LGBTQ is not in the least controversial: he has a history of tweets against gay marriage and trans people.
    But I don't care that much: the issue is that he's a right-wing commentator writing an opinion piece in a right-wing journal, he has precisely zero expertise on the subject of conversion therapy, so the inclusion of his diatribe with its, yes, bigoted title ("homintern", a clear reference to the "homosexual agenda"), from the primary source with no secondary source discussing it, is WP:UNDUE. As are the queer voices in QNews and Daniel Newhauser in Vice. We don't include contentious primary opinion pieces in low-quality sources from people who are not subject matter experts, especially when we have reliable secondary mainstream sources that cover the essential facts. Guy (help!) 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly reasonable for an article dealing with a controversy to state what people, rightly or wrongly, said about that controversy. If something controversial becomes a matter of public debate, it is not only permissible, but necessary, to state what people said about it whether they happen to be experts or not. The controversy is not directly about conversion therapy, but rather concerns the rightness or wrongness of a bookseller selling a particular book - no one can really claim to be an "expert" about such an inherently contentious ethical issue. Your position is indefensible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, have you read WP:RS at all? Reliable, Independent, Secondary is the Wikipedia trifecta. Primary opinionated sources in opinionated publications fail at least two and usually all three arms (e.g. the Washington Times is generally considered a source to avoid).
    You keep making these statements of opinion-as-fact. My position is not "indefensible". It is absolutely defensible. You might not agree with it, but the idea that extremist non-expert opinions should not be quoted direct from controversial primary sources is hardly indefensible. Guy (help!) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is 100% reasonable to use these sources for statements about opinions that appeared in them, which is the only way they are being used. The opinions of the writers of those publications are being presented only as such, not as statements of objective fact. Your complaint that the writers are "non-experts" shows a misunderstanding of the issue. The controversy was over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one is an "expert" on that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, no it's not. Primary sourced opinions from non-experts are rarely considered appropriate unless there is evidence from secondary sources that they are considered significant. There is an old saying that opinions are like arse holes: everybody has one. Reliable, independent, secondary. Otherwise every single article could be overwhelmed by POV-pushers mining the internet for quotes they like. Guy (help!) 22:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely and utterly, even willfully, missing the point. The controversy is over the ethical rightness or wrongness of selling a particular book. No one can claim to be an "expert" on such a subject, making the "expert" status of the writers irrelevant. Your position is ludicrous. It would mean that Wikipedia would simply be unable to discuss an important public controversy, over an issue which no one can claim to be an expert about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, the facts give the lie to this. For example, you reverted content on the scientific status of conversion therapy three times within 24 hours, [2], [3], [4] despite unambiguous consensus on Talk that this was appropriate and necessary for NPOV, but left it in after I added one minor formatting change [5]. The RfC that produced consensus for inclusion was started, it appears, because you kept reverting Markworthen e.g. [6], [7], who was adding the scientific status of conversion therapy. Edit summaries such as "Restore previous; thank you, but I do not consider any of your changes improvements" are representative. While it is absolutely clear from these and your comment above that you don't consider anyone else's edits to be an improvement, it looks very much from the Talk page as if you are in a minority of one. The same applies to your cllaim of a "baseless assertion" about the image which you consider "entirely appropriate" - again, every other editor who has commented to date disagrees with you. Guy (help!) 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim about the image is factually false, as already noted ("Bilorv agreed the image is appropriate"). The RFC is ongoing. Despite what you claim, it has not produced consensus in favor of your specific edits. You should simply be patient and let the RFC and talk page discussion proceed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I have found the comment to which you refer. You are correct: Bilorv was not against inclusion. So that is 5:2 against. In particular, Muboshgu, an admin and a psychologist, and Markworthen, also a PhD psychologist, both support my "indefensible" interpretation of how the image is likely to be viewed and the inappropriateness of its inclusion. Maybe you'd like to change "indefensible" to a word that more accurately reflects the fact that my opinion is in the majority and supported by two subject matter experts? Guy (help!) 22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, there's an RfC? Where? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Wikipedia does not give any special status or authority to people who either are, or claim to be, credentialed experts. I am not moved by statements unsupported by evidence whether they come from credentialed experts or from the man in the street. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, are you "moved" by the content of Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality? He didn't believe homosexuality could be "changed". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason for me to answer pointless, vexatious, or presumptuous questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you won't be moved by statements unsupported by evidence, so I point out the evidence on Wiki and you have nothing to say? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will of course not answer irrelevant personal questions. You should not ask them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, "irrelevant"? This whole thing started because you're trying to tie Freud to conversion therapy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not answer irrelevant or inappropriate questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, good thing I haven't asked any of those. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, the RfC is about inclusion of the scientific status of conversion therapy, at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality
    What I hadn't realised is that when Freeknowledgecreator argues for the stable version, what he means is the version he himself wrote from whole cloth. This goes a long way to explaining the WP:OWN issue. Looking at the history, the first substantive edits by anyone else were by Markworthen in April, and were promptly reverted by Freeknowledgecreator, leading to that RfC.
    Freeknowledgecreator doesn't just have a dog in the fight, he is the dog. Guy (help!) 22:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring the point that I might actually have good reasons for reverting other people's edits. Markworthen is definitely editing the article in good faith and trying to be constructive. Unfortunately his very first edit to the article introduced a major factual error - as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I get the sense that you overrepresenting WP:FRINGE views well outside the scope of mainstream due weight. El_C 23:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That has never been my intention and you present no evidence that I have done any such thing. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of Freud [8], as stated above, is an example of that, I would challenge. I'm sorry, but that comes across as tendentious editing. El_C 23:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All I did in that edit was restore an image caption that was, in fact, perfectly correct. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am of the opinion that it was a highly WP:UNDUE and borderline tendentious. El_C 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be undue and tendentious to restore a factually accurate statement? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly. El_C 23:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A factually accurate statement is a factually accurate statement. If you believe a factually accurate statement "distorts the prevailing mainstream and scholarly consensus by invoking Freud's authority, albeit indirectly", the burden is on you to explain how. In my view, a factually accurate statement about what Nicolosi writes in his book is not a way of "invoking Freud's authority", and it is unclear to me what "authority" you believe Freud could have. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really just ask how the founder of psychoanalysis could be an authority? Anyway, the image of Freud with that caption serves to editorialize. Its usage as such is, at best, highly unusual. El_C 00:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All this discussion has come down to is you insinuating that the content I have added to the article is somehow biased and providing nothing of substance to back up your accusations. You cannot plausibly claim that a caption that you actually admit is a factually accurate statement is a form of editorializing. That is simply a baseless claim on your part. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not baseless. You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption. As an uninvolved admin, who may choose to invoke WP:ARBPS, that isn't an so much an insinuation as it is an evaluation. El_C 00:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are propping up a WP:FRINGE view with that image/caption" is an assertion that you need to justify and provide evidence for. You have provided no justification and no evidence. I believe there is none you could provide (the image and the caption are not even in the article at this time). You are, it appears, proposing sanctioning me on the basis of claims you have made that you cannot support. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have substantiated my position amply, I challenge. If I were to propose sanctioning you, it would be more so because you appear to be seemingly oblivious to your borderline tendentious editing. Continuing to ask for "evidence" when I have addressed the matter already, does not do you credit, I also challenge. El_C 00:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have not substantiated your position. You have made a series of baseless or unsupported claims (such as that a factually accurate statement is biased editorializing), which you apparently want or expect me to accept automatically, in the absence of any evidence or any justification for them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are entitled to think that I failed to substantiate. I obviously disagree. But regardless of that impasse, I may still use my discretion as an uninvolved admin. El_C 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, the same issue with FKC has been addressed by multiple editors(including me) in Christchurch mosque shootings article i.e [9] by Netoholic. It sure tells you something that another editor from another article made the same complaint against this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, you're wasting your time to make an "I don't like you" comment. Find something better to do. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SharabSalam, it's worth noting that the number of times when you and I agree on something is rather small, so this may indeed be significant. Guy (help!) 21:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue started when I removed a content from a section called "Background". The content was clearly original research. The sources were from 2014 and 2013 and they are all not related to the topic of the article, WP:OR To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. It included this In 2014 and 2015, local press reported an allegation that a congregation member had been radicalised at the mosque.[1][2][3]". This was in the background section of an incident of a shooting by a white superamist who killed 50 muslims in the mosques. However, I got reverted by this editor who said Undid revision 947758337 by SharabSalam (talk) seems both relevant and helpful for readers in terms of putting events in context. When I started a talk page discussion about this, I added a synthesis tag to the section but I got reverted by the editor FKC and everyone who tried to add that tag was reverted by the editor FKC. Another issue, in the same article, and after everyone agreed to change "Islam is practised by over 57,000 New Zealanders, around 1.2% of the population" to "Based on 2018 census information, over 57,000 New Zealand residents affiliated with Islam, around 1.00% of the total population." FKC reverted saying "Thank you, but it is unclear, vague, and ambiguous what "affiliated with Islam" is supposed to mean; it is much more helpful to readers to use language people can actually understand". The other editor just reverted FKC disruptive revert without an edit summary because it was clear that this editor is just reverting any edit in that section. FKC then reverted saying "No. That is not good enough. You cannot make unexplained reverts. That is rude and of no use to other editors. You must give a reason for your edits and you must discuss disputed edits on the talk page - stop being so rude". Although this has been discussed and agreed on in the talk page. Another editor comes and revert FKC [10] without any edit summary. And as I said above, he didnt let anyone put "orginial research" tag to that section [11]. There is no question that the content in that section was original research. Yet, FKC was always saying that there is no evidence. I dont know what "evidence" he wanted. The editor who should bring the evidence is the one who is claiming that the content is related. I saw this discussion in my watchlist and I was surprised that FKC is also making troubles in other articles. Also, this is not a "I dont like you" comment. I dont have any like or dislike feelings towards this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Wall, Tony; Ensor, Blair; Vance, Andrea (27 July 2014). "A Kiwi Lad's Death by Drone". Sunday Star-Times. Auckland. Retrieved 2 August 2019. [Daryl] Jones was killed alongside Australian Christopher Havard, whose parents said he was introduced to radical Islam at the Al-Noor mosque in Christchurch. Mosque leaders confirmed Havard stayed there and studied in 2011, but denied radical teaching took place.
    2. ^ "Christchurch Mosque Linked to al-Qaida Suspect". Newshub. Auckland. 4 June 2014. His parents … say their son told them he was first taught radical Islam at the Al Noor mosque…. '[He was] no different than other people,' says mosque president Mohamed Jama. 'He was a normal man.'
    3. ^ Matthewson, Nicole (3 December 2015). "Fighting, Killing 'Not the Muslim Way'". The Press. Christchurch, NZ. Retrieved 20 March 2019. Jackson, of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies … said … 'Just because they were attending a mosque at the time, doesn't mean the mosque was connected.' … Morris, a specialist in world religions, said … 'It creates an opportunity for these issues to be raised and addressed.'
    • You may also notice that FKC usually says "no evidence", "what evidence do you have?" and "there is no evidence" when the fact is not disputable. For example, someone says this is original research because sources that are used are not related to the topic of the article, FKC would say "what evidence do you have" or "no evidence for what you are saying". Imagine if someone in the morning said "it's morning" and the other asked "what evidence do you have that it is the morning", what FKC does is the same.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Proposal (FKC)

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

    • Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 10:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as being unnecessary, and based on false and unsupported accusations by the proposer. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - is this more of a content issue than a behavioral issue? Has anyone tried Wikipedia:Dispute resolution with FKC yet? BOZ (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      BOZ, no it's not. Read the above: FKC not only rejects any edits other than his own, but also rejects, out of hand, the possibility that any view other than his is defensible, even when (as is the case every time thus far) he is in a minority, sometimes a minority of one. Edit warring, misleading content and WP:OWN. Guy (help!) 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Your claim that I reject "any edits" other than my own is false. I definitely consider some of Markworthen's edits at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality helpful. I can give specific examples if needed. You are trying to support a topic ban on me using claims that are outright false. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Boz. More of a content dispute and edit-warring by both parties. Be careful of any boomerangs. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I can't see any justification for that. It's just a question of finding the right balance between describing the content of these books and the current position. It would help if the arguing would stop. And if images and captions seem to be contributing to the problem, it would make sense to remove them. SarahSV (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This whole thread leaves me quite unconvinced that FKN is taking an appropriately neutral and encyclopedic view of this subject. If a topic ban is what it takes to get them to move on to something where they can be more neutral, then so be it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think the user's extensive history of combative and relentless responses to any level of criticism is a clear indicator that these issues of ownership, edit warring, and general refusal to engage in civil discussion permeate their editing behavior in this topic and beyond. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support in lieu of other measures, at least temporarily. This thread demonstrates a wp:battle attitude and strongly gives off the impression of WP:IDHT. A topic ban is a very blunt hammer, but to get this level of disruption from an image and caption is a sign that perhaps energies are best diverted elsewhere. CMD (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The sheer amount of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE on display below in the discussion is frankly ridiculous, especially their "discussion" with EdChem towards the current end, who seems to be pretty well on point with their description of the situation. Heiro 05:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake, in that discussion, if it is one, is perhaps simply to go on trying to discuss in a situation in which fruitful discussion is perhaps impossible. I don't see that this is a reason I should be topic banned, however. As for the contested caption, it is now out of the article and I would not dream of restoring it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: I tried to get FKC to engage with the problems that are evident in his editing. Sadly, the discussion below portrays FKC as unable to reflect on whether his editing in the area is neutral, based on reliable sources, accurate and encyclopaedic, and avoiding of false balance in handling fringe and pseudosciene material. I concur with JzG that he does not accept good-faith input from others and with Heironymous Rowe that IDHT seems a serious problem. Just to be clear, my problem with FKC is not that we disagree, it is that FKC is not engaging with the actual issues – the quality of his editing, his actions, problematic OWN behaviour, and the goal of encyclopaedic content for WP's readers. I hope that Nil Einne will take another look at contemplate some action. EdChem (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as uninvolved. Between the above and below discussions, it's clear that FKC has decided that what they believe is relevant must be factual, what other people believe is opinion. There is no comprehension that they could be wrong, just a continuous wall of WP:IDHT and dismissing anyone who disagrees with them. It's intractable, and I think a topic ban is the minimum that will get through to them that their method is not collaborative or helpful to the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support While acknowledging FKC's dedication, collaboration requires occasionally taking advice from others. One counter example: diff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the above comments, and because I think it would actually do FKC some good to realize that they are not right on every occasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The behavior by FKC below is pretty astounding in its clueless combativeness (e.g., as noted by and in response to JoelleJay). I am not sure that this is the exactly right sanction to fit the nature of the problem, but I am at least not opposed to it. --JBL (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WTF does that have to do with anything I said? Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned an accusation against me. It seems pertinent to respond that the accusation is false. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mentioned any accusation that you "promoted conversion therapy". Please read what I wrote more carefully. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "From what I can tell, the concerns surrounding your use of images relates to concerning you appear to be using them to promote conversion therapy." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongest apologies, you are right. I should never have said that. I tried to make my response as general as possible to avoid issues like this but forgot I had said that at the beginning. I also should have checked my comment more carefully before responding to avoid this confusion and my false accusation against you. Again I can't apologise enough for these mistakes. What I should have said is "appear to be using them in a manner which misleads readers about conversion therapy". What I was trying to convey, but failed to, is that the concerns over your editing related to whether they are sufficiently neutral in the subject area of conversion therapy. They don't relate to how you use images per se, but how you used images in this particular instance because they seem to indicate a problem with your editing in the subject area of conversion therapy. Therefore a topic ban on conversion therapy is logical, whether it's justified and whether it's too broad. A topic ban on images is not particularly logical because the reason for your editing problems seems to be because of how you edit in the subject area, rather than because of how you handle images. As I've now uncovered, it was a fool's errand anyway. Despite your misleading claim, this isn't just about images. Concerns have been raised about your editing in those articles beyond simply images. I should have looked more carefully from the get go rather than take you at your word this was just about images when it's quite clearly not. (Although I do stand by comment on the logics of topic bans if they was just about images.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said the dispute was just about images. Obviously there are other disagreements as well (the disagreement was apparently only an image-related one at one of the articles). Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) The more I look into it, the sillier your response is. According to the opening statement "reverting all attempts to improve the articles <removed> He's also fighting a one-man battle against all comers at talk:Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality". When I visit that talk page I see extensive comments by Freeknowledgecreator. Again, I make no judgment on whether the opening comment is accurate, and especially not whether Freeknowledgecreator is causing sufficient problems to merit a topic ban. But the idea that this is just about images and their captions seems false. The suggestion that a topic ban on images would be a better alternative is just completely silly. Again, I'm not sure if I can be bothered to look into this enough to support or oppose a topic ban, but my current view is a full hearted supported based nearly totally on the utter nonsense responses in this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal that I be banned from the topic area of conversion therapy misses the point that I am not even interested in the two articles where there have been disagreements primarily because they relate to conversion therapy, rather I am primarily interested in them because they are book-related articles. Try to avoid making overly long wall-of-text comments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don'r really give a flying flip why you're interested in the article. If you are unable to edit acceptable in the set of articles for some reason, then that is a problem we may need to deal with. It doesn't matter why you got interested in those articles. Again, if someone is causing problems in he 5AR and scientific consensus articles, it doesn't matter if they're interested in those articles because of an interest in the concept of scientific consensus, if the problems they're causing indicate they cannot edit acceptably in the global warming subject area and so should be topic banned from it. Your response on wall-of-text comments is noted however fairly ironic considering this existing ANI which is full of such comments by you, and checking out that article talk page shows more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) continued from edit of my comment at 03:22 above. This obviously isn't enough to actually support the topic ban, hence why despite this view I make no judgement on the actual merits of a topic ban. But I can't emphasise strongly enough to Freeknowledgecreator that their responses here are basically the opposite of a boomerang. They're basically trying very, very hard to talk themselves into a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have caused no problems at Conversion therapy, or most other conversion therapy articles, it is completely unfair to suggest I should be banned from them. In the case of the two book-related articles under dispute, the problem has been caused by edit-warring between myself and JzG, and I obviously am not solely to blame; JzG's behavior has also been a problem. I understand that the way forward is through patient discussion and building of consensus. Again, the proposal of a topic ban is unfair. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my involvement in this discussion is at an end unless I can be bothered looking more into the dispute to figure out if there is sufficient justification for a topic ban. It's clear I'm not getting through to you. But let me repeat one final time, that if you continue to ignore the good faith concerns others have expressed with your editing, and especially whether you are able to edit acceptably in the subject area considering the way you have edited so far, and refuse to take onboard such concerns and improve your editing then don't be surprised if you're topic banned or worse, now or sometime in the future. Note that not being solely to blame doesn't mean your editing is acceptable, or that a topic ban is not justified. Also I never brought up edit-warring, because I didn't know it was a concern and frankly it doesn't seem that important in the grand scheme of things. The primary concern over your editing doesn't seem to be about edit-warring and the fact you think it is, is likely further indication of why your editing could be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has done anything to show that I cannot edit responsibly in conversion therapy articles per se. JzG obviously did think that edit warring was a major problem, despite the fact that he was edit warring himself and contributing to the problem, as I had to point out to him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Freeknowledgecreator, I made a total of two reverts in support of consensus on Talk. You made three, against that consensus, and have consistently reverted numerous other editors who have altered, and I cannot stress this enough, your monograph. You wrote virtually all the text in the article, you revert anyone who changes it, you then demand that others step back and not edit war as long as your version remains current. This is in the article history and on the talk page. In discussions there you're generally in a minority, usually of one, and yet you continue to try to enforce your version of the content. Can you see why several people above have suggested that is indeed a problem? Guy (help!) 09:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not interested in a long argument with you, but "you revert anyone who changes it" is factually false, and anyone who checks the revision history carefully can see that for themselves. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking out loud, and having read the background content, I'm wondering if a brandishing the ARBGG Discretionary Sanctions might restore some order and let others have their say rather than the consensus of Freeknolwedgecreator. Hasteur (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have encountered both Guy and FKC in the past. It is my observation that neither is particularly good at reflecting on relevant feedback and even backing off when they have made a mistake, and I believe that both would benefit from further skill development in this area. However, I find the characteristic much less problematic in Guy, where it appears to me to come from the amount of time he spends dealing with fringe material and editors whose additions are not intended as beneficial to the encyclopedia. That is not to say that FKC's intentions fall into that category, and for the record, I don't think that they do – I think FKC is genuinely here to contribute to an encyclopaedia... but that his self-confidence leads to blind spots and that, in those cases, this makes his contributions problematic. One example would be the responses to Nil Einne which read like FKC is determined not to engage with or admit to hearing what Nil Einne is saying. Sadly, FKC's inability to see the flaws in his own work is causing a problem on this article, and in the topic area in general.
    • This is the version of the article that FKC submitted for GA review. He was essentially the sole editor at this point, and evidently he sees it as being at or close to GA standards, and yet:
      • The first paragraph of the article states that the book is about conversion therapy as promoted by its author, which does not remove all (my emphasis) homosexual feelings. It adds the author's view that homosexuality is the result of a developmental disorder. It does not tell the reader that the entire notion of conversion therapy is pseudoscience and that the views being advocated are rejected by every major scientific and medical organisation and that these practices are viewed as unethical and (in some places) are illegal. It doesn't say that "does not remove all" means "little evidence that it has ever removed any" homosexual feelings – in other words, that this "therapy" (a) doesn't work and (b) is often harmful, are apparently also not relevant information for the lede of an article of a book about conversion therapy.
      • FKC will defend that the article is about the book and not about its author or the topic discussed by the book... but these are fundamental pieces of information that need to be presented to readers. FKC will also argue that the second paragraph covers this, however that paragraph says:
      • Nicolosi's reparative "therapy" departs from traditional technique and influenced the practice of conversion therapy, still without saying that conversion therapy doesn't work. This can be read as "Nicolosi's approach was revolutionary / ground-breaking / unconventional" rather than the truth, that it is based in religiously-inspired prejudice and a time of very substantially different social times... and I don't mean the time when it was written. Placing a book in the context in which it was written is important, but it was way outside the mainstream in the 1990s too.
      • Next, we are told that criticisms of the work are based on Nicolosi's scholarship rather than because the entire field is utterly discredited. We get that "some" described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific, which is not only weasel-wordy but also an odd way to describe the unanimous view of the scientific and medical mainstream. We then get that APA opposes reparative therapy, apparently not because it is harmful pseudoscintific bunk that an ethical psychologist would not advocate and that it is based on the totally rejected notion of homosexuality as a mental disorder, but rather because the APA has a position that is in conflict with the theory underlying this "therapy." In other words, when the lede finally gets to conversion therapy being a pseudoscience, it is written like there are differences of opinion and that reasonable people can disagree. The book was then removed from Amazon after a campaign by gay rights activists, without mentioning that the campaign was not about a "we don't like this" political campaign, it was because the book promotes harmful and unethical practices that have done a lot of damage to many people over the years - which is why laws have been passed making these "therapy" practices illegal. Also, shouldn't the facts be stated as facts: Conversion therapy is discredited and dangerous pseudoscience (followed by references from a bunch of major medical sources, etc) rather as Nicolosi says but the APA says otherwise?
      • If FKC can't see any of the flaws in the lede, then his judgement of what is and is not encyclopaedic is flawed.
      • FKC included a picture of Freud with a caption "Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological." In fact, the entire summary is referenced only to Nicolosi. On the talk page, FKC defends this even when it is pointed out that Freud's own words show that he did not see homosexuality as pathological, stating in this section:
        Markworthen, I am sure you are acting in good faith, but the statement you removed ("Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological") is not "erroneous". It is clearly, demonstrably, and unambiguously true. Please consider that it is not a statement about Freud's views, but about what Nicolosi says Freud's views were. Nicolosi does indeed write that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological. You may argue that what Nicolosi writes is mistaken, if you want, but it is nonetheless true that this is what he writes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Is there any circumstance in which presenting a picture of XXX with a caption saying that YYY says XXX believes ZZZ, when in fact XXX believes the opposite of ZZZ, and not including anywhere that YYY's beliefs on XXX's views are mistaken or a misrepresentation, is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article? Instead, FKC argues that an article on Nicolosi's book is not the place to debate what Freud's views were on homosexuality, which is true in one sense but preposterous in the face of a quotation from Freud that is clear in its meaning.
      • Look at the mentions of pseudoscience in the rest of the article: We are told that Gwen Aviles from NBC News dismissed conversion therapy as "pseudoscientific". We are told that Brad Polumbo of the Washington Examiner describing Nicolosi's work as "harmful pseudoscience". That's it. Where is the medical and scientific consensus? Where are the high quality reliable secondary sources on the subject of both conversion therapy and specifically Nicolosi's work?
    • Even without looking at stonewalling on the talk page, behaviour in the two GA reviews, posts that totally miss the point of policies – arguing for the Freud image because GA criteria call for illustrations in the face of content guidelines (like representing facts accurately), for example &nadsh; and behaviour on other articles (like on Nicolosi's article), I see more than enough reasons to doubt FKC's about to edit about conversion therapy topics to believe removal would be appropriate for the sake of encyclopaedic content. EdChem (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdChem, you have every right to disagree with or criticize aspects of the article Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, as written by me in the past. I don't see what purpose it would serve to laboriously discuss these disagreements here, however. I could respond to all your points in your overly-long comment and present different views, but ANI is not the place for this. You may have a point that criticism of conversion therapy should be presented more strongly in the lead. I do not object to that, in principle. Discussion about this and related issues has been ongoing on the article's talk page, and I will be happy to respect a consensus that develops there. In response to your complaint about how the version of the lead you link to above presents the APA's view, there is not much I can say, except that the wording you criticize closely follows exactly what the APA does actually state in the source used in the article. The caption you complain about is entirely factually correct, as already noted. As for, "Where are the high quality reliable secondary sources on ... specifically Nicolosi's work...", my response is that I included what discussions specifically of Nicolosi's book that I could find. There are not that many of them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not going to wade through all of the above, nor even read what ever article it concerns. But in my experience, FKC is very prone to "ownership" of articles as well as insistent and incompetent judgments.

    He's completely alienated me from work on a separate matter and I plan to stay away from any project with which he's "involved." There's simply no way to "deal" with such a person. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Another "I don't like you" comment, this one from someone who admits that he does not know, or even want to know, anything about the articles we're discussing here. If the discussion has reduced itself to this, it appears that it has more than served its purpose. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this statement: Is there any circumstance in which presenting a picture of XXX with a caption saying that YYY says XXX believes ZZZ, when in fact XXX believes the opposite of ZZZ, and not including anywhere that YYY's beliefs on XXX's views are mistaken or a misrepresentation, is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article? EdChem (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC) really demonstrates what FKC is not acknowledging as a problem. What reason is there in the first place to include a Freud picture in an article about a book from the '90s? His views held no relevance then or now and are even unlikely to have shaped Nicolosi's "therapeutic" approach, given his inaccurate representation of Freud's attitude. I would actually wager Nicolosi's mention of Freud was an appeal to authority itself. So why argue so adamantly that this completely irrelevant image-caption pair be kept? What context is it supposed to provide for readers? Knowing nothing about FKC or their editing outside of this ANI and the linked NPOV, I would get the impression that a) the "context" was to align the book's views with those of a highly-recognizable psychology figure, correctly or not, and potentially to suggest Freud was a proponent of conversion therapy; and b) the set was added by an editor who is extremely possessive of how this article is presented. If this behavior is sufficiently duplicated in other articles on this topic, I'd be supportive of the proposed ban. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment falls into the realm of personal opinion. You say Nicolosi is wrong in what he says about Freud. There is, of course, no point in debating it, because we don't do original research here. The picture of Freud is there simply because Nicolosi discusses Freud in his book and because the book makes it rather obviously clear that Freud was an influence on Nicolosi. There is no evidence to the contrary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so after glancing through some of your other talk page and GA review comments in a variety of topics I get the impression you are eternally engaged in these sorts of drawn-out, combative arguments. I think it's worth reflecting on why almost every substantive interaction you have with other editors takes this form. It is definitely a concern under the purview of this ANI that your immediate response to any degree of criticism frequently consists of bombarding the other editor with condescending declarations that they or their perspective are completely wrong; allegations they are personally attacking you; misinterpretation and mischaracterization of their arguments; zeroing in on a single facet of their criticism while ignoring other elements or how it fits into the broader picture they are presenting; not even attempting to convey you understand their reasoning or why anyone might come to their conclusion; and not acknowledging that their opinion might be valid when it is echoed by multiple other people. I am not going to go through and link examples because what I have said should be readily supported by a brief overview of your contribution history. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is little point in berating me for expressing disagreement with other editors, with whom after all I have every right to disagree. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdChem, you have every right to disagree with or criticize aspects of the article Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, as written by me in the past. I don't see what purpose it would serve to laboriously discuss these disagreements here, however. My impression is that EdChem points out that failure to follow WP:NPOV, WP:PSCI and WP:YESPOV is not new, rather than making criticism about a particular article. I had an example in mind that I couldn't relocate, but I found some other examples. FTN noticeboard thread where instead of understanding that WBG's concern was undue WP:FRINGE promotion, an argument was posted about personal opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Here's the difference of an article after an FTN noticeboard notice: [22]. Here's an edit on another article removing WP:PSCI-conforming material from the WP:LEAD (where citations are unnecessary if it's a summary of the article's body), claiming that it's unsourced and a BLP violation, when the body did cover it... —PaleoNeonate – 04:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your links above concern unrelated articles and subjects. Where there were disagreements, they are long since resolved. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did not vote in support of a topic ban. The goal was to remind that claiming that it's only a question of editor opinion and content dispute will not always work. —PaleoNeonate – 08:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FKC, if my intent was to start a discussion with you about the issues I highlighted, I would have done so at the article talk page. Much of what I highlight has already been changed. My point was that your judgement of what is NPOV content, based on suitable RS, that suitably deals with FRINGE and PSI issues, is demonstrably flawed in relation to the topic of conversion therapy. The fact that you continue to defend demonstrably poor choices, like whether the unanimous views of the major psychological and medical organisations on both the nature of homosexuality as a normal variant in behaviour and conversion therapy as inherently flawed and harmful is a fact to be stated in WP's voice or (as you appear to be doing) as just an opinion to be give falsely balanced by the views of conversion therapy advocates, shows why this a discussion at ANI about your conduct and not a content discussion at an article talk page.
    Quoting FKC: You say Nicolosi is wrong in what he says about Freud. There is, of course, no point in debating it, because we don't do original research here. The picture of Freud is there simply because Nicolosi discusses Freud in his book and because the book makes it rather obviously clear that Freud was an influence on Nicolosi. There is no evidence to the contrary. I say that FKC is totally missing the point, which is that reliable sources provide Freud's views and statements and these are inconsistent with Nicolosi's characterisation of them. This is not about OR. I agree that putting "Nicolosi states Freud's were X but I, the WP editor writing the sentence, say Nicolosi is wrong" would be totally unacceptable. You declare there is no evidence of Freud's views being other than those attributed to him by Nicolosi, but Markworthen provided a reference with Freud's own words that proves your assertion wrong:
    Freud, Sigmund (1951). "Historical Notes: A Letter From Freud". American Journal of Psychiatry. 107 (10): 786–787. doi:10.1176/ajp.107.10.786. PMID 14819376. Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too.
    This source is a famous letter from Freud written in 1935 and quoted in greater detail in our article Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality. Freud did do some work looking at changing sexual orientation, concluding that attempting it was not generally successful nor advisable. The simple fact that FKC had no problem with including text saying Nicolosi states that Freud believed XXX and not recognising the significance that Freud's own words show that he did not believe XXX shows why his editing is problematic. FKC, it was bad enough that you presented Nicolosi's view without including Freud's actual view. It is worse that you didn't recognise the problem when the contradiction was presented to you. Over a week later, you continue to defend yourself, deny the existence of a problem, and in so doing simply advertise that you are not able to follow policy in this area. You need to be topic banned to protect the integrity of encyclopaedic content in this topic area. EdChem (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have misrepresented me completely. You say, I "continue to defend demonstrably poor choices", concerning, "whether the unanimous views of the major psychological and medical organisations on both the nature of homosexuality as a normal variant in behaviour and conversion therapy as inherently flawed and harmful is a fact to be stated in WP's voice or (as you appear to be doing) as just an opinion to be give falsely balanced by the views of conversion therapy advocates". No, I do not. The lead of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality currently states that conversion therapy is pseudoscience, and I have no intention of altering that. You also say I, "declare there is no evidence of Freud's views being other than those attributed to him by Nicolosi". No, I do not and have never said anything of the sort. You provide no quotation from me and no link to an edit to support your assertion, and there is none you could provide. You are attributing to me a view I have never expressed. It is known as putting words in someone's mouth. You may believe that you have accurately described my views, but you have not. In fact I agree that the accuracy of Nicolosi's characterization of Freud is open to question. That someone can come here and argue for imposing drastic sanctions on me based on statements that are both false and unsupported by evidence (and which they feel no need to present any evidence for) shows the utter unfairness of this process. As absurd as it is to try to argue about how Freud should be interpreted on WP: ANI, I should note that Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality states the following, "Freud appears to have been undecided whether or not homosexuality was pathological, expressing different views on this issue at different times and places in his work." You have placed so much emphasis in your comments on my supposedly misrepresenting Freud that I have to point out that the dedicated article on Freud's view on homosexuality does not support you. Perhaps you should not accuse people of being "not able to follow policy" based simply on your view of Freud? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating the quotation from FKC, from this thread, emphasis added: You say Nicolosi is wrong in what he says about Freud. There is, of course, no point in debating it, because we don't do original research here. The picture of Freud is there simply because Nicolosi discusses Freud in his book and because the book makes it rather obviously clear that Freud was an influence on Nicolosi. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you want to dispute what your own words (that I have already quoted) from this ANI thread, go for it. You can try to argue that all you've been doing is noting that Nicolosi argued that he was influenced by Freud, but you put a caption stating Nicolosi's summary of Freud's view in the caption – "Nicolosi writes that Freud viewed homosexuality as pathological" – despite that not being Freud's view, and you included that statement without caveat. You defended your formulation even in the face of evidence that Freud publicly stated a different view, essentially arguing that, so long as Nicolosi did say what he thinks Freud believed and this is accurately quoted, the fact that Freud's view was otherwise doesn't matter. It is that you are unable to see why this is problematic that shows your judgement is flawed. Further, look at how you present the content in this version you nominated for GA: In the lede, "some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific" – the "some" being some of the critics of Nicolosi's scholarship. Are you seriously denying that this is presenting the pseudoscientific nature of conversion therapy as a matter of opinion held by some and with which others disagree? This is an example of presenting in a way that implies a false balance between those who view conversion therapy as pseudoscience and those who don't... and it continues later in your draft where the word pseudoscience is attributed to two journalists, and no medical organisations are mentioned. Your formulation is far from an unambiguous declaration in WP's voice that conversion therapy is pseudoscience, and even the current version notes the APA's opposition (albeit more strongly than in your version) without saying the organisation prohibits the practice as unethical and harmful and before the unambiguous "pseudoscience" statement of the next paragraph. FKC, I have no interest in your personal views. I do care about the content of the encyclopaedia, though, and the quality of your editing, and I do not believe that your judgement in handling content in this area is acceptable. (Note: this was written at least two hours ago, then my internet connection dropped out... posting it now though I note that FKC has continued to edit his reply in the meantime.) EdChem (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misrepresenting me. You write that I argue that "so long as Nicolosi did say what he thinks Freud believed and this is accurately quoted, the fact that Freud's view was otherwise doesn't matter". No, EdChem, I do not. I certainly never said that, just as I also never said that, "there is no evidence of Freud's views being other than those attributed to him by Nicolosi", or anything even like it. As I've politely tried to explain to you, it is a matter of dispute exactly what Freud's views were on homosexuality. You also complained about an old version of the article. There really is no purpose to going over old versions of the article and arguing about the details of them. As I already noted, the lead of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality currently describes conversion therapy as pseudoscience and I have no interest in altering that. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not and have not suggested that you have been other than the polite.
    • The point of the version you submitted to GA is that you could not recognise its faults and still do not see them, it appears to me – which raises questions of your judgement in applying WP policy on content, and your behaviour, in defending non-compliant content.
    • That Freud's views varied over his career and his later views being inconsistent with how Nicolosi characterised them is a good reason why it is inappropriate to include "Nicolosi said Freud believed XXX" in isolation. It is not about whether "Nicolosi said Freud believed XXX" is literally true, it is about that the statement is misleading if Freud didn't believe XXX. A reader unfamiliar with Freud taking this statement at face value will be mislead into viewing Nicolosi's statement as an accurate reflection of Freud. It would be like putting a picture of Donald Trump in the article on hydroxychloroquine and adding a caption "US President Donald Trump takes hydroxychloroquine as a preventative for COVID-19". Whilst a literally true statement, leaving out that the scientific evidence for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID preventative is essentially nil, that the drug can cause serious side effects (including death via cardiac effects), and that a large scale study found the drug increases the mortality rate amongst those infected by COVID-19 would make such an addition inappropriate, misleading, unencyclopaedic, dangerous, and unsupportable.
    • If you cannot see why your version is misleading and unencyclopaedic then you shouldn't be editing in this area. If you had recognised / admitted that many of the problems in your version needed fixing, I would not be strongly of the view that you should not be trusted to edit in the topic area of conversion therapy. Our task here is to produce encyclopaedic content in the best interests of readers. At ANI, if an editor is not contributing to that task or is impeding it, they risk a sanction – not as a punishment, but to protect the integrity of our content and to remove impediments to collaborative work towards that goal. When I look at the article you wrote, at the long debates on its talk page, on your posts here which do not go to the heart of the issue – your judgement, actions, and suitability to work in this topic area – I come to the conclusion that (whatever your good intentions might be) the topic area would be better without your involvement. EdChem (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where you ban someone from editing an entire topic area because they do not view Freud the same way as you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And if I were arguing that, I would be in error and you would be due an apology. Sadly, this is simply another response that demonstrates zero awareness of the problems or why this is being discussed at ANI. You have convinced me that a topic ban is necessary. EdChem (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You hinged an argument above about, how "Freud's views varied over his career and his later views being inconsistent with how Nicolosi characterised them..." You presented no evidence for that claim about Freud's views. You are effectively arguing for topic banning me based on a personal view of Freud. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact this is your takeaway from the above discussion literally proves the point EdChem and multiple other editors have pointed out above. Heiro 19:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being completely unfair. EdChem has denied it, but his complaints about my editing at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality do in part come down to his having a particular view of Freud, namely, that the only legitimate understanding of Freud's stance on homosexuality is that he did not view it as pathological. It would be easy to provide reliable sources that would suggest the contrary, but I can see no one cares. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, thank you for acknowledging my dedication, but I am certainly not going to be dedicated any longer if I am topic banned. I'd like to note that you and others who have supported a topic ban have not even explained exactly how comprehensive it would be or specifically which articles it would concern. Would any article concerned with conversion therapy to any extent (even articles not primarily concerned with conversion therapy) be affected? That would be an extraordinarily broad topic ban. It would ban me, for instance, from further editing articles I have brought to good article status, such as The Homosexual Matrix. This is entirely unfair and I have done nothing to deserve it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FKC, the breadth and scope of any topic ban will be determined by an uninvolved administrator who closes this discussion (assuming the decision is to impose one). Typically, involvement in any article or discussion on WP about the topic that is subject to the ban is prohibited. For articles which touch on the topic but are primarily about other topics, only the part of the article dealing with the topic is excluded. Editing that appears to be testing the boundaries of a ban while staying just outside that banned area is generally not well received. In the event that a ban is imposed &nash; and that has not been decided as yet – you can seek clarification from the admin who takes action. General advice to any editor subject to a topic ban, however, is if in doubt whether an edit is permitted, don't make it. EdChem (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FKC's efforts to work collaboratively fall far short of any reasonable mark. FKC dismisses this as "another 'I don't like you' comment."

    It's necessary to simply avoid FKC unless futility is the point. Editors should go to other topics and leave him alone, rather than engaging in pointless and unwinnable disputes.

    FKC's Wikipedia work causes insignificant harm to society and -- who knows? -- may even confer some equally trivial benefit.

    2600:1702:39A0:3720:243D:2765:D41:7938 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This self-contradictory post doesn't really make sense... —PaleoNeonate – 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FKC, I was content to let you have the last word, until I saw your post to Heironymous Rowe, as it does not reflect my views.

    1. You write that EdChem has denied it, but his complaints about my editing at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality do in part come down to his having a particular view of Freud, namely, that the only legitimate understanding of Freud's stance on homosexuality is that he did not view it as pathological. This is flawed in the following ways:
      • It does not matter what my view of Freud is, nor does it matter what yours is – it matters what reliable sources say.
      • You have defended using Nicolosi's view of Freud's opinion and without any caveat, which is only acceptable as encyclopaedic WP content if the consensus of mainstream reliable sources supports Nicolosi's view – and they don't.
      • It does not matter whether the reliable sources support that Freud worked on sexual orientation change efforts in his early career and developed a different view later, or if his view never included that homosexuality is pathological, or if he held twelve different views over time... so long as those sources do make it clear that Nicolosi's claim is inaccurate (and thus, that Freud did not have a single, unwavering view of homosexuality as pathological), then your formulation was misleading (and inconsistent with WP content policies) and worse, your behaviour since in failing to recognise or accept that there is an issue makes your judgement questionable.
      • The issue in this ANI thread is not my opinion of Freud, nor your opinion, nor anyone else's. It is not about what content should be in the article, which is a matter for the talk page. It is about whether your actions, starting with non-compliant editing and escalated by problematic behaviour, means that the best thing for WP's readers and your fellow editors is to remove you from contributing to the area.
    2. I would not support a topic ban had we only disagreed about content and a talk page discussion could be productive. But the article talk page (where you are the only one to have contributed since 19 May) and the GA reviews makes it clear that you are an impediment to productive discussions on content. Indeed, you are now arguing that the article rating should be downgraded (which you earlier opposed) because the article content has degraded from where it was "in the past", presumably meaning when you were virtually its sole editor. I hasten to add, the issue here is not the rating, it is your attitude that you are right, your IDHT responses, and your apparent belief that most changes to what you wrote are not helpful (an OWN problem).
    3. I actually have a bigger problem with you presenting conversion therapy as a pseudoscience as the opinions of a couple of journalists instead of representing that view as the mainstream consensus of medical and scientific bodies. That your editing presented a false balance (some say pseudoscience, others say not pseudoscience) was bad, but your response and subsequent actions are the reason that a topic ban is needed. And those actions include in this thread, where your contributions have led to more editors supporting a topic ban.

    I am comfortable giving you the last word so long as it does not attribute to me views that I do not hold. I hope that an uninvolved admin will assess consensus in this thread soon, so that it can be closed with whatever result is deemed appropriate. EdChem (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JBL, I have done my best, under difficult circumstances, to try to politely explain to other editors why I hold views different from theirs. If you want to call this "clueless combativeness", that is your choice. Like a number of other editors, you are simply presenting the view that others must be right in what they say and that I must be wrong in what I say, without giving detailed reasons. You are free to do this if you like, but it is hardly fair. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the problem in the discussion were that others didn't understand your views, then repeadly explaining your views might be a solution to the problem. In fact, the problem is that you are completely unwilling to take on the comments made by other users (as evidenced, for example, by your dismissive comments about every single criticism made of your behavior); since that's the problem, I can think of no way to describe repeatedly explaining your views other than clueless and combative. I do not expect this to change (since I am maybe the 4th or 5th person to point out the problem to you), but I am curious, as an experiment: are you capable of responding in a way that is neither repetitive nor purely dismissive? (Or of not responding at all?) --JBL (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdChem, you write, "It does not matter what my view of Freud is, nor does it matter what yours is – it matters what reliable sources say." That is quite right. Reliable sources say various different things about Freud's view of homosexuality, showing that the issue of exactly what Freud thought of the subject is open to dispute. You've suggested that reliable sources support only one view, which is that Freud did not consider homosexuality pathological. You are, respectfully, mistaken. You refer to "the consensus of mainstream reliable sources". To my knowledge there is no such consensus about Freud's views on homosexuality; you present no evidence that one exists. As for article ownership, that does not consist of simply believing that one is right and others are wrong in any given instance, but of behavior that prevents others from changing an article. I have every right to say that a given edit is a poor edit or that the quality of an article has declined. That is not trying to own an article. Finally, as regards the pseudoscience issue, you state that I tried to create "false balance (some say pseudoscience, others say not pseudoscience)". I can see why you in good faith would think that, but it was never my intention. No version of the Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality edited by me, including this one, states anywhere that some people reject the position that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific or that their view has the same level of merit as that of those who do see conversion therapy as pseudoscientific. I can see how you might think "some described conversion therapy as pseudoscientific" carries that implication, but that definitely was not my intention. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking through FKC's edit history - particularly early on. And I'm struck by how frequently they edited the page Camille Paglia. And looking through the history, I'm noticing that FKC appeared in 2009, not long after a previous prolific editor of that page (User:Skoojal), was blocked for off-wiki threats, and later was a prolific sock-puppet. Looking at the authorship, FKC is the top editor, with Skoojal coming in at number 13, despite having been blocked for years. Then quickly looking at the content, and in particular, the grammar and puncuation of the edit summaries my first thought is that FKC has the appearance of being a Skoojal sockpuppet. Looking at Skoojal's top edited pages, the number 1 is Conversion therapy. I'm surely not the first person to have had this thought, but I'm not finding any previous discussion. User:Freeknowledgecreator, were you Skoojal? I'm concerned because the dispute and topic area remain the same as back then. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How does User:Skoojal compare to User:Polisher of Cobwebs and User:ImprovingWiki? Heiro 22:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Move to close

    This has been open for some time, maybe it's time to close it? Please could someone who isn't involved take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say yes, close it -- in line with my earlier post, which failed to "make sense" to PaleoNeonate.

    So let me explain: FCR is unable to work collaboratively. Wikipedia is collaborative and so therefore, FCR is unable to do proper work as a Wikipedia editor. Spending time on Wikipedia with anything to do with FCR is futile. Obviously, this would include any discussion here.

    So yes, close it. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:C858:351C:3830:AD65 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the clarification, —PaleoNeonate – 01:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Drassow

    I am raising concern about personal abuse directed at me by User:Drassow. On 5 May Drassow wrote the following on a user talk page: "Sounds like you're the different side of the same coin for atheism. You're acting like a manchild over Slugger being in favor of a synonymous term that makes sense contextually." [[23]]. They used the term "petty manchild" again against an administrator User:JzG [[24]]. I asked Drassow to explain or apologise but they blanker their talk page with the words "Still don't care dude" [[25]] Can someone advise on how I proceed please? Thank you in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    It's indeed not a very welcoming statement... —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Special:Diff/958633021... —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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.[1] 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)[reply]
    @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. [26] Adding the etymology as provided by the describing author.
    2. [27] Replaced incorrect etymology of Balanophora by using different source.
    3. [28] Replaced etymology that does not mention any words, by etymology that mentions the Greek origins.
    4. [29] 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. [30] 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    "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)[reply]

    @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. [31]

    • 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. [32]

    • source does not write phitros but phitra.

    3. [33]

    • corona (=noun) is translated as "crown" by Brown, coronata is not translated as "crown" (=adjective) by this source.

    4. [34]

    • caro (=noun) is translated by Brown with "flesh", not carnea (= adjective)

    5. [35]

    • kamptos is not translated with "to bend" by Brown.
    • full compound can not be found in Brown

    6. [36]

    • globula is not mentioned by Brown.

    7. [37]

    • full compound not mentioned by its source (Brown)

    8. [38]

    • indicating that lepidota is Greek (while that feminine form would be written as lepidōtē (λεπιδωτή). Incorrect inference of information of source.

    9. [39]

    • source does not indicate that the adjective orbicularis is the diminutive of the noun orbis.

    10. [40]

    • source does not indicate that the adjective campanulata is the diminutive of the noun campana.

    11. [41]

    • source does not mention word caudiculum.

    12. [42]

    • misidentifying word-part as diminutive
    • full compound is missing in the source

    13. [43]

    • source does not mention arborella

    14. [44]

    • source does not mention that adjective capitellata is the diminutive of the noun capitulum

    15. [45]

    • source does not mention mimulum.

    16. [46]

    • source does mention full compound
    • own translation of compound is incorrect

    17. [47]

    • 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. [48]

    • source does not indicate that adjective crenulata is the diminutive of the noun crena.

    19. [49]

    • provides genitive case, but gives translation for nominative case

    20. [50]

    • 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. [51]

    • source does not mention ágrostos.
    • full compound can not be found in source

    22. [52]

    • source does not indicate that perfect participle globatus is an infinitive
    • full compound can not be found in source

    23. [53]

    • incorrect translation incompatible with information from source

    24. [54]

    • source does not translate sepalum with plural sepals (but with singular sepal)
    • compound can not be found in source.

    25. [55]

    • source does mention full compound
    • own etymological analysis seems unlikely (and contradicts other source, that mentions full compound)

    26. [56]

    • source gives circum for "around", not "circus"

    27. [57]

    • 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. [58]

    • source give other translation ("neighbouring" instead of "neighbour")

    29. [59]

    • gives genitive case pholidos, but provides translation for nominative case pholis.
    • full compound is not mentioned by the source.

    30. [60]

    • 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. [61]

    • 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. [62]

    • etymological explanation refers to Diosma, while that is not mentioned by the source.

    33. [63]

    • identifies dienema as Greek form, while Greek feminine ends on -os (διήνεμος)

    34. [64]

    • translation of gamos as gamete can not be found in the source

    35. [65]

    • identifies a word-forming element as "compound"

    36. [66]

    • 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. [67]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • translation of granum as granite is not provided by source.

    38. [68]

    • source does not indicate that perfect participle stricta is an infinitive

    39. [69]

    • source writes kalos, not kalo

    40. [70]

    • translation applies to nominative and not genitive case.

    41. [71]

    • confuses nominative and genitive case.

    42. [72]

    • 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. [73]

    • suggests that densiflora derives from Latin medius
    • full compound is not explained by the source

    44. [74]

    • 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. [75]

    • 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.[76]

    • full compound is not explained in compound
    • translation for mutator (=changer) of the source is misapplied to other word mutatus

    47.[77]

    • translation of puber in source is misapplied to puberula

    48. [78]

    • word despectans is not mentioned in source
    • participle despectus is translated as ínfinitive

    49. [79]

    • full compound can not be found in source (while wording in Wiki-article suggests otherwise)

    50. [80]

    • full compound is not explained by source.
    • ouris can not be found in source

    51. [81]

    • flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower)
    • full compound not in source

    52. [82]

    • other translation than in source

    53. [83]

    • mentioning of "bi" as part of "pinnatifida" (that is actually impossible)
    • compound not explained by source

    54. [84]

    • 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. [85]

    • flora (goddess of flowers) instead of flos
    • full compound not in source

    56. [86]

    • source indicates that the words are Greek, not Latin
    • full compound is not explained by source

    57. [87]

    • calycina can not be found in source
    • translation of calyx is misaplied to calycina in Wiki-text

    58. [88]

    • confuses nominative and genitive case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    59. [89]

    • iphthima is not Greek (ἴφθιμη). Incorrect inference from source

    60. [90]

    • sphacelatum is not mentioned by Brown as Greek word

    61. [91]

    • confuses genitive with nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    62. [92]

    • misapplied translation as given for Brown for podion to pedion
    • full compound is not explained by source

    63. [93]

    • confuses nominative and genitive case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    64. [94]

    • confuses nominative singular with genitive plural
    • full compound is not explained by source

    65. [95]

    • confuses (considering translation) philos with philia
    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    66. [96]

    • Brown write holos, not holo
    • full compound is not explained by source

    67. [97]

    • Brown writes mesos, not meso
    • full compound is not explained by source

    68. [98]

    • pterus is not mentioned by Brown
    • full compound is not explained by source

    69. [99]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    70. [100]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • labels Latin word triplex as Greek (not supported by source)

    71. [101]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • Brown writes ochros, not ochro.
    • Brown writes pteron, not ptero

    72. [102]

    • full compound is not explained by source
    • misapplied Brown's translation of philia to phileo.

    73. [103]

    • Brown uses melas as nominative, not melanos.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    74. [104]

    • flora (=goddess of flowers) instead of flos (=flower)
    • full compound not explained in source

    75. [105]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    76. [106]

    • confuses for two nouns the genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    77. [107]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    78. [108]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    79. [109]

    • Brown writes aden not adeno
    • Brown writes lasios not lasius
    • full compound is not explained by source

    80. [110]

    • Brown writes rutilus, not rutilis.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    81. [111]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case

    82. [112]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    83. [113]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • full compound is not explained by source

    84. [114]

    • Brown writes phyllon, not phyllum (on specific page)
    • full compound is not explained by source

    85. [115]

    • Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    86. [116]

    • Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    87. [117]

    • Brown uses folium for singular "leaf", not folia.
    • full compound is not explained by source

    88. [118]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    89. [119]

    • 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. [120]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    91.[121]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    92. [122]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    93. [123]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    94. [124]

    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    95. [125]

    • confuses genitive and nominative case
    • Brown writes -florus, not florus
    • full compound is not explained by source

    96. [126]

    • Brown writes niger, not nigro.
    • Brown translates montanus as "of mountains" not "mountain"
    • full compound is not explained by source

    97. [127]

    • Brown writes forma instead of forme
    • full compound is not explained by source

    98. [128]

    • confuses florum (= of flowers) with flos (=flower)
    • full compound is not explained by source

    99. [129]

    • Brown writes cauda, not caudum

    100. [130]

    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    @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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Christenhusz, Maarten J.M.; Fay, Michael F.; Chase, Mark W. (2017). Plants of the World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Vascular Plants. Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. p. 425. ISBN 9781842466346.

    Eurocentric view in Wikipedia

    Reverts

    My edits have been reverted several times and I believe the main reason is "Eurocentric view in Wikipedia", for example look at it: Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis, what does "Southern" mean in this phrase? Please solve this issue. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the second paragraph of the lede of that article Proto-Indo-European homeland, where it says: "A notable third possibility, which has gained renewed attraction due to recent aDNA research, is the Armenian hypothesis which situates the homeland for archaic PIE south of the Caucasus." I do not see how this could be construed as "Eurocentric"? Also, this sounds like a long running content dispute at that article, that you should be addressing via the article talkpage, not here. Heiro 04:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Worse; it's also a conduct-issue, with prolonged WP:DISRUPTIVE pov-pushing by this editor. See:
    See also User talk:MojtabaShahmiri for the repetitive warnings they've been issued. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heironymous Rowe: You yourself say south of the Caucasus, not just south, as you read here: Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth, the Caucasus is a border between Europe and Asia, for those who believe Europe is the center of the world, a land in the south of Caucasus is just in the south, I have corrected it three times but @Joshua Jonathan: says it is "pov-pushing". --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this seems to be connected to your attempts to push your own WP:FRINGE research and POV interpretations (see Talk:Gutian language#Germanic Theory) and the many warnings on your talkpage over this matter, I'd be wary of WP:BOOMERANGS if I were you. Heiro 06:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heironymous Rowe: What I said about Gutians here?! Do you mean I can't edit in Wikipedia, just because as a historian I have researched about ancient Gutians in my country?! We are talking about Proto-Indo-Europeans who lived thousands years before Gutians, many great scholars believe Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the south of Caucasus, so it should be mentioned. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, I forgot the rest:
    Time for a topic-ban. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joshua Jonathan: You can ban me and others in Wikimedia but you can't ban science, about ancient Gutian language, I don't work on a theory but a project of scientific decipherment, I am an academic historian and an artificial intelligence engineer with over twenty years of experience. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We can have a long discussion over what "science" is, but as long as your theories are not published in relevant peer-reviewed journals and are established as a noteworthy point of view, they are just your personal interpretations which don't justify your pov-pushing and personal attacks. We try to protect the usefull representation of what science says, not provide a forum to eccentric views, no matter how scientific you deem your ideas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for topic-ban (MS)

    Given MojtabaShahmiri's WP:DISRUPTIVE editing in pushing his personal theory of Iranian origins of the proto-Indo-European languages, I propose a topic-ban for them on Indo-European topics. See these threads for the tiresome discussions we've had with him:

    @Kanguole, Austronesier, Ermenrich, Florian Blaschke, Haukurth, Pfold, AnonMoos, Skllagyook, Puduḫepa, Doug Weller, and Joe Roe: your thoughts, please? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This looks like the age-old problem of an academic expert with an idiosyncratic view, who is unable to understand why we won't help him make it mainstream. Sadly, topic bans are indeed the usual result in such cases. Guy (help!) 09:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support He’s fringe, he’s not just idiosyncratic, and I don’t think having an MA counts as being an academic even necessarily. If you look at any of the stuff he’s tried to add it’s clear he has no idea what he’s talking about. Honestly, this guy is wp:NOTHERE and should probably be banned from editing entirely.—-Ermenrich (talk)
    • Support, due to their seeming determination to push their pov (including a tendency to use WP:OR for the purpose) against discussion/consensus, with a refusal or inability to WP:LISTEN or understand what is (sometimes repeatedly) explained to them, and a seemingly quite weak grasp of the topic and topics related). I agree that they seem to be WP:NOTHERE, and there may also be a competence (WP:COMPETENCE) issue. Skllagyook (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: While it can be nice to have people involved in a given academic field contributing to a given subject area, user seems to misunderstand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a way to push and promote their own views and "research". Which in this case is, as mentioned above, beyond idiosyncratic and squarely in WP:FRINGE territory. Their original report here claiming a "Eurocentric view in Wikipedia" seems to be more an argument with how it is described in the literature by academics and not with Wikipedia. A dead horse they seem to have been thumping on for months now over several article talk pages.Heiro 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I myself don't allow that my works are published in English Wikipedia (There are several pages about my works in Persian language version of Wikipedia). MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I myself don't allow that my works are published in English Wikipedia" - Do I understand you correctly? You are a published author and you don't want any of you works used as a reference on the English language Wikipedia? That is not how Wikipedia works. All sources that meet WP:RS are usable on any language Wikipedia. Authors do not get any say in where they are used. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell he's a wp:self-published author on academia.edu, so he should not be cited by Wikipedia. He claims to have published an article in an Iranian magazine, but a magazine is clearly not an RS for the claims he's making and I'm not even sure it's true.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you support? It is not my theory, please at least the article: Proto-Indo-European_homeland, it itself says "Some recent DNA-research has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian or Iranian homeland for archaic or 'proto-proto-Indo-European', the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and early proto-IE." I have just talked about "Mycenaean Greece" and "Proto-Germanic language" in the talk page and I never edit anything in the main page. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is really funny, I have myself complained and then you blame me for what I have never done, I just said "Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis" is wrong, why do you support it blindly? Southern of where?? Why there should be an obscure hypothesis? --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This has been going on to long. We can't allow our articles to be vehicles for other editors' fringe ideas, and the WP:IDHT problem doesn't look as though it is going to go away looking at the above. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself know that the Caucasian/Iranian homeland of the proto-Indo-Europeans has been proposed by some great scholars, like David Reich, not me. You can ban me but other ones will add it to Wikipedia. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you remind me of old warnings, you said that I shouldn't use my own works and I never did it. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Second the request by Heironymous Rowe. It doesn't look like this is likely to attract any more discussion than it already has.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor removing blocked users' userboxen to tidy a project list.

    I've tried to clarify with User:Galendalia (discussion here) what the benefit to the project was of these edits, which merely make busy work. There's simple misunderstanding of our userpage guidelines, which are pretty clear that by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags; neither of those reasons applies (there could be no "significant concerns" as to the userboxen, and, obviously, no project-related tags were being placed). Further, this should not be done for trivial reasons; the reasons given (to tidy up a list) would rather seem the definition of trivial meta-work.

    The reasons I have been given for these edits (I'm not making significant changes only minor therefore does not require a consensus as the editors are not coming back. This includes the addition/removal of tags, I am another editor, editing the user pages of indefinitely blocked users or sockpuppets. By getting the list cleaned up is considered project related) are inadequate.

    I advised self-reversion, or, failing that, raising a voluntary thread, but that fell on stony ground, so here we are. There must be something more productive to do when you've time to make 2000 edits a month! ——Serial # 18:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The users removed were those permanently blocked for a variety of reasons. I removed the gnome and/or Fairie tags as they auto populate the main lists for both of those. I do not see this as an issue as it is house keeping. However the editor who opened this ANI thinks “it is trivial work” of which it is not. It’s called house keeping work. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As User:Bbb23—ever meet him? He'd doubtless have found you of great interest—might have said, no reason to edit this userpage. ——Serial # 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: - I am sorry but what does this user have to do with this conversation (besides you trying to get him/her involved)? I never touched his page as he/she is active. Serial please chilltake a breather and step back so that the administrators can handle this as there is no more need to dispute this between us. Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please retract your aspersion that I should "chill"; it is either intentionally rude or accidentally patronising. ——Serial # 19:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is neither. It is the same as saying please step back which is part of the DR process. I have edited my comment. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Galendalia: Short copyright problem, BLP problem or some sort of extreme polemic...do not alter user pages. There's really nothing served by the effort. Tiderolls 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Transclusions of deleted templates probably should be removed, otherwise creating the template would result in an unwanted change to the user page. It was subsequently removed by a bot (as "TFD outcome", when there was no TFD; a page with the same name was speedily deleted as vandalism several years earlier). Templates that add categories should also be removed in some circumstances but not all. Peter James (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNOME and WP:FAIRY are designated as humour. I can't imagine why it matters whether there are some indeffed users amongst those who have chosen to display those userboxes.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at your history, Galendalia, you seem to be taking an active role in multiple areas of the site where you lack experience and are making mistakes and creating an unnecessary burden for other editors. I recommend slowing down, editing the mainspace, and listening when others are telling you that something you are doing is problematic. Nihlus 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Galendalia, if you're reading this, it's considered poor form to edit others' user and/or talk pages. Simple as that. MiasmaEternalTALK 22:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If I was indefinitely blocked, and I had my userboxes removed, I would be pretty peeved myself. Those userboxes are a connection to the Wikipedia community, and may be used as an indicator to get the editor to appeal and become part of that community again. I would like the removal of infoboxes reverted. Though in my case, since I have pending changes and rollbacker, and if I had those rights removed, those infoboxes would be misleading, and should be removed. Tutelary (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not support the removal of trivial userboxes or templates from blocked or inactive editors' userpages (and I'm afraid I think those under discussion here do fall into that realm). However, there are definitely rare situations where the continued presence of one or more stale template or even a userbox can cause disruption or confusion to current editors. There I have been willing to step in and remove them. Examples I've deleted from some userpages/subpages include {{Adopting}} and {{adopt me}} templates, which unhelpfully retain inactive usernames on Category pages that really do need to remain current. Also, certain userboxes that claim some sort of user right, but which are patently untrue, only serve to mislead others, whether by intent o]r otherwise. I think Galendalia's attempts at housekeeping were well-meant, but were unnecessary and a bit misguided. I don't hold a view on whether they need to be reinstated on blocked editors' pages, so long as no more removals of this type are made. I would observe that there does seems to be a bit of a gap in the guidance at WP:UP about the deployment or retention of misleading templates/userboxes, and when it is acceptable for another editor to remove them. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thank you Nick for not bashing my work. One thing that did come out of this is one of the editors that I did remove it from has their personal information on their user page which included real name, address, email, phone number, and their work information. I don’t plan on doing this anymore as it caused a giant uproar amongst Wikipedians. Honestly I think this conversation can be completed and closed. The point has very well been received. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 01:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since User:Galendalia appears to understand that they should not alter user pages. There's really nothing served by the effort and is poor form, that these particular edits were unnecessary and a bit misguided, and that over all, at this point, they lack experience and are making mistakes and creating an unnecessary burden for other editors in certain areas, this can indeed probably be closed.
      Having said that, USPS could be brought up to at least GA status. ——Serial # 08:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this is closed, I would encourage that one or two administrators review Galendalia's recent history and his predeliction to play hall monitor even though he's a brand-new editor. He's working on several projects, not the least of which being WP:DRN where he has no business being involved given his lack of experience (just a month), and seems to want to run around the place fixing things and cleaning house rather than exhibiting much interest in contributing to mainspace and learning the basics. After a recent edit war at Queen of Hearts (film), which resulted in his filing a wholly inappropriate SPI report on User:MarnetteD after he made a very minor cosmetic edit, I've had concerns about Galedalia's real purpose in being here, and whether it aligns with the aims of this project. As I noted, he recently joined WP:DRN as a volunteer, then after a previous encounter with admins over the SPI report, decided to leave WP, dumping his DRN cases on ever-helpful user User:Robert McClenon, who graciously took them over. Now he's back and back at his same games. Galendalia should be strongly encouraged to leave the activities that lead to this report, along with areas such WP:DRN alone until he gains considerable experience and concentrate on editing in mainspace while he learns basic policies and practices. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the thorough analysis, Drmargi. You'll note that, while telling other editors to "chill" isn't a personal attack, "playing games" is. Hmmm. There's also the attempt to chill the discussion by way of allusion to a "conversation with the WMF" when Galendalia's behavior is scrutinised. The conditional "I may have edited as an IP" is also of interest. ——Serial # 08:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Drmargi: First off, I dumped no cases on Robert. I asked prior to my departure and per our guidance on the DRN, and he said he may be able to take them but wasn't sure. I continued on, as I spent the weekend thinking about things (as requested by numerous users on my talk page), and I carried the case and it is almost at resolution pending one editor's remarks and if they agree with it. Secondly, I am in a few things, including a conversation with WMF about the onboarding of new editors. For you to ask administrators to review my history and to state I am "playing games", of which the latter is a personal attack on me. That is the reason adding Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers to this mix. My very first day I asked for help on something and was bitten. I asked the experienced editor why they were doing this and being hostile to me and they never responded. This seems to be the norm and it was something I brought up in the group discussion with WMF about the onboarding in which it was stated this is not the first time we have had this complaint. He even linked some useful articles on this that were created by outside sources as to why the newcomers decide to leave. It appears only outside people have issues with what I am involved in, including DRN. For people constantly saying I am brand new, it is definitely a reason to throw out as I may have been editing for years under an IP and just created my account. No one knows that or knows me on here or my background. When I have questions, I ask. I have already stated I will not perform "housekeeping" on the lists. As far as any projects I am involved in, which are few (CVU (graduate and have rollback rights), I am listed as a TeaHouse host because there are somethings I can provide advice on and I have been warmly welcomed by numerous people who are also hosts. I am the coordinator of the Wikipedia:Spoken articles as this has great potential and it was not being utilized. Recommendations were provided by an administrator and a fellow coordinator which are going to be implemented over the weekend so it meets the new requirements. I participate in DRN and 3OR to assist with things I can do. In 3OR, I have never had kickback on anything I provide my opinion on and I always point to the policies regarding it. I do not get involved in more than one case, however, I will post the appropriate notices and if something odd (i.e. an editor posting it on my talk page, I will make a remark to the volunteer to let them know. I would sincerely appreciate if people would stop the personal attacks and if this discussion can be closed, as requested and seconded. Thank you. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 05:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Broader issues with Galendalia's editing

    While the above issue of Galendalia improperly mass-removing userboxes from other editors' userpages seems to have been resolved, I agree with Drmargi that there are broader issues with Galendalia's editing. To begin, I'll acknowledge that the Galendalia account is just over a month old (although they say that they have previously been editing as an IP for over a year) and newbie errors are to be expected. The issue, as I see it, is (1) them wading into areas that needs significantly more experience, and (2) their needless escalation and accusations of "I'm being attacked" when errors are (politely) pointed to them. Here are four other instances in addition to the above discussion, where I have observed such conduct:

    1. Galendalia left a note for MarnetteD expressing suspicion that Marnette was socking as an IP. MarnetteD pointed out that Galendalia was misreading the editing history and the suspicion was (obviously!) unfounded. Instead of simply apologizing and moving on, Galendalia opened an SPI case (Admin eyes-only), which had to be speedy closed and deleted.
    2. Galendalia recently opened six simultaneous RFCs at WP:RSN. After Atlantic306, Redrose64 and I (politely IMO) pointed out that they were not following the procedure for the RSN noticeboard or RFCs, and that their actions were (inadvertently) disruptive, Galendalia repeatedly complained about being attacked and proceeded to retire/vanish (they reconsidered on the urging of several editors, including me).
    3. Galendalia just concluded moderating a DRN. Unfortunately, setting aside the resolution of the case (which was to "list [the disputed content and sources] in the Miscellaneous section"), several of the statements made by Galendalia there about wikipedia policies and process were simply wrong and probably misled Tayi Arajakate and Aman.kumar.goel. For example, After extensive research, I can verify that Anjana Om Kashyap DOES NOT meet the requirements for WP:BLP and then suggeted that the page be speedy-deleted; The sources provided are not considered reliable as they are opinionated against the journalist. etc. I won't belabour the point but the article would clearly survive any attempt at AFD (let alone speedy deletion), and one of the "disputed sources" is a reported cover-story in one of India's most prestigious magazines.
    4. A short while back Galendalia reverted a series of edits by a new editor Thehitavada. The editor was in the middle of a process of replacing {{cn}} tags with (mostly) reliable sources and had even placed the {{Under construction}} tag when they were reverted and warned. When Thehitavada pointed out this error at Galendalia's talkpage, instead of apologizing and backing down, Gelendalia replied with this non-sequitur about vandalism software score, blanking of content, BLP etc... none of which was relevant or applicable (neither the article nor the edited content is about any BLP and, again, the editor was adding sources!).

    Not really sure what course of action is required here since I don't doubt Galendalia's enthusiasm or good-faith. Tentatively, I'd suggest that Galendalia (1) get a mentor to guide their editing, and (2) back away from areas such as WP:DRN where knowledge of wikipedia policies and their application is crucial. Other comments and suggestions welcome. Abecedare (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have also noticed the overreach by a six-week old account. I advised them to slow down and get some experience when they were giving advice on the Teahouse weeks ago. When I applied for Autopatrolled recently I saw they had applied for about three different permissions at WP:PERM (template editor, event coordinator, mass message sender at five weeks?). Add to unnecessary procedural requests (example, example, example) that have been started by them (also at WP:COIN, example), and joining multiple groups with the apparent aim of gaining some kind of authority that extends above that of a novice editor. Pretty much all of these point to overreach in one way or another: giving advice where the editor is not experienced enough to give it, asking for permissions where they are not experienced enough to use them, and participating in higher-level discussions where they really shouldn't be (DRN example above) because they do not have the experience.
    That's the past though. They seem to have resigned from Wikipedia as a result of this discussion (See User talk:Galendalia), but really all that is required is to step back a bit and gain skills gradually, rather than to try to do everything at once. Wikipedia welcomes editors with this much energy, but experience is not gained in a month or two, it takes time. I hope the editor will take this advice to heart, as it is repeated often in the above thread. I'm not sure what remedy is appropriate should they continue to ignore this advice, but one is probably necessary in that case. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So this should be my final response. If I wronged you I apologize but niceness works both way. Telling me to do something is not what volunteers are for. We are all here to assist in the Wikipedia project. I have decided to only continue in the following:

    1. Spoken Wikipedia as the project coordinator
    2. The Teahouse as I have received great feedback from some of the main players there. I also don’t respond to requests unless I know something and can assist. I think I’ve answered about 10 questions total, if even that.
    3. Continue fighting vandalism as I was trained.

    Now to clear a couple things up. I never edited with an IP address however Abecedare misinterpreted what I wrote which was “I may have been editing for years under an IP and just created my account.” I never said I did but it’s not only for me but any editor. For example the user mentioned early in an Under Construction. The account was just created today (in my time zone) and was editing like a pro and knew how to do things. So there is a possibility they may have been editing as an IP with no issues and decided to create an account.

    This also stands to Serials comment about WMF. I brought it up because I was invited by an editor to participate in the discussion for both CVU and because I’m a newer editor. The discussion, for clarity, is what can be done to get new users trained and up to date on editing, sources, etc. For serial to make an assumption on why I brought it up is unfounded as I clearly stated who and why I’m involved. As far as my requests when I asked for something it was declined and explained and I agreed. So I’m not sure why people are bringing those up as there was no issues on them other than me requesting which any editor is allowed to. I spoke to Rose and I withdrew them all.

    I will be taking advice to heart and backing off to a few things.

    The4Lines has also stated they would be willing to adopt me and I am taking them on that offer.

    I am also going to ask that those involved in this discussion to please stop posting the same messages you posted here to my talk page. It does not need to be repeated. I’ve already removed one persons comments from my page because they did just that.

    I also want to mention about the template and technical requests. The templates I’m working on are for the project. The technical question is because I asked if there is a way to ping volunteers of the project to have them engage in discussions on the project talk page. None of these are an issue. I am allowed to ask questions and requests of templates in the correct forum which I am directed to by an experienced editor on where to ask them if they do not know.

    Permission requests: I asked about being given the right to edit just certain ones and then it was pointed out that I didn’t need them for most so I thanked them and was able to edit the templates that needed it.

    The IRC: I understood what they were saying and thanked them and left it at that.

    The feature request is something I see on other projects so I was inquiring about if it could be done or if something was already in play for it.

    The Event Coordinator: I was told this was the place to go to be the coordinator of a project, once they explained it was not, I thanked them and moved on.

    The Mass Messages: Falls in line with the group ping to volunteers of the project. My request was denied but it was explained where I could post it to have someone deliver it. I (once again) thanked them and then created the messages per their criteria which were sent out. Again, I’m looking for ways to get the volunteers engaged in the talk page discussions that I’m looking at holding. I have not yet responded to the group ping request as I did see someone knows what I was looking for so I need to get back to them.

    Not all of these requests were “unnecessary procedural requests” as stated above.

    So now can we please put this to rest? I’m spending way to much time on this when I could be working on the 3 things I listed above.

    I am sure I will see you around hopefully under better circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial Number 54129 Good grief! Can you please stop trolling me and everything I do? It is like you 1) just won’t let this die and 2) you keep adding fuel to the fire. I had my rights before all of this happened and, while yes I was upset about my rights not being renewed and pulled early, I understand it. I attempted to make my case and it failed. I’m fine with that. Crap happens. You need to find something better to do maybe update an article or something (as you have previously told me to do). Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's completely normal to point out a related discussion. Comments like this are not going to help you. Nobody is out to get you, we are looking at justifiable concerns related to your editing abilities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came here to share some concerns about Galendalia's choice of mentor, and here we go again: any comment or feedback on Galendalia's actions is met with anger and immediately preceived as either trolling or a personal attack, both extreme responses to routine comments that fail to take assume good faith into consideration. I was accused of attacking Galendalia simply for pointing out he was too inexperienced to be making some complex edits and had failed to discuss and gain consensus in the correct place. But as ThatMontrealIP points out, the comments of other editors are perfectly benign, generally helpful comments designed to guide an editor, not attacks, trolling or anything like them. After two rage quits, and the stream of problematic activity on Galendalia's part over the last couple of weeks, the concerns some of us have about his editing are more than justified. It's just a shame that he seems incapable of or unwilling to step back, hear what we are saying, take away from our remarks what is helpful, and try to improve. Instead, all we see is walls of defensive text, promises that are soon broken (he's already moved beyond the three area he claims he plans to work on above), a failure to learn even the most basic procedures and a desire to engage in activities far better left to much, much more experienced editors. Equally problematic is his desire to supress editors' ability to discuss here, and instead to shut this thread down. I see a stream of blocks in his future if he continues like this. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmargi: Please kindly explain how I’ve stepped outside my 3 areas listed above? Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 21:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also there are no “walls of defensive texts”, but rather explanations of why I did such actions. I have stepped back, I’m staying on my 3 activities and I have not “broken any promises”. I only know @The4lines: because of graduating from CVUA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Galendalia/Archive_1#Wow). I felt it was ok to take him up on his offer as he has a very positive track record on Wikipedia. I’m surprised you would go on about him not being here for more than 7 months. He expressed the same sentiments that @L235: did. My work has been commended (even by Kevin himself) and no where does it say I need to only work on main space articles. In fact, I am allowed to work behind the scenes and do other things that benefit WP as a whole. Yet it is constantly repeated I need to stick to editing the main space. The reason I’m trying to end this conversation is because I’d like to move on but yet I can’t when I keep getting notifications that someone yet has posted more on here about me. I feel that my rollback rights have nothing to do with this discussion because they were pulled mostly because of this discussion, so it is in fact opposite of what is stated. Even the admin stated that he felt based on this discussion to not renew my rights and pulled them a few days early. I have every right to defend myself against what is being said about me and my actions. I offered a very clear overview of why and what. I do see Serial as a troll towards me because the moment I make a small mistake it’s immediately posted here. I will also say I’m not the only one with these types of feelings as I’ve seen numerous conversations he’s involved in, an ANI he’s involved in, amongst other things. I feel as if the main contributors here are all scrutinizing everything I do. I called you out for a personal attack based on you stating I’m only here to play games which as I see it you violated “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.” You have not yet provided any diffs that prove I’m playing games but yet you are attaching my behavior as such. I have no problem assuming good faith, however, in the way some things are worded, I can’t take them as good faith. As for your comments Dr Margi:

    False - “met with anger” (there was no anger in that. It is a statement on how I’m feeling about the introduction of something that is the opposite; see above for further details)

    False - “dumping his DRN cases on ever-helpful user User:Robert McClenon, who graciously took them over.” (As I previously stated he never took them over.)

    Personal Attack - “Now he's back and back at his same games.” (as stated above)

    Not required of me to do - “...concentrate on editing in mainspace...”

    Both false and again an attack on my personal behavior - “It's just a shame that he seems incapable of or unwilling to step back” (I have stepped back and I left all of the areas I said I would and have not gone back to them) (seems incapable of is the personal attack part)

    False - “I was accused of attacking Galendalia simply for pointing out he was too inexperienced to be making some complex edits and had failed to discuss and gain consensus in the correct place.“ (as stated above that is not why you were accused of a personal attack it was because of your games comment)

    Uh - “ I see a stream of blocks in his future if he continues like this.” (exactly for what when I’m defending myself and pointing out exactly what I see. I’ve accepted my mistakes, I’ve made the changes.) Seems like a threat to me.

    Maybe it’s time for arbcom! Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 22:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Galendalia: I don't really know how you could possibly think Dr Margi is threatening you. They're not an administrator and cannot block you. You need to worry when this lot starts telling you the same thing. Now, do I have anything to add. Yes. I see a stream of blocks in your future too. Nick (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Galendalia's mentor

    Let me preface my comments by noting I have no issues with the editor who has kindly volunteered to adopt and mentor Galendalia aside from questioning the wisdom of an editor with seven months' experince taking on the task so soon. That said, The4lines has recently offered to adopt and mentor Galendalia after his rather lively first month editing here. The two appear to know each other from a shared interest on-site (I'm unclear what), and The4lines has been offering Galendalia a bit of encouragement during his recent difficulties. As a result of this discussion and comments made on Galendalia's talk page recommending he seek a mentor, The4lines stepped in and offered to take on the task. Moreover, he's set up a mentorship so that Galendalia is taking on the first tasks traditionally completed as a mentee. All commendable so far.

    The problem is that The4lines only has seven months' experience on engWP himself, and Galendalia has already begun to step out of line; note the discussion above, but also his recent contributions that extend beyond his three planned areas of emphasis. I think The4lines's intentions are good, and he is eager to be a good mentor, but simply lacks the experience on engWP needed to take on a mentee as challenging as Galendalia. Galendalia needs a firm, highly experienced mentor who will draw lines when needed. The4lines is still learning himself (and we know how steep the learning curve is on this site, as well as how long it takes to ascend to the top). I'm not sure he has the knowledge and experience, however good his intentions, to recognize what lines need to be drawn, how and when. On the other hand, The4lines does seem to be able to communicate effectively with Galendalia thusfar, which is rare. But I can't help but think that perhaps The4lines would do well to mentor in collaboration with a much more experienced edito who can help him to guide and limit Galendalia, particularly where not mainspace editing activities are concerned. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmargi I totally agree with you, I'm still learning, you are right and Galendalia is starting to step out side the lines. So a much more experienced editor would be great here, as I can communicate with Galendalia and when the experienced editor can gudie me on how to help Galendalia and may also draw lines when needed. If any experienced editor would like to help me mentor Galendalia feel free to reach out on my Talk page. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 21:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have officially decided just to retire. It is sad that all of you look at personal attacks as just a certain set of rules when it actuality on the same page it states “Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.” That has definitely been done to me quite a few times starting on day 1 when I went into IRC and was setting it up and got my ass handed to me by an operator because I wasn’t cloaked or confirmed at 3 months. Just the way they said it and then only linking me to something irked me. I opened a pvt conversation with that individual and asked why they were being so hostile, and not only with me, but even towards people asking questions. The response I got was the exact same link and boom I’m off chat. It should also be noted the same operator did this to a very long time admin who has never been on IRC and he got the same treatment (either the same day or the next I forget). This then preceded and still continues to this day. I have read a number of essays here on Wikipedia that some of you may have written or you may not have. After reading through a lot of the ANI over the past couple hours, I feel some people should go read them again as a refresher. I’ve read up on the proper way to handle things and honestly a lot of the feedback I’ve gotten over the past month was in the form of bullying. This entire conversation should not have even started because there was not much of an attempt to persuade me or even really much of an explanation and I explained I disagreed and boom I got this ANI notice, which has turned into, what I see as, an all out war on me. I do not see admins making the statement “you should not be part of this until you get more experience (or in some cases you are too inexperienced) as very futile in helping a new(er)(ish) editor in any form. How about “I think you may have overstepped a little. Here is how we can approve this:
    Hey Galendalia I see you are wanting to help at xyz. We usually prefer to hold off for new users joining these high level discussions so soon. Allow me to guide you so you can understand the policies as they relate to whatever, here are some links, etc etc.” It sure as hell beats “Slow down and learn the policies” great! What policies? There are a shit load of them and they are all over the place. One policy links to 7 other policies which links to 3 other policies and this cycle continues. I have every right to stand up for myself and explain myself, however, if someone is going to try to quote something I did or said, they need to put the full thing out there. Not just the part that shows the bad. There was a lot of good I did too in my short time here. I have worked with some great admins who have taken the few minutes to show me the error and how to correct it and where the policy is. They did not disparage me, in fact they made me feel welcome. I made many newcomers feel welcome too and fully explained why I may have reverted something. I’ve participated in many 3ORs in which the feud settled and the three of us came to a conclusion about whatever it was. How did I do that? I cited the policies the policies that the other admins and generous long time users has given to me in my arsenal of tools for Wikipedia. There were times I may not have agreed with someone’s POV in those discussions but we continued the conversation politely and worked through it. I can handle being called names, I can handle a lot of things but when the discussion has gone on this long and not one person has addressed any of the points I made here, but instead has to keep adding their 2¢ or 50¢, yes it pisses me off. One person out of this entire conversation had a positive statement to say about me. Just one! But others seem hell bent on trying to get whatever they want. Yes Nick I did see that as I threat. I don’t know who all is admins unless I interact with them on a regular basis. I don’t ever recall any conversation with Dr Margi until this thread in which she inserted her POV with me “back to playing my games” and whatever else she said which I’ve addressed. I started to join the GOCE but after my first article I had not done things right and they kindly pointed out what was wrong and I thanked them and left the group as we had all agreed I need to learn some things about editing. I’m not as bad a person as everyone in this thread is making me out to be which is highly disappointing and disrespectful to another human. Being in the military, while being great, has one major downfall which I have. I do my best to not become argumentative but again when the tally is 9 against me. I don’t have a choice but to defend myself. When I’ve asked questions it’s met with go to this board and open a request. When you say that if there are special circumstances like with RFCs then when directing someone there it should be mentioned hey the have special caveats make sure to read them or instead of linking to the board itself how about to the instructions which then makes it a lot clearer. I have done that a lot. Instead of say oh go to WP:BLP I actually give them the link to the exact part I’m looking at so they don’t have to go through a 20 page article looking for something. I still do not get how I “broke my promises” and “went into other areas” after I said I wouldn’t. I’ve spent most of the weekend either cooking, working on the new layout for the spoken Wikipedia project (of which no policies are being changed, just the layout) and I answered one question on the Teahouse earlier today. Even my (now ex) mentor is saying I stepped outside my lines but no one is saying how. I spoke with the user and it was regarding basically an edit war where numerous people were tagged in it. I archived it with a link to his page (as a pre-emptive response to not get an dispute going on the Teahouse) and we talked about it there and I suggested (after he provided clarity) some options. I was actually surprised a user of over a year would even post that at the Teahouse. He decided to follow normal dispute process and start a conversation on the talk page. I have no issue with having a mentor and it doesn’t matter to me who. I noticed 4lines asked if anyone would be willing and not a person offered up. So that shows me how the people here operate. I wish you all the best. G 2600:8801:C500:160:EDAD:CF6D:8F9E:A7E9 (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Galendalias' responses

    • I have read and understood what everyone is talking about on here and I feel that right now I am accepting fault for my mistakes (no matter how trivial), learning from them, and moving on to make Wikipedia better for everyone. I have learned from everything listed here and I am stopping my defensive stances and accepting I scewed up and I have limited myself to minimal activities at this point. As stated above, I have removed myself from the Teahouse and anything that involves any kind of dispute (other than CVU related) activites. Furthermore, instead of waiting for everything to build up, I would ask that you kindly and politely inform me of something you see that I am doing that is related to the above. Please explain why and point me to the right direction so I can learn. No one learns when they are just told (as mentioned above) to go to a link and read the other 30 links as that does not allow someone to edit. It is my hope we can move on from this now and work on other things more important in our lives (real or otherwise). If anyone would like to be my mentor that meets the requirements outlined above, I would gladly accept. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 23:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Galendalia: I would like to be a co-adopter for Galendalia. Thanks, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 01:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not recommend this. Your own competency is only fractionally better than Galendalia's. You are not suitably experienced to provide the necessary guidance that is needed to keep Galendalia from getting into further trouble on this project. Nick (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick Thank you for clearing that up. I did not come back after it was closed. I came back because after reading all the issues I did make mistakes and I accepted those (see above paragraph). I feel I could do well if I stay in my lane and follow the policies. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Grand Mufti of India Problems

    The issue which has been rumbling on for some time is the fact their there are two claimants for the title of Grand Mufti of India. The gist of the situation seems summarised here, [[131]] and I think I've seen this carried by sources which which would probably be better. Affected articles are:

    Two the accounts, the the editors showing some good knowledge, have sought to impose their view on the articles. Discretionary sanctions were issued however move continued to edit over the top of a Template:In-use when I was trying to achieve at the minimum a claim from the not so long standing claim. I have correctly (or perhaps incorrectly) attempted to use Template:POV notice as a means of noting the alternative points of view for discussion.

    There is no point me getting into an edit war: its time to ack off and let others handle it.

    Proposed Actions.
    • Investigate my actions on the matter and impose discretionary actions if necessary. Im pretty sure I've been trying to do the right thing here.
    • I propose Ishraque Hussain is blocked with immediate effect for blatant violation of discretionary sanctions it any uninvolved administrator feels this is appropriate, and not to do so in this case would likely render such cautions meaningless.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case with the The cool mew is more subtle. They have won an edit war; albeit to a long standing status quo. They seem adept for a newbie user, but of course may have had experience as an IP editor. The removal of the POV for the second time with how discussion is crucial here. I have requested semi-protection but this will likely soon not apply to the The cool mew who has concerns my my edit count on my talk page. I am reasonably sure it is appropriate as a minimum from mentioning the alternative claim on the article but I feel I have been blocked from doing so. I would appreciate admins looking for a way forward, try not coming back to me because I've been exhausted by the edit conflicts. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not this again. ECP'd both articles for 2 years (logged at WP:AEL this time). Warned both Ishraque Hussain and the The cool mew. Hopefully, that will be the end of the Grand Mufti of India rivalry on Wikipedia for a while, at least on the mainspace, as it has proven to be a huge timesink. El_C 22:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked The cool mew as a sock of Easytostable, but I think there are probably more socks active here, potentially including some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone done a check user to see whether Easytostable/Mariyaibrahim/The cool mew is a sock of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...  Technically indistinguishable. I don't know how to behaviorally identify these socks, though. I dislike walking into complex sock puppetry cases without any background, and I often find cases that center on Asian topics confusing. The CU tool throws up mountains of useless information, and it all has to be analyzed by a human. If that human doesn't even know what a Mufti is, it's not so easy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, I had some interaction with Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. The behaviour generally involves pro-Barelvi, anti-Deobandi POV-pushing; in general, if you see any blatantly POV edits on topics relating to Islam in the Indian subcontinent, there is a good chance that this user is behind it. Pinging AaqibAnjum in case he has any further input. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have presented behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah mailed me a times and said he was sorry and was trying as if his anti-Deobandi bigotry was gone but he failed to convince me, because I told him to shed tears infront of WP admins and learn WP policies. I possibly thing this newbie user is his soft suck as Toddy1 has analysed. Best - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the meaning of Mufti, and I confess being no expert, to quote from [134] which also is an indictor of use of "mulfti" for a "dress-down" or "informal-dress" may become policially incorrect: "A Mufti is a respected Muslim cleric ... Mufti interpret Islamic law and then issue fatwa (legal opinion)." My understanding is this implies the Grand Mufti of XXX is the most senior person to interpret Islamic Law in XXX. In some countries this is built into the constitution, with India it may be less so; and some divisions of Islam may feel they are not represented by the Grand Mufti of India. It is also possible some may use the term "Grand Mufti" for a state of India such as Kerela. I'll also note I am concerned about Bareliv/Deobandi non-neutrality spilling to Wikipedia. Hope this helps and apologies if I've got something wrong.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Djm-leighpark, good luck stopping the British Army from using "mufti" for civilian dress. They still refer to the Air Force as "crab air". Guy (help!) 09:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You were right Djm-leighpark, Deobandi-Barelwi battle is here. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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:[135][136][137][138] 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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. [139] 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)[reply]
    '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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [140]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ' 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Comment - 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Exactly how is stating he wrote the prologue to an antisemitic conspiracy 'covering up'? VeritasVox (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please indent your responses, one additional colon each time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    User is indeffed for making legal threats, rants in mainspace have been revdelled. creffett (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User in question: User:Pamelamuraca.
    Article in question: Warner Williams (painter)

    This user has been blanking the article Warner Williams (painter) since he/she claims that the article is stolen. Even though I warned the user not to blank the article again and inform about WP:AFD, the user began to make legal threats by saying that he/she will sue if the article is not deleted. I did tagged the article for AFD for different reasons though. @LuK3: warned the user about not making anymore legal threats, but one more legal threat was made afterward. INeedSupport 😷 17:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to their talk page, they added legal threats to the article talk page after a COI discussion was started. See this edit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    She's not backing down at all and is increasing her threats tenfold. This is a clear-cut indefinite block, in my eyes. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're already indefinitely blocked. In any case, the article will be deleted in less than a week—it hasn't got a chance, you heard it here first—and then, since they're also an SPA, they won't have anything else to do here. Or, they sock and keep recreating it until it gets salted G4, G5. It's an escalator, that one, with the inevitability that accompanies it. ——Serial # 17:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Their obscene ranting in the article mainspace should be revdeled before the end of the AfD though. P-K3 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Addition of unverified information

    SBS3800P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has a record of adding unverified information on Wiki pages, as you can see from the talk logs and other related edits. I've had to correct several false facts presented in the articles. Left unchecked, the credibility of the articles could be called into question. Please do something. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not familiar with the editor, but his edit count page is informative. 2 years here, and the only edits in any talk space consist of edits to headers. Pretty clear the editor needs to be shown discussion is required. This isn't even the first ANI report on him. I'd recommend an indeff with a good explanation about how to deal with others. He can indicate his understanding in an unblock request. John from Idegon (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, any updates on this matter? Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Levivich long-term tendentious editing

    While there was some level of agreement that some of the provided examples of Levivich's behavior gave legitimate cause for concern, there was no consensus that this rises to a level requiring sanctions, with some editors disputing that this was even worth bringing to ANI in the first place. Levivich is advised to be more careful about engaging in battleground behavior in future discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Levivich is a user who is respected on this project, but also has had long-term issues with assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks masked as criticism, and general tendentious editing. These issues are often masked by the fact that he's gifted with rhetoric and verbose, but core to the issue is that if you are on the other side of an issue from him, he will try to discredit you personally using a variety of means. I have collected below a list of examples showing this trend long-term:

    1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#Personal_Attacks_and_Legal_Threats_at_the_Daily_Caller: Levivich interogated a fellow editor about their connection to a subject and argued that they could be disbarred for their behaviour on Wikipedia.
    2. This unfortunate inicident where he implied that people who disagreed with him were no better than Nazis. He followed up the ANI thread with this reply where he doubled down with the Nazi analogy.
    3. False civility and accusations of bad faith and incompetence in ARBPIA over the definition of BRD.
      That led to this incident which included this gaslighting where he played the victim when he was edit warring when he was fully aware of how ARBPIA works.
    4. This lovely diff where he baits Cassianto in a thread by using way over the top racial slurs rhetorically to prove a point.
    5. This thread where Levivich called GorillaWarfare pedantic and too stubborn to admit something. Eventually that issue got sorted out, but the over the top attacks on GorillaWarfare are part of the tend here: no one who has an opinion different than Levivich is behaving reasonably.
    6. This comment where he supported SirJoseph implying that Objective3000 was a holocaust denier by saying, and I quote, Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is wrong, unless the theater is actually on fire, in which case it's a public service
    7. This lovely diff where he told BMK to stop sounding like a nazi. He also had this great quote where he compared BMK using the phrase "only solution" in Wikipedia related matters to the Nazis Final Solution. It was eventually struck, but that is part of the trend here: over the top critiques followed by apologies after the damage has already been done.
    8. Finally, the thing that brings me here today: this blatant assumption of bad faith and attempt at baiting where he says Talk about a dog whistle and you answered! accusing SPECIFCO of canvassing and me of bias simply for trying to clear out ANRFC. For those outside of the United States Dog-whistle politics is a reference to a type of politics where people speak in code to try to canvass supporters while still staying within the formal rules. It is usually associated with racism, which isn't the case here, but contributes to the negative connotation the word has in the United States.
    This is just back to September 2019. If you want to go back further, I'm sure you could, but I didn't have the time today and I think I've established a trend. We have an editor who uses rhetoric to attack others, gaslight them, and compare them to historical atrocities all while saying he's just making a comparison. If you disagree with him, you are subject to these techniques, and it is not limited to one issue.
    All of these are individual incidents that on their own likely wouldn't be sanctioned, but we have a trend here, and we call that tendentious editing. Something needs to be done about the long-term trend here, and someone has to raise the issue, so I'm bring it here. I am sure that each one of these diffs will dissected to prove I've missed something: that may be the case, but the trend here is what matters. Even if Levivich was 100% correct in all of the above circumstances, he'd still be acting inappropriately, because form of behaviour only discourages users from contributing to the encyclopedia, and chases them off from difficult areas. We've had multiple apologies here. We need a commitment the community can enforce. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the response to my challenging Tony's close? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyBallioni, well, this is weird. I think Levivich and you are both good people. The diffs you provide are not really that bad, The Daily Caller one, for example, he called out a legitimate concern albeit maybe not in the best way: someone presenting as a lawyer and demanding changes to an article is a pressing problem, and we need to know if they are doing this in their capacity as a lawyer or not (else we have to just block them anyway and let them sort it out with OTRS / Legal). I think the sensible move here is to go to AN and request review of your close - which, incidentally, I though looked reasonable on its face. Guy (help!) 21:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is disconcerting, but it's from October of last year. GorillaWarfare, do you have reason to believe Levivich has improved since then? Drmies (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and Drmies:, that's the issue here. Levivich does a lot of low-level issues that never get anything more than a warning when he does them because they aren't enough for sanctions on their own, but when viewed long-term show someone who will basically accuse anyone of anything to win. I don't really care about my close: it's a minor thing on a topic that I don't really care that much about. What I do care about is a user who basically takes a take no prisoners approach to everything he approaches, and has shown this overtime. Anyone who doesn't agree with Levivich is wrong and is in violation of some policy, stubborn, a nazi, pedantic, responding to dog whistles, whatever. It wears people down and makes them not want to get involved in anything he's a part of. That's an issue. Editors shouldn't have to respond to accusations of bad faith every time they are on the other side of Levivich.
    Drmies, on your point, yes, I intentionally did long-term diffs here to show that we weren't just dealing with a one-off thing. If it was just one of these diffs, it would be dismissed as a small thing that happened once, and out of character. The issue is here that it isn't a one time thing: we have at least 9 months of him accusing others who disagree with him of various things, and then apologizing when pointed out to him, but still doing it in the future. It's a rhetorical tactic: just like a TV lawyer saying something outrageous and withdrawing it for the jury. It needs to stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, think you misspelled GorillaWarfare there, courtesy re-ping. creffett (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the courtesy ping. I'm not sure Levivich and I have collaborated or had any substantial discussions since that incident, but we certainly run into each other once in a while on-wiki and what interactions we do have are generally pleasant. I actually don't see that particular incident as all that concerning—I came in to the conversation too hot, and any poor behavior on Levivich's end was not one-sided. We both later apologized to one another. No comment on the other incidents listed in this report, I haven't really taken a look at them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:GorillaWarfare, sorry, I should have been more clear--I was actually concerned also, or mostly, about the fact that Levivich apparently made two edits that had to be suppressed. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Happy to discuss that particular matter with any oversighter if needed, or there's a thread on the oversight-l mailing list (October 1, 2019). Looks like TB's original concern was with the subsequent conversation, so hopefully my earlier response is at least somewhat relevant there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior seen here is corrosive and should stop. Paul August ☎ 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: The thing is, ever since Bbb23 effectively accused Levivich of being a sock, until a few months ago (can't point to when, that's proving a negative I guess) I was the first to remind Levivich to "sign in under [their] original account", etc. And yet: I have never been given a hard time over it, never been accused of being a fascist, communist or anarcho-syndicalist (perhaps, like Ferris, they don't believe in -isms; after all, he was the Walrus), even though I must at some point been a bane irritant on their happy enjoyment of this community. The question is, why didn't I get the accusatory treatment?
      Obviously, I'm not disputing your diffs; I'm not sure I'm even disputing the trend; perhaps I am wondering if we're making an Austerlitz out of an argument, to coin a phrase... ——Serial # 22:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Serial Number 54129, OK, that's concerning. Has Levivich ever said straight out whether he has edited under a previous account? Guy (help!) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      JzG, yes, multiple times, at ANI, ARC, and elsewhere, and I'm happy to do so again: this is my one and only account ever. I never edited before making this account. BTW, I've also been CU'd multiple times, and I've always given (and continue to give) blanket permission for CUs to CU me again whenever they want. (Including Tony.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As knowledgeable as you are about Wikipedia's policies, you must be aware that your "blanket permission" sounds impressive, but means absolutely nothing. Not only do CUs not need your permission to check on you if they have the evidence needed to support a check, but they are actually precluded from making "innocence checks". If you've been CU'd "multiple times" (I wonder how you know that?), that means that there have been multiple times that CUs have had good reason to check on you. As for negative results: well, it's not hard to fool the CU tool, all it takes is some time and discipline. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: You've managed to turn around the fact that CUs have come up false for Levivich and make it sound like that's somehow suspicious. Are you making an accusation? If so, then provide your evidence. If not, then I think you owe Levivich an apology for your evidence-free insinuations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CU is not magic pixie dust. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if the English Wikipedia has local policy to the contrary, but CheckUsers are generally permitted to check an editor's IPs on their request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against sockpuppetry allegations. Best, Vermont (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Such checks are prohibited on the English Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:CheckUser#Policy).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had the opposite experience of Levivich. I've found him to be helpful, smart and funny. I don't find the diffs above that bad. For example, his warning the lawyer about COI is standard. The "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" could be interpreted as opposing Sir Joseph (that's how I read it). This is him explaining about punching up versus punching down. And the dog-whistle thing was just a reference to Specifico's request for a "BLP-oriented admin", which should describe all admins. SarahSV (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is pretty bad...I'm fairly disappointed because I didn't expect this kind of behaviour from Levivich.... and ...what kind of response to the allegations is this[142] ?! I'm sorry but this is serious. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: Levivich's response was probably due to this discussion. ——Serial # 23:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I was referring to. This ANI thread was opened shortly after I said I was going to escalate the close challenge (which I was going to post to AN but will not do any longer because of this thread). GCB, predictably, I dispute most of what Tony wrote, but I assume no one wants to read a point-by-point rebuttal from me. If anyone has anything they want me to address, I'm happy to do so. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich, I took the time to read everything throughout... I soften my opinion a little... you know what? I believe this [143] is a piece of ideal guidance into solving the issue.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that list is not very impressive. Side note, the link you have on point 8 appears to be incorrect. I think you want this one. Less so when you look at the context of each incident. It is even less of a good look to start this report while they are disputing an action you took. PackMecEng (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the diff that TonyBallioni meant to post under bullet point #2. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long-reply to everyone: as has been pointed out, this was brought in the context of Levivich contesting a close I made. No, this is not revenge for that: I really am fine with whatever outcome. It was raised now not to try to poison the well, but because you need to raise these issues when they happen otherwise the community doesn't look at them as they are stale. I also included things that were older and were eventually resolved, yes. I did this to show the trend here. As a summary of what is going on here, I think we need to keep three things in mind:
    1. Levivich is a generally popular user who uses a lot of humour in his writing. He is also rhetorically gifted.
    2. It is indisputable that Levivich has on multiple occasions compared individuals to Nazis. Called them pedantic. Said that users accusing other users of being holocaust deniers were justified, and played the victim despite knowing the rules. All of these are in the diffs above.
    3. Each of these occasions on their own never led to anything more than a warning because they were relatively low-level.
    The problem with #3 above is that if this continues long-term, you have an editor repeating the behaviour in #2 without any consequence and people saying "well they've never been told." We have to have this discussion. A prolific editor who regularly gets into disputes also regularly assumes that people in disputes are acting in bad faith and personalizes them. This isn't just in one topic area, this is everywhere. This needs to be addressed, even if it is just the community saying "Enough, you are warned not to assume bad faith or otherwise belittle or attack other users." We have to be willing to do this to popular users, and I've noticed this trend going on long enough that I thought a discussion should be had in this instance.
    If this was a one-off instance, it would be one thing, but it is not. It is a long-term trend in civil and sometimes uncivil tenaciousness, and that is corrosive, even if the complaint is in response to him challenging one of my actions, the assumption of good faith applies to my actions as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, he didn't say the things you're attributing to him, or at least he didn't mean them in those ways. For example, he didn't say: "that users accusing other users of being holocaust deniers [was] justified". He said: "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is wrong, unless the theater is actually on fire, in which case it's a public service." And later in the same discussion, he said: "For the record, I do not think O3000's quote was revisionism or had any bad intent–see WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE–and I don't agree with Sir Joseph's view of it, but I also don't see evidence of SJ carrying on with it after it was handled... until it was brought up in this report." There's nothing at all problematic about those comments. SarahSV (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He actually did say everything I said he did. As I’ve pointed out: the saying objectionable things and backtracking is a trend here. He only withdraws statements after they’re pointed out as being problematic by others. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate GorillaWarfare's clarity, and will add that I have never had an issue with Levivich. In my experiences, he has always been collegial but with a sense of humor that might test the strength of the limb he might venture out on, which may explain his "Nazi" comment. I'm more inclined to liken his use of the term to this Seinfeld clip. I also believe he is the kind of editor who will take Tony B's concerns to heart. Atsme Talk 📧 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 - Personally I've never had any issues with Levivich and have always found them helpful, I believe we've had differences here and there but meh who hasn't butted heads here, Some of the diffs could be considered perhaps OTT but nothing worth blocking or sanctioning over imho. –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Take to SPI; no need to belabour it here and get blocked (yes please); Lourdes
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Davey2010: Did you ever considered how Levivich -- who has been here 8 years less time then you, and has only 1/10th of the edits you do -- gained the capability of being helpful to you, that their knowledge of Wikipedia seems out of scale for an editor who's only been here for 1.5 years? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Beyond My Ken, do you always have such a disdainful view of newer editors? Of course a newer editor can be helpful to a more experienced editor. Such helpfulness is hardly a smoking gun that proves sockpuppetry. Perhaps you should stop casting aspersions. Either file your SPI or drop the stick. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I do not "always" have a disdainful view of newer editors. in fact, it's infrequent when I do -- only when the evidence and circumstances seem to call for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, thanks for repeating the comment I made above about Levivich wp:casting aspersions, it's worth repeating, but don't you feel a tinge of guilt that your second diff is a post I made that I immediately removed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      BMK, pray tell, what evidence? Every time you've accused me of being a sock or returned banned user or somesuch, you do so in vague terms, basically saying I'm so proficient that I must have prior experience. Can you point to any actual edits, or specific comments I've made, that support your assertions? I have said to you on numerous occasions that this is my first and only account, and you've said here flat out that you don't believe me, which means you think I'm not telling the truth, i.e. I'm a liar. I'm really dying to know what exactly it is that I have done that makes you hold this opinion about me. You do realize that I'm a volunteer, like you, who gives up my free time to try and build an encyclopedia, with you, and everyone else. What exactly is it that you think I'm doing here? It's been a year and a half and I just don't understand what secret agenda you think I have. Enlighten me? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cow patties, you know exactly why. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You've never, ever, once, substantiated your accusations. And above you accuse me of casting aspersions. I mean, really, tell me: there is no part of you that believes you should provide, at least, one diff, before you tell a fellow editor you don't believe they are telling the truth about who they are? Correct me if I'm wrong, in 18 months of you making this accusation against me, you've never posted even one diff. Not one. Years ago, you were accused of the same thing, and yet you make this accusation against me with no diffs. I think you're a reasonable person deep down; how do you tolerate this inconsistency? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's be perfectly clear: I didn't accuse you of casting aspersions, you did cast an aspersion when you implied that TonyBallioni opened this report because of your dispute with him over the close of something or others. That is an aspersion, and you cast it. [144] There's no "claim" about it, it's right there in black and white. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You can randomly bold and italicize words all you like, but the chronology does seem to back up Levi's version of events. You know, just like you think the chronology backs up your view that Levi is a sock. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, very little that I do is "random". There's absolutely no doubt that TonyB's filng of this report came after the dispute with L. about the closing, what's in question is whether the dispute was the reason for the report. I happen to have a higher opinion of TB than that, and I take his word that is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't take his word for something that he didn't say. Regardless of Tony's prior concerns, it was his most recent run-in with Levi that triggered this thread. Tony said so himself. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to say that this thread came in response to Levi's confrontation with Tony. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, no, it wasn't. You implied that the existence of your dispute with TonyB about the closing was the reason he filed the report, but what TonyB actually said was that your behavior in the closing dispute -- not that you dared to disagree with him (your implication) -- was the reason he found it necessary to file a report. Those are very different things. You continue to imply that TonyBallioni's reason for opening the report was to get back at you for questioning his close, and you continue to ignore that this whole thing is actually about your behavior over the course of time, including in the closing dispute.
      Now, I think that's clear enough for any reasonable editor evaluating this discussion, so I'm not going to continue to respond to any more of your and Lepricavark's attempts to mislead other editors. The facts remain that you cast an aspersion on TonyB's intention in opening this report, and that you continue to dig that hole, with Lepricavarak's help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I reject your aspersions regarding my motives. You'll find that very few people share your bizarre version of events, but feel free to believe that we are the ones digging a hole. Suffice it to say that you will be brought back here if I ever see you repeat your accusations/insinuations against Levi at a venue that isn't SPI. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upon further review, you need to reread point 8 of Tony's initial post. It's the part that says Finally, the thing that brings me here today... followed by a link to the dispute between Levi and Tony. Levi's confrontation with Tony was indeed the catalyst in Tony's decision to open this thread. So yes, you did accuse Levi and you were incorrect in doing so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgive me, BMK, when you wrote That right there is an example of what Tony is talking about, WP:Casting aspersions instead of responding to the meat of the matter, I thought you were accusing me of casting aspersions. Similarly, I thought that Tony did open this report because of my dispute with him over the close of something or others, because my dispute with him over the close is diff #8 in his list in the OP, which he described as the thing that brings me here today. I must be confused. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Beyond My Ken, yeah, I know that you removed the post. But you still proceeded to insinuate that Levi is a sockpuppet because... he's been helpful to a more experienced editor. That sounds like an aspersion. Levi has now categorically denied editing Wikipedia before he created this account. In fact, he's denied it twice. (Not sure why that first one wasn't good enough to be "on the record".) If you don't think he's telling the truth, file an SPI. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you think it's an OK thing, perfectly reasonable and ethical, to post a diff to someone's deleted comment? As for the other thing, I wanted it on the record, because I hadn't read those protestation from Levivich above -- you see, I had already read the top of the thread earlier today, and it's not my habit to check the entire thread every time I come back to it. I generally check the bottom, where the newer comments mostly are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My mistake. You responded to it, so I assumed you had read it. Find me a policy that prohibits posting diffs of deleted comments and I'll strike it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Davey2010, I haven’t asked for sanctions here: I’ve simply raised the issue that continually saying over the top things about others is an issue he’s had for a while, and this is never addressed. The long-term issue is what I’m concerned about. I think most people who have commented here agree that the conduct is sub-par, and hope the concerns are taken on board, like Atsme said. I’m fine with this being closed as a warning to him, but it’s a warning I want on the record: the continual assumptions of bad faith and over the top rhetoric towards others are getting really old. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Messing about with whether you are legally representing someone or not is both bad on wikipedia and really bad in real life. It really can get you disbarred so that warning seems fine to me if a little dirrect. 2. I mean if he had called out specific people then I guess this would be an issue. His opinion was more extreme then mine but I don't think it is ourtrageous to get upset at people being labelled as sick or not. 3. He got tripped up by ARBPIA, say it ain't so. To be clear it look like him and EL C worked it out with no hard feelings. 4. "Baiting" is AGF at its finest. As far as I can tell he is explaining the obvious about mysoginy. 5. Yeah, not great, so there is one though it look like again that got worked out. 6. If anything Tony's blatant misreading of the situation is actionable. Levivich was making the point out that just saying "Godwins Law" is not a defense. Something he months ago explained it detail. 7. Meh, he was a bit over the top but BMK was calling people a cancer and a disease. Not sure why you didn't have a bigger issues with that as it is just as bad. 8. Not even going to bother. This looks like a notherburger built up based on the fact you didn't like being challenged. I don't think he needs or deserves a warning. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Lourdes 11:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • @TonyBallioni: I have two questions I'd like to ask you: What could I have done differently in bringing the close challenge on your talk page that would not have resulted in you filing this thread? How do you think BMK and Cassianto's comments in this thread compare to the disruption you're accusing me of? I think you're a reasonable person (like BMK), but I can't take on board what I don't understand, and I don't understand your reaction here. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Levivich, in your short time here, I haven't seen you anywhere else; if there's a heated discussion to be had, then you can bet your last pound that you'll be a part of it. That is my point and there's nothing disruptive about me making it. I also note your thinly veiled personal attack at me by inferring that I'm "unreasonable". CassiantoTalk 06:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only speak for myself, but Levivich has generally been cordial with most editors, so far as I’ve seen. Though I have indeed seen escalations from time to time. Don’t get me wrong. He edits in contentious subject areas, but that’s not always a blanche carte for some of the behaviour. That being said, when challenged, they’ve generally been conciliatory. This isn’t always the case, but I think they’ve been a generally good editor. I don’t think a sanction is warranted, but if the community disagrees, I think it should be in line with what TB suggested; a logged warning to be more civil. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the second point first: I’m not playing that game. This isn’t about BMK or Cassianto. This is about you.
      On your first point: There’s a general agreement here that you take things over the top sometimes and that the diffs I’ve linked aren’t great even if not sanctionable. Your response has been to play the victim: that this was about me responding negatively to a challenge to my actions rather than to you assuming bad faith and describing the behaviour in an over the top way that was obviously phrased to get a response. I’m sure that was intentional: it’s how you operate, as I’ve documented above. Calling a request a dog whistle that someone came running to is obviously designed to attack them in a way without swearing. If you had simply left it at the comment about escalating, I wouldn’t have cared. Instead you decided to accuse another editor of canvassing and me of not being thoughtful enough to realize I was being canvassed. It’s over the top, and I as I said, over the top and then apologize when called out is something you do somewhat frequently (see diffs and discussions above. What we need is a commitment that the behaviour will actually stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I myself remember wondering who Levivich may be, but it's not a current concern. I find their policy-based comments at the AFD and DR clueful and think that they're also a good asset for the project. I do find that jumping to a nazi reference was inappropriate, though. —PaleoNeonate – 08:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I coincidentally noticed this thread immediately after reading about their hubbub with GorillaWarfare on the Arb noticeboard which I found incredibly concerning (redacted edits immediately after an ArbCom block.) On the most part I don't mind Levivich, but I was on the other side of the argument during their crusade against the standards at NFOOTY and while I don't have any specific evidence of tendentious editing/criticism personal attacks directed against me, honestly the whole thing just strikes me as odd on the whole. For the best example I can add, see RSkinner96's WP:POINTY argument on 6 July here: [145]. It's the little stuff like the exchange I found with GiantSnowman falsely accusing them of a personal attack here (Proposal: Scrap the one appearance...) I also checked their contributions out of curiosity. A tenth of their whole edits are to ANI or the Arbitration boards, the fact they edit once on their own user talk page for every six mainspace edits (per [146]) also strikes me as odd. Whether a formal minor warning gets logged here (which I would support based on the above) may not matter, but hopefully this ANI can clue them into the fact their dramatics are being noticed. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't wish to impugn Tony's motives, anyone should be able to appreciate why the timing of this post is questionable, coming in the immediate aftermath of a dispute between Tony and Levi. I have no doubt that Tony came here because he felt he had valid concerns, but it's hardly surprising that Levi would feel targeted under the circumstances. While there may be an underlying problem with Levi's behavior, I think Tony has overstated his case by including diffs that aren't really all that concerning (#4, 5, 6, 7, IMO). The only one that's extremely bad is #2, but that was two months ago and we aren't going to sanction or warn Levi for it now. Although, seriously Levi, please don't ever say anything like that again. That was indefensible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll start this comment by saying that I consider myself to be on good terms with Levivich - I've had a number of thought-provoking and amusing discussions with him, we wrote an article in collaboration, and I agree with JzG's assessment that both he and TonyBallioni are good peoples. Levivich can be quite cutting in some of his remarks when he's in dispute with people, and the fact that he is a good writer and rhetorician perhaps makes such remarks all the more effective. Is this so unusual here though? In this very thread, there are experienced and respected editors coming within a whisker of flat-out calling him a liar, and suggesting that he loves dramah so much that he would actually enjoy being hauled over the coals here. In an environment where that is condoned, are we really going to take him to task for making the odd inflammatory remark? Going through Tony's diffs, I see some comments that are perhaps less than ideal, but if you look at the entirety of the threads that those diffs come from, you will see that many of them contain sub-optimal comments from other people - often very experienced people, and often worse than anything Levivich said. I would encourage Levivich to reflect on Tony's observation that he sometimes goes a bit too far before reining it in, and to try not to do that; I would also encourage a large proportion of the regulars at this noticeboard to reflect on whether they themselves ever say anything that isn't within the spirit of the collaborative and civil environment we all want to encourage. Many of us could up our games when it comes to that. GirthSummit (blether) 11:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well said, Girth Summit. Second everything you said. creffett (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to what Girth said ~Awilley (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: -1
    • Levivich has been particularly nasty to myself and several other editors. The editor has followed contributions unclollegially, and casted aspersions, and even sent several improved articles and even DYK submitted articles to AfD. In one AfD the editor demanded that four previous !votes be thrown out, and when I questioned Levivich they posted an incredibly tedious response. Like other editors above I also agree that Levivich spends a majority of time in WP Drama and would hope that the editor would spend more time in other areas of the main space. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If what you are saying is correct, then it's certainly worth discussing here. But you do need to provide diffs as you can't expect that other editors will do the necessary research to verify your accusations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This refers, especially, to this brutal AfD in which no-one—including Lightburst—comes out of it covered in glory. This was Levivich's "tedious response"; the tediousness of it for Lightburst was presumably the fact hat his "argument", such as it was, was forensically dissected. They then continued on Carole Henson's talk in a simiar vein. Frankly, I'm surprised LB wants to raise these sleeping dogs. ——Serial # 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, poopers - Serial# - you said "...in which no-one .... comes out of it covered in glory." confused face icon Just curious...that AfD was one of my best efforts...and you didn't even notice I was one of the no-ones. Atsme Talk 📧 14:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: I'm so sorry! Of course, you're dead right, apologies, I only read the rotten bits  :) of which you were nowhere near. On of the sensible ones...Apologies for covering you in the same mud that Levivich, LB, 13 and me were wrestling in  :) ——Serial # 14:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    0:) wine Atsme Talk 📧 14:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: You have been rather terse with me in the past, and it is expected that you would be found here defending Levivich. The AfD above not even close to what I was talking about - but nice cherry picking. That Bachelor Lake AfD was a train wreck, and that AfD nominator was eventually sanctioned for other tendentious editing. But no, that is not even close to the behavior I was outlining above. If we get in the weeds on this, I will have wasted another day and Levivich will not be sanctioned anyway. The editor has too many defenders. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certainly your choice, but it's obvious that no action can be taken against Levi on the basis of your claims if you aren't willing to support them with diffs. If you believe this editor is causing serious problems for you, it may be worth your while to spend some time pursuing a resolution here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lightburst: Please retract your aspersion that it is expected that you would be found here defending Levivich; after all, WP:BMB is policy. Many thanks! ——Serial # 17:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst really likes calling people tedious when they explain why he's wrong. Reyk YO! 22:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about this because I respect both parties in this "dispute", if that's what it is. I know that User:Levivich was being accused of being a sock almost as soon as he arrived, and that seemed a little unfair, but I will be honest and say that I don't really care if he has been here before under another name - he wouldn't be the only one. It's hard from the above to make out exactly what the complaint about him is, but as far as I'm concerned, all he needs to do to resolve this is to say, "I'm sorry if I've been rude and I will try not to be rude in future". So I agree with Girth Summit. Deb (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    @Deb You said: "..but I will be honest and say that I don't really care if he has been here before under another name.." I'm sorry, do I understand you correctly??? Are you are saying that it's okay to abandon an old account and open a new one, just because one feels like it? And you don't care!?!? How the hell is this fair to people who are sanctioned under the draconian, ridiculous bans for years, and even thou they trying vigorously and obey the rules can't have their bans lifted?! ..and despite all of that they continue to work hard to have their bans lifted. (yes! I'm talking about myself) What the hell is going on here I'm asking!? Please clarify this to me because I'm more than seriously concerned about your statement. I'm shocked! GizzyCatBella🍁 18:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GizzyCatBella, this isn't the place to discuss your own situation. SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not discussing my situation. What I believe I'm seeing here are double standards and unequal code of conduct for editors. I'm sorry but I demand an explanation, please. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella: It's nice of you to say "please" in your demand for an explanation, but you actually aren't owed one. Deb is entitled to keep her own opinions. (I suspect Deb was referencing WP:Fresh start accounts, when she talked about people editing under new names.) In any case, the SPI thing is off topic here. ~Awilley (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope Deb though of a "fresh start" account. If yes, then I agree, I wouldn't care less myself. But we don't know if this would be a fresh start account or somebody who is trying to cheat, do we? So please understand my greatest frustration when I read something like "..I don't really care if he has been here before under another name - he wouldn't be the only one." (I'm ending this topic here)GizzyCatBella🍁 19:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GizzyCatBella Let me be more specific. The emphasis in my comment was on the word he, and I think that's clear from the context. I don't care if Levivich has been here before, because from what I've seen of him, he's a good and useful contributor. I would not have the same opinion of someone who was a blatant sock trying to avoid detection. Deb (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying Deb, I'm sorry for reacting so strongly. I thought of a huge injustice because of my situation, hence my original response.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Levivich, I have seen you around for a while. As far as I can tell, we agree more often than not. Even when you are correct on the substance, though, you have a habit of making your points more forcefully, more dramatically, and with more rhetorical flourish, than you need to; and you also have the habit of pursuing an argument for far longer than is needed, and not dropping the stick when it's obvious the argument is going nowhere. These are tendencies the community has lost patience with in many other editors with far longer track records, and in many cases have led to a string of noticeboard discussions, short blocks and other minor sanctions, and endless recrimination. You can nip that in the bud now, by recalibrating a little. Just food for thought. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Vanamonde93 is putting it rather kindly. What I have seen is very little partipation from Levivich in article improvement, but widespread bludgeons on talk pages and noticeboards. The "rhetoricl flourishes" are many, but the majority of them are not supported by factual or policy based analysis. Often there are convenient omissions or misrepresentations that serve a rhetorical purpose but only confuse the editorial discussion. Little deflections, straw men, and irrelevancies feel like they're being weaponized. It's often quite effective. And yes, there's personal unpleasantness as well, e.g. his complaints about Tony Ballioni's straightofrward close at the Biden allegations article. Complaints and grudges, but no constructive suggestions. That's been my limited observation of Levivich. Others may be more familiar with examples.Here is one I recall. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In SPECIFICO'S link [147]- which pertains to Levivich's removal of "Peter Navarro" related "BLP" material twice, as discussed at BLPN, Levivich was essentially challenging editors to produce sources that would contravene his removal of material from the article. So, about 10 independent reliable sources were presented that contravened his removal. Levivich responded "but do you have any academic sources, like WP:RS/AC-compliant sources?" Let me point out here - 10 independent reliable sources more than meet the criteria for retaining the material.
    Second, as pointed out in the discussion, this is moving the goal posts, instead of admitting they were in error. Then they continue arguing against several editors, even when editors show him names of prominent economists that support the content that should be restored. At best this is being difficult. At worst it shows tendentious editing. Such behavior is an attempt to control article content in the face consensus opposition. In any case, it is not helpful. The thread is certainly worth reading. I might have more to say in my own comment later. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen Levivich around a lot and have never had any issue with him, but I think he should take this reasonable concern to heart. Just because you can think of a cutting remark doesn't mean you should use it. Cutting remarks are unlikely to persuade and are likely to drive away editors who don't enjoy being the target of them. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal experience with Levivich has been quite positive, and having reviewed the diffs given here they don't strike me as anything Wikipedia's (ridiculously low) discussion standards can't accommodate. Think what you may of his style, the diffs are pretty clear that he's rarely disruptive; and there's much to be said for his "common sense" attitude in approaching some of these more questionable issues. The one thing I would strongly advise - and that goes for everyone - is to keep "ultimate evil" analogies to a minimum, since they don't grace anyone and are rarely justified. François Robere (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: LEPRICAVARK has said I should post some diffs or evidence of what I had stated above. I hope it is organized well. I took a look at Levivich's AfD participation and it revealed that the editor was following myself and or the WP:ARS. I noticed some very condescending comments and tendentious editing before the diffs I present here, but as Tony B has said. It takes loads of time to hunt down diffs and organize them so I am only detailing some of the more recent issues that perhaps show a pattern. Also there is one situation I list below which occurred at WP:DRV where Levivich refers to editors as Nazis and then doubles down when questioned by an admin.
    • In March 2020 I noticed Levivich was following my contributions and or of the Article Rescue Squad, dismissing !votes, taking ARS improved articles to AfD and casting aspersions. I looked at 25 AfDs Levivich was involved with and 8 out of those 25 !votes and nominations (December 24, 2019 to March 15, 2020) involved articles which were nominated for improvement on the Article Rescue Squad. Levivich does not participate in many AfDs and has only been involved in 16 AfDs since I documented the 8/25 AfDs and uncollegial following of the ARS contributions.
    AfDs 7 of the 10 articles below I either nominated for improvement at ARS or started
    1. List of fictional counties Here is an aspersion at an ARS nominated AfD where Levivich dismisses !votes contrary to the arguments made by ARS block voters. March 31, 2020 The AfD finished as No-Consensus.
    2. John Trevena (lawyer) This is an article I started May 2019. Levivich nominated the article for deletion March 15, 2019. The namination seemed like a WP:REVENGE AfD because it came after many aspersions by the editor. It was an overwhelming Keep at AfD.
    3. S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes ARS saved this article and it closed as keep March 7. I was surprised when Levivich nominated the article for deletion the same day it closed (March 7). The Levivich AfD finished as an overwhelming Keep this time as well.
    4. EverlyWell (2nd nomination) ARS added the article to the rescue list Feb 2, Levivich voted to Delete Feb 3. This article was deleted
    5. The Fellowship of the Ring ARS added the article to the rescue list January 29, Levivich visited the AfD that same day at the AfD to !vote Merge The article was deleted
    6. List of fires and impacts of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire ... ARS added the article to the rescue list January 25, Levivich visited the AfD January 26 to !vote Delete The list was kept
    7. Telegraph Road Bridge ARS added the article to the rescue list January 11, Levivich visited the AfD January 12 to !vote Delete The article was deleted.
    8. Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) ARS added the article to the rescue list January 3, and Levivch visited the AfD to !vote Delete and cast an aspersion in the AfD: “ARS Block Voting Machine again” The article was kept.
    9. Sunshine Shen ARS added the article to the rescue list December 13, Levivich visited the AfD to !vote Delete Dec 24. The article was deleted.
    10. Jennifer Mee (This was another article I started) The article was sent to AfD and on December 23, 2019 at AfD Levivich stated that four !votes from ARS members should be tossed. "Pardon me for saying so, but the four keep !votes above should be tossed, and I'm happy to elaborate on that on my talk page. Here's a real keep !vote." I went to the editor's talk page (as instructed) and waited a whole day before Levivich finally responded with a very tedious opinion. about dismissing my !vote. The article was kept.
    • I appreciate that Tony B has brought this matter here. It is my hope is that Levivich will recognize the problems myself and other editors have outlined and make adjustments. I for one have not had a very good experience with the editor. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the diff showing Levivich's "tedious opinion", your take was quite different: "I normally appreciate your very clear-headed remarks and your detail oriented !votes". I ask because I too appreciate his clear-headed, detailed responses wherever I have seen them. Can you give a sense of the proportion of what you see as problematic vs remarks you appreciate from this editor? If you are both prolific at the AfD board, perhaps the interactions you've outlined represent only a tiny portion overall. I'm just trying to get a sense of context. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 05:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Come now, everyone knows you're only allowed to use the ARS listings if you're going to vote keep. Reyk YO! 07:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Petrarchan47: Thanks for the question. The point is that the editor is not at all prolific at AfD. I attached their record and you can see they followed the WP:ARS multiple times and even sent an ARS improved article to AfD on the same day it closed at AfD after massive improvement. The editor then posted more snarly dismissive aspersions when that same article was being considered at DYK. Regarding the "tedious responses" of Levivich, nobody should dismiss 4 other editor !votes at AfD with aspersions, and then hyper-analyze other editor's AfD !vote rationales: we all have different styles. It is also one aspersion after another (they are in green) dismissive of myself and other editors on active AfDs. Here are the AfD records of myself and Levivich - you can see the editor is not at all prolific at AfD.
    The editor has participated in 200 AfDs May 2019-May 2020
    I have participated in more than 2000 AfDs May 2019-May 2020 Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this comment[148] Levivich stated that I carry outedits that purport to say that non-Jewish Poles were the primary targets and victims of the Holocaust despite me stating clearly in context of the Holocaust Jews were the main victims and should be mentioned first. in discussion I had with him[149].As someone who described a lot of Nazi German atrocities on Wiki and created article on Operation 1005 this false claim was highly offensive to me. My experience with Levivich was highly negative, he is aggressive, unwilling to discuss without engaging in attacks and makes serious false insinuations like the one above. After I disagreed with him, Levivich went event as far as following me edits and inserting known Nazi and advocate of German superiority and ethnic cleansing of Poles as source of information that Polish city of Poznan was supposedly majority German[150]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice exercise in taking things out of context, MMA:
    1. You were suggesting that "Poles were the primary targets of the Nazis", and you pushed it across several articles despite the objections of multiple editors.[151]
    2. The Poznan edit was backed by a source that passed an extensive discussion on WP:NPOVN.[152] The fact that you don't like it does not give you the right to represent Levivich's edit as sinister. François Robere (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread is a really good example of why AN/I is such an unpleasant place, that really isn't suited to these types of discussions. Early on there was some aggressive pushing that Lev is a sock, despite any actual evidence, and despite no c/u results. We've now largely moved on to any editor who has had a content dispute with Lev coming in and saying why Lev's disagreements with their content points were problematic. Normally we don't let people go after other editors in such a free-form, willy-nilly way, calling them "highly negative," and utilizing "widespread bludgeons" to edit. Whatever good faith purpose was intended by this thread has now been outlived. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can kind of understand some low-level suspicion of a newish editor who jumps right in and very quickly becomes familiar with how things work around here. Harder to understand is treating a clean CU finding as further proof of guilt. Reyk YO! 07:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say now that I have read up on WP:RFC/U, as pointed out by NinjaRobotPirate, I can see why it was discontinued. Pretty much everything that is going on here is what was discussed here that lead to its discontinuation. It reminds me of Two Minutes Hate with no specific aim or remedy. So given the community consensus against threads of this nature and the fact that this is not actually a request for sanctions as pointed out by Tony, I think this thread should be shutdown. PackMecEng (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)+[reply]
    • I have to agree with PackMecEng. I was going to post something in support of Tony B., but I am really uncomfortable with this thread. The community has gotten rid of RFC/U. I think what's happened here shows why we shouldn't use this venue for recounting the past sins of an editor who at worst has some very low level uncivil violations. In contrast, it seems an authentic tendinitis editor does not last long in an AN or ANI thread before the community binds together and sanctions the individual. Or an admin might intervene, depending on the situation.
    Hence, I think this thread has lost its direction. Tony B. did request a warning. Beyond Tony B's original recounting, I don't think much more should be said other than support or oppose a consensus warning. And that argument does have merit because Levivich has been warned before (as a result of ANI?). Also, note, as an Admin Tony could have "warned" Levivich himself based on the record presented. And, I wish he had done so to be done with it.
    There is flexibility in that decision because it can be appealed. If it was appealed, then there is a focused discussion for AN or ANI, with either "endorse" or "oppose". So, I also think this thread should be closed knowing Levivich has been notified. At the same time, Levivich has been commended in this thread. So, let's leave it at that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close with no sanction or logged warning. But heed the complaints as they are not meritless overall. One really shouldn't ever be comparing any editor or thing to Nazis unless said editor says they are one, or an entity was one. Using this association fallacy diminishes the Nazis, the horrors they caused, the evils they performed. I was greatly disappointed when Godwin used his own "law" against some of those he opposes politically, which basically leads him to lose the argument by making such an association fallacy.--MONGO (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would close this with "come on Lev, be better" but that either makes me the ultimate hypocrite or well-reformed. This is a typical "throw it Arbcom" scenario as ANI and the community have failed to work it out satisfactorily, but does this need another four months of drama while whatever is left of Arbcom collects themselves for a real decision, ever? I don't think so. Kick this into the long grass with a nice polite warning. Next. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can this 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ok. Thanks. Dr. K. 00:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @EEng: my nomination. --JBL (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ha, that was funny. Can we create yet another list for EEng, EEng1 and EEng CN? Dr. K. 02:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Disruption by new editor User:MistyGraceWhite

    Blocked as a sockpuppet of FreeatlastChitchat. MER-C 16:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I share the believe that most new editors would become valuable Wikipedia editors, if we nurture and make them feel welcome. But how do we nurture a new editor who isn't ready to learn or listen to established editors?

    User:MistyGraceWhite is a new editor who joined Wikipedia in May 2019 but began editing in January 2020, barely 4 months ago and has since made about 2000 edits with more than 70% to user talk pages and AfD in a bizarre and clearly disruptive manner.

    I didn't notice the behaviour of this user until they nominated three of my articles for deletion within seconds. In one of their nomination statement they claimed that the article failed WP:MEDIC, a disclaimer that Wikipedia does not offer medical advice. I found it extremely strange that a disclaimer was cited as official notability guideline. Two established editors shared an opposing view with MistyGraceWhite but this user responded with aggressive nomination of their articles for deletion including this nonsensical nomination in retaliation.

    This led me to review their edit history to determine the level of damage and disruption this user must have caused in the project in the last 4 months.

    Looking at some of their closed AfDs at random, I found this one, two, three, & four. The subject of the above AfDs were nominated for deletion in aberrant disregard for WP:BEFORE. In this strange nomination User:Ingratis wrote this AfD nomination took place less than an hour after the article was created - which scarcely allows for an adequate WP:BEFORE, given the language considerations and quoting User:Sulfurboy's closing remark in another disruptive AfD, they wrote "Lack of WP:BEFORE. Clear pass of WP:JUDGE". We also have the same concern of lack of WP:BEFORE here. Another disruptive one was speedy keep with same concern. This disruption continues. It's tiring and we have more than enough sources here and here. In another disruptive nomination, this user claimed that Ghana Music Awards, the major and the biggest music award in Ghana (won by the musician 3 times) isn't notable because it not a Grammy and that it must be a Grammy per WP:MUSICBIO. There is also this reckless nomination described as " spamming by at least two established editors. I am not able to look at all their closed AfDs because they were so enormous. See also this bizarre misuse of CSD:A10 here and this hasty CSD nomination to mention a few. I'd like to acknowledge that some of their nominations resulted in deletion partly because nobody care to add more sources or the page creators who are mostly new editors aren't aware that their pages were being nominated for deletion minutes after creation.

    This editing pattern by a new editor is toxic, worrisome and concerning. It looks like this new editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Several damages have been done already and something needs to be done to immediately put a stop to this ongoing disruption. Regards. Kaizenify (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really concerned that they are actually a WP:UPE that is trying to infiltrate new page patrol. See Special:Undelete/Draft:Nabeel Ahmad (entrepreneur). There are other signs which I won't go into detail publicly. MER-C 09:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Teri Mitti one in particular was bizarre. The sources as they existed on the page before the nom clearly demonstrated notability. So much so that I questioned my own keep vote and went back and check it again, this time actually googling it instead of just reviewing the sources on the page. There were so many sources showing depth of coverage, the song had been nominated for multiple important awards and was heavily featured in a notable film. The user tried to tell me I had the wrong song. I didn't. The information I added to the article also demonstrated that.
    They either didn't search the article before and then didn't read any of my additions (which is really bad) or some ulterior motive is at play here (worse). Sulfurboy (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "new editor who joined Wikipedia in May 2019 but began editing in January 2020, barely 4 months ago" who prefers referring older and apparently more experienced editors as "new accounts".[153] See their disruptive attitude on these AfDs too which were otherwise WP:SNOW:[154][155] I agree that this user is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Something is smelling fishy. So, whatever is needed to be done. I support it. Clearly the AfD process is misused here. Time to stop it.BabbaQ (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I counted over 120 AFD nominations since May 1. I'm really wondering how anyone could keep up that pace and still be looking at the material seriously, and doing a WP:BEFORE. I am usually on WP looking at artist biographies. I see one or two good candidates for AfD a week. Not 40.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ User:ThatMontrealIP. The AFD stats from the time period you gave also show that Without considering "No Consensus" results, 88.3% of AfD's were matches and 11.7% of AfD's were not. I am not a robot, and I do make trout worthy mistakes, but a ban or block with these AFD stats? You are concerned about BEFORE. I am very meticulous in creating AFD debates and I keep written files of all sources evaluated. The files are available for anyone who wants via email. I will post one evaluation here as an example for an ongoing debate.
     Freeman Osonuga (Google: About 19,400 results (0.37 seconds) News: 19 results (0.13 seconds) No Scholar. No Newspaper)

    Rationale: GNG Medical GNG (MEDIC?) (Fails GNG on his other works as well, Delivery company etc. Notability not Inherited)
    Sources concern (Debatable)

    Misrepresentation of Time Award. Awarded to Ebola fighters. (Are Ebola fighters named? Is there a leadership award? Is there a leader of Ebola Fighters? Is he featured on Time? Does Time mention him as the sole representative of Ebola Fighters?)
    Non existent Meritorious award. List does not show him (https://politicosl.com/articles/sierra-leone-presidential-honours-2014) Possible mistake on part of Author? Or UPE?

    Sources in Article (8)

    1. "Unfair Attitudes to Children with Cerebral Palsy in Nigeria". THISDAYLIVE. 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2020-05-17. Trivial Mention
    2. "Why We Chose the Ebola Fighters as Person of the Year 2014". TIME.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13. Misrepresentation.

    Creator UPE? Possible to add by mistake?

    1. "Success isn't achieved in the comfort zone ~ Dr. Freeman Osonuga - Nigeria and World News". The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News. 2020-01- Retrieved 2020-05-17. Interview
    2. "Freeman Osonuga – 'êth Communications". ethcommunications.com. 2015-09-25. Retrieved 2020-05-17. NOTNEWS
    3. "Nigeria's Freeman Osonuga named among 3 finalists for space trip". Vanguard News. 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2020-05-13. NOTNEWS
    4. Kazeem, Yomi. "A Nigerian Ebola doctor could be the first black African to go to space". Quartz Africa. Retrieved 2020-05-13. NOTNEWS
    5. Culpan, Daniel (2016-05-22). "Meet the WIRED Innovation Fellows 2015". Wired UK. Retrieved 2020-05-17. TRIVIAL
    6. "Most Influential Young Nigerians » Homepage". Most Influential Young Nigerians. Retrieved 2020-05-17. Listicle. Trivial
    • Potential sources
    • NOTNEWS
    • Space Travel Selection News story (most fail Interview as well) Independence of sources. Interview (IV essay)
    • (Full Name search)
    1. http://venturesafrica.com/this-nigerian-may-become-the-first-black-african-to-go-to-space/
    2. https://qz.com/africa/522413/a-nigerian-ebola-doctor-could-be-the-first-black-african-to-go-to-space/
    3. https://www.bellanaija.com/2015/10/freeman-osonuga-could-be-become-the-1st-nigerian-to-visit-space-heres-why/
    4. https://www.nigerianbulletin.com/threads/meet-freeman-osonuga-the-first-nigerian-to-travel-to-space.116391/
    5. https://www.jeuneafrique.com/260053/societe/sera-premier-africain-noir-a-aller-lespace/
    6. https://www.bellanaija.com/2015/10/mopol-to-be-charged-with-murder-in-shooting-death-of-junior-tennis-stars-mum/
    7. https://www.i24news.tv/ar/
    8. https://www.deperu.com/noticias/cuatro-jovenes-suenan-con-convertirse-en-los-primeros-africanos-negros-en-ir-al-espacio-62735.html
    9. https://www.jeuneafrique.com/mag/387102/economie/panorama-lafrique-de-demain-sinvente-aujourdhui/
    10. https://www.pulse.ng/news/freeman-osonuga-a-nigerian-man-is-about-to-make-space-history/5bg7smy
    11. https://www.lepoint.fr/afrique/course-a-l-espace-des-africains-noirs-se-revent-en-astronautes-27-08-2015-1959628_3826.php
    12. https://www.konnectafrica.net/freeman-osonuga/
    13. https://opportunitydesk.org/2015/11/01/freeman-osonuga-ypom-november/
    14. https://allafrica.com/stories/201508241286.html Gives Error (Try proxy?)
    15. https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/meet-young-man-who-could-be-first-nigerian-in-space.html
    16. https://atqnews.com/freeman-osonuga-after-braving-ebola-a-space-odyssey-beckons/
    • Video Coverage
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zns7DiuuKYc (interview)
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUTOmER5PE
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsQ0fTejFAk Speech Wired UK
    • PR. PROMO. RS

    PR pieces News (logistics, Adloyalty, Heal the World etc.)

    1. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/02/adloyalty-business-network-hits-20000-realtors-launches-new-office-in-lekki/
    2. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/11/housing-provision-real-estate-firm-unveils-the-plush-at-magodo-gra/
    3. https://technext.ng/2018/10/26/need-deliver-goods-customers-these-4-nigerian-logistics-startups-could-help-out/
    4. https://technext.ng/2018/01/30/delivery-man-the-fast-and-timely-delivery-service-launched-in-nigeria/
    5. https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2017/09/28/unfair-attitudes-to-children-with-cerebral-palsy-in-nigeria/
    6. https://technext.ng/2018/01/30/delivery-man-the-fast-and-timely-delivery-service-launched-in-nigeria/
    7. https://guardian.ng/property/adloyalty-business-network-hits-20000-realtors-launches-new-office-in-lekki/
    8. https://disrupt-africa.com/2018/01/e-commerce-logistics-startup-deliveryman-launches-in-nigeria/
    9. https://punchng.com/building-in-magodo-green-belt-illegal-says-lasg/
    10. https://ynaija.com/yali-network-face2face-africa-rising-event-photos/
    11. https://krugercowne.com/risingstar/shortlist/freeman-osonuga/
    • Authored pieces

    https://www.huffpost.com/author/freeman-osonuga?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAPBAX_7XuNAEL5eDU0u6hD_HOzVY40A7D8o1f8SqhODZNS5qyaA7whWffKMaqlHZSWGLqOyJCeGfLzu-k63nalJnBrkIs4tN1fnGYojPSpmrkg4VIvDlaXHYNQ0miX8SFyaO1NHevA8fxzUtUIjDIpv6TfdubWtYYvDk2mwfSAT

    • Possible Rebuttals.
    1. BASIC. (Fails on multiple independent sources)
    2. ANYBIO. (No contribution, no award)
    3. LASTING for space story(argue with dates as well as sources)
    4. Redirect to his company or Rename to company (Company fails GNG as well)

    MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply

    I have not been involved in any lengthy debate at this forum, so I have had to read some of the wikipedia policies and guidelines, hence the late reply. This is about my AFD editing and all of it is cherry picked, so my complete AFD record needs to be seen. A tool called AFD stats is used to determine how good an editor is at AFD. My AFd stats can be found at this link, the summary provided by the tool is

    • Total number of unique AfD pages edited by MistyGraceWhite: 274
    • Without considering "No Consensus" results, 84.1% of AfD's were matches and 15.9% of AfD's were not.

    My CSD Log, which I started this month is at User:MistyGraceWhite/CSD log.

    The users above have given some instances of concern, and according to guidelines, I am allowed to reply to them before admins make thier decisiosn. I will ping the user who had a concern, so they can read my reply as well.User:Sulfurboy is concerned that I nominated Teri Mitti for deletion. In my defense, I did not nominate the current article for deletion. I nominated the version that was online on 24 April. The article on 24 April reads

    Teri Mitti is a Hindi music video by Akshay Kumar and B Praak, depicting healthcare workers, police and other essential workers during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. It was released on 24 April 2020 during India's lockdown, which advised people in India to stay at home. The lyrics are written by Manoj Muntashir and the music is by Arko. Inspired by the Teri Mitti song from the 2019 film Kesari, the video was shared by Kumar on Twitter, with the caption "सुना था डॉक्टर्स भगवन का रूप होते है लेकिन कोरोना वायरस की इस लड़ाई में देख भी लिया l #TeriMitti Tribute - an ode to our heroes in white, out now.

    This version was about a newly released song, which had come out mere hours ago. After I nominated the article Sulfurboy changed the article's content so it was about the original song, which had been released with the movie Kesari in 2019. It now gives the details of the Kesari movie and the female version as well. I stand by my decision to nominate the version about the remix, as the remix, in my view does not deserve an article.
    User:MER-C is concerned that I may have been paid for my contributions to wikipedia. This is something, which I am not sure how to defend, except with my word that I do not earn anything from wikipedia. To date, I have created 6 pages as you can see from this tool. The last two are Nigerians whose pages I created when the Nigerian editathon was going on, others are a dead Russian governor, a dead gangster, and a dead saint. I have declared already that I do not have any connection with the subject of Nabeel Ahmad, and I created his page after watching a Tedtalk. I thought that statesman etc. were good and reliable sources, but it appears that they sell article space as well. I did not recreate the article. I have requested undeletion of one article, which exists at User:MistyGraceWhite/Syed Sultan Shah. I think that this man, as a former captain of a national team, should have an article on Wikipedia, but I am currently trying to find sources. If User:MER-C has any concerns that they think, can only be shared with an admin, I can not comment on them. User:Harmanprtjhj has followed me here from Breast Tax deletion review and their concern is that I called some accounts new, while being the newest one myself. This user has a very rude demeanor, and comments using very rude language. I cannot assume if they are personal attacks, or just the way he talks normally, whichever the case, he should stop. Comments like To say there is "Nothing in RS to indicate notability" is purely deceiving., You should better withdraw your misleading nomination, reeks of your own POV pushing are not suitable for Wikipedia, this is not Reddit. My comment on the Review was

    Endorse Classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is also apparent in some of the heated comments here in the review by those who voted delete. Most, as in a fairly large percentage, (not all) delete voters were new accounts with <1000 edits, some had even <100. They were unable to understand policy due to their lack of experience at AFD and were perhaps unable to understand that deletion discussions are not majority votes and AFD is not cleanup. Their arguments also appear to confirm that they are not able to grasp policies like GNG and POVFORK. The only policy based arguments were from Lorstaking whose view was the lack of HISTRS may lead to deletion; but HISTRS are used in the article. The canvassing that is supposed to have occurred did not drive any voters to the AFD, and is therefore inconsequential in this review. The Keep should not be overturned.

    The table below shows the edit counts of all users who voted delete.


    User Live Edits
    Harmanprtjhj 506
    42.106.4.156 ~60
    Azuredivay 638 ·
    BhaskaraPattelar 64
    Mohanabhil 180
    Yoonadue 580
    Coolabahapple 71,263
    Capankajsmilyo 42,187
    Accesscrawl 3,909
    Kerberous 78
    TheodoreIndiana 702 ·

    Concerns of User:Kaizenify are bizarre. I have read the AGF and NPA guidelines, and as I think there are some forums where editors are allowed to discuss the behavior of the editor who made the edits and their behavior overall, I will make some comments on this users behavior. User:Kaizenify has is making this report out of spite that I nominated his article Freeman Osonuga, an article which essentially parrots the fake claim that the subject won Time 2014 award, when he is not mentioned by time as being the winner, and then gives out that he won the Presidential Award, when all lists posted by RS say that he did not. Therefore this part of his complaint should be ignored. An exchange occurred at the deletion debate that is reproduced below

    *Keep: This article meets WP:BASIC even if he doesn't meet the criteria for doctor. He is a recipient of a national award from the President of Sierra Leone as well as a recipient of 2014 TIME magazine award. Isn't that enough? He has been discussed to a significant extent in multiple independent enough to meet our inclusion criteria. User:SuperSwift(Talk) 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

    @User:SuperSwift If such is your claim then you need a source that says he won 2014 TIME magazine award. All reliable sources, including Time say that the award in 2014 was given to "Ebola Fighters" a class of unnamed people. Ebola fighters are the hundreds of health workers who fough the Ebola epidemic. You say that he won the Presidential Award (Sierra Leone) in 2014, but this list says that he did not win anything. The article is based on hoaxes. User:MistyGraceWhite (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    . He has cherry picked the AFD discussions where the consensus was to keep, which is not the overall picture of my edits.

    Kaizenify Misquotes me and should be reprimanded

    Kaizenify makes the complaint that

    In another disruptive nomination, this user claimed that Ghana Music Awards, the major and the biggest music award in Ghana (won by the musician 3 times) isn't notable because it not a Grammy and that it must be a Grammy per WP:MUSICBIO.

    This is misquoting. The exchange occured at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.Derobie (2nd nomination). Acocrding to all persons concerned J.derobie has never won the Ghana Music Awards, but he did win the 3 Music Awards Ghana, a non notable award, which has no connection to the Vodafone Awards. The Exact quote of the exchange is here.

    Keep. J.Derobie has so many independent sources speaking about him an his music which makes him pass of as notable to have an article. He also has been nominated in two major awards schemes in Ghana and has won one award from one of the award scheme.Owula kpakpo (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

    @User:Owula kpakpo He has not won any major award in music, he has won a very minor award. An award whose facebook page is barely noticeable with only 25K likes, and whose twitter is even less popular. Saying that this award somehow allows him to inherit notability is wrong on so many levels. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @MistyGraceWhite: So to you an award has to have lots of social media following to become major is that the argument you making. 3 music awards is in it's third year of existence a simple Google search who would show you how popular and major the scheme is to Ghanaians and Ghanaian musicians. I live in Ghana and I believe with benefit of my location I am confident of my assertion that the award scheme is major is very right. Using social media numbers to make such an assertion is not right mind you 3 music awards is featured in almost every prominent media website in Ghana.Owula kpakpo (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

    @User:Owula kpakpo it may be a major award to you, but it is not mentioned in any Reliable sources as being a major award, so according to wikipedia it is a minor almost nothing award. The social media numbers were just to explain it to you, but seeing that you did not get my point, it does not matter. The award is a minor award according to wikipedia standards, and winning such a minor award does not make this guy notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @MistyGraceWhite: again the fact that the awards scheme doesn't have a Wikipedia page doesn't mean it's a minor awards unless you can point to a Wikipedia position on what a minor awards or major awards is which you clearly not added in your response to me. Like I said in Ghana the Multimedia Group Limited is a major media house and for them to be partnering with this awards should tell you the pedigree of such an award. Like I said if you have the benefit of the Ghanaian media landscape you would understand clearly why I say so. So as it stands it's your word against mine so bring something substantial with your critique.Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

    @User:Owula kpakpo It is not my word against yours, it is the view of reliable sources against your opinion. You are misinterpreting the ANYBIO#1. The awards mentioned there, the kind which confer notability and allow a person to actually inherit notability in a way, are the ones which are given due a significant impact of that person's work in his field. You should instead consult the MUSICBIO guideline which points out that a major award isslike d

    These are the only concerns I see in the complaint. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Other admins aren't going to read all this. Care to provide a one-paragraph summary? MER-C 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:MER-C. Kaizenify Cherry picks my AFD record, which is around 84% in my favour and 15% against. He cherry picks my CSD, as is evident from my CSD log, therefore he should be ignored. He also misquotes me, and on this he should be reprimanded. You User:MER-C assume that I am paid to edit Wikipedia, while I created only 6 articles, 2 about Nigerians in a recent meditation, from a list that was given to me, one about a dead gangster, one about a dead governed, one about a dead saint and one about a random guy I saw on youtube. The article about the youtube guy was deleted, I did not recreate it. I also tend to vote delete on my AFD, so if people want to pay someone to keep their article here, I am not that guy. Most of my mainspace edits are on stubs of buildings etc. However it is only my word that you have, so you can watchlist my userpage and follow my contributions, as only my future edits can prove my point definitively, until you are satisfied one way or the other, I should be allowed to edit. Harmanprtjhj is just hurt that I went against him on an AFD review. He has few edits, as shown in the table above, so he cannot say that I was wrong. He is rude,a nd should be reminded we are on Wikipedia not reddit. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your above comments are a blatant misrepresentation of events. I note that you ignored most of the concerns I raised. Weren't you claiming less than 2 months ago about yourself that "I am new"? Furthermore, edit count does not prove credibility, but given you think completely opposite you need to tell if this is why you are spamming CSDs and AfDs in order to rack up edit count and disregarding quality+policies? I still support a WP:NOTHERE block. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually think most of MistyGraceWhite's comments at AfD are well argued, and even most of the things Kaizenify links to here above are policy based or at least defensible. The speed of the nominations may be a bit high, and I don't think it's good form of Misty to nominate yet another one of Kaizenify's articles after this report was opened. This focus on AfD is a bit out of the ordinary, I only recall having seen this pattern from one UPE editor we recently had. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leave your comments in the comments section. Secondly, Misty incriminated itself by adding yet another AfD nom on an article after this nom. And continues being argumentative and POV pushing on all of the AfDs it is involved in. BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved up. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal (MGW)

    We do need to move forward and find a way to stop the disruptive editing by this user as it looks like they aren't going to stop (at least from their response to concerns here by multiple users) if the community don't stop them.

    Proposed indefinite block of User:MistyGraceWhite

    It is apparently clear from this new user's comments below that they aren't ready to change their disruptive behavior. On this note, User:MistyGraceWhite is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and abuse of the AfD process

    • Support - intentions of this editor are questionable. Doesn't do proper WP:BEFORE (here), cites Wiki Policies incorrectly and takes the absence of sources on the page to mean absence of reliable sources in general (here), hasty to add deletion tags without a thorough checking of sources, which may discourage good faith edits (here, as a side note here's a good ref currently not in the article but easily found). And I don't know how many other articles and good faith contributions have been already jeopardized, all in an effort to rack up edit count or, who knows, a lot worse.. Jfadkitz (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)— Jfadkitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --04:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Jfadkitz How did you find this exact thread in your third edit? Within an hour of creating your account.? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I go deeper into your edit history, I'm becoming increasingly worried. You nominated Azerbaijan America Alliance (created in 2012) without due diligence. There are so many sources; here's Trump's biography on Google Books which says the alliance spent $12million in lobbying. Then you nominated the now-deleted AZ Phizo Memorial with a curt "non notable memorial" without finding out that Angami Zapu Phizo is considered the father of the Naga people and his final resting place is an important landmark for Nagas, and now a tourist site, see Google Books. Then, again with Fish Statue in Lagos. On and on and on...what is going on...? Jfadkitz (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Jfadkitz. When you said you nominated the now-deleted as an example of my disruption at AFD I was amazed. Why are you on this thread? With 2 other edits? ExplainMistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I came here only after warning this user of abusing template on my talk page over a notification made 6 days ago for initiating a broad discussion about a few problematic articles.[156] User a habit of abusing templates and AFAIK some days ago they also dropped a warning on a user's talk page[157] only for rightfully tagging a canvassed editor on AfD.[158] Since the disruption is on-going in the lieu of this thread, strong measures are needed to control this loose cannon. Wareon (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Wareon you admit that you are here to support my ban/block because I templated you for a canvass, which incidentally was caught, not by me, but by Vanamonde who said "@Wareon: please read through WP:CANVAS. Your message here is not a neutral presentation of the issue." Strange world we live in. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I only mentioned how I got here. So you admit that there was no need of templating over a non-issue still you abused template anyway over a 5 days old happening just for spewing your poor understanding of the policy and/or display your battleground mentality by abusing template. I also note your WP:ASPERSIONs you have been casting by labeling editors as "Indian editors". I am absolutely not the only editor who is seeing you as overall net-negative. Wareon (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Wareon No, I do not admit that there was no need. There was an urgent need to template a new editor with only 180 edits, who seems to be very experienced. I did not label anyone, it was your behavior that brought that on. You are the only editor on this entire board with less than 200 edits. Apart from the DUCK quacking a few lines above. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    None of your attempts at deceiving others are actually deflecting from the concerns about your undisclosed paid editing. No matter how much you evade the concerns. Wareon (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Wareon What am I paid to do? In your view. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose All of his edits appears to be made in good-faith.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. What the heck is going on here? We do not indefinitely block users for being overzealous in their deletion nominations; we most certainly do not do this before they've ever been sanctioned before. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of the sanctioned users have been involved in AfD disputes with MGW. MGW needs to take more care before nominating things at AfD; that's about it. BabbaQ as far as I can see, you're the only uninvolved editor !voting support here. May I ask you to reconsider? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong oppose I hate to use the word witch hunt...but, here we are. nomination took place less than an hour after the article was created - which scarcely allows for an adequate WP:BEFORE, given the language consideration Also the idea that there is a time requirement for a before is as absurd as this thread. It is completely possible to do a before in well under an hour. Also per Vanamonde. 120 AFDs in 3 weeks is hardly spamming if there are 120 articles in need of discussion... Praxidicae (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Praxidicae and Vanamonde: the case for indeffing has not been made. ——Serial # 14:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose None of this makes any sense, and a site ban would be an injustice. SportingFlyer T·C 15:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, but they should be blocked for spamming - looking again at the deleted draft I linked to above, I am now 100% certain that it was paid for due to the use of black-hat SEO sites as sources. This directly contradicts the explanation given at User talk:Þjarkur/Archive 2#Nabeel Ahmad (entrepreneur), which now looks like a blatant lie. MER-C 17:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with MER-C about this, having seen the deleted draft myself, it has all the hallmarks of for-hire editing/spamming and I have other concerns about this as well. My opposition to the block originally proposed is because it is just factually incorrect. I would be interested in hearing this users explanation for that disastrous draft though given their AFd work, they know full well that the sources in that draft were intentionally deceptive and black hat SEO, which again raises the alarm for me. Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:MER-C. I used google to search for him and added whatever was available, as I did with my previous two articles. I did not argue for the article once I was told about the websites, I did not recreate it and I just let it be, and continued my editing. How is a new editor supposed to know that these sites are blackhat SEO. The Statesman etc are normal everyday websites, there is no indication that they get paid for printing and publishing articles, normal people like me just read the articles and think that they are well researched. I started AFD work after User:Þjarkur told me that websites like these exist and they are not reliable sources because they are just paid websites. If you check my AFD record before 24 March, you can see that my nominations are different, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha Steel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khadija Mushtaq (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roots International Schools, where, in hindsight, I should have spent more time looking at sources. I liked the research part of authenticating sources, so I continued on AFD. @User:Praxidicae the draft was created before I started AFD work seriuosly, authenticating sources and creating detailed documents of each AFD, I had created 3 articles at that time I think, and none of them had any problems, so I had not even read the guidelines on completely, I just edited for fun. I do see your concerns though, which I think I can assauge easily. As putting out new articles is something I seldom do. (I have not moved a single article written by someone else to mainspace from draft, and my own are only these 6), would a voluntary 6 month break/leave from creating anything on mainspace be a valid show to of good faith for the community? It will assuage your doubts and I will divert the time to destub some women in Red stubs I have found at MontrealIP's page. An overall win for the community I think. However this should not be thought of as a pleading guilty to the complaint of AFD disruption. As far as that is concerned, I stand by my work. I do well researched AFD work. Case in point is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.Derobie (2nd nomination) which the nom discussed in detail, but it was closed as delete (as no RS could be brought forward) while this thread was ongoing. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of "well researched AFD work" and the J.Derobie article, it certainly looks like you missed quite easily found sources such as [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] apart from being name-dropped in Pitchfork and Rolling Stone. Looking at the nom logs, not all appear to be bad (though most are very brief with few voters and don't have a lot of good discussion), but that's not an AfD you should be particularly proud of. Regardless of what happens here, I'd strongly recommend making more detailed AfD noms in the future describing where you've looked. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose And I vote this way even being one of the people that found many of the user's actions questionable. Nothing here to warrant an indef though. This ANI process should be more than enough to get the message across in terms of the community's concerns. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It isn't really fair to take a user to ANI and then immediately start planning an indefinite block, considering that the issue being brought here may well be enough to drive home the seriousness of this user's editing practices and set them on a different course, without a block being needed. A final warning is in order, followed by an indefinite block if the user continues. Passengerpigeon (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Restriction of User:MistyGraceWhite to one AfD nomination per day

    User:MistyGraceWhite is restricted to one AfD nomination per day for at least 6 month for disruption and abuse of the AfD process. This restriction may be appealed not earlier than six months after it enactment.

    @ User:BabbaQ Out of those 120, 88% were closed in with the consensus of delete and only 11% against, without a single deletion review. What is your point in giving out that number? That I do a lot of work at AFD? Why not thank me for that? Your support for my ban may be justified if I spam AFD debates without BEFORE, and then the articles are kept, creating a timesink. You are supporting a ban/block for me on the basis that I do good solid work at AFD but my speed is too quick for your liking? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. More reasonable than an indefinite block, but still uncalled for. That said; MistyGraceWhite; please don't take throw those numbers out as a defence. There are discussions where both keep and delete opinions are based in policy, and there are a few where they are not. You have been a little too eager with some nominations, and you need to slow down and take a little more care. I don't think either of these restrictions will be enacted, but if you don't slow down, something similar will be, at some point. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    User has been blocked for sockpuppetry. I think this can be closed now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Abusive Malaysian IP

    This is mostly resolved. If there are more IPs, feel free to drop by my talk page. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2001:E68:5425:8D5C:D0C4:2FA:F364:3BF9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    60.50.200.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    General belligerence, removing citation, deleting/ignoring warning templates, persistent personal attacks[165][166][167][168] despite warning. A bad actor we would be better off without. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Followed up with removal of ANI notice and further personal attack. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Other possible IPs may call for subnet block:
    2001:e68:5425:8d5c:5913:73d1:adc5:6464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2001:e68:5425:8d5c:e44c:894e:66e9:d6f7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2001:e68:5425:8d5c:35b1:50cd:5e6d:ccf8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2001:e68:5425:8d5c:b5af:d8e:45be:57bd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    —DIYeditor (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DIYeditor: All of the IPv6 addresses are the same /64 range (which means it is almost always the same user, with minimal risk of collateral damage). The range is 2001:e68:5425:8d5c::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User is back at new IP address

    @QEDK: This individual is back at 2001:e68:5425:f9ef:d0c4:2fa:f364:3bf9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an address slightly outside that range. I think their behavior is going to necessitate a more severe answer. If there are not other editors in 2001:e68:5425 can we get a longer term block? Their attitude is clear and extremely disruptive. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @DIYeditor: There are good editors on the range unfortunately so can't extend the net as of now. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rich Farmbrough's editing restrictions, again

    Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been restricted multiple times form making mass changes of various sorts, with the issue going all the way to arbcom in the past. The most recent restriction was placed in January:

    Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify other pre-existing sanctions on this user, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.

    This is pretty clear, no mass changes without consensus. This was enacted four months ago and duly logged at WP:RESTRICT. Note that there is no mention of what the edits actually do, it simply says he cannot do mass changes of any kind. Now have a look at this [169]. Rich is making upwards of 18 changes a minute to articles on places in the United States, an impossibly fast rate, no way there is any quality control on the edits, and again seemingly deciding he knows how every single article in a very broad topic area should say certain things and is making mass changes to his preferred language. Whether his preferred language is better or worse isn't even relevant, he was topic-banned form doing exactly this sort of thing and is well aware of that fact, and is just doing it anyway. Frankly this is just sad. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My bot edits slower than this. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably any such discussion would've taken place on a talk page or somewhere in project space, I did not see any recent edits that seemed to be any such discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly I have told Beeblebrox before that he should discuss matters with users before raising them here. He's not just an admin but an arb, and should behave better than this. And should know better than this without instruction.

    An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

    — The Arbcom...
    Secondly yes, of course there is consensus, even though the restriction is ludicrous, and one of the people who supported it is since banned, I am following it. I'm so glad to see that doing so has earned me the respect of Balloni and Beeblebrox.
    Perhaps the word "collegial" is unknown to them.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    This old lame excuse. This is by no means "the first instance" rather I suspect we may be at least at the final straw instead. Previous discssion with you has never yielded the slightest understanding of the clear and obvious fact that the community does not want you making mass edits so yeah, just like last time we did this, I din't go ask you to please stop first because I knew it was pointless from previous experience. That would be my compelling reason not to do so, so this is satisfied. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't fuck with my edits. Calling me "lame" in the edit summary does not help matters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    To the point, what you want is not the same as what the community wants. I have had hundreds of thanks for edits which you would not want, that is the community, not the few people who frequent this page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    @Rich Farmbrough: Since you say "of course there is consensus", could you link to the discussion where you got the "demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so." Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#US Cities - Census info. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • To put some numbers to this, in just under 48 hours (starting 23:16, 22 May 2020 and ending 19:03, 24 May 2020) Rich has made over 8000 edits to the article space, about 4400 of which were edits and 3900 were fixing errors introduced by those edits. Even if there was consensus for this edit somewhere (which no one can seem to findwhich seems to be here) that is a massive error rate. If there wasn't a prior discussion and/or consensus for this edit then in my mind it very much breaks the latest imposed restrictions. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that he is once again trying to make this about me and not addressing the actual issue even a little bit makes it pretty clear he's not holding that consensus in his back pocket. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Richard, this has gone on for years. It's time to resolve it. SarahSV (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rich has made no edits outside the mainspace to any discussion that indicates a consensus for the edits in question. From what I can see, if there is a consensus, he himself did not participate in it. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm interested to know how you reached that conclusion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
      One might be forgiven since you hadn't provided that yourself until a minute before I left my comment. Scanning back multiple months to identify mass edits made today is a bit obscene; perhaps you should have included a link to the consensus while making your edits, or performed a BRFA to ensure that your edits could be made without apparently disturbing 8000 pages of watchlists. --Izno (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The linked discussion is also hardly a demonstrable consensus from the community. It was a low attended discussion on a wikiproject talk page from months ago. I don't think it fits within what the sanction was intending. If that was the case Rich could justify any edit by making a post somewhere where there would be sympathizers. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If you look at the timestamps you can see that that discussion started n the very same day the tban was put into place. Yet it does not seem to mention that what he is asking for is an exemption to a tban to make mass edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Nor should it. It's an unbelievably onerous restriction as it is. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
      TonyBallioni@ Like this thread is posted where there are sympathizers? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
      Izno@ You are forgiven. If you look at just the Wikipedia talk space you will find it soon enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I think this discussion is ripe for closing, to the extent that I do not that further discussion will yield any change in the ultimate outcome. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary

    Beeeblebrox breaks the Arbcom rule, once then a second time. Calls me (or Arbcom) "Lame" in an edit summary. Accuses me of breaking an edit restriction without asking me first. Decides that he is the community. Says he didn't ask me to "stop" because he thought it would be waste of time. Previously accuses me of "delaying tactics", when I actually stopped what I was doing while discussion took place. Generally behaves in a combative way, and refuses to ever engage in substantive detail. This should boomerang. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Rich Farmbrough, I'm having a hard time believing that no one has ever discussed your bot-like editing on your talk page before. The "in the first instance" clause has surely been satisfied. – bradv🍁 18:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is. There is never a time to stop being collegial. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Rich Farmbrough, sure it's always important to be collegial, but the Arbcom principle is satisfied here. Unless you are claiming you were unaware of these restrictions. – bradv🍁 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm "claiming" that I didn't break it, and that it would have saved a lot of trouble if Beeblebrox has spoken to me first. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Rich Farmbrough, before you made 8000 edits on 4000 pages? Because that was the actual disruption, not this ANI thread. If another admin had seen it you could have easily been mistaken for a bot. We don't typically ask unapproved bots questions before blocking them. – bradv🍁 19:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim was that I broke an editing restriction imposed by Beeblebrox. That claim is false. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    You are incorrect. The restriction was proposed by Beeblebrox and then imposed by the community -- you were the only oppose vote in that discussion. The community's decision was then put into effect by another admin (can't remember who at this moment), not Beeblebrox. You are not violating Beeblebrox's restriction, you are violating a community sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this has to be explained is troubling. Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed site ban of Rich Farmbrough

    Since there's agreement that this has gone on forever, there's no apparent consensus for his actions which makes it a clear violation of his ban, and he's ignored the warning from last time that future violations may result in an indefinite block, and is personalizing the dispute above, I'm proposing the following:

    Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia by the community. This ban may be appealed no earlier than one year after it is imposed.
    As I replied above, the linked discussion was hardly a demonstrable consensus from the community. It was a low attended discussion on a wikiproject talk page from months ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the appropriate forum. It was supported by a similar number that supported the editing restriction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support If an editor who has an editing restriction and two blocks for violating it still needs a warning to stop doing the already restricted thing, it seems to me we're past the stage of discussing the restriction and should be discussing whether they're competent enough to edit at all...Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is why you and Tony and Beeblebrox need to slow down. A lot. I have given a link to the consensus above, in reply to the first person who actually asked for it, rather than just assuming that I was making it up. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support As I said above this is really just sad, but Rich is making it clear, right in this discussion, that he will determine for himself, using his own methods, what he is and is not to be doing here, and if he gets a couple "thanks" every 10,000 edits or so that makes literally anything he does ok. That's just not an attitude that is compatible with a collaborative project, and there have been far too many second chances already. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you made up an editing restriction, and when I comply with it you double down and support a site ban? Nice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I'll admit that we didn't make it clear in the restriction exactly how you were to ask for permission to make mass edits. I think that is probably because we all knew that you knew perfectly well where to ask, having run automated processes for most of your wiki-career, but I accept my share of the blame for not recognizing the obvious, that you would try and end-run it and wikilawyer around it as you always do. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It's about time someone put an end to this merry go-round, We're long past forgiveness & sanctions at this point, If you're told to not do something then you don't do it, It's that simple, Anyway Rich isn't going to stop any time soon and I think at this point the communities patience has run out. –Davey2010Talk 19:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I specifically did not do what is being alleged here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Regretful Support. Unfortunately these issues around automated and semi-automated edits are becoming a time sink. While I think Rich has been a decent editor I do think that this may be the wake up call they need to realize they need to stop digging and just avoid semi-automated & automated editing. Additionally the violation of the editing restriction is very problematic. Respectfully, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a site ban is a "wake up call" - thanks for bringing a smile to my face though. There was no violation of the editing restriction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • 'Oppose There was consensus to make these changes, as requested. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support – Rich has made it abundantly clear that he is not interested in non-automated editing, and the community has made it abundantly clear that they don't want Rich doing automated editing. We are therefore at an impasse, and this is the only way to resolve it. – bradv🍁 19:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    People could try being nice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Why would anybody want to be nice. Fuck that. Nick (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I know.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Excellent points. But I don't see how being nice would fix the problem at hand. – bradv🍁 19:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, perhaps someone could say what they don't like about the improved layout of the demographics section, and why, and those of us who discussed it would try to reach consensus incorporating that feedback. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    So you could make 8000 more automated edits? No thanks. The only possible alternative to a site ban is a complete ban from automated editing, period. Are you at all interested in that? – bradv🍁 19:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested" is hardly the word I would use, but it is bearable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support I appreciate it can be a difficult situation where you start a discussion in an appropriate place and try to ping editors you think may be interested but receive limited feedback with no clear opposes. However there were still options, like an RfC or at least a clearer "I am about to make mass changes in 4 weeks" which could have been tried. And in any case, I think any editor should understand that if they're making mass changes to a lot of articles, relying on this is probably not sufficient to indicate consensus, however you go about getting more feedback. And that's an ordinary editor. I think any editor who has been repeatedly got into trouble for mass changes, to the extent they are under an active sanction because of it, and are even on their final warning should be doubly aware that discussion isn't sufficient. Yet even with all this background, I might have opposed a site ban if Rich Farmbrough had shown any inkling they understood they badly erred yet again. But I see none of that in their replies. Their replies started off bad and haven't really improved. An obvious example is how long it took them to link to what they felt was consensus for their edits. This is not an editor who's showing any real self-awareness or likelihood of improving in the next few weeks. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose - I came here after seeing these very changes light up my watchlist over the past day (I have hundreds of US community articles watchlisted), and then seeing this proposed siteban pop up on my watchlist not long afterward. I fully agree that Rich shouldn't be making mass edits without consensus behind them. However, I agree with Rich that he was editing based on consensus in this case. At the discussion he linked to, I don't see anyone objecting to his proposed edits. What I see is the five other editors in the discussion broadly agreeing with his proposed edits, and making suggestions about the details of those edits, which he engaged with and mostly incorporated. To me that qualifies as a rough consensus (as opposed to a formal one only because it wasn't in RfC format), but a strong rough consensus as everyone appeared to be mostly or entirely in support. I've read over the details of Rich's editing restrictions and I have to say I don't see a violation here.
      These clunky, autogenerated demographics data dumps were mass inserted by a bot all the way back in 2002, when Wikipedia had less than 100,000 articles and the number of active editors was presumably much smaller, along with Wikipedia's norms and policies being much less well-developed. I don't know what the process for consensus was back then, or if consensus was even sought before running Rambot, but it seems facile to me to insist on a status quo from 2002 against more recent consensus that may have been informal but seems pretty clear from reading the discussion.
      However, if this ban proposal fails and Rich continues editing, I'd advise him to treat this incident as a shot across the bow, and always proceed with an abundance of caution, by notifying all involved editors before running (semi-)automated edits, under any circumstance, and waiting to see if the consensus still holds before proceeding. CJK09 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) changed to support, see below CJK09 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Back to oppose upon further reflection and per CaradhrasAiguo below. CJK09 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Upgraded from oppose to strong oppose upon further consideration, after more examination of the discussion at WT:CITIES and looking at this from a more objective angle. CJK09 (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Furthermore, some sort of boomerang may be appropriate here. CJK09 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Premeditated chaos No, Beeblebrox did nothing wrong in filing the ANI report after failing to find the consensus. What concerns me is Tony presenting a ban proposal after Rich has already provided a link to where the consensus was formed; or, if Tony had not yet seen that comment at the time of his ban proposal, striking and withdrawing the proposal after being informed of it. This rigamarole should have ended when Rich posted the link to the discussion where the consensus formed. A boomerang doesn't have to be a block or sanction; it can take the form of a big wet trout. CJK09 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, no. Local consensus several months ago at a WikiProject that those changes should be made in general does not equate to explicit community consensus for Rich to mass-edit to make the changes today. Any of the other participants without editing restrictions could have used AWB to make those changes, but Rich took it upon himself to do so even knowing he had restrictions from mass editing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support : Rich knew there was a prohibition on him making mass edits and carried on regardless despite it being obvious how the community would react - and even now he is trying to wikilawyer his way out of any responsibility for his edits, blaming everything on TonyBalloni and Beeblebrox, and browbeating everybody who !votes support. He is treating the community with contempt and effectively is asking for severe actions to be taken.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Unfortunately, his signature summarizes his attitude towards what the community wants. --Rschen7754 19:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That I wish you the best? Or that I am "apparently calm and reasonable" - the latter is Beeblebrox's spin on - I guess, calm and reasonable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support. It has been going on for too long. SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - enough is enough. I'd also support the alternative of a complete ban on automated editing. stwalkerster (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - after reading Rich's bullheaded responses above, I can no longer oppose. This has been going on forever and even if he was technically correct in this case, he doesn't seem to understand the fact that the community by and large does not want him making mass edits. CJK09 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Back to oppose upon further reflection and per CaradhrasAiguo below. CJK09 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A sparsely attended WikiProject page in which he canvassed the participants by pinging them is not the “demonstrable consensus of the community that he is explicitly permitted” to make mass changes that the editing restriction demands. Rich Farmbrough has never accepted his restriction and has no intention of abiding by it. He has no interest in editing Wikipedia outside of making mass minor changes to articles. Time-limited blocks have proven ineffective, therefore a site ban is the only solution. P-K3 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see evidence RF canvassed the participants here, and in any case, 1) the changes proposed match those seen in the latest actual edits 2) the users pinged such as Alansohn have voluminous respectable work in that WikiProject. 3) Using one's own definition of demonstrable consensus of the community that he is explicitly permitted appears to be regrettable "moving the goal posts", especially if there is no linkage to RF's prior unblock discussions that informal WikiProject discussions do not constitute "community consensus". As I understand, WP:CONLEVEL applies to cases where WikiProjects intend to override community-accepted policies or guidelines. That is nowhere near the case here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I respect the work Rich has done with the project over time. However, he has been told numerous times, including by the community, to stop. Enough is enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Game over. The block log also shows that the editor had received more than enough chances to change. Rich continues to play the misunderstood victim. While his block log and comments above and below points to a repeat offender without insight into his own behaviour. BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is the only way for Rich to be calm and reasonable. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The community has made it crystal clear several times that we do not want Rich Farmbrough carrying out rapid-fire bot-like edits and yet he continues in defiance of community consensus. The passive-aggessive "nice guy" wikilawyering in this discussion convinced me to support this site ban instead of another editing restriction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support We were just here in April over this same sort of thing. And it's repeating the same process ... over and over... --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that it will make much difference, but I oppose a siteban in favor of a community-wide prohibition against any and all mass edits. Numerous editors have said that the community doesn't want Rich to make mass edits, but so far he has only been prohibited from doing so in cases where he has no consensus for his edits. It's borderline, but one could plausibly argue that he had consensus for these edits. However, he carried these edits into effect very clumsily, thus demonstrating that a full restriction is probably necessary. I agree that Rich's behavior in this thread has left much to be desired, but I suspect few of us would react with maximum grace if we were about to be site banned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose considering that there was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#US_Cities_-_Census_info. Whether that is a consensus or not may be up for debate, considering the project talk page the discussion was on is an appropriate place to have the discussion, but I don't think it's fair to say that Rich just did these mass edits out of the blue. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, under his current sanction, there must be a "demonstrable consensus" that he be "explicitly" allowed to make the edits. In other words, the onus is on Rich to show that consensus is valid, it's not on the community to do so. Rich made no such effort -- even here, he barely deigned to show that there was a discussion about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The edits are clearly in violation of the spirit of the restriction in the first place, and we've been here way too many times. At some point it's either a competence issue, or a willful disregard for anyone else's concerns. Neither is compatible with continued editing after all these attempts to ameliorate it have failed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This has been going on for years. Rich earns a ban through WP:CONSENSUS. Time passes and then RF goes right back to the editing behavior that brought about the previous bans. Enough in this instance is far far more than enough. MarnetteD|Talk 21:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose not sure if I can vote here but this caught my eye as I've seen Rich work in the past. Per arbcom ruling:Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles (...) without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so.. He demonstrably A. made mass changes and B. had the required consensus here. Site banning a user against such demonstrably false grounds seems madness to me. Banned for following the ruling against him?! Am I missing something here? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. agree with CaradhrasAiguo's comment above. Although I don't see his oppose vote. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose per Lepricavark. A case could be made that he sought, and received, consensus on the WikiProject Cities talk page. (Is it common sense that a mass editing campaign of this magnitude should receive consensus at a highly-visible noticeboard, not just a WikiProject talk page? ...Probably, but we didn't mention it in the restriction.) We should really just restrict all mass editing, without any exceptions. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, as by my reading on it he had a "demonstrable consensus". The overall discussion at WikiProject Cities is constructive and positive about the plan. If we don't want Rich Farmbrough doing mass edits, we should explicitly ban him from performing all mass edits, without any wiggle room - the rather cumbersomely-worded restriction that was actually enacted gives him a clear gap to obtain consensus for mass edits. If people think his skirting of the restriction is itself evidence of bad faith and worthy of a site ban, so be it - but I do not think this is a technical breach of the restriction. "Demonstrable consensus" is not an onerous bar to cross, there's clearly a comfortable local consensus, and it clearly can be "demonstrated". I think the edits at their core were helpful. ~ mazca talk 21:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Mazca and my comment above. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This has gone on long enough. Every single time this discussion takes place, it's always everyone other than Rich who are in the wrong. If he doesn't want to hold himself accountable, then the community should step in and do it for him. It is obvious, as well, that he is using some form of assisted software, which is likely an "unofficial" version of AWB. This also violates his editing restriction. Nihlus 22:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The discussion at WP:CITIES, which was engaged in before these edits, convinces me that this was good work, achieved with collegiality, in-line with the restriction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Mazca and Gtoffoletto above. I oppose because he was complying with his editing restriction as he had sought consensus for his mass edits first which is required by his editing restriction, he has literally done nothing wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, I think he genuinely believed that he was complying with his editing restrictions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I appreciate the effort below with Enterprisey trying to find an alternative way to keep Rich around but eliminate the primary issue that has us here today, unfortunately I do not believe Rich is capable of the necessary restraint needed to comply with binding editing restriction designed to eliminate automated editing. I fully expect if a binding editing restriction on automated editing was to pass in preference to a site ban, we will be back at ANI in a matter of days debating what constitutes an automated edit, with Rich arguing that him using an electric motor to turn a prosthetic finger to press Enter on a keyboard doesn't constitute automated editing, or something equally tenuous. The real reason we are here today isn't strictly to do with automated editing, it's about Rich's lack of respect for the community, it's about him thinking that rules don't apply to him, it's about him finding ways to lawyer around existing community sanctions. It's a respect issue. We're here because Rich doesn't respect other editors. He doesn't respect our right to be able to edit with out poorly written scripts messing up pages. He doesn't respect our right to be able to edit without watchlists being flooded with thousands of small edits. He doesn't respect what the community tells him to do and what not to do. He doesn't even respect the community enough to avoid canvassing over at WT:CITIES. And I genuinely believe he will not respect any further editing restriction. The only option we have, given the exceptional lack of respect Rich has shown us, is to ban Rich. I therefore sadly and reluctantly endorse the motion to ban Rich. Nick (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The discussion at WT:CITIES was, in my opinion, them complying with the editing restrictions. I do not want to support a site ban for an editor which tried to follow their edit restrictions. I instead support the proposed editing restriction as it keeps them away from mass edits and allows constructive contributions. If the proposed editing restriction is implemented and they also break it, I would encourage and support a siteban. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Limitations on editing are one thing, but a site ban is uncalled for here. BD2412 T 23:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Dreamy Jazz above. Rich Farmbrough has explained why they in their opinion the edits were not in breach of the restriction, and the discussion at CITIES bears that out. Clarifying the restriction as per below is the way to go, and I'm saddened that experienced admins like Tony and Beeblebrox are not assuming good faith here when a valid explanation has been offered. I hope they will reconsider, and instead support the motion below. Of course, at that point if repeat violations take place after the clarification then a ban would be justified.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Mazca, DJ, Amakuru and others above. The discussion at WT:Cities looks to me like Rich complying with his restriction. I understand there was a problem before that led to that restriction, but I don't see how these edits are problematic. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Gtoffoletto. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Lepricavark and many others. I don't think this requires a site ban. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Overkill, and it's not even clear Rich violated any restriction here. Given all of the various trips to noticeboards, arbcom, etc., however, I don't know why he's still making semi-automated edits at all. I certainly wouldn't be. But I don't see anything for a siteban here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Rich clearly lacks the competence required to use the AWB tools, let alone contribute to the site constructively or to follow community sanctions. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While I admit I’m not familiar with RF’s previous issues that required his restrictions, I do believe he had sufficient consensus to make these changes to census information in US cities. Reywas92Talk 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - There is sufficient evidence that a consensus was obtained, and so the restrictions were adhered to. The shifting goal posts are disappointing: "You didn't have consensus" -> *points at consensus* -> "That consensus doesn't count because I don't approve of the forum/you violated the spirit of the restriction/you violated a restriction that you're not actually under". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Rich sought consensus and obtained it, which is specifically allowed by the ArbCom ruling. I find the Wikihounding that Rich is enduring to be a far greater concern. Nobody deserves that sort of treatment.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose overly draconian solution. Ideally I'd put a governor on the edit rate of his main account but unfortunately that isn't yet part of the partial-block toolkit. The governor would be lifted after test runs are reviewed and approved – isn't that what WP:BRFA is for? wbm1058 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose per Mr rnddude. This proposal is absurd. Cjhard (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is a process violation opposed by our bureaucracy class. No arguments are presented as to why the edits were bad or if they are being reverted. It just appears as if a group wants to enforce bureaucratic restrictions rather than improve the encyclopedia. WP is not a bureaucracy and absent abuse presented in the form of diffs of problematic edits, this is an improper remedy. It is not okay to just oppose how an edit was done. There has been no evidence that the content of these edits were improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per IAR and BTW and per Constant Plancks comment just above. That said, I'd strongly advise Rich to find something else to do or appeal his restriction, because even if this time he is not blocked, I doubt he will be lucky again and again. English Wikipedia community likes its rules and hates those who violate them, even if they do it for a good reason. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Having reviewed the facts, I believe a sufficient consensus was obtained, and that no breach occurred. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as there was consensus for the changes. Peter James (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a site ban is our most draconian resort which should be reserved the the deliberate, malice-aforethought vandals and trolls or those that have demonstrated such unconscionable incompetence that their very presence damages the encyclopedia. RF, however, falls into neither category: if there was clear-cut evidence that he was making these edits without consensus, then he'd fall into the former. But since it is clear that there was some form of of community consensus—maybe a small and poorly formed one, but still a consensus—then he has broken it seems, neither the letter nor the spirit of his restrictions. If the consensus the community originally wanted him to edit by was a 50-strong, 24-hour WP:AN thread for every edit run, then it should have been explicit about that at the time; but complaining after the event that the consensus he edited by was, actually, not good enough in retrospect, is mealymouthed to say the least.
      Having said that; Rich Farmbrough, how about taking six months away from mass-editing, consensus or no consensus, for the good of your health...might be safer that way. ——Serial # 11:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose there's a million people that warrant a site ban, Rich is not one of them. There's a zillion other alternatives to that outcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. (Disclosure: My actions, in part, resulted in RF's last block) The sanction prohibited editing without "a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so". It is my opinion that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#US_Cities_-_Census_info does not contain a consensus with explicit permission (indeed, I don't see explicit support of making mass changes from any participant (but please point it out to me if I missed something)). Additionally, I believe RF's editing violated the bot policy. Nevertheless, I believe an indefinite site-ban is not warranted -- it simply does not fit the "crime" (or, more accurately, the series thereof).
    Rich: I would like to offer a counterfactual. Suppose that, on March 7th, instead of starting right away, you instead filed a BRFA. You would have complied with the relevant policy and your editing restriction. I know that Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy, but 1) it is, and 2) even if it wasn't, more CYA wouldn't hurt.
    Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Serial Number 54129; there might have been a poor quality consensus, but I have no reason to doubt that they percieved there to be a consenus in good faith. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 17:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: The project page discussion showed appropriate consensus being sought and formed for this set of changes, which negates the rationale offered for this ban proposal. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Per above. There was consensus for the changes. I agree that it would have been good to have more formal consensus, but there was consensus. A site ban would be very heavy handed in this case, which clarification on what constitutes consensus is what is really needed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: The formal proposal which is refered to at the beginning of this section appears ambiguous or in conflict with itself. Firstly, it states Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Then it continues Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. The first sentence appears to give Rich Farmbrough the freedom of mass edits, provided he obtained consensus. The next sentences appear to contradict this by not permitting any mass changes even if consensus is obtained. Consensus has been obtained through a proposal which was posted on 11 January 2020 and which found until today no opposition. The mass edits in question appear to follow this proposal. While it may be risky or unwise to test out ambiguous restrictions given the long history including the arbcom decision from 2012 and all the f'ups, it does not seem justified to base a permanent ban on such a self-contradicting restriction. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, as RF sought consensus at a relevant WikiProject page.--Eostrix (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: When I look at the block log I see how close a siteban may be (how else to stop someone who won't)? On the other hand I did read the discussion at the WikiProject page and it seems that the proposed changes were debated with compromises and no obvious opposition. Moreover, mass editing in relation to this project stopped whenever a complaint was issued. —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: It's Draconian, I agree with Serial# and wbm1058. Atsme Talk 📧 04:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Seems we all have a part to play in this dramatic sequel to RF's past editorial flights. I see nothing here to warrant such harsh treatment of an awesome Wikipedian. I do see, understand and respect the arguments of those who want the site ban, and yet I must continue to back RF while questionable wording of guides and restrictions continues to be the norm. Can't help thinking that RF brings this down upon himself either consciously or unconsciously in an effort to actually improve things 'round here. Hope that's not a "spoiler"!>) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed editing restriction on Rich Farmbrough

    As an alternative to the above, I propose:

    Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely banned from making mass changes or automated edits to any page, with no exceptions.

    Enterprisey (talk!) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support this is the fairest outcome. Rich was arguably within the bounds of his prior sanctions, so banning him seems too harsh. But by strengthening the restriction, we leave no doubt for next time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – It doesn't appear that Rich has much interest in doing non-automated editing (per my conversation with him above). I also don't trust his judgement when it comes to automated editing, but it is worth acknowledging that he has some skill in this area. I would therefore support this, as well as an additional clause allowing him to make automated or mass edits through an bot account approved at WP:BRFA, which would ensure appropriate supervision of his edits. – bradv🍁 22:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, this way there can be no ambiguity over whether he has obtained consensus for his changes. If he wants to make a mass change, he should propose it and have someone else do it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a second choice. And with the requirement that enforcement of this editing restriction is only an indefinite block and mandatory discussion at ANI. There should be no short blocks or administrator discretion. This is an alternative to a site ban. It is a step away from a site ban. If Rich is sanctioned under this, it should be obvious we reconvene here and formalise the indefinite block into a site ban. Nick (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I'm not someone who is likely to have to deal with these mass edits, nor have I participated in the previous discussions that led to the restrictions, so my opinion should have little weight here. However, I feel that Rich can be credited with good faith if not abundant clue in "seeking consensus" in this instance; the edits in question are actually useful (at least I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise yet); and while he may have a blind spot when it comes to realizing that people just don't want him to do mass edits, he clearly has the benefits of the encyclopedia at heart. Put a firm ban on mass edits and let him contribute further. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but NOT as an alternative - I do not support this as an alternative to a site ban, but as a sanction to have in place if the site ban passes, Rich appeals, and the appeal is granted. Also, on the off chance that the site ban does not pass (crazier things have happened) it's better to have this then to have nothing at all. Still, if the site ban doesn't pass, Rich needs to be blocked for some period of time for violating the current sanction. To make it abundantly clear, Rich does not deserve to be given any more rope, nercy, or other considerations, given his past history of violating sanction after sanction, showing his disdain for the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comment above. stwalkerster (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I don't love the bot exemption that Bradv suggested - unless someone will devote time to making sure that "Rich Farmbot" actually stays within the letter and spirit of its BRFAs I fully expect it to be gamed eventually - but my support would stand if that exemption were added to the proposal. creffett (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support only if the site ban proposal fails, as I can see wikilawyering over what an automated edit is and what a mass change is. P-K3 (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That could be potentially be handled by defining clear bright lines in the editing restriction. For example: any edits performed at a rate of more than 5 per minute (or whatever rate makes sense to use) are automatically considered automated edits. And any set of edits to multiple pages making the same systematic changes counts as "mass edits". CJK09 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? The lines in this restriction are pretty damn bright and clear, but Rich managed to violate it:
    Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify other pre-existing sanctions on this user, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.
    It is not possible to craft an editing restriction in such a way that someone who wants to violate it, or has no respect for the authority which placed it (i.e. the community) cannot break it. The only way to do that is with an indef block or a site ban. Ultimately, lesser sanctions rely on the desire of the editor to work within the system, they count on it because we cannot possibly monitor every sanction placed on every editor 24/7. We AGF that they're going to follow it, and hope for the best. Rich has disappointed us time and time again in that respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Demonstrable consensus" may seem like a bright line, but clearly not, given that Rich is now being unfairly raked over the coals for achieving consensus at the "wrong forum" and "too long ago". Clearly that doesn't work, because threads like this will pop up regardless. The nice thing about numerically based restrictions is you can't argue them. Five edits with the same hh:mm timestamp, you're blocked. The same edit made to multiple pages, blocked. Easy peasy.
    To be clear, I oppose this editing restriction, because it would be punishing Rich for following his already existing restrictions. But if one does go into effect, quantitative limits are better than qualitative limits. CJK09 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CJK09, whether or not he followed the existing restriction, it's clear from this discussion that the restriction is not sufficient. That's why a clearer solution is being proposed. – bradv🍁 23:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I like and admire Rich, but he has been drinking in the last chance saloon for a long time on this. Guy (help!) 23:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose WP:ROPE consistently proves itself to be the best friend of disruptive editors who use it to justify wasting more of the community’s time. If this passes it will be another three violations until he’s indef’d, and how much community time will be wasted between now and then. No, he canvassed to attempt to avoid a site ban and wikilawyered and bludgeoned everyone above. This is not someone we want here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: Could you clear up the reasoning why you think he should be indef'd at all? You said: Since there's agreement that this has gone on forever, there's no apparent consensus for his actions which makes it a clear violation of his ban, and he's ignored the warning from last time that future violations may result in an indefinite block, and is personalizing the dispute above, I'm proposing the following: Consensus has been brought forth and it is clearly demonstrable that there was no violation here. I don't think you have made the case against Rich at all. Especially for an indefinite site ban. He should not be punished at all unless it is clear what he is being punished for. What are we voting here? If we like Rich or not? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Until he canvassed support, no, it has not been proven. Also, I would rather the current restriction exist if the site ban fails than pass a half-measure. The biggest problem the English Wikipedia has is that we insist on giving people who are incompatible with a collaborative project every chance to prove that. I'd rather not give Rich yet more chances to prove that by passing this alternative. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: I'm sorry but I have no idea of the history of Rick's behaviour. So I am judging this purely on what I see here. There is substantial discussion and consensus here: [170] so no apparent violation of his restriction. Are you contesting the edits that have been made? Or the consensus? It seems like he pinged some users involved with those topics (and even admins). The discussion started on the 11th of January so it's been there a while. Doesn't seem like much of a reckless behaviour here. On the contrary. He even posted a couple of test edits on the 7 March 2020. Could you explain your view more clearly? I still fail to see a problem here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gtoffoletto, Beeblebrox pointed this out earlier, but basically Rich has a long history of Wikilawyering in order to treat Wikipedia as a laboratory for bots. The discussion you link to was on a relatively obscure page, and he made no mention of the fact that he was being sanctioned in a way that would have prevented the edits at the same time. Basically he picked a page that he could point to if this ever came up to do a mass bot run without there being an actual community consensus. Beeblebrox is likely more aware of the history here than I am (also, sorry Beebs for calling out the ROPE essay above... but I figured you already know I'm not a fan ) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: I understand there is some history here. But in this case, that was not an "obscure page". It was a very relevant project page where several editors participated. He made some test edits and nobody complained. And the discussion went on for months. He used some software to help him out? Good on him. Why should we waste his time in doing some useful work he has consensus for? I think your proposal is not clear on what Rich's wrongdoing was and therefore voting is not very relevant/valid. The case against him has not been made. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider Wikiproject talk pages to generally be obscure: they're echo chambers and not many people watch them. I don't think he has consensus for those changes: this discussion shows that at the very least, and if he were to make them going forward, it certainly would be a violation then since the larger community doesn't approve of them. I also don't think a wikiproject can authorize him to go around larger community consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add, as I mentioned above, that he opened that discussion on the very day the tban was put into place, but failed to mention that he was asking for an exemption to a topic ban. While the ban did not specify that he absolutely had to note this, it seems pretty bad-faith/sneaky to not even mention it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are moving the goal posts significantly here. Which is very unfair. See my general comment below. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comments in my oppose to the site ban and that this resolves ambiguity for both the community and Rich. I am neutral over allowing Rich to run BRFA approved tasks, as this proposed editing restriction in the end is to remove ambiguity, but BRFA is structured and has BAG members to ensure that the task is fine. Therefore, I support this proposed restriction whether or not it allows BRFA tasks. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To expand why I support this proposed editing restriction is the large error rate (see Primefac's comment for the statistics). Around 47% of all edits made in this mass editing run (22nd May to 24th May) were fixing errors introduced by previous edits in the mass editing run. BRFA (from experience as a bot operator) helps you find issues with a bot through trial runs and comments from others. In this case, a BRFA before Rich can make these mass edits will help to find issues in proposed edits before they occur. The structured nature of BRFA will ensure that proposed mass edits are properly reviewed first. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Demonstrable consensus means there was no violation here. No violation means there is no case for any punishment. Or is there? Are the edits problematic? Nobody seems to object to them and there was consensus. Why should Rick be sanctioned at all then? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Gtoffoletto, he is not supposed to be using software to make edits, yet he is, whether he admits to it or not. Nihlus 23:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nihlus: That's not what the arbcom decision states though: [171] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Gtoffoletto, Yes, it does: ...he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser... He is essentially using the AWB software but it's not labeling the edits as such. Regardless of what you call it, he is banned from using it. Nihlus 00:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Nihlus it does not state that he is not supposed to be using software to make edits. He can't use that specific software, which by the way doesn't make any sense. That restriction is poorly worded. If he is not restricted from doing automated edits if he has consensus. Why should he be prohibited from using that specific software? In any case, he is using something else so no problems here as well. No violation. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Gtoffoletto, I'm sorry if you fail to see that the semantics don't matter. Nihlus 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Nihlus one sentence says he can make automated edits with consensus. The next one that he should not use AWB. If you take the second sentence to mean "all software" how is he supposed to make automated edits then? Using an army of slaves? Hamsters spinning wheels that press buttons? :-) The restriction is just poorly worded. But that's not Rich's fault. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that he cannot be trusted to interpret consensus, and making changes to thousands of pages requires more than the lightly attended discussion on that WikiProject. Note that I opposed a siteban above because I don't think he willfully violated the restriction, he thought he had a consensus when he really didn't. Because he isn't capable of judging consensus reliably, we need to refine the editing restriction in a way that removes discretion from his hands. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning oppose. The unpleasant fact of the matter is that there are some tasks which require mass editing, which can not be done by a bot because some measure of judgment is required, and which editors who focus on content creation would not be interested in carrying out. In short, we need editors who are willing to do these kinds of tasks when they need to be done. I would not support an absolute blanket ban on one such editor. I believe that we can effectively craft a set of restrictions that would prevent the undertaking of controversial tasks involving disruptive edits (e.g., requiring a consensus-based discussion closed by an uninvolved third party resulting in agreement that a task is to be undertaken within specified parameters). BD2412 T 23:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      BD2412, that was my reason for proposing the BRFA exemption. If using a bot account to make these automated mass edits is not a workable solution, perhaps they should be done by someone else instead. – bradv🍁 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, sure, it sounds good to say "they should be done by someone else", but by who? We don't assign work to anyone, and I see few editors clamoring to undertake manual repairs on this large a scale. BD2412 T 00:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      BD2412, WP:BOTREQ and WP:AWBREQ work just fine. Also, notice how a certain individual is offering to help at the AWB requests page. Nihlus 00:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Gtoffoletto. Rich is being raked over the coals despite the fact that he clearly followed his editing restrictions in this case. However, I suggest that going forward Rich should only make mass edits based on formal consensus (such as an RfC) and not on informal consensus, to avoid more brouhahas like this. And if a restriction does go into effect, I suggest it include bright lines like the ones I defined in a reply above. CJK09 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose firstly I am against anything that has zero exceptions. Also, if Rich participated in a discussion at the cities project and got consensus there why should he then be sanctioned considering he didn't do anything wrong? He wasn't to make mass edits without consensus, he sought consensus and made edits. He was then brought here and now he's being sanctioned?? That doesn't seem right. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - In the last discussion, I expressed concerns about Rich's editing. But I look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#US Cities - Census info and see Rich complying with his editing restrictions. That thread shows me that the current editing restrictions work. I don't see cause to expand them. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Gtoffoletto. Carrite (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This seems like a more reasonable measure that's appropriate to disruption that has occured in the past. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. There is no evidence that he did anything wrong, he complied with his editing restriction so since he did nothing wrong it makes little sense to punish him for complying with his restrictions. If anything he deserves recognition and encouragement to keep up the good work in complying with his restrictions. Seems some editors misunderstood his restrictions and piled on.... Rich deserves an apology after all of this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I see Rich is subject to a restriction, and it's not clear that he has even violated that restriction. I certainly think that Rich should voluntarily just stop trying to make semi-automated edits given all of the -- no, run away and not look back from -- semi-automated edits, given how frequently problematic it's been for him. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rhododendrite, while I'm opposing this for the opposite reason than you (I think a new sanction would just reset the clock so site ban or nothing is better). It's not true that he's never violated the sanction. I blocked him for two weeks in April for violations of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. Wasn't talking about ever, but here. This section was started concerning a batch of edits that he did look to have consensus for. It's not so typical that we see proposals for sanctions (and even a siteban!) based on "yeah, well, he's done stuff in the past, even if this time it wasn't actually a violation". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I could see if someone wanted to propose notice provisions on the User for discussions where the editing consensus is being discussed (like, 'also put a neutral notice on VPP') but that's not this. We know we have things like demographic tables that need to be fixed across, limited, but important, parts of the project -- and for those familiar with the U.S. decennial census, we know we have to get those parts of the house, in order, now, and not wait. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose There was clear support for RF’s changes to city census info so I don’t think this violated his sanctions, but perhaps RF should seek third-party discussion closure in the future to ensure the intended edits are consistent with them. Reywas92Talk 00:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support regardless of whether the full ban passes. If he is banned, he should not be allowed to just come back and start doing the same stuff that wasted so much of the community's time. The wikilawyering is extremely tiresome and this leaves no loopholes to be exploited. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As a bot operator, the first thing that should have crossed his mind, especially given the multitudes of restrictions and complaints made in the past, was to set this project up as a BRFA and gotten his bot to run it. A BRFA would demonstrate that there is consensus and gives accountability for the edits, as well as a trial period that would have caught the errors made before it was 400 pages into the run. There is zero reason for him to have made this series (or any of the most recent series) of edits from his main account. I don't know yet how I feel about the indef proposal, but if it does fail this is the only way forward that makes any sense. Note that in deference to some of the above objections to this proposal, I am coming at this mainly from a BAG perspective, and the fact that Rich has a track record of running a bot and can avoid these sorts of issues by using it instead of mass-editing (some would even say MEATBOT) with his primary account. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, not as an alternative to the proposed site ban but as a supplement to it. It seems that quite a few editors here are not familiar with Rich's very long history of disruption related to bot edits and bot-like edits, and his many blocks for variations of the same behavior. I have been editing for almost 11 years and this has come up over and over and over again. That lack of familiarity with the history results in a lenient attitude from those editors that I do not believe is justified in this case.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is a process violation opposed by our bureaucracy class. No arguments are presented as to why the edits were bad or if they are being reverted. It just appears as if a group wants to enforce bureaucratic restrictions rather than improve the encyclopedia. WP is not a bureaucracy and absent abuse presented in the form of diffs of problematic edits, this is an improper remedy. It is not okay to just oppose how an edit was done. There has been no evidence that the content of these edits were improper. RF should avail himself of the resources and review of the bot community but restrictions for the sake of restrictions is unneeded bureaucracy. ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose overly draconian solution. I would support a restriction on the editing rate of his main account with escalating blocks for violations. Bot-like tasks should be run only after WP:BRFA approval which would temporarily lift the editing-rate restriction only for the duration of the approved semi-automated task. wbm1058 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I also think this is a bit too draconian. There's a problem, but it could either be solved by an edit rate restriction, or by clarifying that they may only make changes after an RfC has been specifically closed. Dial it back and I'll support. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support whatever happens with the site ban, largely per my (continued) support of the site ban. I think there's no realistic chance for Rich Farmbrough to continue to make mass edits, since they apparently even after all this time don't understand that such mass editing tends to be more problematic in numerous ways than making singular edits so the sort of discussions which may demonstrate consensus for one or a few edits are probably insufficient if you're planning to make thousands of edits. If they aren't site banned, this is therefore the best path forward. If they are site banned, while we could just make it part of the appeal it would be better to make it clear now so any plan they make for return is with this understanding. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Since the community seems willing to give the editor a 20th chance I think the strongest possible restriction is in order. BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The discussion that led to the restriction was about edits that were seen as unnecessary; there was no similar concern when this was discussed. There were errors in some of the edits, not the first time this has happened but the typo was in the first edits linked at WT:CITIES before mass editing started and not noticed; the other error seems to have not happened consistently and could only have been prevented with a more detailed description of the proposed changes. I wouldn't oppose a modification of the restriction to require WP:BRFA or similar approval. Peter James (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support restrictions on WP:MEATBOT mass changes, but Oppose all automated editing. If they run an approved bot with the corresponding BRFA, that's fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. (see my disclosure above). I would rewrite and add exceptions, see below. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Primefac and others above. Rich's mass editing has to stop, otherwise we will be here at ANI again in near future.--Darwinek (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I would support having a higher bar before making mass edits, or having restrictions on the overall edit rate, but I don't think we need to ban mass edits entirely. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Plastikspork, would a requirement to use their bot for mass edits (I interpret "no mass edits" only applying to his primary account) be reasonable? Primefac (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Primefac, that seems reasonable. I didn't think that Rich was still operating any bots, but the only one I was aware of was User:SmackBot aka User:Helpful Pixie Bot which hasn't been active since 2017. If he is still operating two accounts with AWB, the outcome is probably similar, although the bot would require a BRFA, which would be more formal. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this restriction, precisely because it has zero exceptions. I am undecided as to the ban, but it is clear that Rich, unlike many editors, cannot be trusted to request permission to do mass editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as making mass changes or automated edits to any page has no clear definition. If something is to be learnt from this old conflict is that definitions are required that can be easily verified. We have no definition for mass changes nor is it always clear what constitutes an automatic edit. A definition or restriction could possibly restrict the editing rate (how many edits per minute) and/or the maximal number of articles which are subject to a series of similar edits within some time frame. And there should be a solution for cases where a consensus has been found and where WP:BOTREQ (or similar) does not provide help. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Better definitions were necessary in the original restriction, but it is also clear that Rich is trying to wikilawyer and game the system. The results of his actions are detrimental to the project. --WMSR (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppoze. No, not good enough. There just isn't a substantial enough argument to warrant even this harsh a treatment of an awesome Wikipedian. I'd move to strike this entire discussion from the face of this page if I didn't think it will probably lead to strong and subtle improvements in the way we do things to handle such issues. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK I am leaving this discussion with shocked sadness

    I have always respected the different opinions of Wikipedian, even when they have resulted in things I considered undesirable.

    I am amazed and disappointed that there seems to be unanimity against the facts.

    I request that whoever implements the block does me the courtesy of allowing me to archive my talk page first.

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Very nice of you to canvass the board you claimed gave you consensus for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hardly canvassing to inform a WikiProject that you'll be stopping to work on a task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsection moved to bottom, to make the two voting sections adjacent. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to add this: What does it say when a user, upon having a third editing restriction added, (after many previous restrictions from the community and the ArbCom for the exact same thing) has as their very first thought upin being restriced yet again "how do I get around this?" and is so arrogant that they see the evidence that they immediately tried to find ways out of the ban as evidence that they were right to do so several months later, without going through the normal community processes for automated mass editing that they were already provably very aware of? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRFA is specifically for bots, not for all mass editing. For changes such as these, it mentions "WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects" as where to seek consensus before making a bot request. If consensus is required for mass editing without a bot request, and no process is specified in the restriction, this is probably the closest we have to advice on where it can be achieved. There is no Wikipedia:Mass changes or Wikipedia:Mass editing guideline, and the community noticeboard was closed in 2007. Peter James (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter James: I have made a rough start at Wikipedia:Mass editing. A guideline is clearly needed. BD2412 T 04:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Defining consensus required

    The disconnect that I read above seem to be between those who feel that Rich is attempting to game the restrictions and for whom the large number of edits that needed to be corrected is disruptive and those who feel he attempted to abide by his restrictions in this instance. I think we can solve at least part of this by defining what kind of consensus is required. I propose we add to his editing restriction, in order to setup clear community expectations of him: When doing any kind of mass change Rich must seek consensus either from WP:BRFA or from an RfC that attracts at least 10 non-canvassed supporters and is formally closed (should one method not work he may still seek approval from the other method)

    Wikipedia's handling of user disputes must be overhauled

    @Gtoffoletto: This is not mildly relevant to this ANI thread and probably belongs at one of the village pumps. ANI is for solely resolving chronic conduct disputes, not for debating Wikipedia's handling of policy. Feel free to take this elsewhere. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think Wikipedia's handling of sanctions is completely off whack. The current process is unfair and suffers from huge biases. This is a major problem for Wikipedia that should be addressed. This way of handling problems is not a fair process and can be easily manipulated. We are discussing here of banning indefinitely an editor that has contributed with the "dirty" work for over 15 years. This is how we want to handle such matters? With no clear voting and goal posts that move every 10 minutes? This is the level of superficiality with which he will be judged?

    No wonder the accused lashed out. It must feel as a huge betrayal after all the time volunteered to the project. I only recently discovered this "dark side of Wikipedia". But no wonder Wikipedia's editor count keeps declining. This process is a case study in how not to handle justice. Those problems have been solved by the Roman judicial system over 2500 years ago. Currently Wikipedia is at the "public stoning" level of justice. It's time for Wikipedia to make a big evolutionary step forward here. This is wholly inadeguate.

    I propose a discussion should be opened in an appropriate forum (which one?) to propose big changes on how disputes are handled. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 11:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Discussion moved here: [172] Sorry this was not the right place but I think input from regular watchers of this page would be helpful to understand if there is consensus to do this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Reword the current sanction

    I've been looking over the sanction, and each time I do, I find new issues with it. I am not proposing a new sanction, only fixing its convoluted faux-legalese wording. As there are two different restrictions and both are overwrought, I'll address them separately.

    Sanction 1: Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Consider the clause order: ... and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not .... There are cosmetic methods of editing? Well, no, the fourth clause is supposed to follow the first clause such that it reads: ... any mass changes to articles, cosmetic or not .... However, the clause is unnecessary as cosmetic edits fall under any edits. I won't dissect the whole thing, but my proposed rewrite for concision and clarity is:

    Rich Farmbrough is prohibited from making any mass changes to articles, without first obtaining consensus for those changes, broadly construed.

    Sanction 2: I propose reducing: Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties to:

    Further, he is prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser, and prohibited from editing any page relating to the governance or use of automated or semi-automated tools, broadly construed. He may edit the related talk pages to propose desired changes, to be enacted only by other parties.

    The named page in the original wording falls into the category of "related to governance/use of AWB" so does not need to be named explicitly. These changes, I think, cut out superfluous material that does not affect intent. The last sentence is retained. In full:

    Richard Farmbrough is prohibited from making any mass changes to articles, without first obtaining consensus for those changes, broadly construed. Further, he is prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser, and prohibited from editing any page relating to the governance or use of automated or semi-automated tools, broadly construed. He may edit the related talk pages to propose desired changes, only to be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify pre-existing sanctions, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.

    Note, the clock is not reset, because this is not a new sanction. The earliest appeal remains: 12 January 2021. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My problem with this is that "[Rich] Farmbrough is prohibited from making any mass changes to articles, without first obtaining consensus for those changes, broadly construed." would give rise to the same potential for misunderstanding as the current sanction. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the "ard" that I put in the proposal, I reflexively completed "Rich" to "Richard", my bad. Barkeep is attempting to outline a strict definition for "consensus" in this case, which I'm neutral on because I don't really see that there has been a misunderstanding here, and that's not what I'm attempting to address. These editors know what "consensus" is, they've been editing with that policy for years to over a decade in some cases. You can see the goalpost shifting on, for example, Beeblebrox's behalf between their first and third comments: 1) This is pretty clear, no mass changes without consensus to 2) ... the community does not want you making mass edits ... (emphases in original). Soon as the consensus is pointed out, Beeblebrox stops talking about it. That's an indicator to me of bad motive, not misunderstanding. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is WP:CONLEVEL and I'm perfectly willing to discuss it. Rich knows where on is supposed to ask about mass edits, but I admit we did not specify this in the original restriction, and he predictably didn't go ask for permission at the relevant AWB or bot forums, but asked on a wikiproject talk page, without mentioning in any way that he was asking for an exemption to a topic ban, an then sat on that for months before launching his operation. This was a plan to end run the tban, and then to play his "I didn't know any better" card like he does every single time his poor automated edits cause issues
    I'd also like to highlight the excellent point made above by @Primefac: *To put some numbers to this, in just under 48 hours (starting 23:16, 22 May 2020 and ending 19:03, 24 May 2020) Rich has made over 8000 edits to the article space, about 4400 of which were edits and 3900 were fixing errors introduced by those edits. Even if there was consensus for this edit somewhere (which no one can seem to findwhich seems to be here) that is a massive error rate... He didn't even do a good job, consensus or no. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this point by Beeblebrox (and primefac and QEDK) has been under appreciated. Regardless of whether there was consensus or not Rich was acting like a WP:MEATBOT. Regardless of whether there was consensus or not we have processes in place to ensure that errors are not perpetuated so widely and need to be fixed causing a second round of edits. It seems to me like many of those opposing sanction on Rich have not grappled with this set of facts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perhaps under-appreciated, because it is not the reason this was brought here, nor is it mentioned more than once in the discussion from any side (I failed to find where QEDK mentioned anything of the sort). Regarding CONLEVEL, if there was supposed to be a specific forum to ask for an exception, having it stated in the restriction would be useful. I don't see why Rich would go to the AWB forums though, unless he intends to use AWB, which is explicitly prohibited. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues with the current sanction appear to be (a) whether he met the consensus requirement, and (b) what constitutes violation of the mass changes provision. Why not address these directly, with something along the lines of " may not make similar edits to more than five articles without first obtaining consensus and having that consensus validated by at least two admins, of which he has explicitly made aware of this sanction," and "may not, under any circumstances, make more than two edits in any ten minute period." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those would be needlessly prohibitive. It takes seconds to fix a typographical error and there are thousands of articles replete with those kinds of errors. It takes seconds to revert vandalism, and there are dozens of vandalistic edits made every minute. There are also actions that require more than 2 edits to complete (such as opening an AfD - refer to your own edits on 13:02, 15 May 2020 for example). In each case, either or both of your suggested restrictions pose problems. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another proposal

    Enterprisey's sanction above would prohibit bot operation after a BRFA, which I see as unneeded (and a bad idea) I would rewrite Enterprisey's above sanction as follows (I know this is very wikilawyer-y, but I think it's warranted for the avoidance of doubt):

    1) Except as set forth below, Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely banned from making mass changes or automated edits (including creations) to any page or set of pages in any way whatsoever.

    2) Notwithstanding section (1), if Rich Farmbrough believes a bot task would qualify as an EXEMPTBOT task, he may contact any WP:BAG member, informing them of his request and this sanction. If they find that the task would be exempt and that there is consensus to perform the task, they may so state (on-wiki), and approve RF to perform that task. For the purposes of this section, approval to perform a task is only effective if the template {{BotApproved}} is used by the approving BAG member.

    3) Notwithstanding section (1), if Rich Farmbrough starts a BRFA for a task, and the task is approved (either as a trial, or fully approved), RF may cause a bot to perform that task. In the BRFA, before approval, Rich Farmbrough must note the existence of this sanction. For the purposes of this section, approval to perform a task is only effective if one of the following templates are used by a BAG member: {{BotTrial}}, {{BotExtendedTrial}}, {{BotSpeedy}}, or {{BotApproved}}.

    4) This editing restriction supersedes the restrictions imposed on Rich Farmbrough in January 2020, but the restrictions imposed in in October 2010 are not superseded, and remain in effect.

    Thoughts? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "no cosmetic edits" restriction shouldn't be superseded, since it's unrelated. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with language about cosmetic edits restored. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment might it be better to add a requirement that for 2 (and might as well 3), Rich Farmbrough must include notice of this restriction? While arguably this should not matter, Rich Farmbrough's judgment in these areas has been shown to problematic in the view of the community. I fear with 2 there is a risk that some member of the BAG may see what seems to be a simple question by an experienced editor of the community who also seems to have experience with mass edits and not give it sufficient scrutiny and thought. We'd then have the situation where some more member of the BAG finds themselves in a shitstorm when they were likely just doing what is common. I don't know if there is actually any member of the BAG who won't know Rich Farmbrough's history but I wouldn't rule it out especially since we don't know how long these restrictions will be needed. Some may fear mention of the restriction may mean people would be afraid to approve something they should approve, but frankly I mostly trust the BAG to make the right decisions despite politics whereas as said, I think human nature means it's fairly common that there could easily be less scrutiny if you falsely assume this person knows what they're doing. And I'd note that if most BAG already know about the history then that's already often going to be happening anyway we're just avoid the odd hiccup including ensuring that there can be no suggestion Rich Farmbrough intentionally used someone who didn't know the history yet didn't tell them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Per Pppery and Nil Einne, I've made changes to the italicized sections (diff). Pings: @Nil Einne, Pppery, and King of Hearts. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with the caveat proposed by King of Hearts. BD2412 T 04:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User: ‎Faust-RSI and civility

    Blocked x 31 hrs for WP:NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ‎Faust-RSI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Could somebody please have a look at Talk:Turkmenistan and see whether further participation of this user in this discussion would be beneficial? I have warned then (for which they have responded by reporting me to AIV [173] - I believe this was the first ever time I have been reported to AIV), continued casting aspersions and assuming bad faith, and for me blocking them now would not be appropriate. Note that they showed up at the article immediately after unhelpful edits by User:91.198.17.202, two of which have been revision-deleted (not by me). --Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't be ridiculous. You was reported for abusing your admin rights and trying to prevent me from participating in editing of this page. And what is the meaning of you mentioning User:91.198.17.202? Yes, I joined after someone had reverted his/her edits, because they were RIGHT. All I did was the improving of the article (which has already happened, but not thanks to YOU) by removing FALSE information from it, all you did was preventing this by all means possible, including abusing of your admin rights.Faust-RSI (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Urgent! - TFA vandals

    Page semi-protected x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'll be proactive on this: can somebody please protect this for the duration before the usual TFA vandal strikes again? See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Bot_for_the_current_main-page-related_vandalism if you're not aware of the situation. Much thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, the page is Hurricane Fred (2015). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately there is currently no community consensus supporting preemptive protection of TFA pages. For now I have added the page to my watchlist and I will protect the page as soon as I see anything nefarious. Or you can ping me. I will be online for the next few hours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "TFA"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Today's featured article Heiro 00:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A first one - the edit summary has already been redacted. @Ad Orientem: Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For reasons that I don't want to outline here per BEANS, I don't think protecting the page is a good idea. Feel free to ping me on IRC/Discord for the reasoning. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I looked at what information is publicly available and this seems to be an obvious proxy so short of extremely quick reactions there's not much else that can be done... Anyway this discussion is now moot as the page has been protected by AO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies I agree entirely. Unfortunately that is above my pay grade. For unknown reasons my application for the position of Imperator Wiki Omnia has not received a reply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Drmies and Ad Orientem: What would this more drastic action look like? Would there be any real-world consequences? 71.93.105.175 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't speculate on specifics, but the WMF has tools at its disposal that we mere mortals do not. They also have very deep pockets and a well staffed legal department. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond My Ken

    Report withdrawn by OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This editor has reverted two editors, including an admin in a BLP article. I have raised concerns about the BLP tone and poor sources in the talk page. The editor keeps violating BLP by adding a the content again. BLP clearly says that any material whether it is positive or negative that is disputed should not be added or restored until there is consensus. The living person himself has cited concerns about his safety because of this article. It is written in a doxxing-like tone and it has some other issue. I would also note that using a photo of someone when this person has said he doesn't want his photo in the site is against the law.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diffs would be beneficial, and maybe a mention of the actual article title. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid point that it's not clearly problematic, but it's also best to err on the side of caution. Thus far there's only been cross-talking on the talk page (both parties opening new sections). Drmies reverted again, so I suspect BMK will stop at this point, since that would bring him over 3RR. The specifics can be discussed on the talk page, and this should be closed as premature. If BMK reverts again, see WP:AN3. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't care very much which way this goes, but from what I understand the subject has made certain comments on Ser Amantio's talk page, and they should be taken into consideration. The edit summaries in that revert war did not signal that much time was spent reading up on those comments. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I have been reading the requests on Ser Amantio's talk page since the issue first came up on AN a couple of days ago, and have been keeping current with them. The subject's requests do not provide any information we can work with, do not make a valid case for the information which SharabSalam is attempting to suppress to be deleted, and the material is not in any way a BLP violation. For crying out loud, it talks about his awards, and that he's been interviewed by the BBC and so on, it's all positive stuff. If the subject made a strong case for the information endangering him or his family, that would be one thing, but essentially all he says is just "This will endanger my family," with no other explanation. What are we supposed to do with that, allow all subjects of our articles to say "Please remove X, it will endanger my family"?
      In any case, as I said on my talk page, out of my personal respect for Drmies I am totally withdrawing from this. I've unwatched the article and the AfD, and other editors can decide if we're going to allow subjects to dictate to Wikipedia. In my opinion, that would stink, but it's out of my hands now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there is no issue anymore. Drmies has reverted Beyond My Ken. I somehow overreacted by not waiting longer period before reporting to the WP:ANI. This is probably because I also see a safety concern to expose such information about a living person who is relatively unknown. Especially exposing his photo after he requested it to be removed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • I'm still staying withdrawn from involvment, but I want to note for the record that I receive an e-mail from User:Nfornonthought, the account which claims to be the subject of the article. The e-mail was very polite, but provided no additional information about why the suppressed information would be dangerous to their family, just the claim that it would be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for paying attention to this. The answer to the "why" is simple: insurgents google individuals, when they find someone, especially if an article is written about him/her on Wikipedia, they consider that person a big deal. They target their family, often they think the person must be linked to a foreign state that would pay them ransom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfornonthought (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this name allowed here?

    No, not allowed (and already blocked as vandalism only) GirthSummit (blether) 08:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I just saw someone here with this name: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Bigbxxbs123. Is a name like that allowed here? Solace Chiere (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP-hopping genre vandal on Anathema (band) and Katatonia pages, #2804

    An IP range starting with 2804 has, for months over four years, bothered pages related to, for example, Anathema (band), Katatonia, Opeth, and Paradise Lost (band). Here is a typical edit, and another. They are a persistent genre warrior; apparently from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil; who has never discussed their genre edits on relevant talk pages, and has been active since at least January 2016.

    This person does not exclusively do genre edit, but can also edit band's line-up timelines. (Example 1, and the most recent edits on this IP. However, despite occasional positive contributions to pages, this person has shown far more interest in tweaking and meddling with genre descriptions of band and album pages. This is not the only IP range that disrupts these pages, but it is the one I am focusing on right now. (I am also suspicious of a 2601 IP range from Waltham Forest, UK, and a 2a02 IP range from Achaea, Greece. Those are maybe reports for another day.)

    As a direct result of his/her actions, as well as those of other anonymous genre vandals, the pages Night Is the New Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Great Cold Distance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have both been semi-protected for two months, expiring on July 17.

    He/she has, through years of commitment, shown a full-blown contempt and malicious indifference for Wikipedia's music pages, Wikipedia's editing principles, and the editors who maintain them. The only way they are going to be stopped is if someone of something other than his or herself forces them to do so. Out of all the editing activity I have seen from these IPs, and this is possibly not even almost a complete list, I have seen no evidence of them actively seeking to communicate and collaborate with editors (other than a minimal amount of use of edit summaries from years past). By posting this here, I am hoping that this person's obfuscation of Wikipedia and evasion of consequence/responsibility can finally end.

    A chronological list of relevant IPs:

    Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I calculated the overall IP range for the IP's you listed active in the last month - Special:Contributions/2804:7f3:4800::/37 - , expecting it to be a dynamic range with lots of users on it, but the overall activity in that range is ludicrously skewed towards miscellaneous no-edit-summary genre fiddling. Does it look like most or all of those contributions are the individual we're concerned about here? A rangeblock is looking more sensible than I expected if we want to get their attention. ~ mazca talk 11:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully support a range block. (I’d do it myself, but I’ve never quite gotten the hang of them.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the range for three months. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Haven't done many IPv6 rangeblocks and thought I'd check I wasn't blocking half of Brazil! ~ mazca talk 13:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the rangeblock. I've been cleaning up after this person for quite a long time, despairing of a long-term fix. Note that they are also interested in Japanese bands, anime and manga in the Japanese language, which helps to identify the activity. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at Night Is the New Day and the genres mentioned in the discussion on Talk:Night Is the New Day, and there are three genres in the infobox, but completely different genres mentioned on the talk page, which seems to be the only discussion of this. No references for the genres in the article, so it isn't obvious whose edits are vandalism (if any of them are). Would it be better to just remove the genres, or even remove the infobox? Peter James (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter James, infoboxes are plenty problematic. As for genres, I propose we limit ourselves to blues, rock, jazz, classical, electronic body music, and of course metal--meaning Alternative metal, Avant-garde metal, Biker metal, Black metal, Blackened death metal, Blackgaze, Celtic metal, Christian metal, Crossover thrash, Crust punk, Deathgrind, Death metal, Death 'n' roll, Deathcore, Death-doom, Djent, Doom metal, Drone metal, Extreme metal, Folk metal, Funk metal, Glam metal, Goregrind, Gothic metal, Grindcore, Grunge, Groove metal, Heavy metal, Industrial metal, Kawaii metal, Latin metal, Mathcore, Medieval metal, Melodic death metal, Melodic metalcore, Metalcore, Neoclassical metal, Neue Deutsche Härte, Nu metal, Nu metalcore, Pagan metal, Pirate metal, Pornogrind, Post-metal, Power metal, Progressive metal, Progressive metalcore, Rap metal, Sludge metal, Speed metal, Stoner rock, Symphonic black metal, Symphonic metal, Technical death metal, Thrash metal, and Viking metal. OK "Pirate metal" is stupid, and mathcore sucks, but still. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Technical progressive stoner trap christian nu metal is my favorite genre Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote the Katatonia article 4 years ago, and have maintained it ever since. In that time, I’ve learned that they are one of those bands where fans/people squabble and argue over their genre endlessly. It doesn’t matter if it’s a cleaned up article, or a mess like most of their album articles, which I didn’t get around to cleaning up - people genre war endlessly. Obviously, source genre, and remove ones you can’t find sources for. But it’ll require constant maintenance either way. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the 2804 IPs that you see on English Wikipedia are Vivo in Brazil. Their IP ranges are often incredibly wide, but it's rare to find collateral damage. I would venture a guess that there isn't a lot of interest in editing English-language encyclopedia articles in Brazil. I'm not saying that you should just go around doing long range blocks on /36s and /48s just because they're in Brazil, but it's generally as much of a big deal as you might expect to do range blocks on Vivo IP ranges when they become disruptive. There are a few persistent socks who use Vivo, so I've gotten half-decent at dealing with users on this ISP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter James: Good idea. While it would not be necessary to remove the infobox due to the important and topical information that it has at a glance, removing the genres therein is something I independently thought could be a feasible aim; this method has worked in the past. I have therefore removed the genres from both the protected pages, and replaced them with an editor's message.
    @Drmies: Thanks a lot! I hope this 3-month range-block is enough to deter the person forever. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial Number 54521

    No further action needed. Content dispute can be taken to talk pages. IP recognises that using the word 'vandalized' in a Teahouse post is inappropriate. No ear-clipping needed; acts of metaphorical physical violence are inappropriate unless approved 6 months in advance by WMF. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Serial Number 54521

    Normally, User:Serial Number 54129 is a fairly decent editor, but they have vandalized List of My Hero Academia characters multiple times, starting from January 18, and just started again May 23. In most of the questionable edits, they claim that they are removing unsourced content and fancruft, but in reality are removing essentially the entire page, including sourced content, edit warring about the subject and refused to explain their actions when questioned at one point by closing the discussion instead of giving any answer. The most recent offense by Serial Number 54129 was undone by User:Exukvera. I haven't notified them about repeating the incident out of fear that they will keep removing essentially the entire page with poor explanations after being notified, as last time they edit warred after their notification. While this isn't a serious enough offense for the Incidents or Vandalism noticeboards due to them being a decent editor on any other page, I am wondering what can be done, as this situation is incredibly frustrating. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I am reporting myself, I guess. But if the anon has a complaint, this is the place to make it. Of course, I suppose there's more chance of them being checkusered here rather than at the Teahouse, but them's the breaks. I'm sure not being able to treat a Wikipedia article like a fan club's scrapbook is "incredibly frustrating"; but I stand by my edit summary of:

    Rm unsourced: WP:FANCRUFT ("Fan fiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopedic"), WP:INDISCRIMINATE (policy), WP:OR, WP:SYNTH.

    Compare the verson as I first found it with how I left it, and consider that the same material has been removed by at least two other editors. The recent reversion by User:Exukvera was not only a wholesale restoration of the same cruft, etc., but was accompanied by the edit-summary Reverting vandalism (again); vandalism, of course, is tightly defined on the English Wikipedia, and the removal of unsourced cruft and OR will almost certainly never qualify, which makes unjustified accusations of vandalism an aspersion verging on a personal attack. On a lighter note, there's no need for anyone to notify me of this report... ——Serial # 13:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a look at the article and tend to agree that this is FANCRUFT. Short descriptions of what the character is can be justifiable, see example Star_Wars_(film)#Cast – unvariably a one-sentence description of the character, with the rest of the paragraph being details about which actor was chosen. However, this kind of WP:OR detail is excessive and of interest to only a small fraction of readers (fans of the series)... The few "sources" seem to be a pop culture magazine which is of dubious relevance to an encyclopedic article... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually do agree that there was a ton of unnecessary fluff on the article, and I myself have removed fancruft at several points. My frustration stems from removing almost every single description, including several sourced ones, with the only explanation being "removed fancruft". Most other character lists have short descriptors after the voice actors, but in the reversions by Serial Number 54129, they were almost completely blank. I don't think Wikipedia should be treated like a fan blog, (Heck, I know of one article that is overly treated like one), but I also don't think the page should be completely blanked, as it was in Serial Number 54129's edits. In fact, I find it just as frustrating that they believe that that is the reason. My issue isn't with it not having enough for fans, it's that their persistent edits removed any sort of substance from the page when said substance is allowed on multiple other character lists. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not misrepresent me. The article has not been blanked. It was a list of characters and remains a list of characters. As for other articles, I will be happy to decruftinate them also. ——Serial # 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, yes, it remains a list of characters without the descriptions, but plot summaries in quite literally every page, including both character lists and pages for the media itself, tend to at least exist on pages, even if fairly short. Even when a character list is too short to receive its own page, there tends to be short descriptions. When I say "blanked", I mean that the page becomes nigh-unreadable if it's a list of characters with no context. Under an older IP, I actually did try to remove a few descriptions from another page that I can't remember currently, and the answer I was given is that these sorts of pages should at least have a little context, rather than none at all. I would prefer if you focused on removing only the actual fancruft instead of the entire descriptions. These two edits on the same page are actually fine by me, as they remove actual fancruft (i.e., saying how one character has a fear of insects for a majority of the description, or claiming that one character's antics annoy several others), but still keep small bits of the descriptions so that the page has just a little context. If your edits to this page were more like the two I just linked instead of the three from my initial report, I wouldn't have any problem. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This strikes me as a content dispute rather than a user conduct dispute. My recommendation would be to go to the talk page of the article and suggest additions to the character descriptions, citing sources where necessary, and then adding the suggested content if there are no objections (or if there is consensus despite objections). The process is unfortunately going to be slower than if you had just added the material in directly, but this is the normal collaborative process on Wikipedia, see also WP:BRD. On Wikipedia, the word "vandalism" has a very specific meaning: it specifically refers to cases where a user intended to harm Wikipedia. The key here is intention: even if an editor completely ruins an article in your view, they have not "vandalized" Wikipedia in our sense of the term unless they intended to ruin the article. In cases where there is doubt as to an editor's intentions, the guideline on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Because Serial Number 54129 is clearly acting in good faith here, and because it does not look like Serial Number 54129 has violated any other user conduct policies (e.g. disruptive editing, edit warring, or civility), I'm not sure any administrative action is needed here. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that this looks like a content dispute, and would also advise the OP to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's definition of vandalism before making such accusations again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with User:Mz7 that no admin action against 54129 is needed, I think that admin action of a formal warning to the IP for Yelling Vandalism is in order. At the same time, the commentary in this thread should be read as that formal warning to the IP. Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute is too common, and must be called out. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, accusing them of vandalizing was definitely not the right thing to do. While I still heavily disagree with some of their edits to the page, I was wrong to call it vandalism. I will accept this as my formal warning to not accuse edits I disagree with as vandalism. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than micro-analyze SN's lack of conduct or non existent insivilitee [sic] and comparing it to any one of our flawed "policies", how about we apologise to SN for wasting his time, metaphorically clip the IP around the ear, and close this thread before the peanut gallery arrive and decide to air their historic dirty laundry in public? This shouldn't even be up for discussion. CassiantoTalk 08:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for wasting Serial Number's time and agree that this thread should be closed, but telling me to metaphorically clip around my ear is completely uncalled for and frankly inappropriate. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What could be more inappropriate that posting a fraudulent report at ANI because you're not getting your own way in a content dispute? CassiantoTalk 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Help me administration sir

    The sir has blocked this awfully plaintive person for socking. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am being misbehaved. I am being mistaken. user:GPL93 member misbehave with me. I'm being threatened. Please help me Senior wikipedia & guide me. I am being threatened to block. 

     — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarjatji (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has threatened you. You created a copyright violation and you were appropriately notified that it was being deleted and continued attempts to create copyright violations could result in a block. Being informed of policy is not a threat. Praxidicae (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You have threatened to block me. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    You are connecting me with what I do not even know. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot block other editors as I am not an admin. I reported you as a sockpuppet, which results in blocking and when you decided to spam my talk page I told you that you will likely be blocked as you are a sockpuppet and that any article that you try to create in evasion of you block qualifies for speedy deletion. I am not even the one that started your most recent SPI. GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be blocked if you continue to violate WP:COPYRIGHT. But don't worry! This is an opportunity. Read up on WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE and don't violate those policies any more and you won't be blocked. You were given a warning about your violations so you could take this opportunity to learn about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your actions (copying content and pasting it in to Wikipedia) were inappropriate. It was inappropriate of you to open this discussion. But it's not too late! You were given a warning so you could understand and learn. Please take this opportunity! (Note if you are indeed violating WP:SOCK as GPL93 suspects, none of this applies to you and you will be blocked shortly.) --Yamla (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know Pkschhonkar member. I only do my work. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you doing all this with me sir. What is my fault. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is this suny bharat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarjatji (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just trying to contribute on my behalf, for English wikipedia. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Original poster is now checkuser-blocked. --Yamla (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issues at autism

    Indef blocked as a troll by me, and TPA revoked by GorillaWarfare. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See:

    Dangibas has continued adding uncited text (of an advocacy nature) to a Featured article after I notified them, and has also removed article talk messages. Notifying Doc James and Dangibas next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that this is disruptive and warrants admin intervention. Dangibas, I will place a partial block to prevent you from disrupting this FA if you continue these non-neutral edits. You may seek the talk page for consensus on your ideas and edits. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope they stop doing that, because if they don't they'll get a double partial block, from the article and the talk page. Doc James, they've been emailing you? I believe you can block them individually from sending emails to you (what I mean is, you're not making an administrative action that way), but if there is harassment via email, toward you or maybe Sandy, I will not hesitate to deprive them of that functionality. Either way, do not respond to emails lest you give them your email address. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I don't think it's reasonable. Emailling them, even through Wikipedia, is giving them your personal email address. Not something most people want to do. So no, it's not reasonable. Wikipedia provides a perfectly fine platform for on Wikipedia discussions about Wikipedia related topics. Anyway they haven't enabled email so it's irrelevant. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Canterbury Tail et al, I'd like for someone to check whether the partial block I intended, from Autism and Talk:Autism, was placed correctly: the log does not inspire confidence. I had entered "Autism" and "Talk:Autism" but without the wiki brackets. Anyway, from Doc James's page I got the impression they'd already been emailing others. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Log for me just shows blocked for Specified non-editing actions. Nothing about what pages etc are present in the log. Not done a partial block yet, but I'd have expected it to show something. So I'd be uncertain alongside you on this one. Canterbury Tail talk 16:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur on what the log shows. I use a tool for blocks rather than the form, and I think it gives me a drop-down to select the pages in question as I start typing the page. @Drmies: Let us know if you don't think you get it fixed; I know I'll be glad to bang on the blocking tool with my mop handle until it works right. :) —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't working. Dangibas continues to alter article talk posts, not sign posts (after multiple explanations of how to do so), and not provide sources for requested changes. It no longer makes sense for me to try to respond to the mess on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor inviting email contact is, methinks, not a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy that they are 9 years old. I am sure there are nine years olds with such coherent grammar and spelling but it's improbable and this account was active nine years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well spotted, thanks - I've reblocked indef as a troll. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The account was actually created in 2007. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anyone here can tell him updates regarding the request for the removal/deletion of a page? The subject now has spoken to his lawyer and will pursue legal means if the request cannot be honored.[176]

    The article talk page has a long list of connected contributors and has been to AfD with the result of "keep". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have advised the user that they may not continue to edit Wikipedia if they keep making legal threats.[177] —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all of them are connected, I looked at the contributions of one - a "promotional SPA" - and it was a vandalism-only account, with contributions that were the opposite of promotional including one revision that should probably be deleted. Peter James (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not worth keeping the article with so little content, but legal threats are unlikely to be the most effective way of getting it deleted. It probably needs an administrator to look at the talk page - most of the discussion there looks like it should be removed. Peter James (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • He seems to be a notable, but controversial individual. The number of COI editors suggests a keen interest in managing his public profile. Wouldn't deletion of the article and the talk page amount to whitewashing? I think it should remain as a stub. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Muhammad Ahmad ZooL

    This user has a litany of warnings on their talk page for disruptive editing; as can be seen there, their response has always been to make personal attacks without actually addressing the problem at hand.. I myself ran into them a few hours ago after reverting this drivel; after giving them a final warning for defamatory content, they responded with another personal attack. I tried to inform them about WP:TRUTH, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA, but to no avail. The user has no plans to contribute constructively and I recommend they be blocked to prevent further disruption. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for NPA and continued adding opinion and unsourced statements. Lets see what they come back with. Canterbury Tail talk 17:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Danke. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail (or any other admin): here you are. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well complete lack of acknowledgement of any wrong doing. Statement that implies they will continue to make the same edits. Continued personal attacks. Earned themselves an increase to an indef. They can ask for an unblock and it will be reviewed, but seems unlikely. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much :-) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit raises the question of whether MAZ should continue to be allowed TPA. Google Translate says that the non-English sentence is (transliterated) Hindi, and translates it as "Father of Imtiaz's mother. Imtiaz's behen burst". This is not fully comprehensible (I suspect some intentional misspellings), but I have little doubt that the intended meaning involves a different English 6-letter word beginning "f" and ending "er". Narky Blert (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    C.Fred revoked their talk access and reverted the edit. We should likely watch out for socks and block evasion as they intimated before they'd continue with their edits. But for now this is closed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bludgeoning by Kolya Butternut

    I have used my discretion under WP:ARBAP2 to topic ban Kolya Butternut from the 2020 US presidential election topic-area. Closing this thread as moot. Any appeals can be discussed at WP:AE. Abecedare (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On May 18, User:Kolya Butternut made a bold edit to Donald Trump, creating a section called Personal Image and saying that "Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion." Her edit summary was Personal image: Temperament and mental status is a noteworthy subject in the media. BOLD edit to current consensus item 39. [178] It was reverted as violating Consensus #39, which states “Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health.” After a brief discussion at her talk page, [179] she started a discussion at the article talk page. [180]. She proposed a change to Consensus item #39 and offered her proposed new wording. She argued that her proposal does not violate the consensus because it does not actually characterize his mental health, only states that it has been widely discussed. One IP favored her proposal; four people including myself opposed it. (A fifth oppose has since been added.)

    She then pinged CaptainEek, who had closed the July 2019 RFC that led to consensus #39, and asked for their opinion of whether her proposed language would be allowed by their closure. CaptainEek had written a long and thoughtful explanation of their reasoning at the time they closed it, but they gave Kolya a detailed reply, saying "my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available" and "I find little substantial difference between this version and previous versions," but "my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here." Kolya proceeded to argue and ask for clarification five times, while CaptainEek replied courteously. I later learned that Kolya also posted on CaptainEek’s talk page, asking them to edit/reword their closure of the July 2019 RfC to support Kolya’s position, and suggesting she might take the request to AN if they do not.[181] After her fifth reply to CaptainEek at Talk:Donald Trump, I posted a note (specifying that I was speaking as an involved editor, not an admin), telling Kolya to stop badgering CaptainEek and accept the four- (or five-) to-one opinion against her proposal. Kolya rejected my advice (pointing out, quite correctly, that I was one of the four now five who had opposed her addition), and repeated/expanded her question to CaptainEek. Since CaptainEek had referred to part of the proposed wording as WP:GOSSIP, Kolya also went to BLPN WT:BLP and posted a question asking for a clarification of what gossip is.[182] And if she does not get her way she has threatened to take her request to AN or a new RfC.

    (Recent history: she received two AE blocks this month,[183] [184] but both were controversial[185] and one was overturned at AN. [186] )

    In my opinion this behavior amounts to 1) harassing and bludgeoning of CaptainEek, and 2) refusal to drop the stick on a proposal that has not gained any traction at the article talk page. IMO she should be given at least a formal warning against bludgeoning of discussions and harassment of other participants. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kolya Butternut also approached BD2412 stating that MelanieN was threatening her in the Talk:Donald Trump discussion. Reading the Trump talk page discussion, I think Kolya might do well to study WP:SEALION and reconsider her approach in discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Broader proposal for Trump/Biden articles in general is just muddy here and has nothing to do with the raised concern, if anyone wants this sort of editing condition, I don't think this is the place to discuss that. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This feels really uncalled for. This is a good-faith challenge to a complicated and long-discussed subject. I particularly take issue with the suggestion that I somehow threatened to go to WP:AN, when I was simply asking if that was the protocol. (And it was CaptainEek who brought up the idea of a new RfC.)[187] I was trying to adhere to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Like I said at Talk:Donald Trump, I thought I read somewhere that that is the appropriate step to take before challenging an RfC close at WP:AN.[188] Yes, I asked for clarification several times (I haven't counted), because I still felt left with questions, and I felt like I was still receiving new information. Melanie has worked hard to remove mental health information from similar articles,[189] and I am concerned that her complaint against me is influenced by her desire to not see a precedent set by having anything about Trump's mental health added to his bio. I am perplexed by this characterization that I am threatening to escalate if I "do not get my way". I feel like I have questions and I am seeking answers, and up am discussing the appropriate next steps to take if I feel like something is still not addressed. I'll have to read the BLUDGEONING policy to see if I'm missing something, but CaptainEek didn't say anything about my questions having already been answered. How can this be SEALIONing? It was Melanie herself who said she was going to "step in" to the conversation and warn me.[190] And Melanie was the one who suggested I make the bold edit to the article, which I reference on my talk page discussion with she links to. Also, she was ok with the exact same text that I suggested for Donald Trump to be in the article for A Very Stable Genius and similar text at Stable Genius Act, so how can it be a BLP violation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Melanie's narrative just does not present things accurately. The only thing I can be accused of is asking CaptainEek too many questions. First I asked Melanie about adding something about Trump's mental health to his bio, and she said "You are free to suggest it, of course, or even to boldly insert it into the article and see if anyone reverts it."[191] and "I'm not advising you to add it anywhere. You know how I feel about this kind of speculation/information, or references to such, in BLPs. As I said, if you want to boldly add it, you are free to do so, and see how it goes."[192] I took this as a suggested course of action, and when I came back to this about a month later I made the bold edit. It was reverted with the edit summary "items under consensus require prior new consensus to change."[193] After responding to some confusion at my talk page, I started a new talk page discussion at Donald Trump. After receiving no support for my suggestion, I asked CaptainEek for clarification of their close. I then made a new suggestion, "In response to questions raised about his temperament and mental status, Trump has described himself as a 'very stable genius'.", at CaptainEek's talk page,[194] and asked them if they were able to make changes to their old close to provide clarification, because I felt like the last line of the close which could be interpreted to bar any mention at all about Trump's mental health seemed overly broad, and I had thought my newest proposal was not actually inconsistent with their close. I was asking if they were not able to change their RfC if the next step would be to go to WP:AN. They responded back at Talk:Donald Trump, where I still felt unsure of the precise interpretation of their close. The last response CaptainEek gave to me was completely new information to me, that my last proposed sentence was WP:BLPGOSSIP,[195] so their RfC close apparently did indeed bar any mention at all of Trump's mental health (unless new sources are available? Honestly I'm still confused and will have to reread everything again.) I feel like this shows that I wasn't bludgeoning, because this was a constructive discussion where new information was coming still coming through. Then Melanie warned me which I felt was uncalled for, and I proceeded to ask CaptainEek why it would be BLPGOSSIP when I felt it would pass WP:NFRINGE and WP:WELLKNOWN,[196] and I commented that we already have almost the exact same text at A Very Stable Genius and Stable Genius Act[197] So now I'm left with many more questions and feel I need more community input. I would have proceeded to ask CaptainEek if they were done with the discussion, and if so I would have taken the question to AN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  [reply]

    And I did not go to BLPN; the link Melanie provided goes to the BLP talk page where I ask for an edit to the policy to make it more clear. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: Melanie was the one who suggested I make the bold edit to the article, That is a mischaracterization - one she has made before. In April 2018 2020 (don't know what I was thinking) she posted at my talk page to ask my opinion on her proposed new approach.[198] I told her repeatedly that she could boldly try this if she wanted - that I couldn't stop her - but that I did not encourage it and I doubted if it would pass muster. (examples: "Your draft paragraph looks very much like the previous proposals and is based on the same material as the others were, so I doubt if it would fly. Not to say you can't try it, but you asked my opinion." "I do not encourage you to do it, and I doubt if others would allow it to stay in the article.") -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry if you feel I am mischaracterizing your comments, but that is how I took them. That discussion occurred April 2020, not April 2018. You didn't even pick out an example where you used the word BOLD! Yes I understood you didn't think it would work, but I took it to be a suggestion for what I could do. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, this is very called for. Not because of you, specifically, but because people in general lose their minds over this specific topic, and that is already leading to all sorts of conflict and bad outcomes. Let me put it this way: you'll be a lot happier if you put the thought of editing articles in these areas out of your mind for half a year. BD2412 T 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But everything I was dealing with at Joe Biden has been settled, and I do not understand why this is considered bludgeoning; how else would I deal with these questions? When is it appropriate to take an RfC close to AN? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Six months from now, I will have these same unanswered questions, which I am being told that I am not handling appropriately, so what can I do different in six months than what I am doing now? Literally the only line I am asking for is "In response to questions raised about his temperament and mental status, Trump has described himself as a 'very stable genius'." I still don't see how it can be a BLP violation to have the same text in A Very Stable Genius and not Donald Trump, and I don't understand why Melanie would take me to ANI over text which she herself ostensibly approved as can be seen at Talk:A Very Stable Genius when she proposed a DYK[199]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the same questions in six months, then you can ask them in six months without invoking the drama of editors who believe that the outcome of the election will turn on the contents of these Wikipedia articles. BD2412 T 19:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't speak to me doing anything wrong here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread prompted me to look back at Kolya's prior blocks, which led me to these three threads on Wugapodes's talk page (in chronological order): User talk:Wugapodes#Interaction ban, User talk:Wugapodes#Evidence, and User talk:Wugapodes#WP:INVOLVED. While the interaction ban that was the the topic of these conversations was overturned at AN, Kolya's bludgeoning toward Wugapodes throughout these conversations was problematic, especially after Wugapodes advised Kolya multiple times to drop the matter at Wugapodes's talk page and instead take the matter to AN or AE. Even after closing the thread, Kolya just opened up a new thread further down on the page. There seems to be pattern of bludgeoning with this user, so I would therefore support a six-month topic ban as proposed above, but agree with MelanieN that at the very least, a formal warning should be issued. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoi, Please look at both sides of the dispute. I was dealing with an inappropriate block and a pattern of evasiveness. My blocks were overturned by editors who found Wugapodes' actions to be inappropriate.[200] So far I haven't seen anyone discuss the actual complaint that brought me hear. Why would me allegedly bludgeoning Wugapodes on their talk page result in a topic ban from Donald Trump? I feel like I would have to get into a long discussion about that previous improper block and the discussions around it and the context for why I opened up a new discussion on Wugapodes' page, but the bottom line is it was overturned, and I would like someone to discuss what happened here. When you strip away all the mischaracterizations by Melanie, what's left is that she accuses me of asking five questions, which she feels were unnecessary. I do not feel they were unnecessary. More questions remain, such as, why is Melanie bringing me to ANI for asking the question: How can text that Melanie is ok with at A Very Stable Genius now be a BLP violation when I suggest adding it to Donald Trump? Am I bludgeoning or are others shutting things down? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aoi pinged me in discussing my talk page posts, and I agree with their characterization of those discussions. As I said in my most recent response there, Kolya has an issue with tendentious editing but I have neither the time nor energy to pursue it. I would encourage the community to take steps to resolve this issue because the problems extend beyond Donald Trump or even the American Politics topic area. I previously noted concerns about her long term tendentious behavior in this AN post which includes links to previous problem interactions that exemplify this pattern: "At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#Personal_attacks SchroCat advised her to not insult other editors, and to report concerns at the appropriate venue; she doubled down and made clear she was trying to carry on a personal rather than content dispute with Betty Logan. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#WP:HOUND Flyer22 Reborn raised concerns with multiple diffs that Kolya was wikihounding them, to which Cullen328 said I advise you to take that editor's talk page off your watchlist. That would be to your benefit, in my opinion, since you are clearly displaying some hounding tendencies. This is not a new pattern....Concerns about this pattern of behavior have been raised multiple times, by multiple editors, and about multiple targets". So I'd support Melanie's proposal as a reasonable first step at resolving this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Seeing myself name-checked here I will just flesh out a few details. I was involved in a toxic dispute with Kolya Butternut at the Millenials article. KB was attempting to overturn the result of a long-running dispute that had recently been settled in an RFC, and another editor, DynaGirl, took exception to that. Their dispute became fractious and I later became involved as I was unhappy with how KB addressed a hard-working editor in good standing (for the record DynaGirl did not have a history of disruptive behavior). DynaGirl stopped editing for good within a week of that dispute. She may have stopped editing for non-Wiki reasons—I don't know the reason—but given the proximity to the dispute at the time I believed it to be a factor. During the dispute at the article I was bizarrely reported by KB for not talking to them on my talk page (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Incivility). To be fair to Kolya Butternut my interactions with them are limited to that one and only article and the dispute has not extended beyond it, so it does not amount to a behavioral pattern, but the refusal to accept an RFC result seems to be a common factor here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Here are a couple of talk page discussions that have been referenced here, and might help to cast light on the subject’s pattern of editing on talk pages: Muboshgu, April 29-30 and BD2412, current and ongoing. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    31 hour block

    Unless there is a substantial objection, I'd like to put a 31-hour block on Kolya Butternut so I can have some peace on my talk page (and so their conduct does not just pick up one someone else's). Please note that when I say "substantial objection", I don't mean Kolya Butternut objecting, which I would take as a given. BD2412 T 01:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You can just ask me; it's punitive to block me without just having a conversation. Just ask me for what you want and I'll do it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking isn't the point. My expectation is that you will merely engage in the same conduct elsewhere. BD2412 T 01:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I won't. I'll just not edit anything for three days unless someone specifically speaks to me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A 31-hour block would actually just be a day-and-a-half. Come back Wednesday. BD2412 T 02:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding but your behaviour at User talk:Wugapodes is far below subpar and highlights the crux of your issues, you engage in absolute WP:IDHT picking up strawman arguments to further your point (and before you say it: no, because the block was overturned does not mean your behaviour was OK). I had assumed that was a one-off incident and not intervened but you seem to lack the intention to understand or listen to people who try to help you out. You should know that any further bludgeoning will lead to blocks. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BD2412, Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability it seems Kolya was questioning your actions. I took a look at your page. Why not just ask Kolya to stop posting on your page? To block someone for this,to me seems really, really bad. Especially when we're discussing how to admin in a biased environment. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point now appears moot, but their talk page conduct is a continuation of the conduct that led to this discussion in the first place. I intended a short block as an instructive measure for the editor. Please note that they solicited my participation in this conflict out of the blue in the first place. BD2412 T 02:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you’re too involved in the Biden page and discussions to be taking action yourself. Didn’t we discuss that a few weeks ago after you full protected the articles? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr Ernie: This involves an unsolicited effort by the editor in question to draw me into a dispute where they sought to add controversial material to the Donald Trump article, regarding Trump's mental health, and not to any Joe Biden article. The ANI report to which this relates was opened by MelanieN, not by me. I have been pulled into it against my will. BD2412 T 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not asked for a block here and I have no recommendation. What I WOULD like is for you, Kolya, to recognize that your behavior is very argumentative; that you don’t listen to others and often indulge in WP:IDHT (while accusing others of it); that you are very reluctant to accept WP:Consensus (which is the necessary basis of how Wikipedia operates); and that you sometimes carry this to disruptive levels. If some action here can be taken that will get you to recognize the problem and reform, I will be satisfied. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The behavior by Kolya Butternut that MelanieN has objected to at Talk:Donald Trump is very similar to the experience I have had at Talk:Joe Biden. Multiple, relentless responses to every single opposing view in an RfC, for example. It's exhausting. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like all great adventures, this one has an origin story. KB had been one of the most active editors at Joe Biden and the related "allegations" article in supporting various statements unfavorable to Biden. Then, in mid-April, KB came to the Joe Biden talk page advocating for a section on Biden's possible "Mental decline", see here. There was little support and much concern about BLP issues. Next, KB went to BLPN to pursue the matter, see here. That didn't pan out. In the course of these discussions, KB raised the possiblilty that discussion related issues with respect to Donald Trump might somehow set a precedent that would authorize the creation of the mental health section in Biden's article. It was at that point that KB went to MelanieN's talk page and ultimately to the section MelanieN referenced at Donald Trump talk. So for whatever reason, this has been quite an epic quest. Any TBAN would have to be fairly broad. Possibly just the standard AP2 TBAN. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely not true.  I am not trying to get mental health information into Joe Biden's article.   I had fought against being silenced from even talking about Biden's mental health in the talk page.  It would probably be WP:UNDUE to actually add it to his article.  But I had assumed that Trump's article wasn't censored, but it is.  I don't really care about Joe Biden; I care about Tara Reade not being silenced.  I have experienced abuse and growing up with my reality completely ignored.  I have experienced sexual assault.   Yes, I understand I don't know when to stop arguing, but I don't lie.  I do not act in bad faith or make intentional strawmen.  It's unfortunate for everyone that the case that initiated this intervention is not an example of my failings.  I can see that I already repeated myself more times in this discussion than I realized.  I still feel like no one is listening to me about the Trump discussion, but I have to remember that trying to  explain myself better isn't going to help anyone. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kolya Butternut: So you are saying you have been such a strong advocate for Tara Reade and you have demanded she not be "silenced" because her alleged experience uncomfortably reminds you of your own experience? While I have the utmost sympathy for you, this is a BAD reason to be editing the article of a presidential candidate. We want reliably sourced accuracy, not emotionally motivated advocacy. That sense you are repeating yourself? Your fellow editors are experiencing it in your unrelenting, unyielding, uncompromising arguing of every comment that opposes your view. Attempts to compromise with your position have initially been successful, but then been scuppered when you pushed to hard. When given an inch, you always take a mile. I would prefer not to see you blocked or topic banned, but I do think you need to modify your behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, how she has been treated is personally triggering. No, I have not let that get in the way of adhering to content policy. I fought for what is now the current consensus. This is very close to my final proposal at BLPN. The truth of what the RS actually say is important to me; I don't want us to violate our own policies to silence the story. I haven't lost objectivity. I'm not invested in editing Joe Biden anymore; my only objection is the section header, but everything's already been said.  I validate that I am unrelenting, but every dispute has two sides, so it's hard to get into the particulars with you.  Not listening begets not listening.  I'm not assigning blame.  You're welcome to discuss the details of your experience on my talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You say, "I fought for what is now the current consensus." but nothing could be farther from the truth. All the cited links and talk page threads show you insisting on views that were rejected by the editors on all those article and noticeboard talk pages. You say, "I don't really care about Joe Biden", but our BLP policy establishes the standard of care all editors must follow for all people. So we all must care. And that includes Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Michael Bloomberg and other BLPs that you say are "personally triggering" for you.
    It sounds as if you have arrived at the point where you are ready to step away from involvement with this kind of content. The simplest solution would be a TBAN from BLP and AP2. But if there is a more limited restriction that you can propose, I think this would be the time to give it some thought and make that suggestion here, so that you can continue to work in other content areas. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very clear that you are gunning for me to be blocked from Joe Biden. Firstly, blocking me from an article that I am saying I would voluntarily step away from is punitive. I refuse to get drawn into an argument with you here when you repeatedly demonstrate an unwillingness to AGF for anything. At Joe Biden I fought for adherence to WP:BLPBALANCE for Tara Reade, either by inclusion of more information from RS showing her credibility, or through edits or removal of text which gave more credibility to Biden than the RS do. The current consensus is the balance I fought for, which is very close to one of my proposals. Since that time, more reporting has come out which casts doubt on Reade's allegations, so editors may consider whether to add this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no comment at this time on the larger issue that was brought up in this thread. However, I would strongly oppose blocking someone just because they posted on your talk page. That's purely punitive and serves no purpose. If you don't want someone on your talk page, then simply tell them not to post on your talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blocks are useful for stopping disruption in the encyclopedia. Posting on a talk page is not really disruptive to the project. WP:BLOCK Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. just a thought, if it has been resolved you should close it or make the result clear.Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am fine with closing this proposal for a 31-hour block as no action, or rather "resolved/moot". But I am not fine if that is the only result of the initial discussion above - if we just drop the larger issue of her argumentative and bludgeoning behavior, of which her comments at BD's talk page were one example. Other examples have been given in the main section above. I am hoping to see some kind of recognition of the problem - not a block, not necessarily a topic ban, but at least a community warning so there is something on the record if the behavior continues. But again, I am an involved editor in this discussion, not an admin, so that is not an admin recommendation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Just to show that uninvolved admins have spoken to her about this kind of behavior, and that it is a long-term problem: In connection with a September 2019 complaint about hounding, she was given advice by three uninvolved admins - Cullen328, JBW, and Johnuniq - here; she rejected it all. Last month she was involved in a contentious discusstion with Muboshgu, and when uninvolved admin El C jumped in with advice, she rejected it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal for Trump/Biden articles

    There is consensus against this proposal. As several people pointed out, uninvolved admins already have the authority to unilaterally topic ban editors because of discretionary sanctions on BLPs and American politics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unfortunately, we are officially well into the silly season of American politics, and this has manifested in an upwelling of disruptive, uncivil, and unconstructive behavior, which is, of course, focused on articles having to do with Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I also note that there has been a fairly substantial surge in obvious sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry with respect to these articles, with new accounts perhaps making a small number of edits in other areas for a few weeks or months, and then aggressively diving into arguing over topics on pages relating to these politicians. Note that I am not accusing User:Kolya Butternut of any involvement in the latter problem, but the point remains that we will have our hands full, and we really need a zero-tolerance policy for these matters.

    Since the election is about six months away, and will undoubtedly be the focus of continuing and increasing efforts along these lines until it reaches its crescendo, I propose a straightforward response:


    An automatic 6-month topic ban on topics relating to

    Donald Trump and Joe Biden, broadly construed, for
    any editor who is unable to maintain civility or abide by
    consensus, or who appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry

    or similar efforts to game the system to score political points.

    This may be rough on a handful of innocent new editors whose editing pattern only coincidentally tracks that of recently identified sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but those who are sincerely here out of interest in building an encyclopedia can easily find a few million other articles, spread across thousands of topic areas, that are direly in need of assistance; those editors can wait the six months before they get into contentious topics of American politics, which are best left to more cool-headed and experienced editors under these circumstances. BD2412 T 18:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I 1,000,000% support a proposal that topic bans anyone getting inappropriate, broadly construed, on Biden and Trump related pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support, even more so if you add in "engages in edit-warring on those articles". Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a guideline suggestion for all countries 6 months prior to an election, because the same editing patterns happen all over the world or just for the USA? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't this be a separate section from the one about me? And I am not seeing anyone discuss the actual claims about my conduct. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – But only 99.9%. As bad as the situation is now, it’s likely to get worse over the next six months. And, I’m not convinced the problem won’t continue after November. (Not retroactive to Kolya, albeit the result may be the same.) O3000 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. We already have discretionary sanctions that can deal with this - we don't need a second, parallel, sanctions regime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee, and because this new sanction has arisen out of what I feel is a baseless accusation, so no new sanction has been shown to be needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sympathize with the reasoning but oppose as redundant. I have no objections to admins using their discretion to impose such topic-bans, and even agree with BD2412 that topic-bans that last beyond the Nov. election (Jan inauguration?) are likely to become increasingly warranted, but admins already have the needed tools under WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBBLP. I also have specific objections to "automatic" and "6 month" (which won't make sense to a topic-ban applied in, say, Sep 2020) in the proposed wording but those bits can easily be addressed, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose. I understand the reasoning behind this, and it's well meaning, but I have three significant issues with it.
      Firstly, as pointed out by Boing already, the DS regime exists for this already. It's worked in the past, and it works now. It's unclear to me why we would need this rather than DS.
      The second significant issue I have with this is that it seems like quite significant American exceptionalism bias to suggest that this sort of a sanctions regime should apply only to the American presidential election, unlike discretionary sanctions which can be applied to any topic area in theory. If there was genuinely good reason to use this, it would surely apply for all sorts of seriously-contested election cycles - we get vandalism on British politician pages regularly too. In my view, we should not be setting up a different standard specifically in this way.
      The third issue is procedural, but important nonetheless: I am very strongly opposed to this being introduced following solely a conversation on ANI. I would suggest this needs to be brought to VPP at the very least, to make sure there is a genuine community consensus around it, if that's the way that it goes. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - With the potential for things to further heat up on those 2 bio articles over the next few months, such a 'new' rule, would see a possible huge number of editors blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existing DS already allow this. WP:AE is ready and waiting. I support keeping the highest standards on these articles: we should also TBAN people who use crappy sources on those articles. We can also use ECP if there are repeated problems. Guy (help!) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose we have WP:AC/DS, and if anything should merit an automatic topic ban it should be using or advocating for the use or poor-quality sources, or a general disregard for WP:NPOV and our content policies - of course, adjudicating that is much more difficult, but necessary if you don't want the only editors left to be WP:CPUSHers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the important element of this proposal is the "automatic" part. What this looks like is an attempt to lower the bar for admins disciplining unruly editors without having to prepare a case to present at Arbitration Enforcement which can be time-consuming, both to gather the evidence and waiting for feedback from the group of editors who frequent that area. Is that the thinking behind this proposal, simplifying imposing discretionary sanction topic bans so they can be imposed more swiftly? Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something like that, with the understanding that I'm not looking to have bad actors blocked or otherwise sanctioned, just restricted from this topic area, and that the pivotal event ending the TBAN would be the election itself (which is what is driving some people to edit these articles tendentiously or through sockpuppetry). I am actual more concerned about the rather blatant sockpuppetry going on in numerous discussions, with pattern-following accounts that have clearly been created for no purpose other than to push specific views into these articles. BD2412 T 03:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        BD2412, and who will police the new powers and make sure there is no bias? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since we are talking about a topic-ban rather than a block here, any person proposed to be subject to one will be able to come right here to contest it. BD2412 T 04:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Uninvolved dmins don't have to present a case at WP:AE to hand down sanctions under WP:AC/DS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I dont see any disruption in Joe Biden-related articles. Also, I note that the OP made unsubstantiated sockuppetery claim without any evidences.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can name three off the top of my head - User:SeriousIndividuals (with whom you associated yourself in the past), User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, and User:FollowTheSources. All three are blocked, two as identified sockpuppets, and one as WP:NOTHERE (though sockpuppetry was likely); aggressively pushing varying anti-Biden or pro-Biden positions in discussions. BD2412 T 03:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "associated"? What "associated"? Are you implying that I am a sockpuppet? I never associated myself with anyone. I only saw you making many SPA tags for a single editor in a single talk page and opposed that. The way I opposed your tags was a little bit overreactive and I have apologized for that. Whether "SeriousIndividuals" was a sockpuppet or not your SPA tags were wrong because they were too much. It has nothing to with with "SeriousIndividuals" himself. In any case, there has been much more sockpuppets in the past and in other articles than those, I dont see "fairly substantial surge". I wonder why would this be relevant to User:Kolya Butternut? I have never seen any disruptions from him. I believe that his comments in Dounld Trump article were all made in good-faith. Even if they were against consensus that doesnt mean a topic ban is warranted.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would also note that this is a wrong venue to propose such proposal. You can propose in WP:AN, WP:VPP or WP:VPR.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose admins currently have authority under AC/DS and can also being cases to AE, etc. Nothing "automatic" is good. I also worry about bias, and I also worry about scope creep. Further, ANI is not the place to discuss this and granting more authority to admins in this area should come from ARBCOM perhaps. In any event, I don't believe this is necessary. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose We have controls in place for disruption. Additionally Wikipedia is not an exclusive operation where only seasoned pros can edit. We encourage everyone to edit. If they prove disruptive or vandalize we have effective systems in place. Wm335td (talk)<
    • Oppose - WP:AE and WP:AC/DS already exist. This, as proposed, would almost certainly be ripe for bias and abuse. - DoubleCross (‡) 16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Naypta, Sir Joseph, and DoubleCross. This seems especially knee-jerk (it did, after all, begin as a proposal within a different AN/I discussion) and Americentric, with little extraordinary evidence provided for the proposal. --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, WP:AC/DS will handle it nicely, and "automatic" is way too gameable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Relaxme69 self promotion

    TPA removed. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Relaxme69 is apparently already indefinitely blocked, but is now promoting their company in their user space. Can we block their talk page access? Randompointofview (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP range changing all categories of luxury automobile manufacturers

    [202] [203] [204] I been reverting quite a lot of edits by these IPs which keeps removing the Luxury motor vehicle manufacturers category. [205]. I don't see the point of warning them since there not stopping, reverting back to their own edit and IP hopping. I think it best to at least address it here now rather then leaving it and the nonconstructive edits becomes a tedious mess to restore.

    Examples:

    --Vauxford (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    People are more likely to look at this if you provide specific diffs of this behaviour rather than links to this editor's contributions that we have to wade through. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to do that, my bad. --Vauxford (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, the whole /40 is full of significant changes to motor-related articles, a lot of whihc have been reverted, plus some blocks of other IPs in the /40. Guy (help!) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a look at one article where this was done by each IP and in a first look I can't find any sourced claim in Willoughby Company, Alvis Car and Engineering Company or Waterhouse Company that any of them is a luxury motor vehicle manufacturer, so it is even more important that you identify where this category has been removed in error. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, one of the Alvis model is the Alvis TF21 cabriolet. The Waterhouse Company clearly shows they are a coachbuilding company and I don't think a coachbuilding company would make flimsy low quality products for their clients. --Vauxford (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect that these are luxury car manufacturers, and am not defending this editor's lack of communication, but categories, like anything else in an article, should ideally be reliable sourced. In particular I do not buy that any sports car is a luxury car. When I was young one of my friends had a Sunbeam Imp Sport, which was a sports car but hardly a luxury car. And it is unclear from the article whether the Waterhouse Company actually manufactured any cars or was a sub-contractor. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a vague recollection that I recently read that there was a way for a range of IPv6 addresses to have a single talk page. Do I recall correctly and, if so, how is it done? That might help with the communication problem here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is worst then I thought. From 7 IP variant, altered the entire List of BMW engines with unsourced/questionable information and changing random years like here and here. I played it safe and reverted it to the last edit prior the IP range. I'm not experienced with BMW engines and what years they were in used etc so I think someone who is familiar with it should check through if all things correct. IPs used in the List of BMW engines article: [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212] --Vauxford (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is editing from the range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:3FB0:300::/64. These addresses look to be the same person, based their automotive interests. We have this 'Fuck you' to User:CLCStudent on their talk page though I don't know what the dispute was. One IP from the range was blocked here for 31 hours by User:Glen for personal attacks or harassment. I think a three-month block of the /64 range would be justified. This range has had at least one checkuser block in the past, by User:Ponyo. If you want to leave a message for the /64 you can do so at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IP Range now blocked for 3 months. Thanks NinjaRobotPirate --Vauxford (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edting by User:Moyezan

    Moyezan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has joined WP in 12 May 2020 and is exclusively concerned about topics surrounding two ethnic groups in Southeast Asia, both called "Mro" (Mro people (Awa Khami) and Mro people (Mrucha)). They unilaterally engange in wild page moves (22 in two weeks, with a total edit count of 138), as a result of which one of the affected pages is already move protected.

    They have been warned twice about it (last time by me using «uw-move4im» today 08:09 (UTC)[213]), but nevertheless continued to perform two page moves at 08:14 (UTC). I am sure the editor does this in good faith, but they hardly engange in discussion except for saying what they consider right, and the outcome is very disruptive. –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Awa khami language (formerly Mro language). Both articles have RMs in progress, but this obscure topic has little evidence as to the best titles. Certes (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if this is a language issue or CIR but I'd propose a block from mainspace until they respond too the dozens of concerns on their talk page. Praxidicae (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest edit was a copyright violation that had to be redacted. I've blocked Moyezan indefinitely pending an unblock request that addresses these concerns, after which I think Moyezan will be quickly unblocked. But Moyezan has to respond to the concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone take a look at this from an editor claiming to be the subject of the article. Cheers, Number 57 15:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Added {{uw-legal}} to their talk with a request for clarification. Cabayi (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad - I missed the obvious point in the second link - the account has been shared with their assistant. Blocked as a compromised account. Cabayi (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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), 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 ([214], [215]), infrastructure ([216], [217]), writers ([218]). 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)[reply]

    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[219]? 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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. — MarkH21talk 18:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. — MarkH21talk 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion, that is a much better solution for the edge cases. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [220][221][222][223][224] for a few examples. --Cold Season (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued disruptive page moves

    Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back at it again with disruptive page moves just days after a similar report here at ANI. This time the victim of his lowercase crusade is articles related to the National Football League Draft. Can we put an end to this before his enablers get here? Calidum 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Those were reverts of undiscussed moves (see e.g. this history) using a term that's overwhelmingly lowercase in sources. How is this disruptive, or a topic for AN/I? Did anyone even bring it up as an issue anywhere? Certainly not on my talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Account KGFT785 making masses of nonsubstantive edits

    KGFT785 joined as an editor a week ago, and has been making hundreds of nonsubstantive edits to pages, generally by adding or subtracting spaces in templates. I left a note on their talk page, but they did not respond. It sure appears like they're trying to quickly build up their edit count for unknown reasons. Tdslk (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by their editing pattern, editors such as this are usually trying to edit extended confirmed protected articles for whatever reason. Look at the bright side; they're not participating in the May GOCE drive. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, 500 pointless edits that just mess with whitespace characters is usually gaming extended confirmed. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User harassing specific Wikipedia Edit Thon

    A group of ultimate frisbee players decided to create a movement that we're referring to as the Sports Wikipedia Visibility Project with the goals of helping to elevate pages and content for ultimate frisbee related people who are from traditionally marginalized populations. See our website at https://www.sportswikivisibility.org/.

    After we posted some content on social media promoting the kickoff to our edit-a-thon a social media user started using typical misogynistic and racist tropes regarding how we shouldn't be focusing on just women and minorities but we should be promoting everyone in ultimate. We interacted with him for a little while but eventually just started ignoring him.

    Since the campaign has begun and we have created pages and content for people and teams we have gotten some valuable feedback from various wikipedia editors however yesterday it seemed that every page that we had created was getting flagged by a specific wikipedia user with very minimal feedback as to what the problem was. We realized that it was the same username as the person from social media and they are harassing our content by removing content from pages, flagging every page he can for deletion and intentionally abusing his privileges as a wikipedia user. His username is Willsome429‬.

    I'm not sure what can be done but it is clear that trying to work with this person is not an effective method and we are worried that this entire month long effort that involves people from across the country will be hampered by this one racist and misogynistic teenager who is mad because we aren't supporting white men enough.

    Steve Kreider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve42382, you are required to notify the user(s) you report here about the report on their talk page as it says at the top of the page. You can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ for this purpose. Also you should provide diffs and links so that other editors can understand what is going on. I have notified Willsome429‬ for you. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve42382, my son has a half-blue in Ultimate from the University of Birmingham, was on a winning UK national championship team, and won the first British Army / RAF Ultimate tournament, held in Canada last year. So I am not prejudiced against Ultimate.
    Your main problem is that there is virtually no reliable third party coverage of Ultimate, and you are dramatically overusing a handful of primary sources, including blogs. The majority of the articles I've looked at are drawn almost entirely from Ultiworld. That's like having a set of articles on Star Trek drawn only from Memory Alpha. You need to establish notability based on references to reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the article subjects.
    That's nothing to do with male or female. There is just virtually nothing on whihc to base a proper Wikipedia article, because we're not a directory. Guy (help!) 17:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Steve42382: Your "it is clear that trying to work with this person is not an effective method" rings a bit hollow as you've not made any substantive effort at communication with Willsome429 before coming here. I took a very brief look at Willsome429's contribs and nothing jumps out as bad faith editing. If you can point us to specific edits that are problematical that would be helpful. Tiderolls 20:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of your belief of my "typical misogynistic and racist tropes", the use of which I dispute, I also find contention with almost all of Mr. Kreider's points mentioned above. "Minimal feedback" - I included bluelinks to notability guidelines in PROD rationales and a long AfD explanation on I need feminism because that should have sufficed any reasonable desire. "Same as social media" - your assumption, although I have never linked my socials to my userpage and never wish to, is correct. "Harrassing our content" - major difference of opinion. My draftifying log is long, and the one from today is no different than any other. Although I don't keep a PROD log, I've done a lot of those too as a member of New Page Patrol. My XfD stats log maxes at 500 because I have participated in more than that number. "Flagging every page he can for deletion" - no, not true at all, four articles is not "everything I can" or even all of the pages created by this "edit-a-thon". They were the ones that are not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, "traditionally marginalized populations" or not. It is very disappointing that Mr. Kreider did not reach out to me first and instantly took this to ANI, as I've had many productive conversations on my talk page and would've had another had he left a message, which he is free to do at any time. I have substantial experience in Ultimate editing and would have welcomed the dialogue on how to better represent the sport. Although Mr. Kreider may think that he is above me as a grown man and some kind of social-justice-y crusade thing, I would be open to starting a dialogue as to why I nominated specific pages for deletion. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    All, Thanks for all of your help. I can rescind my complaint if it's seen as invalid. My main concern was more that he seemed to be targeting our campaign as opposed to focusing on a broad scope of edits. I do see that there is some constructive edits that should be made as I learn more about some of the tagging that is being used. I also was unaware (due to my own error of not reading the top portion) that I had to contact him first. Our campaign is going to be focused on trying to clean up much of what we've posted in an attempt to continue our overall gains that we've made towards our efforts and steer clear of having unsupported content. For User:Willsome429 I'd love for you to be involved in helping to clean up all of the posts out there related to ultimate as you have expressed in social media posts your desire to get more attention to the men's professional league. For example the Tampa Bay Cannons page is woefully under-sourced and has not met your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Steve42382: I can be as broad or as specific in my editing tendencies as I want - all that matters is that I can back my edits up by policy, which I have. I will take a look at the Cannons page when I get a chance. It was disappointing to see you and others accuse me of destruction and harassment (in all caps, at that) on social media before I got a chance to give a levelheaded, policy-backed response, and it's disheartening that you chose to avoid direct interaction over the topic and instead sling terms like racism around on this high-traffic page. If you would like to open any more dialogue, please do it at User talk:Willsome429, which is my personal talk page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve42382, I see that you have only been editing for a few weeks with only about 85 edits so far. Since you are new, I am going to try to go easy on you. The Wikipedia editing community has certain social norms just as the Ultimate community has. As I understand it, your community does not rely on referees, for example. A very strong social norm on Wikipedia is that you should always try to work things out directly with an editor first before asking for administrators to sanction them. And if you need to file a complaint there is a very strong expectation that you will provide persuasive evidence in the form of diffs. Please read Help:Diff for how to do that. Harassment? Provide diffs showing harassment. "Racist and misogynistic teenager"? Provide diffs proving the racist and misogynistic part. We really need solid evidence of that. At first glance, it looks to me like you and members of your project are adding poor quality content that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the main space of the encyclopedia, hoping somehow that it will stick because the articles are about women, minorities and marginalized people. That is not a good strategy, all though I am all in favor of high quality content about such people. Far better instead to use sandbox space and/or draft space and only move content to the main space when it is well enough developed that nobody will question the notability of the topics or appropriateness of the articles. I think that somebody setting up a website to run an edit-a-thon and then operating that project ought to be fully informed about those standards. Please consider that. I remain willing to evaluate evidence of the other editor's misconduct, if it exists. But at this point, it appears that this editor is simply trying to maintain the quality standards that give this encyclopedia its credibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steve42382: I know feeling "targeted" by a user who's nominating your articles for deletion or removing content is frustrating, whether it's done in good faith or not. However there is a big difference between a New Page Reviewer just doing their job in good faith, and a user maliciously targeting one project due to a personal grudge against that project for focusing on women and minorities. Just to be clear, you're not expected to waste any time at all trying to "collaborate" with a user in that situation. That is an extremely serious accusation. The current climate on Wikipedia is essentially zero-tolerance for that sort of thing, and addressing it strongly and without issue is being increasingly mandated by the WMF and the Board of Trustees themselves. Let me be clear: Willsome429 is wrong in stating that "all that matters is I can back my edits up by policy". A user engaged in an ideological personal crusade to grief an editorial project is not given a pass just because they comply with policies. Their involvement in such behavior is in itself a violation of numerous policies. So I'm telling you that these are serious accusations that we will take seriously. However, accusations need evidence. I'm not seeing evidence. So, if you please, where is the evidence for these accusations that the user is motivated by a reaction to your project's goals of focusing on women and minorities? Making accusations, especially serious accusations such as these, is a serious offense as well. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steve42382: just a quick warning here. Be very careful about publicly reposting or linking to anything that happened outside the English Wikipedia or you risk violating WP:Outing. If you have such evidence, it will likely be better for you to send it privately to an administrator or perhaps WP:Arbcom rather than posting it here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I had a quick look and I'm not convinced there's actually a problem here but I also don't think it can be investigated on ANI anyway per my comment above. While the OP has voluntarily linked their connection to website and social media profiles associated with it, no one else has. Editors cannot discuss things which have occurred elsewhere even if they come across it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On the user's talk page, they have accused me of harassment again without providing any relevant diffs or evidence at all besides subjective "trolling on social media" - something I entirely dispute. The accusations are annoying and I'd rather not deal with them. If Mr. Kreider is unable to present evidence showing my racism and harassment, they should be sanctioned as such for allegations without proof. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve42382 has continually outed me in a manner that I do not appreciate, and has said that he is unwilling to talk to me unless it is "for real", whatever that means in his view. Obviously I, as a party in this, am not in a position to administer user warnings, but Mr. Kreider should at the very least be strongly reminded of policies regarding personal conduct, and if the behavior continues, he should be blocked for personal attacks without proof and outing. If he insists on using off-wiki info and is interested in having a civil discussion at ArbCom, that could be a better place to resolve the matter. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nil Einne if off-wiki evidence did exist that seemed quite convincing that Steve42382 is potentially telling the truth about having their editathon targeted, how/where might one send that evidence so as to not make WP:OUTING matters worse than they might already be? Outing is bad. So is misogynist targeting of Wikipedia editing initiatives. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said above you could send it to arbcom privately. You could also privately send it to an administrator but you probably should check with the admin first that they're happy to look in to it. Maybe try approaching any admin who has engaged in this discussion on their talk page. I can't say I agree the existence of off-wiki "evidence" proves anything. The accused editor has already basically agreed they engaged with the OP off-wiki. If you are running a social media campaign, I don't think you should be surprised if people engage with you on social media and we definitely do not forbid editors hearing from having lives off-wikipedia, including lives which intersect with their wikipedia activities. The question is whether any of the engagement either crossed the line, or demonstrated that the editor should not be involved with the OP on-wiki; which is a far more complicated question. Edit: I should clarify by privately I mean by email or other similar means. Posting on talk pages is not private, only use it to discuss stuff which you can discuss on wikipedia, like whether it will be okay to email someone. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're having trouble working out, I believe Dreamy Jazz, Tide rolls, Cullen328 and Swarm are administrators. However I don't think this is really something an individual administrator can handle i.e. if there really is a problem it would need to go to arbcom. Except that I'm still not sure if there is anything that needs to be done and maybe they could assuage any concerns. I would suggest Willsome429 disengage from the editor and any creations of the edit-a-thon on Wikipedia. While I'm still not sure they've done anything wrong, it's always messy when your engaging with someone off Wikipedia and on Wikipedia in a manner perceived by one side as being negative no matter what your intentions. There are others in NPP etc which can handle any concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disengaged as soon as the ANI report was posted - that's a no-brainer. The only "project-related" edits I have made since then are on this page and on Mr. Kreider's talk page. After threats of using that as evidence here, I have disengaged off-wiki entirely as well. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's be clear about some things right now: 12 days before their conduct under scrutiny here, Willsome429 deleted their user page and left behind two short paragraphs, the first of which began I used to be a Wikipedia editor. It was wild while it lasted. This doesn't appear to be something they have ever done before. They have no account activity from that edit until two days ago, when they began with reinstating an edit they made at Samkon Gado. Since that single edit, they've done nothing but delete, move to draft space, or discuss deleting or moving to draft space contributions from the editathon, until this discussion was opened here. The one apparent exception being this edit at Show choir. The one article they point to as having been acceptable enough to keep in place was personally "overhaul" by themselves before being presented, and that overhaul occurred long after this discussion was opened. Leaving aside the off-wiki evidence that's already been sent to Arbcom, I find it hard to believe that two days-worth of edits targeting material from one event isn't at least suspect. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you're not clear at all. I was taking a WikiBreak, plain and simple. I planned on just dabbling back in, but well, here we are. The reason that I have shut down all my edits after the first batch is because of this discussion and the subsequent matters that you have taken. I want to focus on clearing this up before I move on. If you would like, you can view previous versions of my userpage to see what it looked like then. The Cannons page is outside the scope of the "edit-a-thon", as they do not work on male pages. All "targeted" edits happened within 24 hours, a period that seems short to make an overarching judgement on. All of my edits are backed up by policy, and I will state it now, so that it is clearly visible on this high-traffic discussion: I did not tag pages because they were from the project. I tagged them because after an evaluation, I determined that they were not suitable for the encyclopedia. I moved Seattle Cascades (ultimate) per standard naming conventions and am not getting any love for that from project members. I'm not inherently against the project, nor am I on a crusade against it. I merely want all contributions to be productive ones. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are just a few remaining issues with what you're stating that I'd like you to clear up. They're summarized in questions at the end.
    First, apologies for describing your nominations for deletion as being "two-days worth," when what they appear to have been were a bunch dated to the evening of the 25th (over a few hours: [starting] and [ending]). And then a bunch of edits the morning of the 26th - going by the timestamps from your editing history (again, [starting] and [ending]. And then of course your additional edit the evening of the 26th after you had been made aware of the complaint [diff], and more edits the morning of the 27th ([here] and [here]).
    In your previous comment here you stated The only "project-related" edits I have made since then are on this page and on Mr. Kreider's talk page. [diff] And in this comment I'm replying to you say, The reason that I have shut down all my edits after the first batch is because of this discussion and the subsequent matters that you have taken [diff].
    Here are all your edits after the most conservative estimate of you being aware of this AN/I thread (being that you commented here) that weren't either here or on Steve42382's talk page:
    So no, it doesn't seem you "shut down" your editing on the editathon-related content after learning of this discussion.
    As for the Tampa Bay Cannons article, prior to your "overhaul," in my estimation it was in as poor of shape as any of those you've nominated for deletion or moved to draft space. And while your talk page explanation for it (diff4 above) claims you saved it for notability, you made that determination for an article that, until your overhaul, had a single source: a youtube video from the article's subject diff5. While it's true that this team is likely notable for the reasons you outline at the Talk page, it's hard to square all the effort you put into saving this one article so that you could present it as one that didn't even deserve to be moved to draft space, with all the editathon articles you chose to either move to draft space or nominate for deletion, instead of productively working on them.
    So, the few things to clear up here would be, why didn't you stop engaging with content from the editathon after you were aware of this discussion here, despite twice claiming that you did? Why did you decide to fully build out a floundering page, rather than move it to draft space, before providing it as evidence of a good page worth keeping? And why was your return from a break spent with nearly nothing but nominating for deletion or moving to draft space articles from an editathon you have now confirmed you engaged with off-wiki? Seems an odd way to end a break.
    --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, hello... can we cool it off with the thought police here a little? Two points: first, checking out edits from the same contributor(s) following discovery of some production unfit for mainspace is entirely bog-standard. If I see someone put out an undersourced article and I improve/PROD/AfD/draftify it, I will as a matter of course have a look at what that person has been up to recently, as there's a good chance that further instances need to be sorted out. The same applies to groups; I do this with WikiEd class projects all the time. Without prejudice to any off-wiki or other evidence of ideological or personal targeting, if Willsome429 got started with one article from that Editathon and then worked their way through related productions, it only shows sensible process; it's not something they can be strung up on. Second, lambasting someone because they chose to improve one article while draftifying another of equally poor quality is just bizarre. We are all volunteers and choose where we want to spend our time, and there's no need to provide any justification for such choices. I'd suggest you put a stop to this particular flavour of skirmish. If there is ArbCom-worthy material, it will do its thing when presented, without the extensive second-guessing going on here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello... the on-wiki behavior that IMO shows plenty of evidence of almost-solely targeting the edits of this editathon over the course of two days is exactly the other evidence of... personal targeting you're claiming doesn't exist. Further, that this editor chose to highlight specifically sex as the defining feature of what made the article they improved rather than deleted or sent to draft space distinct from the editathon-related articles is exactly the ideological evidence (do you even know if this is an accurate characterization of the editathon's work?). This also doesn't explain why Willsome429 twice misrepresented their editing activities following being made aware of this discussion.
    Yes, in general our volunteer actions don't require explanation. Except of course when it appears our actions are targeting people or content for ideological and personal reasons. Ignoring a good chunk of the evidence here would make your explanation almost plausible, yet it isn't even the one Willsome429 provided. Asking after the one article they provided as evidence of their supposed impartiality and lack of bias isn't bizzare, it's practically due diligence.
    --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may ... Willsome429 was challenged by Steve42382 to improve Tampa Bay Cannons in this edit right on this board, so should hardly be criticized for doing so, or for going the extra mile and posting an analysis on the article talk page of what sources they used and why. Further, I am awestruck at the job they did, because I worked hard trying to improve Washington DC Scandal yesterday so that it could maybe be re-mainspaced, and in doing so discovered there is practically zero in RS on the San Francisco Fury, who have a far better championship record. JzG's right, the underlying problem isn't sex bias, it's that this is a woefully under-covered sport. (I was also a bit puzzled by the hashtags in edit summaries—are we an extension of Twitter now?—but am hardly one to talk since this edit of mine will have a disclaimer in its edit summary.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Last time I post here to try and salvage what's left of this awful mess. I am not trying to be sexist, misogynistic, racist, or anything of the sort. I have tried to be levelheaded throughout this process, only to be met with anger and an ArbCom invite. Multiple editors have said that they found nothing wrong with my on-wiki behavior; there's still a claim of racism against me sitting there without proof. I was taking a break and dipped my toe back into editing with some routine work that happened to all be in the same area. I get taken to ANI and shut down most of my editing at my own discretion while leaving open the option of my talk page for dispute resolution. I actually help this edit-a-thon by moving a page that had been worked on (Seattle Cascades (ultimate)) to standard naming conventions per info that was added. I use a WP:BEFORE search to make a decision that a page is salvageable, a search that did not include "what is the gender makeup of this team?" and improve a page that I had been asked to improve. I get met with multiple long-winded and angry responses trying to back me into a corner, painting me as a terrible human being. If the parties involved want, I can restore my userpage and do some editing elsewhere to prove that I'm not an SPA attacking all that is good in the world, if that will help. Let ArbCom play out as it will with my off-wiki decisions, but as to my on-wiki conduct, there's no question that this thread should be closed and let any consequences of my off-wiki actions head to ArbCom, for there is nothing here worth punishing. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Broken CSS on the Main Page

    Please see Talk:Main Page § TFP broken in new mobile view. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexdlp10

    I am a bit concerned about this new account created today and gone straight over to AfD and contributing there, per [225]. Highly suspicious to me, red-flag. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the time between their AFD comments, it seems unlikely they've actually researched any of the subjects in any depth. And they seem to be doing a lot of copying of other people's comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that copying seemed strange to me, felt fishy. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is almost botlike...exactly ten edits echoing other editor comments, then they stop. Curdle (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They've made their ten edits - now they'll wait until they have four days, and presto! Autoconfirmed! I suggest someone keep an eye on their eleventh edit. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits by Jorge1777

    Jorge1777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have no idea how to describe this user's edits, other than they're frustrating. Jorge1777 has not been editing in a way that's contributing to Wikipedia. See previous report on ANI here and additional points by Snooganssnoogans's interaction with Jorge1777 here. Most recently, an edit of mine was reverted by Jorge1777 here with poor explanation why, in frustration I participated in an edit war but once again they have violated WP:3RR. As mentioned previously, the editor has failed to keep civility as seen on my talk page here and here. At this reversion the editor violated WP:1RR. comrade waddie96 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well firstly, I have not broken 3RR, that's simply not true (at least as far as I'm aware). Secondly in the past I have done things such as violate civility but that has already been dealt with in a past ANI. I have retracted the comments/actions and moved on. Thirdly, I was not aware of a 1RR on that article but Snooganssnoogans has since informed me such a 1RR is in place. Needless to say I have not repeated such behaviour since becoming aware of this information. I don't think much else is needed to be said. Jorge1777 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalking, and accusation of stalking, are both lame. You guys should try talking instead. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with Bon Secours Sisters

    This page has been the subject of controversy for quite some time. Essentially, a historical abuse scandal at one institution in Ireland, which was exposed in 2014, has overwhelmed the article since then. The page is intended to address almost 200 years of the organisation's history, but this isolated topic currently takes up 20% of the content and 60% of the references. WP already has extensive articles on this scandal here, here, and here, among others. Clearly a case of WP:NOTEBOMB, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RSUW. Ongoing attempts to address this imbalance have escalated recently into extended arguments on the Talk page. Perhaps someone with an interest in contemporaty Irish history might be able to help resolve this issue. jxm (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The coverage of the abuse scandal seems to me to be proportionate. jxm claims that the abuse takes up 20% of the article ... but for a scandal which involves bodies of up to 796 children being buried in a sewage tank at just one of the Bon Secours sites (with many more deaths elsewhere), 20% seems modest.
    As to complaining about it being 60% of the references .. are you serious? You object that contentious material is too well-sourced? Really?
    If the genuinely believes that there is an imbalance, and that 796 babies in a sewage tank deserves even less prominence, then open an RFC. But there is no ANI issue here. And a complaint that mass-death is too well-referenced is ... well, I will be very gentle and just say that it's as bizarre as they get.
    Thankfully, en.wp does not have a policy of WP:Bury796FoolishEditorsInTheSewageTank ... so I recommend a WP:TROUT instead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. To be clear, these is no dispute about the importance of the scandal per se. It's simply discussed in too much distracting detail on the Bon Secours page. As I said, we already have three other articles that extensively cover the scandal itself. As an example of proportionate coverage, there about fifty paragraphs in the body of the World Trade Center article, but only four of them discuss the September 11 attacks. jxm (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Zaathras

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [226]. 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 [227]. 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)\[reply]
    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 [228]) 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Category removal before discussion closed

    On May 22, User:Rathfelder nominate a number of categories involving Climate change denial for deletion [229]. That discussion is still going on, and has not been closed.

    Today Rathfelder is making mass edits to remove those categories from articles. [230]

    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." [231] 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)[reply]

    Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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. [232])
    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.[233]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=959315209"