Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archivessearch)

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

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

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

COVID: SYNTH, BLUDGEON and MEDRS (moved from AE)Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Extended-confirmed protect Talk:COVID-19 misinformation indefinitelyEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It was requested by the initiator of this remedy that I close this proposal — a community discussion, but also a critical WP:GS/COVID19 General sanctions matter. One key thing about this discussion surprises me. Unlike several other COVID talk pages, this page has never been semi'd even once. So, going straight-to-WP:ECP seems drastic and worthy of more in-depth discussion which is specifically focused on that question. Yet, few have really touched on this key aspect too substantively (with the notable exception of Mikehawk10).
I mean, for WP:DRRs, dormant accounts may be tagged with {{canvassed}}, and new ones with {{spa}}, but a wholesale revocation of their access to the talk page... I don't think it's in question that this would be an extreme step. Personally, I don't know of another talk page (of any kind) on the project that's long-term ECP'd. Therefore, this makes the leaping straight-to-ECP nature of this request doubly-problematic — due to it being a drastic remedy and due to the absence of an in-depth discussion about that. I'm not saying that the reasons for why ECP should supersede a testing-the-waters semi (again, for a page whose protection log is currently blank) isn't touched on below by participants (aside form Mikehawk10), just that that discussion seems unfocused, and, not to be harsh to the collective of participants, too superficial.
So, looking at the strength of the arguments, that's a major fail on participants' part. Echoing the OP's almost aside opening of "it's not generally done" without much further comment, I think weakens this already-tenuous argument. As for the discussion about whether we should put a clock on this protection (of whatever level) or indef it till... review — personally, I'm on the indef side, but more importantly, it seems a bit tangential. Certainly when compared to what I view as the crux of the matter (which, to state again): why we're going straight-to-ECP instead of trying semi first and escalating as needed.
In the final analysis, I think starting with a semi is reasonable outcome. A cautious one by virtue of being incremental and providing for a better inspection procedure wrt enforcement action. A WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to this decision for being WP:SUPERVOTE'y would be fair (more so than for most of my closes), but I stand by it nonetheless. Regardless, I am getting the ball rolling by implementing a one year semi, with a further wait-and-see approach (i.e. favouring an escalated response). El_C 13:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

There have been many edit requests from IPs on the COVID-19 misinformation talk page since the article was semi-protected, which with the 1% rule as a guide, is indicative of a genuine WP:NPOV problem. Many XC and near XC editors have started discussions on NPOV concerns, including Hzh [2], Forich [3][4], ScrupulousScribe [5], Tim333 [6], DeFacto [7] Guest2625 [8], Eccekevin [9], and Hodgdon's secret garden [10]. Numerous XC editors joined these discussions, echoing concerns of NPOV, including 1990'sguy, Adoring_nanny, Arcturus, Bakkster Man, Drbogdan, Feynstein, Hobit, Horse Eye's Back, J mareeswaran, JPxG, My very best wishes, Otto S. Knottnerus, Ozzie10aaaa, NickCT, Park3r and Vaticidalprophet. many IPs and non confirmed registered editors also started and joined discussions, but no matter who starts the discussion and where, the same group of editors always show up making the same fallacious arguments. First it was WP:N and WP:V, then it was WP:MEDRS and WP:FALSEBALANCE, and now they're claiming that the WHO DG's statements aren't to be taken as the WHO’s official position [11] [12]. WTF.

There are also many WP:ANIs in the archives, all of which look very typical of content disputes, with a few displays of bad manners. In one previous ANI [13], I saw heavily involved editor ProcrastinatingReader airing the false claim that selective 2017 quotes from Richard Ebright were being spun to endorse the lab leak "conspiracy theory", when Ebright has made many much more recent remarks in relation to the matter in many RS [14], and I am citing this as an example of how some editors are to trying to turn this dispute on content into issues of conduct for admins to sanction. Ebright is the most quoted academic on this topic, which I see Jaredscribe has made a safe place for us to cover [15], or maybe not [16]. In another previous ANI involving the conduct of another very heavily involved editor on this topic, administrator DGG acknowledged the NPOV problem and evoked Cromwell's rule [17], nodding to the content dispute that it is. Yet editors persist to draw admins into this content dispute with these vexatious ANIs. This ANI was first posted in AE [18], for crying out loud.

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

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

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

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

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

Dilemma for closing adminEdit

According to Alexbrn, Wikipedians disagreeing with his POV on the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and his interpretation of WP:PAGs on the topic are "miscreants" who should be dragged to WP:AIN and sanctioned by the "uninvolved community" [19]. Except that the majority of editors here voting to protect the page also voted in a recent RFC to label the lab leak hypothesis a "conspiracy theory", and did not change their vote even after the March 30 report from the WHO confirming it as a plausible hypothesis [20]. So much for Jimbo’s "open community" here. Tinybubi (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have a POV on this stuff, other than it's a bleeding nuisance taking up too much time (which is why I've largely ignored these pages in recent weeks). Wikipedia is not decided by "a majority" who "vote". And yes, we've had plenty of miscreants: puppets, attack dogs, trolls and WP:PROFRINGE obsessives, who have needed to be blocked or banned. What's doubly incredible is that the article does not even just say that the lab leak stuff is "conspiracy theory": it's more nuanced than that. Not paying attention to evidence is a hallmark of the advocates' approach here. Note that Tinybubi is another WP:SPA banging this particular drum. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Just saying, Jimbo hasn't really been relevant on Wikipedia for years. And the few times he does step into a debate, he makes things worse. So an appeal to Jimbo isn't going to mean much. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the RFC you reference happened specifically in the talk for COVID-19 misinformation, and there's a reasonable argument to be made that the answers given on that page might differ significantly in the context of other pages. Most notably, both Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 discuss the topic as a WP:FRINGE alternative theoretical formulation as is appropriate for the context. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring the drum banging, "extremely unlikely" (what the WHO report says) does not sound like "plausible" theory" to me. That, in addition to the other MEDRS cited and ignored ad nauseum... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this perspective, as I've mentioned previously. This seems to clearly fit the WP:FRINGE definition of an 'alternative theoretical formulation', not pseudoscience. I'd go so far as to suggest that interpreting a WHO study into the hypothesis makes the hypothesis 'implausible' could be interpreted as a similar level of POV-pushing as the interpretation that the investigation into the lab leak hypothesis was uniquely flawed. Complete dismissal as implausible doesn't seem to match the guidelines in FRINGE, and would potentially prove Tinybubi right if there were content decisions being made on POV rather than policy. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The lab leak story is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience pretends to be science but isn't science at all. This story could be bad science. It could be wrong, just like many other ideas in science that were duly investigated and dutifully discarded when the ugly facts didn't align with the beautiful theory (see, e.g., most experimental drugs, the use of bone marrow transplants to treat breast cancer, arthroscopic knee surgery for arthritis, etc.). It currently is "extremely unlikely" to have actually happened that way, and there is significant evidence that it did not happen that way, but saying that it was possible for a virus to escape from a lab that contained that virus is not technically pseudoscience.
[NOTE: There is no evidence that any lab, much less the specific one usually named in this story, actually contained any copy of SARS-CoV-2 before the outbreak started. I'm only saying that it's not pseudoscience to say that that it's physically possible for any given portable object, "A", to be ported from one place, "B", to a different place, "C".] WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been using string theory as a useful analogue for how to handle a fringe theory. Both have adherents that see either an element of existing theories that doesn't yet have a satisfying explanation, or are attempting to explain a seeming inconsistency with mainstream theories. But like string theory, the lab hypothesis lacks firm data in its support that can't be explained through the other theories, and struggles to make satisfying predictions with which further research can be based. So, just like with string theory, it should be referenced only when necessary to adequately explain a topic (the electron article doesn't include a string theory representation, supersymmetry does include discussion of string theory as it is the problem the theory is intended to explain problems with). And, to point this out again since it seems to get talked about as if this content isn't present anywhere but the misinformation article, this had led to the addition of references to the lab theory (particularly the WHO evaluation) across multiple COVID articles. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should be comparing string theory, something of legitimate scientific inquiry but that is largely unfalsiable, with a fringe hypothesis primarily advocated by people with no scientific expertise on social media and used as a geopolitical football. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have a more relevant analogue to suggest, I'm open to hearing it. Perhaps climate change, regarding the political football nature. But I will disagree that the lab hypothesis has no 'legitimate scientific inquiry'; if that were the case the WHO report would not have evaluated it. The challenge is, of course, separating those with scientific expertise and strong scientific sources regarding it (in this case, "extremely unlikely"), from those advocating for tangential pseudoscience they hoped to sneak under the umbrella. I'd argue throwing the baby out with the bath water is nearly as bad as allowing the pseudoscience to sneak in. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
None of the people on twitter advocating for the "lab leak" suppostion are virologists, and the virologists I've seen have been vocally against the theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
"The people arguing for it on Twitter aren't virologists" is a straw man argument.
Robert R. Redfield is cited in the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as a virologist who is a proponent of the theory (although he doesn't appear to have a personal Twitter account, he can let the mainstream press do the heavy lifting). I had meant to add microbiologist and immunologist David Relman to the section as well, so thank you for reminding me. Relman's published opinion on the topic for reference. The names Nikolai Petrovsky and Alina Chan also come up,[21] though I probably wouldn't consider them prominent enough to include in the text of an article. So that's four serious professionals within the field advocating for at least the consideration of the hypothesis to some extent, which the WHO did. IMO this is evidence it is a legitimate scientific hypothesis being researched seriously by legitimate scientists, just an "extremely unlikely" hypothesis right now. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
per The New York Times it's pretty thoroughly discounted at this point. If it is supposedly an "extremely unlikely" hypothesis, why do you continue to argue that undue weight be lent to it? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
An per NPR it has "taken on new life" since the WHO report was published. I'm writing a reply on the SARS-CoV-2 talk page to cover that content specifically. But I'm curious why you characterize my comments as arguing in favor of undue weight? I very much do not want undue weight, and that applies as much to dismissing it offhand as a 'social media geopolitical football' as it does to giving it a place of prominence on a primary COVID article. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
As WAID notes, the lab leak theory isn't pseudoscience, though it has other issues. There is a parallel that I don't know if it has been considered wrt Wikipedia editing behaviour. In 1978 there was an outbreak of smallpox in the UK. In that case, the accepted version of events, after a public enquiry, was that the virus did leak out of the lab, through air ducts, and infected someone in the same building, who then died horribly. An alternative version, suggested by some, including Mark Pallen in the book The Last Days of Smallpox, is that this person visited the laboratory, possibly against the rules, and got infected while there. Scientifically, this and the lab leak hypothesis of covid are very similar. I don't see anyone edit warring about this on our smallpox articles. I note that Pallen's book is "independently published", an attribute I think would cause many people here fighting covid wars to snort their tea out of their noses. The book got glowing reviews in some infection-disease journals. In the smallpox case I think reasonable people come to different conclusions, can agree to disagree, and accept we may never know. Nobody, after all that time, is going to re-open the enquiry.
I hope you can see why I'm uncomfortable trying to create a huge hurdle for any "origin of disease outbreak". There are loads of diseases where people are trying to investigate the origin, and publish their findings and speculation in literature of varying authority. The difference between the two outbreaks here is politics, and the kind of politics where the truth is not important. Any solution to this problem has to address that, and I don't think MEDRS is the tool you want to use. -- Colin°Talk 10:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, I think we have some editors making this distinction (eg yourself & WAID), some who are trying to use policies and the carefully worded comments of the former group for the purpose of promoting this stuff in an undue fashion, and then you have some who take hardline positions to avoid giving anything to wikilawyer with. If I remember correctly, a few SPAs quoted and took out of context some of WAID's earlier comments to try argue their content into articles. Since (unfortunately) Wikipedia's processes often favour hardline positions and argumentation via strict textual analysis of policy, it seems more understandable why some might not wish to give any way to (mostly) SPAs with possibly questionable intentions (given their offwiki commentary). That would probably include the MEDRS application issue. This then also seems to blur the distinction between those engaging in neutral editing vs political POV pushing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Your comment on rule lawyering probably hits the nail on the head. It's incredibly difficult, frustrating, and sometimes counterproductive to accurately apply policy when confronted with a bad actor. Even more when it's multiple bad actors each seeking to inch the line bit-by-bit towards the POV they're pushing. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether it is "truth" or "correct application of policy" there are some involved in this area who are not interested in playing by the rules. There are two consequences though if you try then to make stricter rules (give people a bigger hammer to hit others with). Firstly, those who aren't writing about controversial subjects and who want to follow the rules, find themselves restricted when the sources they can access or find are less than the highest of highest quality. They may be wrongly told by others than you must have a systematic review from a top tier journal, say. And secondly, those who get over familiar with hitting others with a big hammer then go around removing perfectly correct and adequately sourced uncontroversial text from articles, and getting into wars with newbies who are perplexed why some "vandal" is removing information that is, to their eyes, correct and well sourced. -- Colin°Talk 17:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that in my comment which seems to have sparked this, I explicitly did not use the term "pseudoscience" but FRINGE - which does not alter the recommended course of action whether the subject is pseudoscience or speculation which is theoretically possible but not supported by the vast majority of qualifying sources. That, and my first hand looks at the posts of the Twitter SPAs which obviously doesn't bring any confidence about the methodology or motivations of these editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I have not seen any significant evidence that it didn’t happen that way in any of the RS or MEDRS we have. Not every virus sampled by every WIV laboratory would have been fully sequenced, and not every virus that is sequenced would have been immediately published. In fact, the WIV took down their database of published genomes in Sep 2019, which they haven’t put back up since. That the WIV did not hold the precursor of SARS-COV-2 is a claim that hasn’t been verified, and if you want to take them at their word, I have a bridge to sell you. The WIV’s partial disclosure of a virus most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 that they held for seven years caused quite a stir, and their leak of a diagram on an unpublished clade of related viruses has only intensified the controversy. This is all in RS now and there are more unsalutary details emerging. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Based on your response here, I don't think you should be editing articles that touch this subject. That kind of Wikipedia:Original research analysis belongs in some other publication entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man: I think a better analogy would come from an applied science field, where through the scientific method, we can test a working hypothesis, as detailed in this third open letter published last week [22]. Using the analogy of a plane crash, such as Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 or Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the Russian and Malaysian governments didn’t give their full cooperation to investigators or didn't provide enough data to investigators, which changed the balance in the paradigm layed out in WP:FRINGE. In those cases, the alternative theoretical formulation would not be the correct designation for a hypothesis formulated in the absence of access to flight recorder data or debris. The authors of our articles on those two events have taken care not to present expert opinions as facts in Wikivoice, even though there are very good reasons to believe that the Russian government are responsible for the deaths of 298 passengers and that Captain Zaharie took 238 souls with him on a suicide mission. Those articles set a high standard which we should uphold in the topic area of COVID-19 origins, a public health crisis with geopolitical undertones. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Colin: a better parallel I think would be the 1977 Russian flu, where we have MEDRS with supporting phylogenetic evidence of lab origins. In the WP:MEDASSES pyramid in relation to virus origins tracing, sources with supporting material or forensic evidence should be assessed as the highest quality, followed by those with phylogenetic or serological evidence, and then testimonial or circumstantial evidence. The Chinese government are currently refusing to subject their Wuhan laboratories to a forensic investigation, and they are not providing much phylogenetic or serological data to the WHO for analysis, which is why the US government believes it will take a whistleblower to provide testimonial evidence [23]. According to a report from The Times, the US allegedly has a whistleblower already [24], but it's not clear what they know and a bill was introduced last week requiring the administration to declassify their intelligence [25]. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: this is the earlier comment from WAID that you seek [26]. It was mentioned in a conversation I was tagged in [27]. I echo her point that we should just "not write anything about which no information is available", on COVID-19 origins. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
CutePeach, why are you trying to persuade the good people who are active on this noticeboard that Covid came from a lab? That's not the purpose of this board. I referred to another "lab leak" case as an example of an "origin of outbreak" that isn't causing grief on Wikipedia. While MEDRS does spend some time explaining a pyramid of evidence quality, part of that is to explain to editors why our best secondary sources prefer and give weight to certain studies or research over others. At the very top of MEDRS is a nutshell "Cite reviews, don't write them". It isn't our job to judge the primary evidence, but being aware of evidence-quality is useful. Your comments immediately above sound like someone trying to convince others based on primary evidence, statements, etc. None of us are here to be convinced by such arguments, nor want to read such arguments. None of us here are forensic archeaovirologists or whatever one needs to be. Solving the origin of covid is a hard problem. Let's leave that to other people, preferably lots of bright experty people, to become convinced one way or another, and write about it. And then you can tell us "Most reliable sources writing about the origin of covid say that ....". We'll go with what they are saying now, even if you personally think they are wrong and think will change their minds, and later we may go with something different. -- Colin°Talk 19:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
+1 to Colin. Anyone who is actually a bright experty person should be publishing their analyses elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Another +1. But, as a further illustration of the issue, WP:LABLEAKLIKELY has sprung up. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
So we've sprung a leak. EEng 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Continuing discussionEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

New proposal: placing the COVID-19 misinformation under WP:ARBAP2Edit

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

It's already subject to general sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical informationEdit

Just a note to everyone in this discussion that a conversation related to the applicability of WP:MEDRS has started at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information. To be useful, I think it needs more people to contribute. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Accusation from User:Moonraker12Edit

I recently split off a portion of the stampede page into a separate page called crowd crush. User:Moonraker12 subsequently reverted my edits. The reversion itself is not why I have come to ANI; the problem comes with the message that Moonraker12 left on my talk page, and subsequently linked to in an article talk page, which includes this accusation: you have failed to provide attribution on the talk page, effectively passing off the work of the editors at the original article as your own ([28]). In actuality, the attribution instructions at WP:CWW only require an appropriate edit summary at the destination page, which I included ([29]); I additionally followed the suggested practice of leaving an appropriate edit summary at the source page ([30]). I therefore assert that Moonraker12's accusation is not factual. Given that, and given the serious nature of plagiarism, I contend that the accusation is defamatory, and therefore violates WP:NPA.

I asked Mooonraker12 to strike the accusation ([31]). His response was to strike the single word "effectively" and replace it with "apparently" ([32]), which in my estimation is equivalent to no change at all. A public acknowledgment here is important: editing the encyclopedia is difficult if editorial actions, conducted in accordance with established policy, result in spurious allegations of fraud that are never retracted. Einsof (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Einsof: The comment was heavy-handed, but Moonraker12 raises a valid concern about copyrights and attribution in doing a page split. That said, there are easy ways to remedy the situation...if it needs remedied at all, since the initial edit summary did provide a backlink.
I notice that the article split has been reverted; it seems like there are some issues that need worked out at Talk:Stampede. All parties are reminded to assume good faith while discussing the content and relevant policies. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC) amended 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Moonraker12 raises a valid concern about copyrights and attribution in doing a page split. Just to be clear: you are saying that Moonraker12's assertion that I was "effectively passing off the work of the editors at the original article as [my] own" is valid? Einsof (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Einsof: In light of the edit summary provided below, I feel that you complied with the requirements. My apologies for missing that diff and edit summary before making the comment above. —C.Fred (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
While I feel that the revert was appropriate per WP:BRD in that the discussion was still ongoing, my opinion is that Einsof satisfied the attribution guidelines per WP:CWW with their edit summary ([33]). While the wording was not precisely as suggested in the introductory paragraph as the "bare minimum," the source article was clearly mentioned, and suggests that the split was done in good faith. I feel that the claim by Moonraker12 that Einsof was passing off the work of the editors at the original article as your own is unjustified. --Kinu t/c 01:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. As to the wording, WP:PROSPLIT#Procedure instructs editors to use the edit summary "split from [[article name]]", which is different from the suggested language in WP:CWW and closer to what I've used here. Einsof (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see how someone might find the edit summary slightly ambiguous, but this is more of a nitpick. It's clearly close enough to what it should be that you cannot justify making a personal accusation of bad faith. Even if you think the edit summary needs to be more explicit, jumping straight to accusing the editor of a malicious copyvio is an inappropriate personal attack. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Having been notified of this ANI, I presume I should make some reply. Einsor feels I have accused him of plagiarism; I was in fact accusing him of shoddy workmanship, for the reasons I stated: and my observation about 'passing off the work of others' was because I didn’t find an attribution notice on the talk page, which I would have expected to be there precisely to avoid the appearance of such a possibility. But as it seems the attribution guideline only requires, as a bare minimum, an explanation in an edit summary, I have acknowledged Einsor has done the bare minimum to absolve him of plagiarism, and I amended my comments accordingly. I still feel the lack of clear attribution gives the wrong impression, hence my comment about the appearance of the matter; If I am to be accused of defamation, I had best be careful about the words I use... Moonraker12 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think this clarification is sufficient to put the matter to rest. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    There is still a problem here of Moonraker12 apparently working from a private definition of attribution that doesn't match up with policy or other documentation, and then accusing other users of running afoul of it. What does Moonraker12 mean here by "clear attribution"? Apparently that means [34] that Template:Copied should be placed on the source talk page. But the documentation for that template explicitly says that Adding this template on the talk page is not a substitute for attribution in the page history using edit summaries. The template's explicit purpose is only to prevent attribution—which comprises the edit history of the source article, not a banner on its talk page—from subsequently being deleted, which frankly was never going to be a possibility for a page titled stampede. The stated rationale for Moonraker12's personal attack does not hang together. Einsof (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Swarm, Einsof: I’m unclear; is this matter closed, or do I need to reply? If the former, please let me know and I will withdraw my response: If the latter, I would say:-
First, my comment about 'clear attribution' meant only that a notice on the talk page makes an article split clear, without having to trawl through the edit history to find stuff. It isn’t an either-or-situation; if I was carrying out a page split I would do both, and judging by the 15,000-odd pages where the Copied template appears, a lot of other people do too.
Second, I have already said I was not accusing Einsof of plagiarism and have acknowledged the point; Is he prepared to acknowledge the insufficiency of his own actions (failing to make clear his intent, or to wait for any response, and carrying out a cack-handed slash-and-dump split that left a article titled "Crowd crush" that talked mainly about human stampede, and a Stampede article that said next to nothing about them)? Does he feel the need to apologize for his cock-up, or to resolve to do better next time? Otherwise I can see very little reason to discuss this further. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


(non-admin closure) Thecurran indefinitely blocked for disruptive edit summaries and trolling by GiantSnowman. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

@Thecurran: I would indefinitely block you for posting the above gibberish which is either trolling or a severe lack of understanding about communication requirements, however I'll be away from keyboard and I'd prefer not to block unless able to follow-up within a few hours. Perhaps an admin who will be here might like to take over. My guess is that Fram's mention of trolling is unrelated to the comment you struck in diff. Really, any more junk in comments or edit summaries will be the end. It's not clever, it's not funny. Stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Thecurran: You've been a – seemingly productive – editor here for a long time. Now you've been brought here because people don't think your edit summaries are great.
To me, it seems it would have been the easiest thing for you to just to say you'll stop using silly unicode characters (that may look funny to some) in edit summaries.
Instead you start trolling people by writing a whole message to Girth Summit in that style. Why are you risking an indef block? I don't get it. (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed - I was close to blocking you for the above, hesitant to do so to allow you time to explain yourself. GiantSnowman 10:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
User:bonadea Ī'm sorry for offending Yoū with my use of the term "(wo)men". My actual intent was to simplify writing the non‐gender‐specific term "women or men". Ī thought that it was a straightforward use of parentheses ∨⁽⁼ᵒʳ⁾ brackets, which show that "person(s)" is a common simple way of writing "persons or person". Ī endeavour always to be equitable ∀⁽⁼ᶠᵒʳ ᵃˡˡ⁾ genders. Ī'vₑ personally lŏst university standing for campaigning vocally to open up bōθ a queer space ∧⁽⁼ᵃⁿᵈ⁾ women's space on campus so that the 人⁽⁼ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ⁾ in my heart could hăvₑ ≥ 1 sanctuary in our līvₑs. Ī'vₑ ēvən hăd folks try to burn me alive ʍĕn Ī spoke out against homophobia in the 1990s CE. Within Wikipedia, Ī'vₑ stood against the misgendering of an American Samoan fa'afafine who tragically lost her life after a very public "outing" and horrific transgender abuse. Thecurran (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Please stop picking me apart because of an ĕdĭt summary that never should hăvₑ come to ANI in the 1ˢᵗ place. This is legitimately unfair ∧⁽⁼ᵃⁿᵈ⁾ unjust. 😥 Thecurran (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh, blocked. GiantSnowman 10:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Deliberately continuing the behaviour at ANI that is the subject of the original report is trolling. Good block from GS and good unblock decline from Yamla: continuing to use the language in an unblock request that caused the original block is also trolling. 2X trolling, shame on them; 3X trolling, shame on us... ——Serial 12:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by No Great ShakerEdit

Per clear consensus in the subsection below, 256Drg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been indef-blocked by RickinBaltimore. Sandstein 13:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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



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


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

According to World Jewish Congress :

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


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

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

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

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

and you can add a false warning by the user for "harassment" which can be found in the page history of my talk page. versacespaceleave a message! 15:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace Your comments, apart from your first sentence above, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You are obviously stalking me and seeking what you think are opportunities to whinge because five experienced editors agreed at ANI that you are potentially a sockpuppet, hence the SPI where, admittedly, the checkuser investigation was inconclusive and you were given (rightly) the benefit of the doubt. Accusations of bad faith do not help your cause unless they can be justified – see WP:AGF. Instead of sniping, why don't you open your own ANI and make your complaints official? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
No Great Shaker i don't know if you're supposed to reply to collapsed comments; remove if necessary first of all, stop saying that multiple editors "agreed that I'm a sockpuppet". This is not the case. At most they had suspicions. Second, I outlined my bad faith accusation completely at the SPI discussion which I linked. You're missing the point of why I didn't open a complaint in the first place. There is no admin action I want to be taken. Your accusation of "stalking" is also extremely bad faith, unless looking at ANI counts as such. versacespaceleave a message! 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
You can reply to collapsed comments. You have conveniently overlooked the word "potentially" which confirms that we were suspicious, not certain. Do not try to twist things. Because we were suspicious, the SPI was initiated. Sometimes an SPI returns a positive result and the culprit is indeffed; sometimes the result is negative or inconclusive. The point of SPI is that reasonable suspicions must be addressed because the community do not want sockpuppets in our midst. Nothing "bad faith" about it but by shouting about bad faith in a discussion that is completely irrelevant to your case and circumstances, you are not helping yourself at all. If you are not stalking, why did you come to my talk page and start whingeing and why have you followed me here to continue whingeing? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
If you are not stalking, why did you come to my talk page and start whingeing and why have you followed me here to continue whingeing reading an SPI thread is not following you. The most recent time that I checked the SPI (a few days ago) I went to your talk page since I had wanted to see if you had anything else to say about me, and lo and behold, ya did. Don't be mad that I found you speaking on me. And why do you think I'm here to "help myself"? I've specified I do not want (or care) if action is taken? Can you read? On the topic of reading, my apologies for missing the word "potentially" as I only read the top of your post diagonally. After the CU came back inconclusive, you requested yet another one, despite my constant assurance (with proof) that I wasn't a sockpuppet. At least leave a reply, for god's sake. Your friend AssociateAffiliate wasn't assuming very good faith, either, but that's a different topic for another day. versacespaceleave a message! 16:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
According to you, a ping should always be done when someone is mentioned so I have added the ping to User:AssociateAffiliate that you somehow forget to include above. I'm sure he will be interested to know what is in store for him on "another day". As for my decision not to reply to you, that is my prerogative. In any discussion or conversation, there has to be an endpoint and I had nothing else to say so why prolong things unnecessarily? Please keep going because this is an interesting example of the enough rope syndrome. I'm done for tonight, though, and very busy tomorrow so it will probably be Wednesday before I can look in again. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: I didn't ping you because I know you're watching this page. I'm not watching yours or AA's talk page, and as a courtesy I want to know when I'm being discussed. The end-point could've been "hey I was wrong, maybe we should close this discussion" and not "Can a wider range be scanned by the checkuser tool?". Admitting being wrong is not "prolonging things unnecessarily". If your "endpoint" is being so desperate for a block that you beg for a second CU scan, you should re-evaluate your participation at SPI. I have no interest in entertaining your other arguments. versacespaceleave a message! 22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
256Drg, you are not being attacked. You have made numerous ill-advised edits which several people have found to be disruptive and these are being investigated here because you apparently have a problem with being challenged about them. No one is denying you free speech on the discussion pages but you cannot do or say just whatever you like in articles. Your issues around so-called controversy sections have been addressed here by the other contributors and I have really nothing else to add. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • versacespace Thanks for the intervention. Please read the paragraph I mentioned above. I agree that Wikipedia is not a free speech forum and I am definitely not aware of the complete set of rules and guidelines of it. But according to [[35]] article should be neutral in POV. Please give me the explanation of the different strategies used for two articles : Winston Churchill and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. I can point you out thousands of articles with biased POV.
RegentsPark thanks for your comment. Please guide me on how the consensus of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article has been achieved. How can there be consensus to add a section which does not relate to the character's biography without a WP:POV?. It is clear from the section of the article that some media house has printed an article which created a controversy. Tomorrow anyone will comment or print on any famous character. Will you add that to the article? WP:POINT article clearly says that the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns, which I did on both the articles. But now I am getting to know that different policies and consensus have been applied to different articles. Please explain to me is that a neutral point of view?
Also, from the paragraph written by No Great Shaker in the starting of this discussion is a clear indication that he is trying to attack me because I added content to the Winston Churchill article. It is very usual for beginners to make some mistakes. But pointing out those in such a way and bad faith SPI investigation against me is clearly an act of personal attack!
Regarding the references you gave to me about two different comments which according to you are opposing in character, Please read what I already said many times : it is clear that in Winston Churchill's case, the controversy is created by Churchill himself. On the other hand, in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talkcontribs) 16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@256Drg: Please sign your posts. At least three different editors have already asked you to sign your posts, so it would be good if you'd start doing that. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
His failure to comply with WP:SIG is either deliberate refusal or WP:CIR. Either way with those and in addition to all the foregoing, plus the WP:AGF breach just above, I have to conclude that this person should be indef blocked. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • bonadea Sorry about that. As I told earlier, I am new to platform and I am currently learning about it. I will sign my comments from now onwords.
  • It is clear from No Great Shaker comment that he does not want me to stay here on Wikipedia just because I disagree with his views. It is obvious that I did not have intention for not complying with WP:SIG, instead I was not aware of the policy.
  • I am not breaching WP:AGF policy. I am just giving historical facts with the references. I am not making up them. If the one who should be blamed for WP:AGF and WP:POV, it is No Great Shaker since he doesn't want to add the right information to the article. It is clear that he wants to protect the image of character and is abusing his powers on Wikipedia against new comers.
  • Another person who should be blamed is RegentsPark who is clearly breaching WP:POV and Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing policy and damaging the reputation of the character by adding and protecting the false information on article.
  • Also, as I mentioned above, No Great Shaker is personally attacking me in various ways. Another example of that is mentioning Alivardi in this case who had no relation to the discussion and pining him on talk page to invite into the discussion (see here). This is a clear case of ganging up against a newcomer in order to protect the contents of the article in WP:AGF. It is clear from above evidences that No Great Shaker is a Wikipedia:Disruptive_user who is intolerant against the ones who does not agree with his WP:POV.
  • To conclude,
Thanks! ---256Drg (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
So, everyone who has responded on this thread has told you that there was no personal attack, and you choose to ignore them and to up the ante by making accusations against one of those people, RegentsPark, who happens to be an administrator. Despite the fact that you've been here for a handful of days, have a sprinkling of edits, and are "currently learning about" Wikipedia, you feel free to proclaim that two editors with vastly more experience than you are bringing down the trust and credibility of Wikipedia with their actions. Someone who does what you have done is either incredibly arrogant, enormously unaware of their own ignorance, or trolling. Given that, and your clear PoV editing behavior, I would suggest that you do not have the necessary qualities to edit here, so you may as well be indefinitely site-banned to save us all future problems that would come from allowing you to continue to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding personal attack, I have made my case which I thought is happening with me on site. Administrators are the judges. I believe they will take proper action.
  • Beyond My Ken It is true that I am "currently learning about" technical details and policies of Wikipedia. But it does not mean that the WP:AGF and WP:POV charges against both No Great Shaker and RegentsPark are false. Also, it does not mean that I am not aware of historical facts and/or editing/adding content without proper referencing. Pointing out my inexperience on site does not free above users from charges.
  • The point you made about me being arrogant, ignorant or trolling and my POV inclination is baseless. It seems that you have not read my above comments carefully. Tell me what is wrong with my argument of using different strategies for Winston Churchill and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj articles. Using different strategies is a case of WP:POV. It seems that these guys don't want to address this issue and play around with the other aspects of discussion.
  • I again repeat the point where this issue has started.
  • I removed the Controversy section from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article which was baseless since there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. My edit was reverted by Alivardi with comment content from the "Legacy" section of an article generally does not refer to events from an individual's lifetime (see here).
  • I then added Controversy to Winston Churchill article which was again reverted by No Great Shaker with comment : This stuff has been discussed several times ad nauseum at article talk page and there was no consensus to include it, though obviously a new user would not not know that (see here)
  • When I started discussion on talk page of Churchill's article, instead of giving the reason on why it should not be added to article, No Great Shaker started commenting on my inexperience on Wikipedia.
  • My concern is it is clear that in Winston Churchill's case, the controversy is created by Churchill himself. On the other hand, in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. So to anyone who is not inclined to a particular POV should see it as a clear POV inclination.
  • After that No Great Shaker has accused me and recommended banning me first to which I responded.
  • I urge everyone to please give me reason on why Controversy section should not be added to Winston Churchill article and it should not be removed from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal (256Drg)Edit

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

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

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

  • Comment i decides to support the blocking of 256Drg because i believe 256Drg should be blocked indefinitely since he blanking content on Shivaji. If the user needs to be blocked, the user should be reported in AIV instead this. (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Actually AIV would not be the appropriate place to get him blocked as I found out myself. It being here is more than enough to get the attention of the administrators. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: incivil POV-pushers incapable of forming consensus are only going to waste our time. Support per WP:NOTHERE. JavaHurricane 02:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly not here to collaborate. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly NOTHERE, per above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support NOTHERE block obviously needed in this case.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I was not going to pile on since 256Drg seemed to have bowed out yesterday, but this mini-rant in an unconnected AfD beggars belief. Not even slightly interested in building an encyclopedia or editing collaboratively. --bonadea contributions talk 15:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Thank you, Rick. Much appreciated. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terry BeanEdit

  Note: I have moved this thread, formerly titled "Possible fraud on Article Page 'Terry Bean'. Article is apparently captured and controlled.", from WP:AN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The following is what I just posted on the Talk page of article "Terry Bean". You may notice that the Talk page refers to a great deal of news about the subject, Terry Bean, yet it is by now clear that editing to include that material is being obstructed. The history of the main article indicates, however, that editing isn't entirely missing. So, the people actually doing that editing must be aware of the problem, yet do nothing. It is useless to merely include complaints on the Talk page, as you will see: They don't respond. They don't explain, or justify, the reason for the write block, or why anybody gets to write on the article nevertheless. I don't know who to complain to, so as a first step, I will include the following material below, to begin to document the misconduct. Allassa37 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"Has this article, "Terry Bean", been captured by the supporters of Terry Bean, and are they misusing that control to cleanse it of embarrassing facts about Bean? Should we report that to Wikipedia as misuse? I wanted to make an edit, but I don't see an indication that the article is write-protected. Yet, write has been disabled, which usually means that an explanation will be placed at the top of the Talk Page. I will be quite clear: Terry Bean appears to be being protected, and the egregious news of his criminal case has been concealed from this article, apparently for many years. There has been a great deal of news about Bean himself, and his Attorney Derek Ashton, and the attorney(s) for "MSG", his rape-victim, and the fraud associated with the handling of that case. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be ideological, although for years seems to be under the control of "those kind of people". (Interpret that any way you wish...) The only plausible explanation is that there are people who think they can control this article, for the purpose of concealing embarrassing events that involve a (BLP violation removed). I am thinking that anyone who feels the way I do should assist me in filing a complaint with Wikipedia for this obvious fraud, which must include some WP administrators, to expose just how bad WP can get when that misconduct is allowed to fester. Notice that there are a great deal of references to news about Terry Bean and his criminal case in this Talk page, and far more information is available through a Google-search, and yet any attempt to put those events into the article seem to have ceased years ago. I say "seems to", because failed attempts to edit the article apparently don't leave a trace. Presumably, somebody tried to do edits, but were blocked by an edit block...but that edit block seems to not include EVERYONE, right? And, I wonder if the list of people who HAVE successfully edited this article in the last 2-3 years can be trusted: Are they a part of a de-facto cabal? I believe they must recuse themselves since they have apparently demonstrated their bias. I am thinking that there should be far more controversial discussion on the Talk page, and that should by now include extensive discussion as to why the embarrassing news hasn't been included in the main article. This is obvious corruption. Who objects to it? Who tolerates it? Tell me how to issue a complaint, and if nobody else does that, I will. Allassa37 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Allassa37 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Allassa37: The article is protected from editing, as indicated by the blue lock symbol in the corner of the article. Your suggestion that the article has been "captured" by a "cabal" etc. etc. seems completely without evidence and is not likely to make people inclined to take you seriously. A look through the article history shows that there haven't been many substantial edits to the article at all since the protection was placed, and given that only 35 people watch the page I suppose it's also somewhat unsurprising that the talk page comments have gone unanswered. It seems to be just an infrequently-edited page.
My suggestion would be to step back for a second, take a deep breath, review the specific sourcing requirements we have for biographies of living people such as this article about Bean, and then use the edit request process to suggest a specific change to the article, complete with sources. Edit requests do not rely on people happening to see you leave a comment on the article talk page, as the template used for them adds the request to a queue to be answered by people who are able to edit the page.
You should also keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to article talk pages, and descriptors such as the ones I've removed for someone who has not been convicted of such a crime should be avoided.
As for I am thinking that there should be far more controversial discussion on the Talk page, and that should by now include extensive discussion as to why the embarrassing news hasn't been included in the main article, evidently not many people have taken as much of an interest in this subject as you have, or if they have they haven't come to Wikipedia about it. There is no edit protection in place on the talk page, so no one has been prevented from commenting there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Taking a look at Terry Bean, it does seem to be in odd shape, with piles of section headers about community involvement and praise followed by "Sex abuse allegations" right at the end. That's not exactly to say adding BLP vios would balance it, but it looks like pre-ECP there must have been some POVing from multiple angles, and the current state is the version with the BLP vios removed but the puffery retained. Vaticidalprophet 00:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, the article could undoubtedly use work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I've ran through tearing out a bunch of it, and that's with leaning to keeping the stuff I was unsure on. I haven't heard of the man before, and it does seem that if he's as politically influential even on just the local/state level as the article implies, we should make that power clear. All that said, it doesn't justify giant puffery sections. Haven't yet touched most of the actual wording, which was terrible. No comment on whether or how to expand the sexual abuse allegations stuff. Vaticidalprophet 00:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a well-known case in Oregon for years now. Bean is an influential political fundraiser but he is of local, not national, interest. The sexual assault charges against him have been on and off over the past six years and I think at this point, he has yet to go to trial. I read over the article and I think it is as direct and informational as it can be at this point in the case. Once a trial starts, there will be more coverage and perhaps more relevant information can be added. I think what the OP is alluding to is that years ago the victim refused to testify and there was an out-of-court settlement proposed between Bean and the victim. That situation has now changed but Wikipedia will have to wait for trial coverage and its conclusion to make any more statements on his guilt or innocence. We can't post speculation on any subject but most especially not on a BLP. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I did, after my original 'no comment', add the last two sentences about the trial to the allegations section. Schazjmd also added the mention of the civil lawsuit just after this was posted to ANI. I can understand the OP's consternation in the context of the pre-ANI article, which ends with In a statement, Bean wrote "I take some measure of comfort that the world now knows what I have always known – that I was falsely accused and completely innocent of every accusation that was made." Vaticidalprophet 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think you can consider those additions improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This situation is complicated by the past involvement of a prominent Oregon attorney who is herself credibly accused of unethical behavior and criminal misconduct, specifically charges of defrauding her own clients. This is a tangled web that has been woven, and level headed editors should watch this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad that this is NOW being talked about, but so far I don't see much recognition that the real problem is that the main article page has been write-protected for years. That, in combination with the fact that whoever DOES have authority to edit the article, is intentionally refusing to make greatly-needed edits based on news that has been been swirling since 2015. Effectively they are "protecting" the article from embarrassing reality. And if you don't see 'much' such edit requests, is that really so surprising?? Everybody has learned that those editors who CAN edit won't help include any "negative" news about Bean, apparently since after 2015. There isn't even any discussion on that subject! There is simply no legitimate reason to write-protect this article, except in the minds of people who are trying to protect Bean's sorry reputation. Take the write protection off, and let the article be edited for 6 months. Or forever. Allassa37 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The page was protected as a result of considerable BLP violations being inserted into the page, including by sockpuppets, over several years. Your previous BLP violation about Bean does not give me great confidence that you should be editing this page directly; I would, again, recommend you use the edit request process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Also courtesy pinging Black Kite, who placed the ECP two years ago, in case they have any input here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I have just blocked Allassa37 for 31 hours for personal attacks, including repeatedly ([36], [37]) casting aspersions that the editor(s) who protected the page are "trying to conceal Bean's crimes", "help cover-up news of Bean's criminal (and now civil, too) case", etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And here is my response, and advice, to GorillaWarfare, for having deleted material I added to the Talk Page, AND for obstructing me from participating in this discussion, AND for making numerous false aspersions in her comments here and the Terry Bean Talk Page.  ::Here, I am referring to things you have said and done. Your paragraph extensively criticizes me, or by implication others ('disruption') Sauce for the goose. I suspect you feel free to criticize others, yet not follow your own 'rules'. Everything you said in your above paragraph is biased and distorted. You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless". You investigated nothing. You are completely new here. We are not obliged to assume, or even take your word, that you have adequately researched the past misconduct of 'all' sides. I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'. How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you? Names? Expose evidence of why you arrived here. Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly 'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material. You are taking a side simply by calling it "disruption", when in fact the actual "disruption" is obstruction of free editing of the article, that has gone on for 7 years, as I can see. You also hurl a term, "conspiracy theories", when actually you have no evidence whatsoever that the problem IS NOT what I claim. More likely, the editing has continued to be obstructed precisely to inhibit new, embarrassing information from being added. But that wouldn't work, unless simultaneously people were 'neglecting' to follow the edit-request situation you imply is available. You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'. I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made. If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede. You also rushed in to 'protect' against my attempt to stop the obstruction of the editing, obstruction which you cannot properly defend merely by vaguely referring to other "disruption" in the long past. Even you admitted that this article page has been neglected, which constitutes a malicious act when it is intentionally done in coordination with blocking other editors from editing what you admit is a 'long-neglected' article. 'long-neglected' simply isn't accidental in this case. It has been astonishingly deliberate and persistent. Explain yourself to the victims here, as well as all those that have been so thoroughly discouraged by design. Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal. In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to. I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal. This problem needs to be discussed. How many times, in the last 7 years, did somebody else attempt to expose this problem? Were their attempts deleted from the record then, too, just like you did to my effort? Allassa37 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Allassa37: You mention "baseless accusations" but you so far have merely ASSUMED they were "baseless" People are not guilty until proven innocent. If you are going to accuse others of misconduct, you need to bring diffs. From WP:ASPERSIONS, which I already linked you: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums."
I suspect you were called her to 'put out a fire'. How long have you been monitoring this page? Who called you? Names? Expose evidence of why you arrived here. You called me here, when you made the above post at the administrators' noticeboard to request uninvolved administrator input. That is what you got; until your post on May 3 I had never heard of Bean, edited the article about him, or commented on its talk page.
Also, while you don't identify what you called "significant past disruption", I suspect the reason all that became necessary is that people were improperly 'protecting' the article from the addition of content some 'protectors' did not want to see added. Some people, I suspect, were simply not tolerating the addition of embarrassing, yet accurate, material. Again, your suspicions are not based in evidence. Browsing the past 100 edits to the page shows vandalism ([38]), edit wars (15 December 2016‎–11:55, 4 January 2017‎), and editing by sockpuppets (revert, revert).
You should explain exactly who was responsible for handling editing, especially since you have admitted the article was 'neglected'. You can see in the page history who edited the page. If you are suggesting that I explain who was "in charge" of the page, Wikipedia doesn't work that way—anyone may edit any article, or if it is protected, they may suggest changes on its talk page, but no one is officially designated as "responsible" for one page or another. We are all volunteers and we edit where we please.
I think everybody who is inclined to request edits knows 'the fix is in', the edits they request simply won't be made. If you are now claiming otherwise, I think it is your responsibility to demonstrate that edits actually occurred, including edits the 'protectors' likely wanted to impede. Again, if you want to check that edits actually occurred this is plainly visible in page history. These are the edits that have been made since your request for help at the page. Whether these are edits you think ought to be made or not, I don't know, because you have as yet not requested any specific change to the page.
Also, your having deleted material from the Talk page is an attempt to tamper with the record. Other people who will eventually read that tampered record won't see the actual events and problems which you are helping to conceal. In addition, it is malicious to ban somebody from editing a Talk page, as you did, especially if they have already issued a complaint about the misconduct I am referring to. No, it is quite proper to remove content that violates WP:BLP and casts unfounded aspersions against other editors.
I should have been able to pursue this matter on the ANI, to show that there was indeed a problem that other people are trying to conceal. You are here posting on ANI, so quite clearly you have not been limited in doing that except for the brief period. I hope it was effective in driving home that it is not acceptable to cast aspersions or violate the BLP policy in articles, on talk pages, at ANI, or anywhere else for that matter. I welcome your edits and requested edits, but you do need to tone down the rhetoric a bit or come up with even a shred of evidence of this "cabal" that supposedly exists.
I will, once again, recommend that you suggest well-sourced edits to the page rather than spinning conspiracy theories about cabals. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that the burden of demonstrating coordinated misconduct is on you; your argument that I must provide evidence that this "cabal" doesn't exist is absurd.
I understand that you are new to this project and frustrated with the state of that article. Editors have responded to your call for improvements and updates to be made, and if you make specific edit requests for neutral and well-sourced edits to be made I suspect you will find there is no grand conspiracy to stifle changes to the page as you fear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've made a thread at WP:BLPN#Terry Bean about the content issues. Vaticidalprophet 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Xtools, Allassa37 has 20 edits on enWP (one of which is to mainspace). Miniapolis 22:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Not surprising or, imo, particularly worthy of note. Non-editor readers can't be expected to be familiar with our bizarre habits like extended-confirmed protection (which I hammer in, whenever people treat it lightly like at the minor edits RfC, means restricting edits to less than 0.15% of people who have ever made an account) or even the fact, completely outside the understanding of most of the world, that Wikipedia does not have editorial control. I note that Allassa isn't a SPA on this topic (which I had originally thought they might be, still in the "non-editor reader distressed about being unable to make edits" context) and has some content-related edits to the talk pages of other articles, which in my experience is a fairly common way for new users to propose changes. Vaticidalprophet 00:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Can another uninvolved admin please try to explain things to Allassa37, or otherwise step in? They are continuing to post accusations of bad faith and imagine bizarre plots against this article on the talk page, and I am clearly not getting through to them. Whether or not another admin can, or will just be decided to be a part of the "cabal", I don't know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Legal Threat by IPEdit

A legal threat was made by in an edit summary [39]. The user (without sources) replaced content on the Bhandari (caste) page, and threatened legal action on the claim that the previously sourced content hurt "religious sentiment and creating disharmony". The page is also under two separate administrative sanctions, WP:ARBIP and WP:GS/CASTE. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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

Many of these edits involve adding errors to pages for no apparent reason[40] then quickly undoing them.[41] Previous warning:[42] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
According to the user this is because they were unaware of how the "copy and paste" functionality works, and now that they've been aware, they will no longer do it. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I am inclined to withdraw this with the option of refiling if the behavior resumes. Does anyone object to me doing that? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Mcfoureyes made the above promise on 06:59, 4 May 2021,[43][44] and again on 14:50, 4 May 2021.[45] They have not edited since then. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
No objection from me, Guy Macon, seems to be the good-faith thing to do. Just for the record, this is not the same behaviour I asked Mcfoureyes to refrain from or consider carefully – my message was about trivial or unnecessary edits, a mild annoyance at most. He/she seems to have taken at least some notice of it, as no more edits of that kind have popped up on my watchlist. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm all for assuming good faith, and that should be done here, but we need to consider that performing such edits is an obvious way for an editor to become extended confirmed sooner that would otherwise be the case. I have seen this kind of behaviour in editors who wish to edit in areas, such as the conflict in Israel and Palestine, which are subject to extended-confirmed restrictions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking more carefully, they are not a new user. Their very first edit[46] starts with "Answer to previous message: Aren't the changes I made to Ley Lines and Shangri-La based on...". I wonder if the previous account was blocked? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't look good regarding the partial block.[47], [48] --DB1729 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't you just hate it when a friend at his workplace printer accidentally logs in to Wikipedia and in an amazing coincidence just happens to make an edit that is identical to one you were topic banned from making? I know I sure do! Those workplace printers are tricky devils...
If indeed Mcfoureyes is trying to become extended confirmed sooner than would otherwise be the case, he is doing a great job at it. Just look at his recent edit history. Dozens of tiny changes, each one published as a separate edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't an EC thing, he was far past 500 by the time you reported the issue here. Izno (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef for (a) evading the partial block, (b) lying about it, and (c) doing so in a way that really insults our intelligence. -Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    I was checking in regularly and was going to pull the trigger and then found you had done it an hour earlier. Also took care of an IP that has been used for evasion. Izno (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    There is an older account that was abandoned just prior to this one at Malcolmlucascollins that I have also blocked. Izno (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well that's that dealt with! Good faith has its place, but clearly this wasn't it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)Edit

Off-wiki campaign by the Discovery Institute to label creationism as science instead of pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've semi'd the article for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC).
If they don't like the word pseudoscientific can we just use hogwash, garbage or nonsense instead? Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Co-ordinated off-wiki disruption at Turkish War of IndependenceEdit

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

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

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

Would it be relevant to semi-protect a talk pageEdit

As some of you know, the article Turkish War of Independence is today called out as a "Wikipedia scandal" on several Turkish news outlets [49], [50], [51]. The "scandal" consists of good users collaborating to reflect reliable sources accurately (I'm not involved myself, having never edited the article, but hats off to those who have such as User:Buidhe, User:FDW777 and others). Because of this news coverage, the article sees an extraordinary amount of nationalist activity. The article was already semi-protected, and several registered users indeffed, but the talk page is also getting out of hand. Semi-protecting a talk page is unusual, but this is also an unusual situation. Jeppiz (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Greek War of IndependenceEdit

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

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

User:Benjamin2662 NOTHEREEdit

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

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

  • The userpage was deleted, but an IP purporting to be the same person has just spammed the autobiog onto my talk page,[52] with the excuse that Millions of academics promote themselves on Wkipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    • IP and named account both now blocked, thanks. GiantSnowman 17:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a long-term persistent autobiographer sockpuppeteer who has been at this since 2012. Start at Stevenbdamelin (talk · contribs) and read the user talk page there. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Thanks for that @Uncle G:, I have re-tagged the accounts accordingly so we have a centralised log. GiantSnowman 15:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Film awards WP:NOR from IP range in Georgia, U.S.Edit

Somebody from Georgia has been persistently adding unreferenced novel comparisons to film, theatre and television awards articles, primarily in the form of daggers and double daggers indicating one award winner has also won another award.[53][54] I have warned them many times but they are uncommunicative, having never once used a talk page. They have returned to articles at which I removed the NOR and have restored it.[55]

The person has been doing this kind of stuff for years, at least as far back as 2015–2016 using the nearby range Special:Contributions/2602:306:CD46:DC70:0:0:0:0/64, with this typical edit adding daggers and double daggers with an explanation of what they mean.[56] Another nearby IP doing this stuff was Special:Contributions/ in 2016.[57][58] Other indication symbols might include the asterisk, the wavy equivalence sign, the plus–minus sign or the section sign.

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

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

Very inappropriate attitude on talk (violates NPA, CIV, BATTLEGROUND)Edit

I've recently become aware of some very disturbing edits by User:Exxess on Talk:Szlachta. I've interacted with him very little (disclaimer: while most of NPAs at that talk page are directed at User:Lembit Staan, some are directed at me; reviewing the history it seems I've had some interactions with that editor a few years back), but what I see is very disturbing and seems to breach WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND. It seems impossible to discuss anything with that user there given their attitude. I'll note here that their edits to the article itself are mostly ok, but whenever they are challenged, even on a slight matter, Exxess responds with a walls of text in the form of extremly uncivil rant of the scale I've rarely seen in all my years here. Here are some diffs and quotations, from most recent to oldest:

  • [59]
    • "to hell with your petty WP:NPA/[[WP:CIV]" <-- self explanatory...
    • "There seems to be a clique that regards Polish articles as their fiefdom. I defeated Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus in a request for deletion regarding the Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki, herbu Radwan family article. Then what Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus did was round up his little clique and posse, and I was accused of sock-puppetry" <-- battleground language/ABF and WP:ASSERTIONS
    • "Now, we have another knee-jerk editor, Lembit Staan, who tried to round up a posse here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta"
    • " Lembit Staan taking umbrage with calling the szlachta an electorate is idiotic and stupid" <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF
    • "Forget summoning your friends, and fight your own battles. " <--WP:ASSERTIONS, ABF, battleground
    • "STOOPID - brainless indeed. And mentally disordered. See lunacy above."
  • [60]
    • "Knee-jerk editor Lembit Staan strikes again. This editor is bitching and moaning at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta"
    • " This kind of prodigious, knee-jerk stupidity and idiocy is difficult to comprehend, yet alone tolerate. "
    • "Lembit Staan gonna' try to round up a posse and a clique at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta, so he can make some half-assed, idiotic attempt at "consensus" despite what the sources state."
    • ":Lembit Staan, you really think Wikipedia exists to reinforce your ignorance, misconceptions, and prejudices. [...] Then you cry ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:SYNTH when your idiotic, knee-jerk deletions get challenged. There is no way to dance around the idiocy of this one. "
    • "Keep an eye on this editor Lembit Staan. Really takes umbrage if editor's edits are challenged, particularly when they are stupid"
  • [61]
    • "I disagree with everything. It's a reflex" <-- not a good attitude to have by default
    • "let us have a war about that" <-- BATTLEGROUND
    • "stop the trespass, and let me work" <--WP:OWN attitude
  • [62]
    • "a superlative brainless example of Lembit Staan's statement, "brainless replacement of the word 'szlachta' with 'nobility'", and all this after a debate determining the title of the article should not be "Polish nobility"; but the lead sentence is in direct contradiction to the article title "Szlachta." Brainless and confused indeed. Knee-jerk editing" (also note the edit summary)

Just today, this spilled into WT:POLAND:

  • [63]
    • "Lembit Staan, what is dubious is you contradicting the obvious. You are wasting time with trifles and the immaterial. At first I was questioning your intelligence. Now I am questioning your sanity. "
  • [64]
    • "Pal, (Lembit Staan) you want to talk bullshit and nonsense, so let's demonstrate yours "
    • "Wrong, you cannot read."
    • "You have a primordial misunderstanding regarding facts, which requires countering your knee-jerk deletions and crap with forthrightness."
    • "Pal, here is some advice for you - do not fight facts and secondary sources with stubbornness and knee-jerk deletions."
  • [65]
    • "I revert your edits because your edits are knee-jerk and idiotic."
    • "So, because the great Lembit Staan does not comprehend history, or law, he is going to cry"
    • "So, what you are bitching and moaning about is the fact you're publicly being shown you do not know what you're editing about, and when you PERSONALLY do not agree with something you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, or ever considered, you just knee-jerk delete, and start flinging accusations of original research and synth, and stumble right through the secondary sources, and pick yourself and keep going, then you try to round up a posse to support your half-assed, knee-jerk edits. I told you to take it to talk. You ran away. Then you come here and try to round up a posse."
    • "You knee-jerk editors who think anything on Wikipedia regarding Poland is your personal fiefdom get stopped dead in your tracks by the secondary sources. Then, you try to round up your little clique, but fail."
    • "Stay away for good, Lembit Staan, because you do more harm than good with your limited capacity to read English and comprehend what the secondary sources state"
    • "Do the world a favor, Lembit Staan, and stay away from this article, which is too complex for your limited powers of comprehension"

There is more but I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate a problematic pattern - one that has been going on for years. Note that this editor was inactive for a while, sometime taking wikibreaks that last over a year, but he displayed a similar, problematic attitude when he was active at the talk page of the same article in the past:

Just in case, let me point our recent attempts at dispute resolution: Lembit Staan asked for assistance at WT:POLAND a bit over a weeks ago, and yesterday I asked User:El C for review and mediation at Talk:Szlachta, but he declined to get involved. Exxess was aware of both of those requests, since they responded in their usual wall-of-text uncivil style in both places. Since community discussion at WikiProject and ping to an admin who was (until recently) active in related topic areas failed to provide any resolution, I see no recourse but to come to ANI.

While we can always use some more active editors in the obscure topic area of pre-20th century Polish history, and Exxess seems to have some knowledge about the topic, this kind of attitude and behavior (BATTLEGROUND, OWN, personal attacks, and the wall-off-text style they are wrapped in) cannot be allowed to continue: it leads to 'winning' disputes by making everyone else leave: recently, Lembit Staan mentioned at WT:POLAND "If the community does not participate, who I am to want more and I am removing szlachta from my watchlist for 2 months; not worth my mental health". Therefore I'd like to ask the administrators & community for intervention. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, you forgot to put in here Lembit Staan calling what I put in the article "bullshit" despite the secondary sources, because it is something "he never heard of." Once again, I do not consider being forthright a problem. The goal is to improve the article. And, a detailed discussion is not a "wall-of-text" style with the intent to stop discussion. I am inviting discussion and challenging your behavior, your edits, and Lembit Staan's edits. Stick to the facts. You personally knee-jerk deleted something I was in the middle of editing. Based on what? See detailed discussion. I do not recall reading any policy on a character limit for talk discussions, so I personally think you are taking matters out of context, and painting a very misleading picture, just like when you lost a deletion debate, then you gathered a posse, and accused me of sock-puppetry. False claim. Stick to improving the article and the facts. The extent some editors will go to when they are challenged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - you are always appealing for outside help. Consistently. - Exxess (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There is an article called Royal elections in Poland. I do think it is stupid for Lembit Staan to object to the szlachta being called an electorate. Being forthright. I think that particular assertion is stupid. There is no way to dance around that one. - Exxess (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - deletion meddling? That was an honest mistake and you are a disingenuous editor. You are very good at ignoring the rules when it suits your purposes, like canvassing, until you are challenged, then, upon your edits being challenged, you rigidly assert violation of the "rules." "Deletion meddling" - that was an honest mistake. Korwinsky was another editor who just knee-jerk deleted a reference because he thought it would "mislead readers." Presumptuous in the extreme. - Exxess (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I see that Exxess has replied three times without denying that they have engaged in personal attacks and harassment. Perhaps that is because the diffs provided above show quite clearly that Exxess has repeatedly engaged in that type of misconduct. I have blocked Exxess for one week. Exxess, when you return, abandon personal attacks and harassment. If your misconduct resumes, the next block will be for a much longer time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Given the editor's comments on their talk page, this might as well be extended to indef. They've indicated they see nothing wrong with their behavior & will resume it when the block ends. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
HandThatFeeds, Cullen328, Given Lembit Staan's comment below, I proposed a ban on post-size limit (nobody can be reasonable expected to read those rantish walls of texts Exxess mass produces). Given his later talk page comments, Exxess now demands an apology from editors he offended, while simoultenesly asking for a longer block. Sigh. I have serious doubts he is learning anything from this. This reminds of this mini-essay I wrote a while ago. Editors convinced of their own perfection are hard to reform. PS. All that said, I hate blocking people who show a willingness to reform, which is why my suggestion was the word-size limit. It's plausible Exxess could be an asset to the project, IF his talk posts were civil and readable. But said willingness to reform is hard to see right now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, I have withdrawn their talk page accesss and warned them that they will be blocked again if the personal attacks resume when their current block expires. I am not a fan of highly customized editing restrictions, but if the community disagrees with me, so be it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record: My major problem with the article "Szlachta" was not the belligerent editor, but the apparent lack of interest of the Polish community to the subject. I admit I may be in error, and asked them for a third opinion several times, but got none, and the article continues to be dominated by a WP:OWNer. Heck, I even did not complain then they violated the 3RR reverting my "knee-jerk" edits. I understand that only a community can handle a WP:OWNer. But the community seems to be deterred by the repetitive walls of text generated by this editor. Forcing this editor to be more polite will not solve the problems with the article text they generated. When I come back there in 2 months, I feel I will have to go in a hard way of the procedure of formal dispute resolution for each and every dubious statement this user introduced. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding user Knewdates for bad faith editing and what I see as intimidation Daniel Lee (designer)Edit

Firstly, I left a note on user Knewdates page that I would be asking for arbitration. Though I don't have social media, this user is attempting to link me to a twitter account as a part of their argument that I cannot edit a certain page on wikipedia. Posting here is already too much social media for me. This user has failed to read the articles in question and is making claims about the event in question that do not hold up to scrutiny (such as, there are no videos of the event in question),

My original edit reads:

In April of 2021 at the Soho House (club) in Berlin, Germany, in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic-lockdown, Lee was involved in staging Bottega Veneta-sponsored parties without social distancing or masking. ref Fashion label Bottega Veneta receives criticism amid reports of a Soho House party following their Berghain Fashion show April 12, 2021/ref It was also reported that he did not wear a mask or respect social distance during the fashion show (billed as a business meeting) which took place in a Berlin night club rented for private use for the occasion.ref BOTTEGA VENETA’S SECRET BERGHAIN SHOW WAS A GLIMPSE AT CLUBBING'S GRIM FUTURE April 18, 2021 /ref ref revolt against Soho House April, 2021 /ref

Their current edit reads:

Since early April 2021, the Berlin police is investigating rumors* that Bottega Veneta staged afterparties at the Soho House (club) without social distancing or masking.[14] According to sources, "the event's legality and hygiene concept is unclear" and "whether the afterparties were official Bottega Veneta events or not is unclear" [15]

"rumors" is entirely innacurate see, also they deleted other citations which go beyond "clearity" into confirmation. This seems like bad-faith editing to me. Further, they edited out the actual involvment od Daniel Lee while leaving perhaps the least important information out. I am a neurodiverse person and this kind of machiavillien-behaviour garbage is meaningless to me, I have no idea how to deal with it. Help! talonx78.55.186.185 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not a party on the case, but I would like to bring up the conduct of Knewdates on Talk:Daniel Lee (designer). Sadly I can't provide any diffs as it has been revdel by an administrator. Knewdates seems to engage in WP:HARASSMENT by publishing what could be the social media handle of the IP editor, which I see as a more serious issue than the content dispute. Also this statement: It would also be better if an actual user of Wikipedia added this type of content, instead of IP users. is a WP:BITE, though not as serious as the WP:OUTING, is also a concerning conduct.SunDawn (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
SunDawn do you have any recommendations to help me protect myself, can I do anything more? I can promise I won't be getting an account anytime soon, especially after this. The last thing I want is to make myself more accessible to people who are aggressive and unfortunately my editing interests (i.e. controversies and people who are marginalised) seem to make me a target. Being a neurodiverse person in this case means I really don't have the ability to judge this kind of threat accurately, but I would like to continue editing without distress. I am open to recommendations. Talonx77.183.83.196 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


Mikeymikemikey (talk · contribs) With this edit [[68]] I think enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven I don't know what you're expecting to achieve by doing this? It's been two days, today is day two. Today I have merely replied to those who have @ me on the talk page. You were secondary comment to someone one who actually engaged in discussion.
I have not been abusive, I have not edited the main article, have not harassed individuals, I merely stated my argument and I explain it further to those who engage in discussion. This attempt to report me is in bad faith and wastes the time of administrators who need to deal with vandalism and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeymikemikey (talkcontribs) 11:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion had been closed [[69]] Despite this you choose to continue [[70]], refusing to accept policy. You have questioned the use of wp:rs (as a policy) [[71]]. Accuses users (note this is just one example) of stonewalling and wikielayering (for arguing based upon policy) [[72]]. Accusations of being part of a cable [[73]]. Nor is there any evidence you will stop until you get your way (despite the third diff).Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven"Nor is there any evidence you will stop until you get your way?" It's been two days and you assume I'm some evil doer. Is not ridiculous one can just close a conversation at a whim within a hour of it's posting? First close, the person didn't understand my point, so closed it erroneously assuming I was saying sources aren't reliable, I explained and he just ignored me at first. So I expanded. But then another closed it with a few hours because I bolded the quotes. Sorry, I didn't realise bolding that was closable offence. The point was never engaged nor debated, so the close was not due to a natural end either.
So I left, I said "I give up". Because clearly the talk page was hostile. I didn't reopen it as you accuse, I just responded to posts directed at me, which involved explaining my point I guess. Then you rudely accused me of badgering when I haven't badgered anyone.
Also, I said "Cabal" on MY page. It was not a formal accusation on the talk page of the article in question, it was just an acerbic jest because I was vexed by this hostile behaviour. The use of these Wikipedia Alerts/reports, or whatever you call it, is a blatant over reaction to a very simple request for a definitional change had the smell of partisan intimidation. As we are here, I now don't think that it's outlandish.
fyi, Stonewalling is the refusal to communicate or cooperate, I've done neither. You're using your interpretation of the Wikipedia policy to shut down communication and avoid cooperation, how is that not stonewalling?
So that's it. Two days, and this is your behaviour.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
(Note I am involved in this dispute, not commenting as an uninvolved admin). This probably ought to go to AE, but I agree that Mikeymikemikey has been disruptive with repeating the same arguments over and over, and seems either unable or unwilling to accept our policies. Their comments on the talk page appear to be demands that editors find sources to satisfy an arbitrary standard of detail in a source describing why PV is "far-right", rather than accept that many high-quality sources use the descriptor. They also seem unable to understand that, much how a square is a rectangle, a far-right organization is right-wing (or conservative), and have been repeating the argument that sources not describing PV as "far-right" but using the broader terms are somehow contradictory. Mikeymikemikey is a new editor who seems insistent on wading into a fraught topic area. While I admire new editors who wish to do this, they also need to be willing to make a good-faith effort to understand and follow our policies. Their misunderstanding or rejection of WP:RS and the suggestion that they can make personal attacks at their talk page because it's not a "formal accusation" suggests they are not.
As some background to any admins who review this, there have been multiple recent AE discussions (Vojtaruzek, filed April 16, indeffed; Pkeets, filed April 17, warned; Plebian-scribe, filed April 18, AP topic-banned; Airpeka, filed April 21, indeffed) all involving disruption at Project Veritas and its talk page. The talk page even had to be protected recently because of the number of IP editors and SPAs coming there to either soapbox or repeat the same arguments. The protection has just expired; we'll see whether the disruption resumes. But either way, PV has been a hotbed of disruption lately and Mikeymikemikey is just the latest in a long string of such POV-pushing accounts. Any extra admin eyes on the page would be appreciated, particularly given the protection expiry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, whatever, if the article with a lead like that is considered unbiased writing, then I guess it's a good thing I don't frequent Wikipedia often.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

SPA accountEdit

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

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

Cheesy McGeeEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chelston-temp-1 and rapid page movesEdit

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

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

List of movesEdit

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

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


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

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

User:Kelsey.obrien.1048 requires urgent attentionEdit

(non-admin closure) Kelsey.obrien.1048 indefinitely blocked by Johnuniq for WP:NOTHERE. Sockpuppet investigation was opened and resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Their userpage appears to be a partial clone of User:Salem.leo.1, blocked October 2017 as a sock of User:Angela Criss. Narky Blert (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Per the above, there might be a need for further SPI investigation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I was just beginning to think Angela Criss had stopped creating socks. - ZLEA T\C 13:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angela Criss filed. Narky Blert (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hectoring comments in a RM discussion by DicklyonEdit

I'm concerned about Dicklyon (talk · contribs)'s behaviour regarding the Battle of the Mons Pocket article. They are unhappy with the capitalisation of the article's title. After some move warring ([74]) during an initial talk page discussion, they did the right thing and started a RM discussion. However, during the initial discussion and the RM they have repeatedly insulted me and hectored the other editors who disagree with them about this rather minor issue. Diffs and quotes:

  • Insult directed at me [75] ("Maybe you're often distracted by titles?")
  • Hectoring an editor who opposed the move while insulting me again [76] ("What do you mean, "per Nick"? You just want to repeat what he said that was demonstrated false?")
  • Hectoring another editor who opposed the move while insulting me further [77] ("That's a rather preposterous presumption, given how wrongly he characterized the case usage in the sources he cited. He is obviously not up to speed on WP's capitalization guidelines."

This aggressive behaviour over a minor issue seems utterly unnecessary - it's obviously entirely possible to have differing views about capitalisation of a word without throwing insults around and needing to hector everyone who disagrees with you! Dicklyon has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and this suggests that there is an ongoing problem which I would be grateful if an admin could follow up on. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The "maybe you're often distracted by titles?" comment does not read as an insult to me. I think they were just suggesting that you came to the wrong conclusion because you were misled by some occurrences of the term in the context of titles. (Incidentally, the addition of the "maybe" hedge plus the question mark makes this read as a very mild/polite form of contradiction.) Unless there's some more context missing, I think you've been a bit quick to impute bad faith there. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Dicklyon is often forceful during move discussions, and I've been on the receiving end of that forcefulness before, but frankly I'm not seeing an issue here. That said, Dicklyon should keep in mind that many Wikipedians are not, in fact, up to speed on capitalization guidelines and that he is often the ambassador for those guidelines. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but even after I subsequently followed his suggestion and started an RM discussion, he repeated the error and two other guys seconded that. Definitely they needed some pushback, as you can see there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
If other people support a particular capitalisation then they don't "need pushback". When people disagree with you it may mean that things are not as clear-cut as you believe them to be. According to WP:RM "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested" - given the history of disputes about the capitalisation of this sort of thing you must surely know by now that these moves are likely to be contested. I suggest you use RM from now on. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, since Nick disagreed, we are using the RM process. The guys who joined him without saying why needed pushback because they gave no argument based in sources or guidelines, just an "opinion" that Nick liking capitalization there is better. That's not how an RM discussion is supposed to work. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I actually provided multiple sources to support the capitalised usage here, so was not relying on my opinion. It is beyond me why this editor is so aggressive about this minor matter and is continuing to attack me and the other editors who oppose the move. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe because what you "provided" there was shown to be false, which you have not acknowledged, and the others have failed to account for. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This isn't really the place to rehash the merits of the ongoing RM discussion. In my view, as per Mackensen and Colin M, Dicklyon can sometimes have strongly held convictions, but although his comments may not have been especially polite, they seem basically within the bounds of Wikipedia routine discourse. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333 and SnowFire: since your comments at the subject RM are under discussion here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • That's not "hectoring". The complainant has some history of accusing Dicklyon of aggression, hectoring, etc., when the complainant isn't getting his way. This kind of escalation is a waste of ANI's time. Tony (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't recall ever encountering Dicklyon before, so I'm not sure what history you're referring to. It's a bit odd that you're accusing me of Trumpian escalation while throwing muck at me here. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Probably Tony refers to the section just above the RM, which he chimed in on, where you accused me of insulting you a few days before this "hectoring" accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor is using multiple accounts for vandalismEdit

All accounts blocked. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So far 5 new accounts have been made in the space of 10 minutes to vandalise Battle of Kumkale and Battle of Vranje obviously all the same editor. Tommi1986 let's talk! 10:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) and no further issues since. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
All accounts are   Confirmed as being the same user. It's an LTA editor - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent posting of unreliable sources and unreferenced edits regarding TV ratingsEdit

User:Superastig has been told in his talk page [78] not to post unreliable sources such an unverified Twitter account. He insists that "he stands up" to his edits and continues to use the unreliable Twitter account as a reference.[79][80] [81] He also restored unreferenced TV ratings in two separate articles ([82][83]) and claiming his fixed something in the article.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


(non-admin closure) Filer and Soldier789 originally warned for disruptive editing, before the latter was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry by NinjaRobotPirate. Page in question was protected briefly before being manually undone. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After failing to verify sources, user:Solider789 is continuously conducting vandalism by multiple editing on Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991) in spite of ongoing discussion.[84] He's also deleting or manipulating discussion content on the talk page.(e.g [85][86] (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What I see with the talk page is you repeatedly removing a section and them restoring it. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing_others'_comments you should not be removing their comments, or your own once responded to. Also, good faith edits are not vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish:Yes, it is Solider789 (and also an IP who's probably himself) remove it here [87] and here [88]. (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that Solider789 and IP 2001:EE0:41C1:18FE:685F:FD23:31F5:7268 are the same.[89] (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to look a bit more, but some sources I have to rely on machine translations. I can see though, for instance, Soldier789 who has inserted a Chinese victory to the infobox several time is citing a source that says China lost on the battlefield against Vietnam, but also prevented Vietnam from developing... In general, the Japanese saw this war as a Chinese side that had completely lost and had to withdraw to the country. It is a typical event of the will and determination of the Vietnamese people against the war of aggression caused by the Chinese side. This is assuming the machine translation is reasonable. It also appears that the IPv6 is the user, judging from some edit summary usage, but obviously we'd need a checkuser to be sure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But why did you (.204) deliberately refactor Soldier's comment? ——Serial 13:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: It was the last version before his act of vandalism.[90] He started to refactor the discussion here. [91] You can see the time of editing to get the point. (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Check. Apologies for doubting you, .204. ——Serial 14:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Solider789 needs to stop editing or removing others comments. The IP needs to stop the personal attacks by calling content disputes WP:vandalism. (If you're telling us there's an ongoing discussion, it seems clear it's a content dispute so the changes to article whether they should have happened are unlikely to be vandalism.) Both sides need to resolve the content dispute via discussion and stop with the edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: Solider789 continuously made dubious editing without explanation, and when someone discussed with him about that, he just wasted the discussion. He was explained and knew that his action went against the policies but still proceeded anyway (in fact he didn't even care to raise objection). In other words, it was equivalent to "removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to [Wikipedia's] core content policies" as defined by WP:VANDAL. This was vandalism. And now when he stops deleting the discussion and pretends to follow the rules, you say that there is an "ongoing discussion"; that surprises me a lot. (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
By your own admission there is discussion. If this discussion started to late that is probably a problem, but it happened before you posted here since you were talking about it. If there is discussion and the editor believe their edit is improving Wikipedia, whether it actually is, this means their edit was made in good faith. It may still be a terrible edit but it's not vandalism. As long as you continue to make such personal attacks, plenty of editors like me mostly ignore anything else you say. If it hadn't been for the fact Solider789 was deleting talk page discussions, such an obvious problem, frankly I would have just suggested we block you if you didn't stop making personal attacks. So let me repeat for one last time. Stop making such personal attacks. There is no reason to. Edits can be terrible without being vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I've protected the page for one week and warned both editors about disruptive editing. Any admin that feels the situation is resolved may freely remove the protection. — Ched (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC) (talk)Edit

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

Reverse protection and close discussionEdit

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

  •   Done w.r.t. protection. — Ched (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Reported user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia's First Law of Usernames suggests that this user is not here to build a neutral encyclopaedia. What doubt might have existed is removed by inspection of their few edits to date. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"First Law of Usernames" - I'll have to remember that one. Boot has been applied. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank goodness that some disruptive editors are so unsophisticated that they select usernames that amount to "BlockMeNow!", when selecting an anodyne username is so easy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I believe that the following accounts are operated by the same person and all accounts have a history of disruptive editing:

User:LouiseFeb1974 was recently blocked from editing Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist) and Russell Barkley on April 9, 2021 for continued disruptive editing. User:AlanberkeleyBC was created 3 days later on April 12, 2021 and has made 6 edits similar to the past edits by User:LouiseFeb1974 on the Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist) article. User:LouiseJVickers1974 was created today and has edited both the Edward Hallowell (psychiatrist) and Russell Barkley articles.

Here is a full list of where those accounts overlap.

Editing similarity examples:

  1. LouiseJVickers1974 on Russell Barkley & LouiseFeb1974 on Russell Barkley
  2. AlanberkeleyBC on Edward Hallowell & LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell here and here
  3. LouiseVickers74 on Russell Barkley and LouiseFeb1974 on Russell Barkley
  4. Aberkeley49 on Edward Hallowell and LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell
  5. Kevinasp on Russell Barkley and LouiseFeb1974 on Russell Barkley
  6. Adderallhead on Edward Hallowell and LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell
  7. Adderallpusher on Edward Hallowell and LouiseFeb1974 on Edward Hallowell here and here (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Is WP:SPI not working? --JBL (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Sure looks broken to me - I resolve cases and more keep showing up anyway. We have an SPI for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevinasp, but I'm not sure that Kevinasp is the same person. Fairly confident that the Berkeley family and the Louise family are all related to each other (there's a particular behavioral quirk they all share), SPI handled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aberkeley49. Adderallhead/Adderallpusher look more like unrelated attack accounts to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox deletionEdit

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

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

LTA backEdit

User blocked indefinitely. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Edhize is back vandalising pages after being banned under other account names! Tommi1986 let's talk! 09:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure who it is but they’re blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prolific Edit Warring and Disruptive Editing by Amigao (11RR)Edit

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

He has a habit of repeatedly dictating the flow of changes to specific articles, making changes which are controversial/disputed and subsequently reverting any other user who challenges them. He makes changes unilaterally, but then requests anyone who challenges him uses the talk page [92] [93] [94] [95]

This has also involved up to 11 reverts on a single article, CGTN (TV channel) in the space of than a week [96] against a number of users. He also reports those who challenge him, but receives no consequences himself.

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

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

Pigsonthewing et al.Edit

Can someone please rein in User:Pigsonthewing. His incessant hostility and disruption is extremely offputting (which is probably the intention). Their latest is the TfD of a new template with a very misleading or uninformed nomination statement (at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 7#Template:Authority control (arts) Master, which is an attempt to disrupt the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: look of Authority Control, where they add their usual belittling and attacking comments (see also the discussions at Template talk:Authority control.

If the comments were only against me, oh well, but it seems to be the same against everyone who opposes them. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Authority control:

  • Out of the blue, they threaten an IP who made a good-faith suggestion with a vandalism block[97]: "We tend to block people for vandalism."
  • I objected to this threat, as did the IP[98]
  • They ignored the IP and replied to me with some sophistry, so I reiterated my point.
  • Their reply? Poppycock, changed afterwards to a flat-out denial that they threatened anyone with a vandalism block, despite it being right there in the discussion a few replies earlier.

Inbetween, they decided to throw around some insults[99] about me around a template I created and they nominated for deletion, but which got kept. For good measure, they repeated it in their next reply, but now in italics. Way too many of their replies are in the same vein, from the very start of the discussion (calling the OPs post a "diatribe"), to "farcical", "stupid", "asinine change", "is disingenuous at best" (in Template_talk:Authority_control)

User:Mike Peel, while usually a bit more civil than Pigsonthewing, adds fuel to the fire. In the same VPP discussion, their first comment calls the opening post "ridiculous", and further down replying to me with "If you're going to persist in deliberately misunderstanding and trying to put words in my mouth, then just go away". At the template talk page, they also sarcastically claim "But no, we must have drama!!!" because they disagree with Pppery

Similarly, User:Tom.Reding feels fine declaring "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation." (in Template_talk:Authority_control#Anyone willing to implement this?), and now claims that opening an RfC about the design at VPP (as asked for by Mike Peel and Pigsonthewing!) is Forumshopping.

This all harks back to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Template:ACArt, which Pigsonthewing nominated without understanding what the template did, and for which they canvassed at some offwiki GLAM page[100]. And then of course the RfC on the redesign of Aythority Control[101], which two of these editors opposed (no problem there): both felt the need to immediately personalize things unnecessary though, with Tom.Reding ("I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but that hasn't stopped Fram before, either.": when called out on this, their reply was "Nothing personal, just facts about your person.", and later on "For an RfC, you are stunningly misinformed"), Mike Peel (first sentence: "While the the template could definitely be made better looking, I don't trust Fram to do it. " and later "Assuming good faith with them has long been worn out").

Basically, it is neigh impossible to have a constructive discussion with Pigsonthewing, and Mike Peel and Tom.Reding regularly add their oil to the fire (although they also have constructive contributions). The way Pigsonthewing treated that IP (with the block warning for no good reason, and then ignoring them), and the way they then denied even making a block treat, is just unacceptable. The constant attempts to paint everything in the worst possible light, deliberately using provocative, uncivil, over-the-top words instead of having a reasonable, civil, adult conversation, is extremely offputting. I noticed that I exhausted my patience and started replying with sarcasm, so I have just stopped replying to them at all wherever possible. Fram (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running issue with Fram's behaviour. They have been actively hostile for a very long time (going back to at least 2017), not just with this template but with anything to do with Wikidata (which is why I said AGF has "long been worn out" as quoted above, as well as "I don't trust Fram to do it"). There was a respite while they were blocked, but since then they seem to have gotten worse, particularly with this case, but also others (e.g., see Template_talk:Cite_Q#TfD_warning, which I took to 3RR). I recently said "But I'm going to re-adopt my policy of not bothering to reply to anything you say" (I was doing that before they were blocked and unblocked), which has mostly been helping (and Fram appears to have done the same in reverse). On the other hand, Andy and Tom seem to be quite reasonable in discussions, and are raising points that should be addressed. Mike Peel (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, on the same discussion, Tom.Reding accused me of Willful ignorance and/or intellectual bias at its most obvious (Special:Diff/1020417845). At the time, I let the matter drop and implemented his suggestion, because I still believed that it was possible to write code in the sandbox that would satisfy everybody and then non-controversially implement it, a belief I now realize was wishful thinking. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't recall encounters with the other users, but I agree with Fram that Pigsonthewing's attitude and behaviour are abhorrent. GiantSnowman 14:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that Tom.Reding thought it wise to start an EW report asking for a topic ban of me for longterm disruption (without any evidence of such) nearly half an hour after being informed of this ANI discussion. For someone concerned about Forumshopping, this seems like a strange move. I have asked there to refer the issue to this ANI and to close the EW case.[102]. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't help but think you informed us of this discussion (1, 2, 3) TWO minutes prior to 3RR'ing. Kinda seems intentional, as if you thought that would absolve you of WP:3RR (of which I had no part, mind you).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Uh, no. I wrote this lengthy (and rambling, sorry) report, which took me quite a while, then looked at my watchlist, and saw that this was again reverted. I reinstated my version, after which you reverted it[103] and started the EW report. Claiming that you had no part in the edit war is not really true, yours is just the latest in the series. Fram (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a few 'heavily involved' editors on the authority control templates in recent proposals (one of which I started) who seem to be in conflict over a longer period of time[104][105] (I'm not familiar with the broader background). In the recent discussions, Pigsonthewig and Tom.Reding most notably have personalised the dispute, or bludgeoned/derailed the discussion. These issues stretch back to the initial RfC.[106][107][108][109]. In the most recent discussion, a couple of vocal editors seem to feel the need to air their (apparently) personal conflicts, somewhat hindering others from getting a word in and making it difficult to keep the discussion on track. I had a feeling this was going to happen, which is why I didn't open my WP:VPR section as an RfC in the first instance. I don't think Fram has done anything poor in these discussions. There is a problem here, but I'm not sure how it can be solved. Disclosure that I also participated in these conversations, and my own opinions align closer to Fram's, but I don't think my summary is biased. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Re:
  1. Re my comment "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues": Fram agreed. So I replied, given the evidence.
  2. Re my claim that "opening an RfC about the design at VPP [...] is Forumshopping": yes, it is, given Fram's own comments. No consensus was reached @ Template talk:Authority control#Discussion example of the new look after the RfC, Template talk:Authority control#The new version takes up too much space, nor Template talk:Authority control#Taking out all the wikilinks doesn't seem like improving user-friendliness, as suggested it should be prior to any followup RfC.
  3. Re "For an RfC, you [Fram] are stunningly misinformed": yes, given that:
  1. Fram was not aware that {{AC}} wikilinks doubled as parameter names (or Fram refused to tell participants, which is worse, but what I suspect to be true, to further their already-badfaith RfC, started without any discussion with regular AC participants),
  2. not aware of/ignoring (again, I suspect the latter) a category relevant to, and against, the discussion, and
  3. not aware of WP:Authority control's own guideline on redirects;
  4. so "stunningly misinformed" is the kindest possible interpretation of Fram's actions, which are better characterized as hostile to {{Authority control}}, given Fram's failed TfD from 2017, and editing tenure back to 2005 (i.e. ignorance is not a reasonable excuse).
Below, Fram has acknowledged that they knew about wikilinks doubling as parameter names, yet they purposefully omitted this from the original RfC, supporting my suspicions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. all the above background,
  2. Fram's recent edit warring @ {{Authority control (arts)}},
  3. prior edit warring @ Template:Cite Q/doc (also Wikidata related),
  4. original no-prior-discussion RfC,
  5. followup no-consensus RfC,
I think a WP:TBAN re WP:Authority control, {{Authority control}}, & WP:Wikidata are appropriate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to take this comment by Tom Reding serious. I quoted their post "There's been no progress on the above implementation issues, despite your lying/mischaracterization of the situation." as evidence of the uncivil, personalized comments and attacks. They reply about the first part of the sentence (which isn't an issue), and completely ignore the second part, which is the actual issue I raised here. They repeatedly make a claim that apparently an RfC about the template can't be started without prior consensus at the template talk page. I have no idea where they get this idea from. They claim that this post by me is evidence that the RfC is forumshopping. When there is no agreement on an article talk page, it is standard procedure to bring the dispute to a wider audience, certainly when it impacts so many articles and when the previous discussion was held at the same forum. As the previous RfC showed, the regulars at the template talk page are widely out of sync with the larger community.
Their claims of me being "stunningly misinformed": the first link given as evidence is a comment by Tom Reding, from which he draws conclusions about me. I was well aware of this functionality, seeing that I used it extensively in my version of the template (it is barely used elsewhere though). His second link[110] is about the exact same issue, but it looks more impressive if you make two issues out of one of course. His third link is again not to anything I said, but to Wikipedia:Authority control.
So, they make a three-bullet version explaining why they called me "stunningly misinformed", with 2 links to their own comments, one to an information page, and none to edits made by me. And that is supposedly enough, not only to defend personal attacks, but to demand a topic ban. They reiterate this with a 5-point argumentation, including not only the current, ongoing RfC (where apart from the 3 people discussed heren, so far most people tentatively support the proposal, but it's early days still), but also the previous "no prior discussion" RfC, which was closed with a strong support for my proposal and a strong consensus against the position of the same 3. Trying to get someone topic banned because they made an RfC at the village pump which was closed with "strong support" only goes to show the WP:OWN behaviour Tom.Reding (and the other two) establish for their templates. I don't know if a topic ban is necessary here, instead of just some strong warnings, but if any TBan are handed out, the people trying to subvert consensus and abusing fellow editors are probably the first in line to receive one. Fram (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read all the diffs.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The perfect storm. Fram's obsession with this template is probably the only thing to equal Andy's obsession with microformatting. IBAN maybe? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Probably wrong solution, as the dispute is topical. Whatever Fram's historical behaviour on this template (which should be clearly evidenced if relied on anyway), his conduct in these discussions has been just fine IMO. In the discussion labelled "no prior discussion RfC", his proposal gained near unanimous community consensus, even though it was shot down by the maintainers, some of whom relentlessly attacked Fram and his 'motives'. We can't start sanctioning people for being on the receiving end of PA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    For background, Fram nominated this template for deletion in 2017, campaigned for removal of properties from it (e.g., Musicbrainz), and created {{ACArt}} to systematically remove content from it. They have not discussed any proposed RfCs at Template talk:Authority control, and their "near unanimous community consensus" was based on 'make the template prettier', not a solid proposal - they had to go find someone to implement it afterwards, and this led to the current RfC. Fram's replies to messages are often sarcastic and designed to annoy the person they are replying to (and I haven't figured out if they are deliberately misunderstanding things or not). Mike Peel (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I see four RfC/TfDs over the course of four years, two of which passed in Fram's favour, a third was evenly divided (8-8), and the fourth rejected? As I say, evidently the maintainers disagree with Fram's views, but surely Fram holding views the maintainers don't like is not a conduct problem.
    More generally, while there are a lot of allegations made about Fram (here and elsewhere), I haven't seen any of them be clearly substantiated. See Tom's reply above, which can be summarised as little more than a distraction. For example: labelling an ongoing RfC started one day ago as a "no consensus RfC" simply because a few maintainers disagree, alleging forum shopping based on posting a proposal to the wider community at VPR rather than bringing it to the maintainers (a fictional definition of WP:FORUMSHOP & sounds more like ownership), and some incomprehensible rationales for the personal attacks Fram is concerned about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's the thing: on one side we have [what seems to be] a years-long, multi-fronted effort to chip away at various elements of data/Wikidata on Wikipedia, of which the several authority control template discussions are just one front. And on the other side we have lots of brusque assumptions of bad faith and insufficiently substantiated allegations. I seriously doubt either is sanctionable based on these reports, but some real talk for the "[wiki]data is not always terrible" crowd: ANI isn't good at dealing with the long-term stuff, and based on the diffs available (and the ongoing conversations), the only possible sanction is for those personalizing disputes, making allegations, and assuming bad faith. In other words, if anything comes out of this thread, it won't be a tban for Fram. I say this as someone who thinks we really can't spare any of the voices who actually know a bit about this stuff. If you think Fram is being intentionally misleading, using bad faith framing techniques, etc. that will probably require a lot of work to address, and will probably involve digging around those past discussions to show a long-term pattern (and there may not be enough even then). I don't think there's anything all that problematic just looking at Fram's involvement as of late, even if his approach is frequently frustrating. The reality right now is we have is an RfC with consensus to make authority control more user-friendly. I think you have some points about the way Fram has been framing some of these threads, but I think Fram also has some points about some of the objections you're raising, too. What's needed is working with Fram and others you disagree with, realizing that we can't afford to lose the people who know that most about this stuff. On Fram's end, it would probably be both productive and a gesture of good faith to commit to collaboratively drafting RfCs in the future, since whether intentionally or not there's clearly some dispute over the wording of yours. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the numerous arbitration cases regarding Pigsonthewing (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review); the case regarding Fram Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram, and this declined case request regarding Wikidata and some of the same players [111] - moving this to ArbCom may be appropriate. --Rschen7754 17:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Or may be we can topic ban him here from everything related to templates broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Spamming of airport articles with useless chartsEdit

User User:Legion23 has added "Airport pax stats charts" to hundreds of airport articles. While the majority of them is useful, there are also dozens of others which are virtually useless.

Many charts present just 2 years of passenger numbers like for Braunschweig or Braganca.

Several others are showing only 1 (one) year, see here for Tortola, Qabala or here for Vila Real.

Historical data might be useful for someone - but in case of old data with just 1 or 2 years in plain figures instead of charts.

A 20 year old chart with 1 or 2 years does not make much sense, the same applies for charts like "2016-2017".

Unfortunately, a discussion on my talk page led to nothing. Instead, this user reverts corrections in irregular intervals, always repeating "please stop deleting".

Besides, the vast majority of his charts do not have a directly accessible source, but sources are only accessible through several steps via Wikidata. That means there is no instantly available proof of their correctness. I am not sure whether this is compatible with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

While many of his edits do make sense, he appears to be on a mission to put in such "charts" into as many airport articles as possible. Since the discussion has become stuck, I would like to hear the opinions of neutral readers. Thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyone - please read the discussion on Uli_Elch's talk page first, with the template developer's comments. These charts will update themselves in the future as more data is added to the database. This template queries the Wikidata database and displays the data in it dynamically, when the user displays a Wikipedia page.
Line charts must have at least 2 data points (for 2 years). Otherwise a line won't be displayed. I didn't add empty charts (yes, I went through all European airports and checked what would be displayed, and didn't add charts to those airport pages that would have empty charts).
Braunschweig had 3 data points: 2015, 2016 and 2017, Vila Real 2016 and 2017, Tortolì 1999 and 2000, Bragança 2016 and 2017.
In Qabala, the table below the chart also presents only 2 years - by the same logic, is the table useless as well? Legion23 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Reply - Please note: "2 data points (for 2 years)" is wrong - they represent just 1 (one) year, as in the Tortola example, from January 1999 to December 1999. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
In the Tortola Tortolì TTB example, the chart might indeed be unuseful as the airport is very small and looks to be closing/closed. But open airports have to get their own chart, be them small or with few data. It might be a signal to help find data and collect it, to improve data quality. Bouzinac (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, we have uncovered an interesting issue with the Tortolì example. The data is available for even 3 years (1998-2000). Unfortunately, it is not passenger numbers that have been added to the database, but aircraft movements: 660 and 923. I suggest to go through all Italian airports that use this source and check for the same issue. In this source, page 32 (23 printed as the page number) shows comparison between years 1998 and 1999:
* 1998 - 923 movements, 44,412 passengers
* 1999 - 660 movements, 33,266 passengers
Page 44 (35 printed as the page number) shows data for the year 2000:
* 2000 - 906 movements, 37,039 passengers Legion23 (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Whether to include charts or not should be something agreed upon by active editors on an article; a decision like open airports have to get their own chart is something that needs to get consensus somewhere - probably the relevant WikiProject. As far as sources go, I agree that a Wikidata query is inadequate, especially since it links to bare URLs. Actual sources should be cited here. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
"Bare URL' (for Wikidata) are the very place where you can find the relevant number and check it. Better to have "" than "". By the way, I've corrected Tortolì data (my mistake when converting the pdf). --Bouzinac (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Nah, a bare URL on Wikidata is a stopgap - it doesn't include an accessdate, or any information about the source. A proper reference over there should be an item that fully describes the source page - there's a reason you can use a Q number to generate a reference over here on Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The tendency for people to use inadequate references like that on Wikidata seems to be a big part of the reason some people over here are so hostile to incorporation of Wikidata over here. Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
From my experience as a DABfixer, I consider the quality of information in Wikidata to lie somewhere between Discogs and IMDb. Errors imported from Wikidata into English Wikipedia sometimes need a specialist to fix (which I am not, but I know one). Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

  • I'd have appreciated a talk page notification about this thread, FDW777. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Apologies. As you'd already attempted to get the editor to drop the stick, I didn't want to be accused of summoning people who may have any degree of bias, since even awarding barnstars is problematic. FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    No worries, reasonable thought. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to do a point by point rebuttal to the reponse below, but However, as the last three messages at my Usertalk have been left by FDW777, this feels like the latest in a line of targeted attacks on me is worthy of a reply. 07:35, 3 May is a discretionary sanctions notification, which can be given if an editor is making problematic edits relating to BLPs. As they were adding dates of birth in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, it is hardly an unreasonable notification. 15:46, 03 May is the notification of a report at WP:AE, this is a mandatory notification. 14:44, 07 May is the notification for this thread, again this is a mandatory notification. There are no targeted attacks of any description. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Response from TrottieTrueEdit

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

Interaction ban proposalEdit

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

As I've said, I walked away 48 hours ago. The only person carrying on any disupte right now is TrottieTrue. I would have no problem with a two-way ban, providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment. FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a large degree of bias from ~ ToBeFree above, and they are clearly taking sides (again making me out to be "the bad guy"). As before, they are singling me out as the guilty party and ignoring any wrongdoing by the editor in question. FDW777 is also practicing forum shopping (see their comment here. To claim that I am guilty of "WP:IDHT behavior" is patronising, and dismissive of my justified POV. If there is any harassing, it comes from FDW777 (again, I repeat, they are gaming the system by behaving badly in a way which they know admin will overlook, and then when I complain, labelling it "harassment"). In this situation, I am prepared to accept an indefinite two-way interaction ban, providing that I am still able to edit articles about UK politicians without any impediment.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue, I would actually say that ~ ToBeFree is bending over backwards not to take sides here, by proposing "a no-fault two-way interaction ban". As you won't even accept that without demanding conditions I think that we need to look into who is at fault (a clue - it is not FDW777) and impose sanctions against that editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
"I would have no problem with a two-way ban, providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment."--FDW777
"In this situation, I am prepared to accept an indefinite two-way interaction ban, providing that I am still able to edit articles about UK politicians without any impediment." I'm not sure there is any difference between either of these "demands".--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
There is little difference between the demands, so, as I said above, we need to look at who is actually at fault. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
So I make a similar demand to FDW777, and you're implying I'm at fault. Clearly no bias going on here.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • All things being equal—notwithstanding TrottieTrue's wall-of-text reply in the section above, but very much noting their BATTLEGOUND response here (accusations of partisanship, gaming etc., total lack of introspection)—I think I'd see more use for a one-way I-ban against TrottieTrue; it seems unfair to entangle FDW777 with an I-ban over a situation not of his making, that he is no longer part of, and that another party reignites. If there is blame to be apportioned, it seems pretty one-directional to me. ——Serial 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course, FDW777 is completely innocent, and it would just be "unfair" to do anything to them. I don't appreciate the aspersion being cast by saying there's a "total lack of introspection" - given that I've admitted where I'm wrong, that is patently untrue. I think FDW777 has evidently brought this situation on themselves. The "lack of introspection" perhaps reflects more on this editor; ToBeFree has previously stated that "FDW777's behavior may not be ideal".--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't work: the same admin later in the same conversation commented, apropos you, that there may have been misconduct on both sides, but you're currently not in a good position to request sanctions against the person who has enforced an important policy regarding your persistent breaches of WP:BLP ——Serial
I wasn't specifically requesting sanctions; and as you've quoted, "there may have been misconduct on both sides" is a tacit acknowledgement of FDW777's behaviour. Just because one party has been sanctioned, it should not preclude the other party's behaviour from being looked at.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Since both editors agree to an indefinite 2-way interaction ban, there's no need for any further discussion here. *poof*, by the powers vested in me as an uninvolved admin, your wishes are granted, there is now an indefinite 2-way interaction ban. @FDW777:, @TrottieTrue:, please indicate below that you've seen this, and that you've read WP:IBAN. It is possible for people editing in overlapping areas to continue to do so while an IBAN is in effect, but it is not painless, and you need to be aware what is OK and what isn't, or it just comes back to ANI again with dueling "He violated the IBAN. No, she violated the IBAN" reports. I'll log it when both of you have agreed below (and when I can remember where to do so). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have seen this and read WP:IBAN. There are exceptions, including "obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons", which should satisfy FDW777.--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well that's weird and annoying. I opened my edit window before SN's post; I don't know why 5 posts by FDW and SN didn't cause an edit conflict. Anyway, it unfortunately looks like I just plain ignored SN's comment, when really I didn't see it until now. Still, since they both agreed, I personally don't think discussion on 1-way vs 2-way is useful. If they both agree below than I'll enact it. If not, then I'll walk away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    WP:Editing restrictions, that is. :)~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have seen this and read WP:IBAN. (See above.)--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Given the small number of editors presently editing articles relating to Northern Ireland politicans, I don't believe it's fair to saddle me with an editing restriction that prevents me from reverting, or even mentioning why I may consider the edit to be problematic, any of TrottieTrue's edits. As Serial Number 54129 said, the current situation is not of my making. FDW777 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      Then you might want to strike "I would have no problem with a two-way ban" above. Good luck, both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It's hardly fair to truncate my post, which continued with providing I am still able to edit articles about politicans in Northern Ireland without any impediment. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
A two-way IBAN could potentially impede your editing about Northern Ireland politicians. It's up to you, but in your position I would not accept it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@FDW777: It's not a matter of fairness; I'll admit it did not occur to me to interpret your caveat as "I accept a 2-way iban, as long as I can continue to interact with TrottieTrue if I think she's doing something wrong". I just assumed you meant "as long as I can continue to edit in that topic area". Perhaps my suggestion to strike that part out was snarkier than I intended. My bad. Since you made it clear now that is what you meant (and she's kind of made it clear her his acceptance was similarly limited), my simple "nip it in the bud" action is no longer acceptable. To be honest, the smartest idea in this thread is your suggestion buried somewhere below that you both agree to walk away with no official anything, although I kind of suspect that wouldn't have worked out either. It's just that 1-way ibans seldom work, unless they're treated as 2-way ibans in practice. This seems like a setting you up for a future "FDW777 is following/reverting/commenting on an editor who cannot respond to his comments, thus taking advantage of a 1-way iban" thread here. I would definitely stay far away from her him, if I were you, even if a 1-way iban is enacted. But like I said, good luck to both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happiest if I never have to mention TrottieTrue's name again, so I have no intention of taking advantage of any one-way ban. I'd prefer to simply move on to more constructive things. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: According to User:TrottieTrue they are male, so you might want to fix your misgendering. FDW777 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, not quite sure what made me think that. I originally misread their username as "TrudieTrue", and I think maybe even when I realized I had the name wrong, the gender had already stuck in my head? Anyway, thanks. Fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I am male. "To be honest, the smartest idea in this thread is your suggestion buried somewhere below that you both agree to walk away with no official anything, although I kind of suspect that wouldn't have worked out either." That could have worked, except that some very vindictive editors would rather punish me. I've given a lot of my time for free to the project (yes, I know the counter argument that everyone has), but punishing me in this disproportionate way will put users like me off. Fair enough, you'll have WP to yourself. I think you're right that 1-way I-bans are fundamentally problematic; it punishes one user, and allows the other to take advantage. No matter what FDW777 might say, they could easily use this to their advantage. I actually think a number of editors on this thread are behaving in a bullying manner; if I don't play ball and accept everything FDW777 says, then they will punish me. Is that a constructive course to take when dealing with an editor who has contributed a lot to the project? Doubtless, it counts for nothing, but this is not how a volunteer organisation treats people who give up their time for nothing. The fact that civility and avoiding personal attacks are seen as less important is deeply concerning.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • FDW777 as the OP do you have a proposal to make to resolve the issues you're raising? May I suggest posting something short with a few clear and recent diffs that we can !vote on. Levivich harass/hound 17:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll suggest a simple propsal without the need for any I-bans. TrottieTrue said here on 5 May I am attempting to disengage from the conflict, which I took to be a good point to stop discussing with them. All I ask is that they stop forum shopping this issue that has been addressed already, return to editing and I'll do likewise. Since they already said they want to disengage, just do so and stop creating threads about me. FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I had stopped "forum shopping", but it seemed reasonable to point out how FDW777's interactions come across to me in the form of a template warning, especially as no administrator has been prepared to call out their behaviour (had that been done, I wouldn't have left a warning template; wilful ignorance of FDW777's policy violations hasn't helped the situation, making it appear as if there is bias, and pushing me into a corner). I've made my point, even if FDW777 saw fit to remove it. Perhaps FDW777 can disengage too, and stop creating threads about me. What I ask is that FDW777 engages with editors in a civil manner, and in good faith, without making personal attacks, such as referring to my interest in a topic being an "unhealthy fixation".--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Serial's analysis on the situation. On sourcing, Companies House is absolutely unreliable as a source for BLP DOBs. I believe CH acts solely as a registrar for the record and publishes whatever is given to it. It does no fact checking. It can't even be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF because it's not necessarily the BLP publishing the information (it could be a company secretary etc, it could even be mistaken identity) (and indeed, CH does no identity verification either IIRC). I think this situation has been blown out of proportion, but I don't see any evidence of misconduct by FDW777. (if it exists, please provide it, succinctly). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The BLP violation has already been resolved, and I have moved on from that (it's a distraction from the real issue to keep referring to it). What I have raised is FDW777's misconduct - which was tacitly acknowledged by another editor. Namely, Wikipedia:Personal attacks: here, repeated here and here. I have listed other violations elsewhere. this illustrates harassment (admitting they are watching a Project page they have little interest in because of me, then criticising that page as soon as it is published). See also the topic suggesting that the ArbReq be reopened. This is threatening language - see WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and WP:Civility.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with ProcrastinatingReader about Companies House. I have registered two companies there and it accepted whatever I said about the directors with no fact-checking at all. Just a few seconds' thought should tell you that they would have to increase their staff by orders of magnitude if they were to check everything that was written on the registration form. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue has moved on from using Companies House to UK Who's Who, which has similar issues regarding the subject proving information to the publication. WP:RSNP lists it as 'no consensus' on the reliability of the source. Better than Companies House, but certainly not ideal, especially for trivial BLP details regarding hobbies such as "McNair-Wilson's recreations are sailing, pottery and flying". I don't find any fault with FDW777's follow through on the BLP concerns at all. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have barely used CH at all compared to WW. This is beginning to feel like a smear campaign against me and my editing. The point is that CH are regarded as "public records"; WW does not fall into that category, so it is irrelevant to raise it here. Who's Who, a widely respected long-running publication, evidently does not regard Recreations as "trivial". I think it adds some human interest to those articles. Few people can find any fault with FDW777, it seems.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777's objection to formal I-banEdit

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

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

One-Way IBAN ProposalEdit

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

  • Support as proposed. — Ched (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and my various comments above; thanks to Ched for cutting to the chase with this one. ——Serial 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the misconduct by FDW777 has been completely ignored. They have started several topics about me. There is a lot of bias from other editors in this situation.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue, when you say bias from other editors you're pretty much admitting that multiple "other editors" have an issue with your editing. If there are multiple other editors taking issue with what you're doing - then perhaps you need to take a good look at what you're being told. Stop doing what others object to, and maybe you won't have these problems. Just IMO. — Ched (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
And yet I haven't had any problems of this nature with other users in sixteen years of editing. Multiple editors are taking the side of FDW777; that isn't the same thing as them having an issue with my editing generally. My POV is being completely shut down by other users, who have a blind spot when it comes to FDW777, or simply place BLP above any other misdemeanour.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, i almost forgot and just noticed that was you too. ANI thread archived to your dismay, AN thread created to complain about incivility. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
What's your point? That editor has actually vandalised at least one article, and you agreed that in future you should be notified of their behaviour.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
TrottieTrue, I, for one, don't have a "blind spot" when it comes to FDW777, an editor who I don't remember having any previous interactions with. It's just that nobody has provided any links to any of that user's edits that are problematic, as opposed to yours. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
That previous discussion is particularly enlightening. For example this post where it is stated I accepted their initial post on my Talk page about not using Companies House as a DOB source, but the editor in question has since appeared to have an obsessive fixation on this issue. Clearly TrottieTrue did not accept the post about not using Companies House as a DOB source, otherwise we wouldn't be here. And it further beggars belief that they object to my use of unhealthy fixation (which with hindsight, could have been expressed better) when they themselves describe another editor as having an obsessive fixation. Pot, meet kettle! FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
We've finished the discussion about Companies House. At least you admit that your wording "with hindsight, could have been expressed better". An "obsessive" fixation is rather different to an "unhealthy" one, the latter making judgements about a person. "Pot, meet kettle!" is also rather unhelpful. You may well be successful in preventing me from interacting with you, in which case that would mean you could do or say what you like to me. This whole incident feels like a pile-on against me, in which editors suffer from a lack of perspective, being unable to see the forest for the trees. There is no need to continually attack me for a closed incident. Personally, I think personal attacks and incivility are far worse than BLP policy violations.--TrottieTrue (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I had detailedly warned you that exactly this would happen, and you chose to ignore the advice completely. Your last sentence is concerning, as after all tbe warnings you still question the importance of the BLP policy. There is no civility exception at WP:3RRNO nor at WP:WHEEL nor at WP:BANREVERT nor at WP:BE nor at WP:CSD nor at WP:Notability nor even at WP:BANEX, but all of these policies and guidelines have special rules for BLPs. On Wikipedia, civility is objectively not more important than removing BLP violations. I don't understand how this can be unclear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Again, you're trying to bamboozle me with endless WP pages. I am perfectly entitled to think that incivility and personal attacks are worse than BLP violations: the latter is not always directly targeting someone. There's a lot of Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" going on here, and a distinct lack of empathy in this situation from other Wikipedians; they can only see it in black and white, with me as 'bad' and FDW777 as 'good'. There are evidently a lot of editors who wish to punish me for my procedural 'transgressions' (which have already been dealt with) and overlook anything that FDW777 does. It's very unbalanced. It's coming across like a clique ganging up on me - and please don't tell me to do some introspection. This is classic gaslighting by a powerful clique. And yes, any clique will deny they are a clique, and my response will be painted as 'sour grapes'.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, and it's true, I simply place WP:BLP above any misdemeanor. Levivich harass/hound 19:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support By the way, a BLP violation is more severe than a misdemeanor, because it can adversely affect a person's real life as opposed to someone's anonymous online persona. I recommend that Trottie True study up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I also second Cullen328's suggestion that Trottie read WP polices. When they started harassing me for having reverted one instance of their harassment of FDW777, they said they were unfamiliar with the policy and then sought to excuse why they wouldn't follow it in future. Cambial foliage❧ 20:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, I did not harass you. That's a huge misrepresentation. I posted a couple of comments in response to your reversion. Anyone who looks at the links above can see that. Forbidding me from interacting with FDW777, but allowing them to interact with me, is incredibly unjust.--TrottieTrue (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per Levivich, BLP vios place far above any other misdemeanours, and this is the appropriate action. I strongly suggest TrottieTrue starts using reliable sources for their edits on BLPs or this will escalate. Their action in seeking me out because I had a disagreement with FDW777 over an article they had nominated at GAN was also poor wikibehaviour. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


I have never even heard of those accounts. AntonSamuel has been trying to get me banned since the day I arrived here. At first when I slightly changed his map which was seriously misleading, he refused to discuss with me despite several pings and then reported me to admins for c:COM:OW for overwriting his file. After a discussion was stalled I've decided to boldy change the misleading map which confuses readers by showing the former boundaries of a state which is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan. Now that he can't report me for overwriting his file he has resorted to accusing me of using blocked accounts. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I have explained pretty clearly what is problematic with this user's contributions with regard to the changes that were made to the updated location map for Artsakh/NKR that I created on Wiki Commons and on Wikipedia - and it has also been raised on the RfC this user started and which was later shut down, I would say it's not likely that this is a new/inexperienced user that starts RfC's, pings regular editors and creates new vector maps for Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
And you only recognized these after I started doing edits against your POV, gotcha nothing personal in your report. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It was me that removed the {{rfc}} tag; but I didn't shut it down - indeed, I stated that people should continue to discuss in the usual way. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, the matter was not ready for an RfC: I have observed that far too often, people reach for RfC without first trying the easier alternatives, and this was one such case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Perhaps I could have phrased it better - I didn't mean that you put an end to any discussion of course. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
And in addition - the editor in question is continuing the same type of edits with regard to the map after I raised this issue, on more Nagorno-Karabakh articles. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
So? Am I not allowed to edit because you are accusing me of something. ListeningBronco (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ListeningBronco's mass change is self-evidently controversial and there almost certainly wouldn't be a consensus for it if they'd discussed it first, especially given the entrenched standpoints of editors in the AA2 topic area. The map portrays the smallest possible boundaries of Artsakh, which looks like WP:ADVOCACY to me. Notably, they recently proposed a different map at Talk:Stepanakert which more reasonably included Artsakh's claimed borders in a lightly shaded colour; I was the only editor there who expressed support for this change. To then go and insert an even more controversial map into multiple articles, rather than continuing to engage with that thread – where there was very little support for even that (less one-sided) proposal – is completely unproductive. I agree that ListeningBronco is probably a sock of one of the editors previously blocked or topic banned from AA2. I certainly don't believe they're a new editor, and I noted as much in the discussion at Stepanakert. Although I think an SPI is warranted, I'm not familiar enough with previously blocked editors to confidently conjecture who the sockmaster might be. Jr8825Talk 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC) edited for clarity Jr8825Talk 06:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have now restored the previous Artsakh/NKR location map with multiple layers of borders to the concerned articles by reverting the edits of ListeningBronco, referring to this discussion and the one on Talk:Stepanakert, as these changes were done without consensus. I hope it was within my bounds to do this - I don't intend to edit war, but I thought I would step up with regard to this matter as these changes were made without consensus, since I've pinged admins about this with the hope that someone would take a look sooner rather than later, since I started this thread yesterday and since the user that made them participated in the discussion on Talk:Stepanakert and was made fully aware that there wasn't consensus for removing the additional layers of borders to the map. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Lil Pablo 2007Edit

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

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

Indefinite block for User:SportsfanrobEdit

This person is clearly not here to contribute, given their behavior. Their edits have largely been disruptive in nature, and this person recently made even more disruptive edits, after he was blocked for 3 months and entered into a period of inactivity on his main account. During this period of "inactivity", he engaged in multiple instances of block evasion, via IPs, which can be seen on his SPI page, and some of which CUs are aware of (including instances that aren't in his SPI archive). As such, I am requesting an indefinite block on their account. This person is a sheer net-negative, and net-negatives do not belong on this site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Widr, Favonian, ToBeFree, and Spencer: Can someone please take a look at this report? This person just continues to cause more and more problems. Their history of block evasion and IP socking is also a real concern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing and general WP:NOTHERE behavior at Talk:Quantum entanglementEdit

There's a bit of genuine entertainment value in being called one of those 'entanglement' freaks and seeing a decades-old physics subject summarily dismissed as all Voodoo, and a fairytale, but when the response to pointing out policy is You guys stop making lame excuses, I don't think the discussion is going anywhere. IP was blocked for edit-warring, then came back to cast aspersions, promote self-published sources, and insinuate a conspiracy theory on the Talk page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and template redirects (2)Edit

Following on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Jonesey95 and template redirects, Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) has today continued to create template redirects to the cite templates[112][113] knowing that there are multiple deletion discussions[114][115] continuing about such redirects. Continuing with a series of edits after being asked to stop and while discussion is ongoing is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If editors here refuse to impose a topic ban, can we at least agree that such redirects should not be created while discussion is ongoing? DrKay (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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


Despite multiple warnings (if they didn't keep blanking them, they'd have around 10-15 for the last month to 6 weeks by now, here's a sample, with their reactions), editor User:Epictrex behavioral problems continue, and have been escalating into personal attacks and random nonsense:

  • The latest [116], not just once, they edit warred over it, [117] and [118]. When warned at talk, here was their response [119] and [120].

But that's just today. Here's the last month:

  • And let's not forget this little escapade where they used IPs to have an edit war with themselves on History of Nevada : [121], [122], [123], [124], and [125]. Both IPS geolocate to the same place, which also happens to be the same place as the IP they used to vandalize 2 user talk pages several days earlier while in the middle of some kind of meltdown, [126], [127], and [128]. Also at the point the edit war started, the editor had not been on wiki in several days, but timestamps confirm they used their named account within one minute of the first IP vandal. This whole thing resulted in an ANI report (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#Epictrex in an unusual edit war with themselves), but when they hadn't edited for 24 hours, and no admins seemed interested in pursuing it, was withdrawn.
  • I initially began interacting with the user after they started editing multiple Native American and archaeology articles that I watchlist, and noticed they were being templated for many of their edits, most of which seemed to be inserting uncited WP:FRINGE material into articles or random changes that looked like experimenting with syntax/grammar/adding useless flag icons. I tried to walk them through a few things, stressed the need to read up on the policies everyone kept linking for them and that they seemed to be wholly unfamiliar with, stressed that they needed to experiment in the sandbox to get the hang of editing syntax, and pointed to the location of the sandbox multiple times. I also gave them the most detailed explanation of "how to do a cite" I've ever had to do in the 13 years I've been an editor here. (User talk:Epictrex#WP:CITE). As the last several weeks has passed, I've wondered if this is a WP:CIR situation. They aren't editing maliciously, they are not a vandal, and I don't think they are trolling us. I suspect the user is young and may not be mature enough to handle editing here yet. They are combative, they name call and engage in personal attacks at the slightest perceived provocation, they do not take criticism well, and so far seem almost entirely uninterested in learning what the policies are. And this latest incident calls into question if they can be trusted with the editing tools at all. At best, their edits where they actually add content with references are bits of information copied from other articles (cites and all, if they ever manage to copy a whole cite, Talk:Native Americans in the United States#I gave a citation, yet a bunch of people keep on undoing my edit.). At this point I'm wondering if a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences. I don't like writing reports like this, I don't like having to take the time to look up the diffs, and in all the years I've been here I've only resorted to ANI a handful of times. But after this latest instance (bulleted point one above), after repeated warnings from multiple other editors, this user needs a wakeup call. Heiro 06:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
At this time, Epictrex has deleted this case twice. This is precisely why they were brought here in the first place. DÅRTHBØTTØ (TC) 06:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
DarthBotto, Make that 3 times, as seen here, they seem to just be here for malicious purposes. ~ Ronja (utc) 07:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
An IP editor (now rangeblocked) has been trolling and edit warring on this noticeboard, but the timing is a coincidence and Epictrex has nothing to do with it. I'm collapsing the unrelated comments to prevent misinterpretation and distraction from the actual topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

He is now trying to delete the comment directly above mine.[129][130]Czello 07:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Czello, Should we just ignore their edits and not revert? Because there is a very high chance of an edit war starting, and that is not wanted by any of us. If we keep reverting, so will they. Opinions? ~ Ronja (utc) 07:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Czello and Ronjapatch: For clarification, those edits were made by the unnamed troll from Auckland and not Epictrex. This thread simply had the misfortune of taking place directly before the troll's nightly routine, several days running. DÅRTHBØTTØ (TC) 07:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
DarthBotto, Thank you for that, clears it up a bit more. What are your thoughts on how we should approach this? I would prefer a calm and gentle approach if possible. ~ Ronja (utc) 07:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Concur. Epictrex is not in New Zealand, see above, the IPs they have socked from all geolocate to Nevada. Heiro 07:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Heironymous Rowe, For clarification, are the trolls separate people, or are they all a sock of Epictrex using a VPN? ~ Ronja (utc) 07:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not believe they are Epictrex, they only reverted here twice with their named account. They nave not socked with VPNs yet to my knowledge. They were socking earlier today on History of Arizona, more IPs from Nevada. Heiro 07:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Heironymous Rowe, Thank you, the clarification is much appreciated. ~ Ronja (utc) 07:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The diffs provided show Epictrex (talk · contribs) veering between the extremes of over-aggression and over-sensitivity (a total inability to cope with the mildest rebuke or upset). I'd go along with ThadeusOfNazereth's suggestion of a "a short "wake-up" block for them to contemplate policies and to realize if the persist in their current direction that their actions have consequences" except for Epictrex's assertion that there's a deeper underlying reason - "I just have bad anxiety and get panicked very easily". It looks to me that WP:NOTTHERAPY is the frame in which this should be handled. Cabayi (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Cabayi, Very good, I second this. A short wake up call seems to be exactly what the user in question needs at this current moment. ~ Ronja (utc) 07:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
As an addendum, they also tend to IP sock when ducking out, just look at this today, [131], there are 4 or 5 IPs right there, all geolocate to Sparks, Nevada, same as the IP s mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heironymous Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 months for currently not being compatible with a collaborative project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
ToBeFree, Appreciate that, thank you. Here is to hoping they come back and make productive edits. ~ Ronja (utc) 08:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and I hope for the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk blockEdit

  Done. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

JustANameInUse back on IPs attacking users as being paid "vegan activists"Edit

(non-admin closure) IP address temporarily blocked a month for block evasion by Yamla. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The blocked JustANameInUse turns up on new IP's every few weeks to accuse editors of being "vegan activists". This has been raised 3 times at ANI previously. He is now using this IP [132] to accuse editors of being vegans. Can an admin please block his latest IP? On his own talk-page he has confessed to being blocked before [133]. This user is very disruptive he previously used these IPs [134], [135] that have been blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

An ANI complaint was filed last month against this user [136]. The admin blocked his IP and agreed to extend the block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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

User not discussing changes, continuing to make changesEdit

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

In short:

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

Best, ɱ (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)