Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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

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 WP:MEDRS 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] 07:09, 9 April 2021 - making a very prominent "Note to closer" (well after the discussion was stalled) based on unreliable and MEDPOP sources. 12:44, 24 April 2021 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. 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 WP:OR and WP:SYNTH 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. WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT 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. 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. 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. 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... 16:46, 19 April 2021 - ...they repeated a very similar comment just one hour later. 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) 06:50, 18 March 2021 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)

• Courtesy pings (in addition to the regular templates): @PaleoNeonate, Jtbobwaysf, JzG, Nsk92, ToBeFree, and CutePeach: 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 indefinitely

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 see a lot of people editing Talk:COVID-19 misinformation who should have taken at least a month and 500 edits to demonstrate an actual interest in building an encyclopedia instead of jumping into this dispute. The proposed measure would have prevented Billybostickson, Empiricus-sextus and CutePeach from editing the page. ~ 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 _words^deeds 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)

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)

@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)

Dilemma for closing admin

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)

Continuing discussion

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)

• 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)

New proposal: placing the COVID-19 misinformation under WP:ARBAP2

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

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

Related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information

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)

JsfasdF252 creating unhelpful pages, attempting to make subpages of articles

JsfasdF252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

JsfasdF252 is consistently creating unhelpful pages, mostly related to templates and modules. They have also repeatedly attempted to make subpages of articles by moving single-use templates or unilaterally splitting off sections. Here's a rundown of the warnings on their user talk page:

Extended content

Category:Wikipedia editcopies: Tagged for speedy deletion per C1, then unilaterally redirected to Category:Wikipedia article sandboxes by JsfasdF252. Template:Sandbox heading/Talk/doc: Useless documentation deleted by TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_25#Template:Sandbox_heading/Talk/doc) after a contested G2. Template:Fake red link: Brought to TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_24#Template:Fake_red_link), then moved to userspace by JsfasdF252 after a nomination per G4. Template:Many images: A tag warning about a large number of images possibly slowing loading the page; redirected to Template:Too many photos after a TfD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_27#Template:Many_images). An edit on Talk:Main Page where JsfasdF252 changed all the links to {{Direct link}}. They also made a similar change at Atom. Template:Direct link: It is unclear what this did, but it was deleted per G7 at TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_18#Template:Direct_link. I think the aim of this template was to replace internal links with external links so as to prevent the existence of red links, or something along those lines. JsfasdF252 applied it very indiscriminately, see Special:Diff/994814036/994875306. User:GKFXtalk 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC) SP:Random: A non-standard shortcut to Special:Random; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 28#SP:Random. A complaint about an RfD for COVID-19 Pandemic because searches are not case-sensitive, which violated precedent. MOS:N: A shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability, which is not in the Manual of Style. Deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_2#MOS:N. A notification about creating pseudo-namespace redirects. Annoyingsville: Speedy deleted per G3. Warning about misuse of {{only}} in articles, such as in this edit at Greenland. Warning about inappropriate deletion tagging, though misidentifed as CSD tagging, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:142.127.189.75. No such action: Speedy deleted per G2. Warning about an unapproved change of font to <code> in {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, regarding this edit at Cmd.exe and this edit at CONFIG.SYS. Relation (OpenStreetMap): Origianlly a soft redirect to an external site, osmwiki:Relation; retargeted to OpenStreetMap#Data format following Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_12#Relation_(OpenStreetMap). Baraque: An ambiguous misspelling that redirected to Baroque; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Baraque. Template:Oppo and Template:Supp: Templates intended for adding "support" and "oppose" comments in discussions, which is common in other wikis but against consensus here. Speedy deleted per G4. A warning about splitting a large section in COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to an attempted subpage COVID-19 pandemic in the United States/Responses. This edit was made twice, by the way. Template:/Subdivisions: An attempt to implement support for subpages of articles; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_10#Template:/Subdivisions. Americas/Subdivisions: An attempt at a subpage of Americas, which was moved from Template:Subdivisions of the Americas. It was moved back, and this page was speedy deleted per R3. COVID-19 pandemic/Epidemiology: Presumably an attempt at a subpage at COVID-19 pandemic; speedy deleted per R3. A complaint about moving Table of keyboard shortcuts to Keyboard/shortcuts. The move was reverted, and the new title was speedy deleted per R3. NCAA Cheerleading Competition/row: Yet another attempted article subpage (of NCAA Cheerleading Competition); moved from Template:NCAA ClC/row and then speedy deleted per R3 after revert. StarKid Productions/Cast: Moved from Template:StarKid Productions Cast. Template:/row: Another attempt at adding support for subpages of articles; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_16#Template:/row. Template:Uw-split: A user warning that did not comply with WP:SPLIT; retooled during a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_24#Template:Uw-split. Jews-non-Aryans: An ambiguous redirect to Final Solution with poor syntax; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_17#Jews-non-Aryans. Brutality-killing: An ambiguous redirect to Violence with poor syntax; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_20#Brutality-killing. New Jersey–New York relations: A misleading and inaccurate redirect to Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_26#New_Jersey–New_York_relations. Australasian relations: A redirect to Australia–New Zealand relations. Kept at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_5#Australasian_relations, despite concerns about being overly broad. A warning about an ANI report for breaking things by moving templates to subpages of articles, such as Template:Infobox actinium isotopes to Isotopes of actinium/infobox. The report is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#Bad_move_by_JsfasdF252, which was closed after the page in question was moved back. U.S. state (disambiguation): Speedy deleted per G14. List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics/Season-end No. 1 skaters: Attempted subpage of List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics; speedy deleted per A10. Warning about unilateral article splits, such as Special:Diff/1015135242 at List of ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking statistics. Template:Hong Kong: One of six "hybrid templates" that displayed as a navbox on articles or a WikiProject banner on talk pages. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_31#Template:Hong_Kong. A warning about archiving old April Fools' nominations. Didn't find a diff about this one. Module:Delimited tag: Redundant to native Lua functions and Module:Separated entries; deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_3#Module:Delimited_tag. Brilliant brown: Redirect to Orange (colour) from an implausible synonym; deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Brilliant_brown. Template:IN: Sole purpose was to add "in country X" to articles, which was unnecessary beyond what was already in {{CountryPrefixThe}}. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_6#Template:IN. Category:Hybrid templates: Probably intended to hold templates that combine different functionalities in different namespaces, which is confusing and against consensus in the Hong Kong TfD. Nominated for speedy deleted per C1, then de-tagged after it became populated. Blue trucks: Speedy deleted per R3; used as an intentional red link in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Template:Software: A "hybrid template" that produced an infobox in articles or a WikiProject banner on talk pages. Deleted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_12#Template:Software. Module:Delimited tag: Speedy deleted per G4. Template:A: Ambiguous redirect to Template:Pagetype. Deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_17#Template:A. Category:Bilateral relations of U.S. states: Inaccurate categories nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_18#Category:Bilateral_relations_of_U.S._states. Bilateral relations are only between sovereign states, and most of the items in these categories would never be considered bilateral relations. Another speedy nomination Category:Hybrid templates per C1, which was successful this time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Afar translation: A soft redirect to the incubator wiki for a dead Wikipedia in the Afar language; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_24#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Afar_translation. Template:Back: Yet another attempt to provide support for subpages of articles; nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_24#Template:Back. A {{uw-disruptive2}} warning that warns JsfasdF252 to stop editing in the template and module namespaces. Template:Tc:: Ambiguous redirect to Template:Title case; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_26#Template:Tc:. Template:Filename: Misleading redirect to Template:Samp; nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_26#Template:Filename. A warning about this ANI report.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

There are other serious issues with this editor's contributions that aren't mentioned in the list above, e.g. Retargeting decade old redirects with hundreds of backlinks with no discussion or explanation ([28] [29] [30]) some completely bizarre retargeting of redirects ([31]), Hijacking templates to add weird and useless functionality ([32] [33]) mucking around in other people's pages and archives for no real reason other than to use whatever templates they've just created ([34] [35] [36] [37]) and converting dab pages into plain redirects ([38]). Most of this seems to be motivated by some kind of belief that we need to make the wikicode size of pages as small as possible through templates and splitting ([39] [40]) but their contributions are disruptive, and I think a WP:CIR block is required. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• JsfasdF252 doesn't seem keen to listen to advice or consensus; after Direct link was deleted, they recreated it (Template:Direct link) as a redirect to a template that could be used for the same purpose and created another redirect to it this week (Template:Static link). I'm tempted to say that both of those should be WP:G4 given the unanimous and firm requests for deletion shown at the original TfD. That would not be their only G4. Another of their so-called "hybrid" templates was at Template:Only (the user warning template) which they tried to make into a {{fix}}-based template displaying like ""; they self-reverted that but only after the warning mentioned above about inserting it into pages. I would agree with a blocktopic ban initially; it all just wastes time. User:GKFX^talk 16:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've run into this user various times, as you can see above. I do think they're here in good faith, so I would support a topic ban from splitting articles, creating redirects, and editing template- and module-space (perhaps for six months?) If they're interested in contributing, there are still many ways they can, such as writing articles - and I hope they get the change and choose to do so! Elli (talk | contribs) 21:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I recall there was a user exhibiting almost exactly these behaviors that we subsequently banned, though I can't recall the name. Regardless, I left a warning about the behaviors exemplified in this thread in the past few weeks, a request that has seemingly gone ignored. I honestly support an indefinite block and/or a namespace block from anything but the mainspace + interesting talk spaces. --Izno (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Racist AfD vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannibalism in China

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

---

I've removed this[41] racist AfD vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannibalism in China. I assume that is the correct thing to do? SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that certainly was. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:NONAZIS. We don't do that here.--Jayron32 15:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ah yes, the foreign queasine trope. Should the revision be RD2'd as well? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: without having seen what was in the deleted revision, their new comment ([42]) is IMO not realy better. Can we get a block? Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the IP again, nothing productive coming from them. TAXIDICAE💰 19:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked for 31 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Second edit is revdel'd as well. Guettarda (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like this was all getting a bit tasty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Wareon & Tendentious editing

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

• 08:43, 25 April 2021
• 08:45, 25 April 2021
• 10:49, 29 April 2021
• 10:50, 29 April 2021
• 11:24, 29 April 2021
• 22:55, 30 April 2021

The following are diffs with regards to their inappropriate templating.

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

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

• 22:03, 25 January 2021 Removal of content on B. B. Lal with an edit summary stating that it was not supported by any source.
• 11:58, 26 January 2021 1st revert. I post a comment on the talk page (Special:Diff/1002828707) asking them to justify their removal while quoting from the citations that they did in fact support the material. They respond (Special:Diff/1002830206) by questioning one of four sources and ignoring the others, and simply repeating that the sources do not support the material, when they explicitly did so. Also note that they appear to be removing material while preserving some of the citations for them.
• 12:15, 26 January 2021 2nd revert. The discussion over the particular source continues while they also continue to edit war with other users.
• 12:32, 26 January 2021 3rd revert, partial.
• 12:33, 26 January 2021 4th revert with additional material, they claim 3RR exception in the edit summary.
• They eventually simply resort to accusing User:Joshua Jonathan of competency issues in the talk page discussion on 12:48, 26 January 2021 and stop responding thereafter. Warned for personal attacks on 12:51, 26 January 2021
• 12:49, 26 January 2021 5th revert. Warned for edit warring on 12:53, 26 January 2021. This seems to deter them and they stop edit warring but Ptksmr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account with 15 edits presently, whose last edit at the time was in 2013 emerges to continue it.

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

• Comment - I agree that Wareon has been extremely obstructive at the difficult page of COVID-19 in India, apparently trying to block anything negative said about the government or the ruling party of India. The whitewashing is justified by cryptic edit summaries like "no need", "UNDUE", "already said UNDUE" etc. He is not the only one, but he is clearly taking the lead. In my view, he needs to be kept away from this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just linking what you deem as "edit warring" to remove disruption and POV pushing isn't enough. You have to mention which policy was violated and if my edit was successfully challenged.

Now if you are so concerned about what happened 3 months ago on 26 January, the it is clear to anyone that my edits on B. B. Lal were accepted as valid while Tayi Arajakte was frequently violating WP:BLP[43] together with an obvious sock SPA named Inderpalsingh55. Tayi Arajakte was double downing on talk page to justify his BLP violations and falsely claiming a SPS (which never supported his text) to be a non-SPS by wrongly naming a different publisher than the actual publisher.[44] Tayi Arajakte met whole definition of WP:DE there.

To claim that I was wrong with my attempts to correct this BLP violation and misrepresentation of sources is entirely misleading and only speaks of your own intent.

I am not taking lead on any article but being bold and complying with the necessary policies per WP:CON and WP:BRD.

This report is baseless and yet another attempt by the OP to get rid of me even though he tried it before and failed with the baseless SPI he filed before. Wareon (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:EDITWAR states that claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Per my own comment on the talk page of B. B. Lal, Droogan 2013 is published by A&C Black which is not an SPS. Do you think this is difficult to check? I have also quoted from the references on the talk page, more than once on how they supported the text, BLP doesn't preclude addition of material which may be perceived as negative. My only edits on that page were after your first removal and I stuck to the talk page since then, which is how one follows BRD.

Between 26 January and your edits in late April, you have mostly edited infrequently except for a period around 21 and 28 February so it is very relevant here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you really saying I should leave problematic edits on main page just because reverting it can be misconstrued as edit warring? That made no sense. On here I had explicitly linked "this self-published source" to which you replied here as "there is no indication that source is self publishing". Now you are extricating yourself out of the misrepresentation of the source you did on the talk page.

Contrary to your faulty calculation, I have edited the entire February and also edited on March and April. You are only making your report even more baseless with these false claims. Wareon (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It was one of the four sources used. You never addressed any of the other sources while continuing to remove material cited to them in the edit war as I've already displayed in this report. My stance on the use of that source in particular was to ignore it after a different user demonstrated that there was an indication that it was self published. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

My message was more detailed than that and I had explicitly noted that "The sources do not support any of these labels". ANI is not for clariying some outdated content dispute. Wareon (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not about clarifying any content dispute. This is about your conduct. You "noted" something that was demonstrably false, which when demonstrated to you, you chose to ignore it as you are doing here and continued to edit war on the page. Not to mention you threw frivolous accusations at Joshua Jonathan of competency issues similar to what you are doing here as well. For instance, according to you, I have "faulty calculations" because I said your edits were infrequent, you have 3 edits in March and 3 edits between 1 to 25 April.

I wouldn't have brought up the January incident if you weren't repeating similar behavior on COVID-19 pandemic in India. Seeing as this is a pattern, one could probably find more if one were to dig deeper through your edits, I have only highlighted the ones that I remember witnessing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S: Regarding, "Are you really saying I should leave problematic edits on main page just because reverting it can be misconstrued as edit warring? That made no sense."

You have been here since 2019, you were warned about edit warring and have cited the policy including WP:3RRNO itself (Special:Diff/1002834911). None of the reverts above are that of obvious vandalism, they are very clearly content disputes where you don't approve of the addition, I find it really hard to believe that you don't know that your actions constitute edit warring. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You are misusing this noticeboard to clarify my position on the content dispute. I was accusing Joshua Jonathan of incompetence because he wasn't understanding he was misrepresenting sources but unlike you he agreed that he was wrong.

Instead of cherrypicking WP:3RRNO, you need to stop ignoring that one is exempted from reverting BLP violations and that's why I wasn't blocked despite your frivolous warning.

My edits were in line with WP:CON and WP:BRD. You need to realize that it was a wrong move of you to file a report over these few non-DE diffs.Wareon (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate in any meaningful way that on how sources were misrepresented and how it was a BLP violation? The exception would apply if it really were a case of misrepresentation which wasn't. This is increasingly looking like behavior described under WP:GASLIGHT.

The diff you have brought up was long after you had left the conversation and was part of a suggestion for an alternative which Joshua Jonathan implemented and I agreed to. The page was put under full protection in the meantime and you were told to stop.. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There is no on-going edit warring on COVID-19 pandemic in India. I agree with Wareon that his reverts don't violate a particular policy and he used talk page to defend his position and fully complied with WP:BRD. Now that we are on this issue, I would request extended confirmed protection on COVID-19 pandemic in India which will reduce the amount of reversions. AnM2002 (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Tayi Arajakate - Wareon has taken lead in becoming the self appointed guardian to not let any criticism of the government come in the page. They don't care about sourcing, determining consensus on the talk page or their wrong warnings that they pasting over at everyone's talk pages. They also don't understand basic WP policies. I have edited the page a total of 2 times but got the warning of edit warring on my page talk from them [45]. They should be warned and be asked to keep away from this page for at least couple of months, failing which they should be blocked. Roller26 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging @Jose Mathew C:, @Kashmorwiki:, @ViperSnake151:, @Jasksingh:, @TruthGuardians:, @Homolego: for their inputs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller26 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Roller26, I have to say two things. Firstly, pinging this many people is close to canvassing, I would suggest removing them although I am unsure if it removes the pings or not. Wareon appears to have left discretionary sanction alerts on their talk pages en masse, but that's not a warning and is generally allowed. I had missed the inappropriate templating on your talk page though.

  Secondly, I think Wareon has been warned enough times already, at least seven times, going by the templates on their talk page. I'd say it is time for a block especially considering their behavior towards others. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Block for what? By exposing your own BLP violations and continued denial of your clear misrepresentation of sources, you are in no position to request any block. If you really want to count warnings then, you have been editing for less duration than I and have been warned far more times and also blocked for disruption. Isn't your own case much weaker even if we use your own metric? Wareon (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  You need to be able to back up your accusations. Misrepresentation of sources would constitute claiming something that isn't reflected in a source, something that you did, not anyone else. For instance, claiming that "source do not support any of these labels" and continuing to insist the same here even after I had quoted, exactly where they did. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding my block, I don't deny my fault neither do I try to hide it. I was partially blocked from a page for edit warring once and haven't repeated since and I certainly don't have more warnings than you. If you are going to accuse me of misconduct, open a report against me and demonstrate what I've done, instead of trying to distract from your conduct issues here. As for the reason I'm seeking a block for you, it's for your persistent edit warring, your tendentious behavior in discussions, your frivolous accusations at others in general and your attempts at gaslighting in this discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  You need to avoid asking others to rehash themselves. Those allegations have been already proven as per my comment above. Wareon (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:CANVASSING and WP:ASPERSIONS. Wareon (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have not had the time I would like to monitor Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India, but Wareon's editing there has concerned me, as has that of a few other editors. That India is experiencing a severe spike in Covid is now global news; and very many reliable sources have discussed the drivers of this spike. Needless to say such material is always going to be controversial, but given how much coverage it has received, it is patently obvious it needs to be in the article in some form. Wareon's editing has amounted to nothing more than stone-walling all material critical of the Indian government, while doing nothing to build coverage. this edit, for instance, removed content that was largely supported by sources; the only issue was that "in some of the election rallies" should have been "at one of the election rallies." Yet Wareon removed the content claiming it "wasn't genuine", and demanded a talk page consensus, and subsequently did not participate substantively on the talk page. I'm not yet certain that sanctions are needed, but a recalibration in their approach is needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I had made it clear on the talk page that the content contradicted the scientific views and actual research on the subject. There was no consensus to reject my revert. Criticism that contradicts actual research on the subject should not get undue weight, which I made clear on the talk page. Wareon (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, it's quite weird that most Indians don't seem to be critical of Modi over this. Muslim Indians are more forthright about this than Hindus, in my experience, but given Modi's well-publicised oppression of Muslims that's hard to unpick from the background noise. My team in Bangalore have nearly all suffered personal bereavement, with three deaths of close friends or immediate family last week alone. A friend in Pune died last week. It's worse than the original outbreak, by all accounts, yet they honestly don't appear to blame the government. I don't know whether this is Modi's personal charisma or just typical Indian fatalism. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  JzG, I could speculate, but I'd rather do that where I won't be accused of violating NOTFORUM...happy to email. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• The diffs presented by Tayi show clear tendentious editing in my opinion. It should be actionable under the ARBIPA sanctions, slightly faster than proposing a TBAN here IMO. ProcSock (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• None are actionable because they don't show which policy was violated. People are allowed to revert what they see problematic as long as they are ready to comply with consensus even if it reaches against them. But the diffs provided from Wareon regarding BLP violation and misrepresentation of sources by Tayi Arajakte is certainly sanctionable. Do you have any justification why Tayi Arajakte shouldn't be sanctioned for them? You need to read entire report more carefully before creating a conclusion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  None are actionable because they don't show which policy was violated. The assertion is that this is WP:TE, classed as disruptive editing and actionable as such if true. Now Special:Diff/1019734385, for example, shows the opinion of Wareon that it was "deemed valid by Twitter" and removed for "violat[ing] Twitter's rules". Sources: [46][47] Now, first it's unclear whether this is even true, or whether it was simply restricted within India. It appears both sources are saying it's the latter. (Certainly, I can still access about half of them, and I live outside India.) But in any case, neither source tries to place emphasis on this point, so presumably Wareon has inferred this from the quotation of Twitter's general comment on how it deals with censorship requests and decided the point belongs in the article. So already you have a few issues here. When you consider this edit, which added undue/OR verbosity, it's harder to assume good faith on edits like Special:Diff/1019734142 which remove reliably sourced 'verbosity'. So yes, this appears to be tendentious editing. Whether it deserves a TBAN, a (logged) warning, or no action, would be up to an admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  These diffs are deeply concerning: the second is routine improper POV-pushing, and the first is deeply problematic. At a minimum, a strong warning is required here, but honestly it's hard to believe a topic ban isn't inevitable. --JBL (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  But at that time reports only concerned Twitter, before it was revealed that Government asked more social media to delete the concerning posts. Whether they deleted them or blocked only in India is indeed unclear. As for this edit, it appears to be entirely valid per multiple reliable sources. [48][49] It is indeed problematic to rely on mere media reports for deciding about a "superspreader". I note that you have ignored the multiple questions I asked above. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel, what misrepresentation of sources? Wareon removed the term "historical revisionism" from B. B. Lal which was cited to Droogan 2012 and Ahmed 2014 with an edit summary claiming that it was not supported by any sources. Both the citations supported the material, so I restored it, added 2 more references (news articles) and engaged solely on the talk page from there on after it was reverted by Wareon.

To your credit, you did reasonably demonstrate that Ahmed 2014 was an SPS but to your discredit you ignored Droogan 2012, just like Wareon and went on to claim that the news articles must have copied from Wikipedia in a particularly patronising comment stating "you are long enough to know that we must avoid using random news sources". In response, I acceded to not using Ahmed 2014 and stated that your suggestions contradicts WP:NEWSORG. After which you never responded.

Quotations from the three citations for reference:

Tandom, Aditi (25 January 2021). "Former Japanese PM, Indian-American scientist Kapany on this year's Padma Vibhushan list". The Tribune.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

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

"5 from Karnataka, former Japanese PM among 119 Padma winners". Bangalore Mirror. Indo-Asian News Service. 26 January 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Indian archaeologist and Hindutva historical revisionist B. B. Lal

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

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

Frivolous and unsubstantiated accusations is in itself sanctionable, such as the ones made by Wareon, which you have repeated in their defence. The alleged "BLP violation" is currently present in the article and its citations have been updated to four academic books including Droogan 2012. If this is a BLP violation as you say, why is it that you stopped engaging on the talk page? Things you don't like don't become BLP violations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can see that I had explicitly linked "this self-published source" to which you replied here as "there is no indication that source is self publishing". This, together with your BLP violation[50] and your baseless claim that these evident diffs are "Frivolous and unsubstantiated accusations" shows your own attempt to mislead others or otherwise show your own WP:IDHT. Wareon (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The preview of Ahmed 2014 which you have linked above gave no indication that it was self-published. You failed to demonstrate that it was an SPS through your link, I had to later check for the name of the publishing company present in the preview and could not find any information on it which is when I changed my stance on the use of the source. This was irrelevant considering there were three other reliable sources supporting the material, so yes it's a frivolous and unsubstantiated accusation.

Source misrepresentation is when you claim something which is contradicted by the link presented as you did with Droogan 2012 and the two news articles, claiming "Source does not mention those words" was a pretty blatant case of that. There is in fact another instance on the same talk page where you provide two sources to claim that the subject of the article had apparently received appraisal from scholars (Special:Diff/1002831327) which was later shown to be a misrepresentation (Special:Diff/1003055677). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see what ANI can do about slow-mo reverts of obviously subjective edits which required consensus and existing consensus certainly supports reverts by Wareon. Tayi Arajakte should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. You shouldn't be reporting another editor when you are yourself guilty of clear policy violations. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel's conduct

• Since Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to jump into this discussion as well, it's probably relevant now to highlight their own conduct at COVID-19 pandemic in India. They too are a participant in the edit warring on the page along with boderline tendentious behaviour, similar to and overlapping that of Wareon.

• 10:43, 23 April 2021 Similar to revert 1 of Wareon.
• 10:49, 23 April 2021 Revert about "largest single-day increase in cases recorded by any country".
• 21:29, 23 April 2021 Same as previous.
• 19:11, 26 April 2021 Same as previous.
• Note that the above three reverts are that of distinct additions, as in each addition was made by different editors, differed in their phrasing, and were cited to different reliable sources. The first one was cited to NDTV, the second to The Guardian (RSP entry) and the third to Hindustan Times, Reuters (RSP entry) and BBC News (RSP entry).
• The talk page discussion on the above doesn't begins until 28 April where it is only them that disagrees claiming that all of these sources are wrong. They provide a low quality source to justify their claim; a news article attributed to Sputnik (RSP entry) and Asian News International (RSP entry) and then go on to conflate probable cases with confirmed cases. When this is pointed out to them, they don't respond while the addition itself is not re-instated.
• 18:47, 29 April 2021 Equivalent to revert 1 of Wareon combined with revert 3-5 of Wareon.

Combine the above with their own activities on B. B. Lal and their defence of Wareon here, and we can probably see a pattern emerging. Seeing their arguements on B. B. Lal, it also appears that news sources become reliable and unreliable to them per their own convienence and against community consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This topic area does not need more editors hindering the development of that article, which should be in a much better state given recent events and the fact that it has 22k pageviews per day and people are looking for critical information in these times. Aman's conduct includes inappropriate MEDRS stonewalling, doing original research and arguing that BBC, Reuters and The Guardian aren't reliable[51], but Sputnik (a deprecated source) and Xinhua are, whilst somehow accusing others of doing the OR? In addition, there's several other highly dubious edits, together with their edit summaries.[52][53][54] Slightly above in this ANI it appears Aman has been misrepresenting sources, using low quality sources & opinion pieces to rebut HQRS reporting, and possibly attempting to derail discussion under the pretence of boomerangs.[55][56] Would appreciate if Aman could account for these. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• The above diffs are nothing more than the usual content dispute. Nevertheless, I find it rather astonishing that Tayi Arajakte has failed to make a case against Wareon and the massive WP:BLUDGEONING above hasn't done anything more than to give clear impression that Tayi Arajakte is out to get rid of a sensible opponent in the content dispute.  After being pointed to their own WP:DE, they are now trying now trying to silence yet another critic of their disruption. I am in support of a WP:BOOMERANG for this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of Tayi Arajakte. AnM2002 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yes Tayi Arajakte has been on this for months. See the baseless SPI he filed before. Wareon (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  AnM2002, rich coming from someone whose sole contribution to the article has been in bloating its talk page with walls of text accusing others of "Serious level POV" (Special:Diff/1020975301, Special:Diff/1020514066), in the process driving away productive users (Special:Diff/1020978208, Special:Diff/1020547834). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• AKG's most problematic contributions are the ones where he is defending the edits above without fully considering the implications thereof. I don't see that as sanctionable, but some self-reflection is likely in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

AlexBRN POV Pushing and Obstructive Editing

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are active discussions on the talkpage with several other editors, and it doesn't appear that objection to your edits is confined to one editor. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This was the first time I made any edits on the main page and he is the only one that objected. I had passively watched the article and made what I believe are constructive edits today. The other edits that AlexBrn had reverted were for different editors. Some of those edits were fair and some of them were unfair, but there was no civil attempt to engage other editors with whom there was disagreement. The edits that I added today were completed rolled back without any engagement, which has been typical. It's almost impossible to work with any editor that removes everything you add and has gotten to the point of edit warring with other editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finasteride&diff=1020872681&oldid=1020872626 98.7.49.47 (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

So eight and a half years after this discussion, in which sources were repeatedly grossly misrepresented and I was repeatedly attacked, we still have editors who refuse to simply follow the science, as described at WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn should be thanked for taking on such a task against such editors, not complained about. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there has been an uptick in campaigning activity by the syndrome boosters of late, evidenced by their restoration of a previously-deleted POVFORK (Post-finasteride syndrome, since redirected again) which they boasted about off-wiki.[57] The IP/OP is likely part of that push (and possibly a sock of the other WP:SPAs who've been at it too). Probably a reasonable solution here would be to semi-protect Finasteride to dampen down this kind of drama in future, since this seems to be a long-running issue. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

How things were eight years ago on a science related article is completely stale. There's been a lot of research since then and an investigative report showing Merck hid risks from the FDA and public. Please feel free to participate if you'd like if you look at the article as it is today and not based on your outdated opinion of extremely stale sources and science. I'm here specifically to request third party review and mediation specifically for the most recent batch of edits that were blanket deleted without any feedback. I have nothing to do with these separate issues that AlexBrn is trying to bring into the fold other than, as I mentioned, I passively watched the back and forth and saw that AlexBrn was extremely aggressive and uncooperative and I would like to fix that. Unfortunately, nobody here yet has actually commented on the edits that I specifically would like to be addressed and are bringing unrelated conflicts with other editors into the discussion. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The OP has already said they don't want to interact with me.[58] The solution is to self-impose an interaction ban, which would include recusing themselves from topics where I was already active. Problem solved? Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You're suggesting that I simply stop editing the article because you were there first which is exactly the type of problematic behavior that caused me to bring this ANI. I'm simply just looking for neutral editors to review my edits which were blanket deleted to minimize or even avoid conflict. Thanks. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to interact with Alexbrn, as you say in the edit linked above, then simply don't edit the same pages. You are entitled to say that another editor shouldn't post on your user talk page, apart from required notifications, but you can't unilaterally ban anyone from any other pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but I am not seeing a problem in AlexBRN's edit that you have provided. Editorials, even in a medical journals, are not peer-reviewed, and they are at best primary sources. As far as investigations go, news media like Reuters are not really rigorous enough for WP:MEDRS. What you would probably want to look at would be an FDA investigation or some similar investigation by a government regulatory body. Or you could look for published human RCTs on these drugs that reported these side effects, but you would likely want to find a source to cover them to avoid WP:OR or WP:SYNTH because those things can be difficult for non-experts to interpret.

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

• Additionally, looking over the article talk section, I would advise that the IPV6 address reciew WP:AGF, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND and, if they insist on pushing this ANI discussion, WP:BOOMERANG Hyperion35 (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hyperion35:, AlexBrn is actually the one who introduced editorials into the article, defending their validity as MEDRS sources. I very specifically asked him about this, because they were not discussed in MEDRS, and he claimed they are one of Wikipedia's "most golden sources" which you can find here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-finasteride_syndrome&diff=1015958223&oldid=1015957576 - I've found it nearly impossible to have constructive discussions with him because he is inconsistent in how he applies the rules to himself vs others. Beyond that, the text from the BMJ editorial he included had largely cherry picked a phrase from the editorial and spun the overall opinion of the source to make it seem like the BMJ was presenting PFS as illegitimate when the actual source had a much more balanced and informative view. When I made an edit to more accurately include the full text of the editorial, he hastily removed it as POV pushing.
  • Regarding the Reuters investigative report, it is used to discuss what the researchers found was hidden from the court documents and from the FDA and it doesn't make any direct claims about scientific or medical truths in Wikipedia's voice. An investigative report from Reuters, one of the world's most respected news agencies, is certainly non-notable when you talk about the contents of the investigation which the article did. The use of the Reuters report had been undisputed as a reputable and valuable source for quite some time but the Wikipedia page didn't always fairly and neutrally represent the underlying source. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Better to go by what I actually wrote[59] rather than misrepresent it (misrepresenting things seems to be your forte). The most prestigious editorials, yes, are useful for matters of general background on medical topics. But not for hard bioscience. Basically the OP is just POV-pushing coming off the back of an off-wiki campaign to WP:RGW over this syndrome; it's wasted a lot of editors' time already and now at ANI it's wasting more. Alexbrn (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Everything I included was on general background and not bioscience in the text I added. On when I revised your text, I more accurately represented the source your cherrypicked and included more relevant regulatory and background information. It's very clear from the edits which I again request people review on here. That is what representation is. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
        • If you think your adding[60] the (implication-laden) statement "5α-reductase inhibitors reduce synthesis of brain neurosteroids, which affect mood, cognition, and libido" is general background, rather than hard bioscience, then we have a WP:CIR problem. This and other issues, such as your garbled English, made your edits overall undesirable. In any event the usual way to proceed when reverted is to discuss (maybe per WP:BRD), rather coming to ANI with a series of personal attacks and false allegations. If you refuse to engage in the consensus forming process, your only option is to go away. Maybe there are other topics on Wikipedia than "post-finasteride syndrome" that need help. Are you WP:HERE I wonder? Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

          Alexbrn, a lot of the sources are speculative and fail MEDRS, for sure. Also nobody seems to be addressing the elephant in the room: men who are insecure about hair loss or who are suffering prostate problems are going to be depressed whether or not they are taking finasteride, and pretty much all the symptoms discussed are absolutely consistent with clinical depression. The settlement amount - a bit over $4m - is tiny, Merck would have been spending orders of magnitude more than that in lawyers' fees for a multi-year series of lawsuits. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

          • JzG, will you please specify which sources fail MEDRS? I am looking to have a content discussion here. Pls keep in mind that AlexBrn introduced editorials, when I questioned him about it, literally called it Wikipedia's golden source. If the community disagrees, that is fine, those sources including the refs from AlexBrn can simply be deleted. Regarding the settlement amount, it isn't appropriate to independently read into the outcome. The Reuters investigation reported on "the hidden risks" and didn't feel it was worthy of going into detail on the settlement. The men who are upset about being injured by this drug are a side note as well. In my opening to this ANI, I mentioned there are a lot of editors who are pushing a specific POV on this article, not just AlexBrn but aggrieved men who are also obstructing the article. Again, as I mentioned in the intro, I would like to have independent 3rd parties review this editing content to address this issue in a NPOV format.98.7.49.47 (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Presumably this new IP is the OP. Anyway, they don't understand what "literally" means and seem clueless about the concept of WP:RSCONTEXT, despite repeated attempts to explain. "Independent 3rd parties" have reviewed the situation, and the consensus is you're a badly-behaved POV-pusher, like what we've had before on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
            • This is not the appropriate place to have a content discussion, the article talk page is the place to discuss content. As for the complaint that you brought, about Alexbrn's conduct in deleting certain information, he was very clearly following Wikipedia policy per WP:MEDRS. This has been explained to you repeatedly. WP:MEDRS covers medical articles in Wikipedia, and it should be understood as a much more strict standard than is applied to non-medical articles. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
              • Hyperion35, this point isn't relevant. I only added one source, an editorial, which AlexBrn said was one of wikipedia's golden sources. The vast majority of the content I added was immediately reverted with no commentary other than POV pushing. If we were discussing this on the talk page to reach some kind of consensus, that would be fine, but the total reversion of edits like he owns the page is obstruction. That is why I had to bring this to ANI.2603:7000:2400:1E91:49BD:1F3:B4AD:311C (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                • By repeating the "golden sources" statement you are doing what several editors did in the deletion discussion that I linked above - repeating something that has already been shown to be incomplete and incorrect in the discussion. I'm surprised that there are so many editors who simply ignore the facts so blatantly. So much so that I have never seen such similar behavoiur in different people before, and find it difficult to believe that you are actually a different person. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • PhilBridger, this is a content dispute and it is hardly a source dispute. But if it is deemed that editorials are not acceptable, which I have previously discussed with AlexBrn, it is no problem to take them out. I'm interesting in having a proper discussion here. There was plenty of content that was taken out without discussion, there is one disagreement about editorials as a MEDRS source, and now Guy has taken it upon himself to edit a strong POV that PFS is a delusional disorder and there is only one low quality case study / opinion that makes that claim. I'd like to see NPOV with due weight on relevant perspectives.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                • This board, ANI, is not the place to settle content disputes. It is, however, a place where deliberately misrepresenting another editor's words, as you continue to do, again and again, may result in disciplinary action from admins. Alexbrn did not say what you claim he said with regards to editorials. He was quoting from the MEDRS guidelines, which state that editorials may be a golden source under certain circumstances, but not others, and he repeatedly explained this to you. You persist in repeating this lie, and I do not know if the problem is a lack of understanding of what Alexbrn was trying to explain, or if you are deliberately hoping that repeating a lie might convince some editors. There is no disagreement about the use of editorials under MEDRS. The problem appears to be that you do not understand MEDRS, and I say this not as an insult or personal attack, but as a basic statement of fact. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • Hyperion35, those are AlexBrn's words... editorials are completely absent from MEDRS guidelines. When I asked him why he excluded every other source and put in an editorial, which I did not believe was MEDRS compliant, that was his answer verbatim, not a quote from MEDRS or anywhere else apparently. I was discussing this exact issue with another MD from WikiMedicine project but the separate PFS page was merged over in the midst of the conversation and disrupted this discussion. The other editor, Nikos, clearly believed there are not currently guidelines for editorials - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-finasteride_syndrome&diff=1016171461&oldid=1016124258. I would appreciate it if you would actually look at the related references before calling me a liar. What this dispute needs is somebody who will take the time to look at the content impartially. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • Repeating the same untrue thing, and adding a new one. The merge was done properly following discussion in the normal way.[61]. The OP is free to continue any "discussion" they want (though they seem to have some delusional belief that another sensible editor somehow agrees with them). Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

          • Alexbrn this is the first time you've addressed an actual comment of an edit which is appropriate but removing the whole block of edits is obstructionist. I wish you would have gone about things this way in the first place and the editing process would be smooth and I invite you to do this going forward. I honestly think its a stretch to consider this anything more than an unordinary claim. Finasteride's impact on neurosteroids is already on the page, if you go to the wikipage for allopregnanolone, it basically says the same thing, neurosteroids as a potential cause of PFS are mentioned in a handful of other MEDRS sources, the author of the article says "it is known" implying it is widely held knowledge, and he isn't making any definitive claims. It's a pretty soft statement IMO. But this is a valid disagreement you raise (the first) and I intentionally brought this here to discuss the content with neutral 3rd parties in a fair forum. This doesn't appear to be the right forum so pls do let me know where else I can go on Wiki to better address my concern.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• I am reasonably confident that the IP is indef-blocked Doors22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The pattern of advocacy is identical, as is the fixation on perceived "gatekeeper" editors, and this has been going on for years. The article should be semiprotected based on long term IP POV-pushing. AntiSemanticCanard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sugarhouse90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may also be related - there is a concerted campaign by off-wiki activists to crowbar Post-finasteride syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now a redirect to a sectionin the article with many of the same issues) into Wikipedia as fact, when the medical world in general thinks it's not. Oh, and see also Draft:Post-finasteride syndrome. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no way to effectively respond to these claims that I am part of a concerted activist campaign. If I deny it, you won't believe it and you can't prove it so there's no point in responding. What is self evident is that a lot of editors will notice when big changes are made on the page. The question about whether the medical community acknowledges this disease is a content debate and the literature has different opinions on that which should be reflected in the article. If you want to accuse me of being a member on here that was banned, it does me no good to deny it because I can't disprove it and you won't believe me. This one you can prove which you should do if you want to accuse me of this without evidence. 98.7.49.47 (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    Nope. There are a handful of opinion articles and virtually no actual research. Exactly as for morgellons and many other fake diseases, which is why we are skeptical. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    • JZG There are dozens of articles that have been published as they relate to Post-Finasteride syndrome. It is fine to be skeptical, but there needs to be a NPOV to address all relevant information here. The PFS Foundation has compiled a list of many of the articles related to PFS. Not all of them will be MEDRS compliant of course, but I disagree that there is "virtually no actual research", even by MEDRS standards. https://www.pfsfoundation.org/publications/ The results were literally found in Merck's clinical trials, as discussed in Reuters special investigation, and they very specifically changed the language in the product label regarding the reversibility of sexual side effects, although the updated versus functionally did nothing to inform the FDA or public of what they found. That by itself is worth putting on Wiki, from a very reliable source, and definitely does not suggest this is a fictitious illness as RCT trials are actual gold standards of science. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • This is not the place to discuss sources. This board is solely for complaining about behavior, and multiple people have advised you that Alexbrn's behavior was perfectly acceptable and that he was acting directly under Wikipedia guidelines. We have linked the MEDRS guidelines for you, but you persist in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and trying to turn this into a discussion about sources. Feel free to post that list of sources to the article talk page, but virtually none of it passes MEDRS that I can see. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Please close this ANI request. The IP editor has been told repeatedly that no objectionable behavior has occurred here. They have repeatedly complained, tried to debate sources, demonstrated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when MEDRS was explained. They have also made it clear that they have a specific agenda with regards to this article and I would strongly recommend a TBAN given that they are most clearly WP:NOTHERE. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not looking to discuss sources here, sources were not even relevant to the original dispute. I think it is a problem when an editor blanket reverses about 8 edits without any feedback. There was only one source that was possibly questionable and the whole thing was deleted. Please tell me exactly how to work with an editor who simply reverts everything you add without constructive commentary or where I can go to find an adequate mediator to oversee this dispute. Thanks. I would appreciate if you strike the above because it was based on the perception that I was misrepresenting MEDRS guidelines which you will see is not the case if you look at MEDRS guidelines and Nikos' opinion linked above. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • What you do is you discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD, the D stands for "discuss" on the article's talk page. It appears that you have attempted to engage in discussion, but you did not like what you were told, or perhaps you did not understand it. I will not strike my comment. I will add that I am concerned that WP:CIR may apply here as well. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I and others haven't gotten constructive discussion from him. His response is completely dismissive and refuses to work with editors which is why I am here now. This isn't a sourcing question but that is one issue I attempted to discuss with him earlier that was completely dismissed and he said he was right without substantiating his argument or addressing my question. This and many other reasons are why I am here at ANI. I am here to build a consensus article based on a NPOV and I am not finding people who seem interested in working with me to do that at all. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
        • I can read the talk page for that article. Your comments here and here make it clear that you were explicitly telling Alexbrn that you did not want to discuss the issue with them. Further, everything that you have been saying so far makes it clear that you are the one trying to insert a specific POV into the article, and you appear to be frustrated by the fact that there is no consensus for your POV. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Hyperion35 I said that after he made many dismissive and combative comments and suggested I take my displeasure to ANI, which is why I am here now. If he offered constructive feedback and gave any sense that he was willing to cooperate in building an encyclopedia there would be no need for me to be here right now. I made 9 separate edits so they could be discussed in detail on a case by case basis and he reverted them all in one edit without commenting. What this article really needs is somebody who is willing to come in and be a neutral participant to protect the neutral POV of an obviously controversial topic. If you would like to come and help moderate the edits and content, that would be certainly appreciated. All it takes is somebody with decent judgment and a willingness to create a fairly balanced article. If you are involved in public health and care about the subject, as appears to be the case on your profile, I would love for you to get involved and be a mediator to fairly represent the different sides of the controversy here. I'm not looking for any kind of fight or battle, but this issue needs somebody who will be fair and take the time to actually pay attention to the details. It is an important issue as the drug is prescribed to millions of people each year, often by telemedicine companies where medical disclosures are poor, but it is a complex public health issue so you may or not be up to a challenge.
          • Right now, the article has cherrypicked one low quality source to make it seem like PFS is a delusional disorder. This is really a shame because there are plenty of scientific articles to suggest that's not the case and a Reuter's investigation reported that Merck found subjects with persistent sexual side effects in the original clinical trials yet they obfuscated this information with misleading language in the product label so that the FDA, patients, and doctors wouldn't notice. I think it should show a fair balance of the sources that support the existence of the irreversible side effects of this cosmetic drugs and those who don't believe there is a causal link.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• What I gather from the complaint is that Alex is enforcing MEDRS against biased editors who, per the OP's own admission, have an emotion-driven POV. Not a policy violation. Disputes over sources should follow WP:DR, over which a single editor cannot control. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Swarm There have been a lot of comments in this complaint that have been off topic and big distractions so I wouldn't say that's an accurate summary of the complaint. AlexBrn has a history of antagonistic editing, baiting newbies into fighting with him, dismissing questions and disagreements, and most recently blanket removing all nine of my edits without so much as a single constructive comment. The MEDRS discussion about editorials is really a distraction in this complaint and very small piece of the original disagreement. I don't personally have an emotion-driven POV but there have been other editors who have been very emotional in the past, partly baited by AlexBrn, but I would personally like to create a NPOV in this article to provide due weight to the controversial issue at hand. AlexBrn has been pushing a very heavy POV to deny the existence of a long term medical syndrome caused by a cosmetic hairloss drug but there have been a lot of inexperienced and emotional editors doing the opposite which has created a mess. The actual collections of MEDRS sources on the topic are very diverse and certainly justify a much more nuanced version of this article. Right now, the POV is very far from neutral. I would like somebody impartial to mediate this because it has proven to be apparently impossible to work with AlexBrn constructively to create a balanced version. If this is not the proper forum for that, will you please inform me where I can find somebody who would be willing to be an impartial mediator or overseer of these controversial issue? What I am looking for is a reasonable person who has no prior involvement to fairly moderate since this has been a battleground for years. In that time, many new MEDRS sources and an investigative report on the subject have been published but the established toxic environment on this topic has prevented this more recent information from being incorporated into the article in a fair way. Thanks. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It would be more accurate to say that there's a certain kind of POV-pushing WP:SPA who gets antagonized when their efforts to skew Wikipedia are thwarted by editors properly applying the WP:PAGs, so they then try to remove their perceived "opponent" by going to ANI with a groundless complaint. This has been a too-familiar pattern over the years, and your complaint here is just the latest in the series. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Swarm and JzG, the OP appears to be fighting to include a fringe POV by attacking or ignoring editors who are enforcing policy in an area that has seen disruption over a long period of time, with several indefinite blocks as a result. The comment above is a rehash of previous arguments, and is becoming tendentious. I recommend closure, with the complainant admonished for battleground behavior, which, if continued, will be met with sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think you are bending over backwards to be nice to the OP there. Surely we are already past the point where the posts have become tendentious and sanctions should be applied now? They are wasting the time of several productive editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  Acroterion, I think the article should also have ECP applied. This has been going on for years, with indef blocks, sockpuppetry and off-wiki solicitation. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Acroterion, I don't think it's fair to be pinned with the label of engaging in "battleground behavior". I have attempted to engage AlexBrn on the talk page to discuss the topic and was rudely dismissed on many occasions. On one occasion, I made nine separate edits that were immediately removed without adequate justification so I brought the discussion here. I chose to avoid the inevitable edit war if I tried to reach a proper consensus so I brought matters here to find a mediator. This exact reason I brought this complaint was to avoid battleground behavior. If anybody here were to actually review my latest edits, there was only one edit where a source could be questioned and AlexBrn was the one who actually introduced an editorial source were within MEDRS guidance but would not even provide adequate justification for his point. This issue is far more nuanced than other editors have acknowledged so far, in part because AlexBrn has introduced irrelevant information to this complaint to seeimly bend discussion in a way that is favorable to his POV.2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    telling someone not to interact with you is a funny way to attempt to engage someone. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

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

Opinions on proposal

• Support as proposer. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This page needs a neutral 3rd party to oversee the discussion because it has become very disruptive from all parties advocating for any view, including AlexBrn's view. I'm not looking to impose any POV, I'm looking to impose a neutral article with due weight given to all sources and perspectives. That is impossible without an uninvolved and impartial moderator or mediator to get involved. 2603:7000:2400:1E91:E167:3734:45BC:8588 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) User evading block.
• Support I wish that number 3 could be placed prominently at the top of every article in the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It's good that this IP range has been blocked, but history shows that blocking that editor is not enough and we will get yet another sock/meat puppet, so 1 and 2 are just as necessary as 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

IP Blocked

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

Girth Summit, *applause*. You don't need to spell it out, because we could all hear the quacking :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 16:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've implemented ECP for the main article and fully protected the redirect. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

A History Merge and User:Unilimited247

• Agricultural value chain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Agribusiness value chain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Unilimited247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Might this be a case where it isn't really necessary to merge? The only intervening edits are the copy/pate move and you adding the histmerge tag. (I tried to do it with the tool anyway and it doesn't want to do it.) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox - Thank you. Then maybe what is necessary is just a round-robin move to get page history back to the title. I think that Unilimited247 needs to be cautioned not to do contentious moves without discussion. (The Move screen already cautions the editor, but some editors ignore any automated cautions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done - The principal title is again Agricultural value chain.

User:Roundtheworld - You meant well in copy-pasting back to the original title, but this made more of a mess that has now been cleaned up. The next time that you find a mess made by an inexperienced enthusiastic user, please don't guess at how to fix it, but ask for help. You both meant well. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Had to go last night, following up on this now. Glad the page is restored, I've left Unilimited247 a bit of advice on their talk page about looking before they leap. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Zack439

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

---

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

@Ladoyob586: All I see is a content dispute, not anything that rises to the level of needing administrator intervention at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Zack439 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You can check his edits, they are completely baseless and provide the sources unrelated to the topic to make it appear valid, he destructed the article over 10 times and remove, he repeatedly corrupted the article and removed an entire section with the sources he also added sources that do not mention Sham Ennessim at all, and added statements about other festivals that are exclusively Christian, he also removed the historical and linguistic sources that provided by another user 197.38.254.174 , it worth mentioning his profile only edits articles to glorify Christians or religion and make traditions exclusive to them without real fact or legit source of evidence but he links other religious sites, he made over 10 edits previously to this The article and keeps deleting other people evidence and sources, article needs to saved . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladoyob586 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Ladoyob586 - Your only edits have been to complain about this dispute. Were you also editing from 197.38.254.174? If so, why are you referring to them as another user? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If there are only two editors involved, I suggest asking for a Third Opinion either via the article talk page or via the Third Opinion noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Zack439 here. Not correct. I’ve never said that only Christian Copts celebrate it. I also said it is a National holiday in Egypt today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Another study from 2014 study also says “Between the end of March and the middle of May, hot winds, laden with dust (khamaseen) blow in from the south and southwest. There is very little rainfall at long intervals” https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234685858.pdf I’ve provided two studies thus far that say that the first day of Khamaseen is around end of March, including this one too “ The term Khamaseen signifies that the dust storms are repeated several times during a period of around 50 days starting late March and ending in early May.” Abed, Abdulkader M., et al. “Characterization of the Khamaseen (Spring) Dust in Jordan.” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 43, no. 18, 2009, pp. 2868–76.
      Are there any studies that say it is in early May? The problem is Lane’s claim is "A custom termed 'Shemm en-Neseem' [sic.] (or the Smelling of the Zephyr) is observed on the first day of the Khamaseen.” If the custom is truly on the first day of Khamaseen it wouldn’t be observed in early May like it is in 2021. The consistency here even when including Lane’s account is that it is always on Coptic Easter Monday but it is not always on the first day of Khamaseen. 
     Furthermore are there any medieval sources that say it is observed on the first day of Khamaseen independently from Easter Monday or are you just citing 19th century AD Lane & passing it as historical? Because even in the Lane source it is still celebrated on Easter Monday. You have not cited historical evidence which shows it is ever celebrated outside the Coptic Easter Monday date. 
      And Lane also says "they [the Muslims of Egypt] calculate the period of the 'Khamaseen,' when hot southerly winds are of frequent occurrence, to commence on the day immediately following the Coptic festival of Easter Sunday.” And how do the Muslims of Egypt today do this? How did they come up with the date May 3 for 2021? How did they come up with April 20 for 2020? How did they come up with April 29 for 2019? How did they come up with April 9 for 2018? How did they come up with April 17 for 2017? How did they come up with May 2 for 2016?(interesting how these are all April & May dates in the past 6 years while two studies I’ve cited says the first day of Khamaseen is end of March). If you’re going to claim they did that during the time of Lane & do not calculate it to be in the first day of Khamaseen anymore, that means lack of continuity with the current holiday since they would not be following their supposed traditional date for celebration. If the claim is they just follow the Coptic Easter Monday date, that means it is connected to the Coptic fasting schedule & not independent from Coptic Easter Monday. These are questions you need to answer to substantiate the notion of its date being independent from Coptic Easter Monday. Otherwise you’re ideologically in this regard, not evidence/data driven.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 

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

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

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

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

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

    And like I said the historical trend for the Orthodox (Julian) Calendar Easter(which the Coptic Orthodox Church follows for Easter) shows for the majority of the time it does not fall on the end of March. Are there times when it falls on the end of March? Yes. But not the majority. It is usually not at the end of March which means it is usually not observed at the first day of Khamaseen. Even in the time of Lane 1834 it was not observed at the end of March. http://5ko.free.fr/en/easter.php?y=19 EW Lane says in the quote that it is observed at the first day of Khamaseen. Two studies claim Khamaseen starts at the end of March & the historical trend date for Orthodox Easter dates shows it is usually not at the end of March. Two studies & the data on historical dates for Easter celebration refute Lane. 
     Furthermore how it’s currently calculated today is entirely relevant because you are claiming the CURRENT celebration has historical continuity that traces all the way to the pharaonic times. So again I ask how do the Muslims of Egypt today calculate the date? How did they come up with the date May 3 for 2021? How did they come up with April 20 for 2020? How did they come up with April 29 for 2019? How did they come up with April 9 for 2018? How did they come up with April 17 for 2017? How did they come up with May 2 for 2016? If you’re going to claim they used to calculate it this way & do not calculate it to be in the first day of Khamaseen anymore, that means lack of continuity with the current holiday since they would not be following their supposed traditional date for celebration. If the claim is they just follow the Coptic Easter Monday date, that means it is inextricably connected to the Coptic fasting schedule & not independent from Coptic Easter Monday. These are questions you need to provide an adequate answer for to substantiate the notion of its date being independent from Coptic Easter Monday & Lane’s claim. Otherwise you’re ideologically in this regard, not evidence/data driven.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack439 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC) 

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

Accusation from User:Moonraker12

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 ([62]). In actuality, the attribution instructions at WP:CWW only require an appropriate edit summary at the destination page, which I included ([63]); I additionally followed the suggested practice of leaving an appropriate edit summary at the source page ([64]). 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 ([65]). His response was to strike the single word "effectively" and replace it with "apparently" ([66]), 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 ([67]). 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 [68] 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)

thecurran

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

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

User:力, it's helpful and civil both to assume WP:GOODFAITH and to keep all comments from a single user on the same colon-indenting level.

I thecurran tried to explain to User:力 that although the translingual logical symbols:

• ∄ ◌ and

• ∃ ◌

:are very powerful and useful, not everyone realizes that they mean:

• there exists no ◌ such that and

• there exists a(n) ◌ such that respectively,

:but a pronunciation guide can help them to glean their meanings.

By the way, I'm not an admin but; since this thread is about me; I want to keep track of how this thread develops in real time, so would You please tell me how You folks keep on top of threads about You that aren't written on your own talk pages?

Many kind thanks in advance for all of your effort and consideration! thecurran (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thecurran: You admit that not everyone understands the meaning of these symbols, and you have also been made aware of the fact that it can be difficult even to see them clearly. That means that even if the symbols are easy to understand and clearly visible to you, you should avoid using them in edit summaries, since an edit summary is there to help your fellow editors understand what you did in the edit. Responses such as this are not very helpful, either – even if you thought that the logical symbols were helpful in the edit summary, it wouldn't make sense to replace regular letters with Unicode symbols in a response to an editor who has just asked you not to use Unicode symbols. It rather seems like an attempt to make some kind of point. --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

bonadea, the superscripts are the pronunciation guide. They're there to help people. They're all perfectly sized on a regular device. Translingual symbols help second language users; translingual symbols should be globally encouraged, not abused for being "too clever", because we want to extend our reach to all possible levels of English.

Specifically, the edit in question was on a page about phonetic characters. The superscript characters to guide pronunciation were originally invented by phoneticians and placed in Unicode for phoneticians, so phoneticians are familiar with them. Thus, in this specific field, the superscripts are highly appropriate. ⓪Are 力 and bonadea phoneticians?

bonadea ⑤What's unhelpful about enumerating text to highlight particular sections?

This issue should never have come here at all because it fails to meet the chronic criterion. 力 jumped the gun moving it here when it's less than 24 hours old.

I am not admitting that the superscripts are hard to read. To be honest, 力 has been pretty uncivil and forceful by never answering the answering same question① about legibility even once when asked 3 times. User:力 also ignored the call for clarification of question② twice without any answer. thecurran (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

thecurran, I don't think this needs to be at ANI: this is a single instance, most of your edit summaries seem fine from a quick skim through your recent contribs. For what it's worth though, we don't expect editors to be conversant in the use of phonetic and/or logical symbols, we just hope that they have a decent grasp of standard English. I teach English, but when I look at that edit summary, it means nothing to me at all - from looking at it, I can't work out what you did or why you did it, which is the purpose of an edit summary. Probably better to stick to your usual style. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Going to ANI did seem a bit harsh when I filed this (I mean, I'm not asking for a block), but I wasn't sure where else to go to have other editors comment; I certainly couldn't "report" him to the Teahouse. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

⑥Girth Summit, what exactly do You see?

I see the "∃" character expanded out to say "there Exists a".

I also see the "∄" character expanded out to say "there Exists no". thecurran (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

thecurran Please don't use people's signatures to ping them. You can use the ping template as I've done in this post; there's more discussion of this at WP:PING. I've amended your post.

To answer your question, I see some small letters, not all of which are in the normal 26-letter alphabet used in modern English, surrounding a backwards E. One of them is a thorn I think, which makes the 'th' sound, right? I don't know why the E is backwards, and crossed out in one instance, but if I take my best guess at reading it as if it were in normal language, I would get: 'There exists no page p͡f, instead there exists a page P̪͡f'. It feels a bit like a cryptic crossword clue written by Yoda. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

thecurran, I'm going to repeat power~enwiki's original request to you: please stop trying to be clever. Your behavior with respect to these characters is somewhere between "quite obnoxious" and "seriously disruptive", and you should knock it off. --JBL (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The entire point of edit summaries is to provide a brief description of your edit so that other editors can understand what you're doing. It should be fairly obvious then that using translingual logical symbols, which the op admits that "not everyone realizes that they mean ..." is not a good way of writing edit summaries. It's also worth thinking about things like accessibility, I have no idea what kind of mangled rubbish a screen reader would produce if you asked it to parse "ᶞᵉʳᵉ∄ˣⁱˢᵗˢᴺᵒ page p͡f; instead ᶞᵉʳᵉ∃ˣⁱˢᵗˢᴬ page p̪͡f" but it's unlikley that it would be understandable. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thecurran: Responding to two points in your response to me. The superscript characters to guide pronunciation – it took me a while to realise that the tiny flyspeck characters you refer to as a "pronunciation guide" are supposed to be IPA. I am familiar with IPA, I am not a phonetician but I do occasionally teach phonetics, and I think this use of IPA in superscript is not helpful at all. Not for me, not even if it had been correctly transcribed, and evidently not for a number of other editors either. Are you arguing that if a user has such a shaky grasp of English that they can't understand the phrase "there exists no", they would be helped by having the phrase transcribed phonetically? As for the advanced logical symbols, they are not expanded in any of my browsers, neither in edit summaries nor in the text here. What's unhelpful about enumerating text to highlight particular sections? That is not what's unhelpful. Writing your responses partially in Unicode characters instead of using letters ("operating systems" is an English phrase, no need to use IPA) is not helpful. And there is a sexist aside in this post as well, which is something you will hopefully avoid in the future. --bonadea contributions talk 12:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think thecurran was being sexist in that comment, but instead this is a prime example of why their attempt to help non-native speakers has backfired and made it look bad. Judging from my limited knowledge of Chinese characters, they were trying to use 人 as person, and using "ruby text" to write it as (wo)man. With the superscript text, I read it as woman without brackets first too. Honestly, just writing clearly is easier than trying to use obscure symbols that then need explaining in half letters, half IPA. LotT (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Thecurran: Unless there is strong objection by others here, I will indefinitely block you if there are any further edits such as diff (absurd "Ĭnformātion: ăddəd Unĭcōdₑ blŏck" summary) or diff (global search of ANI for "Thecurran" and replace with "thecurran", including in comments by others). Such an indefinite block would be removed when there was an undertaking that further disruption will not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Dlthewave

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

@Est. 2021: Putting that specific comment aside for a bit, can you explain how you chose which users to notify of the MfD? -- Blablubbs|talk 06:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable in that reply to you: it's sarcastic, and it uses a mild profanity, but that is directed towards a userbox you created, not you personally. I would also be interested to hear from you how you selected the six users to notify about the facist userbox deletion discussion - as Dlthewave notes, it does look exactly like improper canvassing to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Sure. I notified several users who could have been interested in the topic, based on their edit history or user categories, including four users who had previously voted in a similar MfD, but not only them. There was no need for that user to be so rude. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: So it's pure coincidence that 4 out of the 6 users you notified ([69][70][71][72]) had !voted keep in a prior, clearly related MfD ([73][74][75][76])? -- Blablubbs|talk 07:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Yes and no, I mean: I did not ask for their opinion because of that, but because they all had made edits about that topic. I didn't care if they would vote to keep or delete the userbox I created on request, I was just genuinely interested in allowing every concerned user to express their opinions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: I frankly have some trouble believing that. If that had truly been the case, why not notify everyone who !voted in the prior MfD, including the majority that had !voted keep? -- Blablubbs|talk 07:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Est. 2021 what Blablubbs says is correct. If you were genuinely interested in allowing every concerned user to express their opinion, you could have posted a note at the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject. Notifying people in the way that you did is not OK. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs and Girth Summit: I didn't even read the previous MfD before Dlthewave's comment. The only users I intentionally avoided to notify are the ones who use the template, ironically, since their opinion is clear. You can check their talk pages. If I meant to canvass, I would have notified them first. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So what were your criteria for selection? I don't see any indicative or shared user categories (I've fixed your indents in this conversation). --Blablubbs|talk 07:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I answered this question three times already and I'm honestly tired of feeling under accusation for an userbox I don't even share. I reported a shitty uncivil comment and you didn't even consider it. I won't continue this process to intentions further if you won't remove that comment first. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No matter why you notified these users, the result is improper canvassing. And I do have to concur with Girth Summit that I do not believe the initial reply is actionable. The pinnacle of civility? No, but also not actionable. In ANI discussions, the conduct of all participants may be scrutinised, and yours is frankly more concerning to me than Dlthewave's. (And please start indenting your comments; it makes discussions far more readable) --Blablubbs|talk 07:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've always been civil, helpful and cooperative, I spend my time here everyday just to help other users and fulfill their requests, hence sorry but I couldn't care less about these unfair accusations. Have a good day, goodbye! Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Violating WP:CANVASSING has nothing to do with incivility, it's basically about attempting to stack the deck in your favor in a discussion. You came here, presumable, asking that something be done to Dlthewave, so you were certainly concerned then about how Wikipedia deals with accusations, only when you're own behavior is cited as problematic did you wave it off as "unfair accusations". It's possible that you have no idea that you were violating the anti-canvassing poicy, but when you are informed about it, the proper response is "Oh sorry, I didn't know about that, I won't do it again. I'll go now and invite all the users I left out before." Not waving off your behavior as for some reason irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I really didn't know about that policy, and I never said I did the right thing. I only explained why I did that, right or wrong. But yeah, the more you explain me how these policies work, the more I feel like an idiot. I've never been in this situation before. Thought that was obvious. Note: you made another false accusation, since I never asked that something be done to Dlthewave, I just asked to remove that specific uncivil comment. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

@Girth Summit: I redirected those pages just because I found a bunch of red links on User:Marcus Napoleon Ceasar's page and I had just created the userbox for other users. The already-existing User:UBX/Fascism did not state anything against violence and racism, that's really inappropriate for a fascist userbox, IMHO. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: I found two of them (including the Alt-right one) on another MfD, not the one mentioned before. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Est. 2021, so if you are still asking us to believe that you did not read that MfD, please explain specifically what it was about those four accounts that made you think they were good people to drop a note to.

I don't quite follow your explanation on the redirects - why would you assume that someone who previously had a now-deleted alt-right 'Pepe the frog' userbox would want to now have your fascist userbox? If someone doesn't want to have a redlink on their userpage, they can remove it for themselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I just don't like when pages are deleted without being orphanised first, so I thought that redirect to be the 'better' temporary solution, since Alt-right and Fascism look very similar to me, but yeah, I could have been wrong. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Note: I have deleted the five recreated redirects to the disputed infobox. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Kind of surprised the OP hasn't been blocked yet, given the obvious tendentiousness of this all. --JBL (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I also note that the OP is an experienced user under previous usernames (and has been indeffed from their own wiki for persistent personal attacks and socking [77]) so I am unconvinced that they are unaware of local norms regarding canvassing etc. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Close with boomerang per a number of comments at the MfD, where behavior highlighted in this thread continued/s. ——Serial 12:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Close with boomerang per SN54129 above. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just to clarify here and to echo what GS said, that was not a personal attack. Nothing actionable there. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• Close with boomerang - The number of things that the OP was supposedly unaware of keeps growing, but their past history belies that claim. They say they came here without an intent for anything to happen to Dlthewave, but then why come here at all? The only reason to post at ANI is if you want something to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I literally only asked for the removal of that specific comment, nothing more. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems possible that you might get more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already. The previous MfD is the only time I can think of that I've shown any interest in the topic of fascist userboxes; I'm not sure where else Est. 2021 would have found me. I'm not watching this page — ping me if you need anything. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by No Great Shaker

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

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

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

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

Extended material

Controversy India 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". 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". 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. 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. Judaism 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. 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". References

Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

1. The disputed content is certainly undue, as two more editors have agreed, and that was the consensus reached in various discussions on the subject of Churchill's alleged racism (in fact, his "racism" was an aspect of his definite imperialism and merely typical of the ingrained and inherent views about "lesser races" that prevailed at all levels of British society until the 1960s – thankfully, racism is now a minority attitude in Britain). As I have said elsewhere, these more controversial aspects of Churchill's character are included in the article, even though his main biographers barely mention them, because the article seeks to provide a balance. Also, the article has a serious WP:LENGTH constraint and this had to be addressed before the article could be nominated for WP:GAN last year. We must be very cautious, therefore, about sizeable additions and especially if they are controversial. In contrast, there was another addition earlier today which does not cause undue or length problems, so it is surely acceptable.
2. My point about an editor with "only thirty-odd edits" is relevant because 256Drg is not behaving like a new user. He joined on 26 April and began by inviting about a dozen or more editors to join a Historical India project – for example, this one. I'd have said this is a form of WP:SPAM, using Wikipedia for headhunting purposes.
3. Next, he turns his attention to Ashok Laxmanrao Kukade, an article which is subject to WP:BLP. He adds an infobox and triples the size of the article. He demonstrates knowledge of WP:CITE in one edit but does not provide citations for the rest of his input despite the requirements of WP:BLP, even though he claims to understand BLP. I have tagged the Kukade article for BLP sources.
4. This edit at Chandragupta Maurya was rejected by two experienced editors because of failure to match the acknowledged source and use of non-neutral wording.
5. Another edit at Kanhoji Angre was reverted because it breached WP:NPOV.
6. At Jallianwala Bagh massacre, 256Drg made another disputed edit which included an unexplained removal of content that was later reverted.
7. At Shivaji, he twice removed an entire section without providing an adequate rationale and professed to know all about WP:NPOV, not something with which a new user would be so readily familiar.
8. I have warned him about his disruptive editing on his talk page and he has made the curious response that he has only been warned for a single edit (in fact, four separate issues were raised) and that he "knows the tricks". He continues to ignore WP:SIG despite the warning about that.
9. Finally, running to ANI and shouting about personal attacks is not the sort of attitude or behaviour that sits too well with a new user. There are four cautions or warnings on his talk page and several reverted edits, especially by Alivardi who may wish to comment here. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A further point is that 256Drg uploaded File:Dr. Ashok Laxmanrao kukade.jpg and the source for the image is Twitter which I believe is non-WP:RS and I am unsure about copyright as regards images on Twitter. I'd appreciate it if someone with knowledge of image upload and copyright would consider this as it is an area I know little about. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at that image there does not appear to any evidence that the photograph has been released under a suitable creative commons license, so should probably be deleted. It would also not currently meet the non-free criteria. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Spy-cicle. I'll leave it for now while this ANI is current but I think it will need to be raised at the COPYVIO page. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This image and three others uploaded by 256Drg have been nominated for deletion at Commons because they are beleived to be in direct breach of the non-free criteria as Spy-cicle has already pointed out. See also Talk:Ashok Laxmanrao Kukade. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker has already touched on this, but I think it's worth bringing up more fully the potential POV-issues with several of 256Drg's edits. Adding an extensive section regarding the anti-Indian opinions of a prominent British figure on the one hand, and then removing the entire "Controversy" section for a prominent Indian individual on the other, suggests to me an intention to push a specific narrative on the site. Adding to that the unexplained removal of British criticism of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre seems to show that 256Drg needs to be more aware of the importance of neutrality when editing. Alivardi (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As a new user I suggest you familiarise yourself with the policies of Wikipedia:Five pillars, particularly that of WP:NPOV as all articles must meet this policy (including WP:UNDUE). I do not think that really consistutes a personal attack that a new user may want to familiarise themselves with the core policies, especially on such an important/controversial article. Also when reporting a user at ANI, you must leave them a notice on their talk page as noted as the header of this page (When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.)  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker Please explain me the policy that "Controversy" section is not added to Winston Churchill article but guys are reluctant to remove it from Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article. Although it is clear that in Winston Churchill's case, the controversy is created by Churchill himself. On the other hand, in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. I also invite RegentsPark to provide the explanation. I repeat again, that I don't mean to use Wikipedia in abusive way. Instead, I have found many articles with great POV inclination (which is definitely a case of abusive use of Wikipedia). No Great Shaker some of my edits are reverted due to similar issues, reverting an article does not mean I am wrong. I may be new to Wikipedia but I study a lot about historical events. Also, I had given authentic and ample amount of references to my edits except first few where I did not know about the policy.

Also, please stop attacking me. Respect the free speech! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:256Drg, please see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Please also see WP:SIGNATURE. ——Serial 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(Note: I was pinged by 256Drg). @256Drg:, regarding what is or is not in Churchill's article vis-a-vis Shivaji's article, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article builds its own consensus. I must say that I agree with Alivardi above that your comments here and here, diametrically opposite as they are in their reasoning, do indicate a need to push a certain agenda. Finally, I took a look at No Great Shaker's comment that you're objecting to in this ANI complaint and don't see anything that is a personal attack. You are new and inexperienced and it does appear to be the case that you're trying to make a WP:POINT. Accurate, probably. Personal attack, not. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments collapsed

Anyway, the accusations made by User:256Drg are completely unfounded and won't go anywhere, ever. On the converse, I don't appreciate No Great Shaker's bad faith SPI investigation against me, his disallowance of me posting to his talk page when i was the subject in question (or one of them, anyway), or his lack of a response when I posted my rebuttal against his points at the formerly mentioned SPI. Of course, as to the second point, he can remove any talk page message he wants to, but it's unfair when they're talking about me. versacespaceleave a message! 15:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC) and you can add a false warning by the user for "harassment" which can be found in the page history of my talk page. versacespaceleave a message! 15:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC) VersaceSpace Your comments, apart from your first sentence above, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You are obviously stalking me and seeking what you think are opportunities to whinge because five experienced editors agreed at ANI that you are potentially a sockpuppet, hence the SPI where, admittedly, the checkuser investigation was inconclusive and you were given (rightly) the benefit of the doubt. Accusations of bad faith do not help your cause unless they can be justified – see WP:AGF. Instead of sniping, why don't you open your own ANI and make your complaints official? No Great Shaker (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) No Great Shaker i don't know if you're supposed to reply to collapsed comments; remove if necessary first of all, stop saying that multiple editors "agreed that I'm a sockpuppet". This is not the case. At most they had suspicions. Second, I outlined my bad faith accusation completely at the SPI discussion which I linked. You're missing the point of why I didn't open a complaint in the first place. There is no admin action I want to be taken. Your accusation of "stalking" is also extremely bad faith, unless looking at ANI counts as such. versacespaceleave a message! 15:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC) You can reply to collapsed comments. You have conveniently overlooked the word "potentially" which confirms that we were suspicious, not certain. Do not try to twist things. Because we were suspicious, the SPI was initiated. Sometimes an SPI returns a positive result and the culprit is indeffed; sometimes the result is negative or inconclusive. The point of SPI is that reasonable suspicions must be addressed because the community do not want sockpuppets in our midst. Nothing "bad faith" about it but by shouting about bad faith in a discussion that is completely irrelevant to your case and circumstances, you are not helping yourself at all. If you are not stalking, why did you come to my talk page and start whingeing and why have you followed me here to continue whingeing? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC) If you are not stalking, why did you come to my talk page and start whingeing and why have you followed me here to continue whingeing reading an SPI thread is not following you. The most recent time that I checked the SPI (a few days ago) I went to your talk page since I had wanted to see if you had anything else to say about me, and lo and behold, ya did. Don't be mad that I found you speaking on me. And why do you think I'm here to "help myself"? I've specified I do not want (or care) if action is taken? Can you read? On the topic of reading, my apologies for missing the word "potentially" as I only read the top of your post diagonally. After the CU came back inconclusive, you requested yet another one, despite my constant assurance (with proof) that I wasn't a sockpuppet. At least leave a reply, for god's sake. Your friend AssociateAffiliate wasn't assuming very good faith, either, but that's a different topic for another day. versacespaceleave a message! 16:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC) According to you, a ping should always be done when someone is mentioned so I have added the ping to User:AssociateAffiliate that you somehow forget to include above. I'm sure he will be interested to know what is in store for him on "another day". As for my decision not to reply to you, that is my prerogative. In any discussion or conversation, there has to be an endpoint and I had nothing else to say so why prolong things unnecessarily? Please keep going because this is an interesting example of the enough rope syndrome. I'm done for tonight, though, and very busy tomorrow so it will probably be Wednesday before I can look in again. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC) @No Great Shaker: I didn't ping you because I know you're watching this page. I'm not watching yours or AA's talk page, and as a courtesy I want to know when I'm being discussed. The end-point could've been "hey I was wrong, maybe we should close this discussion" and not "Can a wider range be scanned by the checkuser tool?". Admitting being wrong is not "prolonging things unnecessarily". If your "endpoint" is being so desperate for a block that you beg for a second CU scan, you should re-evaluate your participation at SPI. I have no interest in entertaining your other arguments. versacespaceleave a message! 22:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

256Drg, you are not being attacked. You have made numerous ill-advised edits which several people have found to be disruptive and these are being investigated here because you apparently have a problem with being challenged about them. No one is denying you free speech on the discussion pages but you cannot do or say just whatever you like in articles. Your issues around so-called controversy sections have been addressed here by the other contributors and I have really nothing else to add. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• versacespace Thanks for the intervention. Please read the paragraph I mentioned above. I agree that Wikipedia is not a free speech forum and I am definitely not aware of the complete set of rules and guidelines of it. But according to [[78]] article should be neutral in POV. Please give me the explanation of the different strategies used for two articles : Winston Churchill and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. I can point you out thousands of articles with biased POV.

RegentsPark thanks for your comment. Please guide me on how the consensus of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj article has been achieved. How can there be consensus to add a section which does not relate to the character's biography without a WP:POV?. It is clear from the section of the article that some media house has printed an article which created a controversy. Tomorrow anyone will comment or print on any famous character. Will you add that to the article? WP:POINT article clearly says that the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns, which I did on both the articles. But now I am getting to know that different policies and consensus have been applied to different articles. Please explain to me is that a neutral point of view?

Also, from the paragraph written by No Great Shaker in the starting of this discussion is a clear indication that he is trying to attack me because I added content to the Winston Churchill article. It is very usual for beginners to make some mistakes. But pointing out those in such a way and bad faith SPI investigation against me is clearly an act of personal attack!

Regarding the references you gave to me about two different comments which according to you are opposing in character, Please read what I already said many times : it is clear that in Winston Churchill's case, the controversy is created by Churchill himself. On the other hand, in case of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, there is no relation between the character and the topics discussed in section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 256Drg (talk • contribs) 16:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@256Drg: Please sign your posts. At least three different editors have already asked you to sign your posts, so it would be good if you'd start doing that. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

His failure to comply with WP:SIG is either deliberate refusal or WP:CIR. Either way with those and in addition to all the foregoing, plus the WP:AGF breach just above, I have to conclude that this person should be indef blocked. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• bonadea Sorry about that. As I told earlier, I am new to platform and I am currently learning about it. I will sign my comments from now onwords.

• It is clear from No Great Shaker comment that he does not want me to stay here on Wikipedia just because I disagree with his views. It is obvious that I did not have intention for not complying with WP:SIG, instead I was not aware of the policy.
• I am not breaching WP:AGF policy. I am just giving historical facts with the references. I am not making up them. If the one who should be blamed for WP:AGF and WP:POV, it is No Great Shaker since he doesn't want to add the right information to the article. It is clear that he wants to protect the image of character and is abusing his powers on Wikipedia against new comers.
• Another person who should be blamed is RegentsPark who is clearly breaching WP:POV and Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing policy and damaging the reputation of the character by adding and protecting the false information on article.
• Also, as I mentioned above, No Great Shaker is personally attacking me in various ways. Another example of that is mentioning Alivardi in this case who had no relation to the discussion and pining him on talk page to invite into the discussion (see here). This is a clear case of ganging up against a newcomer in order to protect the contents of the article in WP:AGF. It is clear from above evidences that No Great Shaker is a Wikipedia:Disruptive_user who is intolerant against the ones who does not agree with his WP:POV.
• To conclude,

• I charge No Great Shaker with policy breaching of WP:AGF, WP:POV, Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Disruptive_user. Compliance of these policies is very essential for maintaining Wikipedia a trusted and credible platform. I urge administrators to take strong action against No Great Shaker. Possibly Blocking or Banning him.
• I also charge RegentsPark with policy breaching of WP:AGF and WP:POV. Compliance of these policies is very essential for maintaining Wikipedia a trusted and credible platform. I urge administrators to take strong action against RegentsPark. Possibly Blocking or Banning him.

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)

• Comments on No Great Shaker post above :

• 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)

• Comments on No Great Shaker post above :

• 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)

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
• Comment - Another evidence of ganging up against me : No Great Shaker is saying on this post that File:Dr. Ashok Laxmanrao kukade.jpg is under investigation and that is why I should be blocked. On the other hand he asks administrators of https://commons.wikimedia.org/ to delete the files because I am under investigation on this notice board! (see here). Kudos to the 'tricks'!!! 256Drg (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Calling closing sysop. Could an uninvolved sysop please close this as soon as possible because it has surely gone on long enough now. The weight of evidence and support for the indef block proposal must be enough for closure. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - They removed something from an article as if they were censoring Wikipedia. There's more than enough evidence that they can't be here and be helpful. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support; their seemingly vindictive blanking of content on Shivaji (on top of everything) else suggests to me an inability to edit in good faith. Alivardi (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. That they mentioned I know the fate of my account. only further proves they don't plan on admitting they're wrong and will simply continue making the same edits against consensus if no action is taken here. They have also shown they won't consider that others could be right and seem to believe everyone here is personally attacking them. Bsoyka🗣️ 21:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I will not be getting banned how much you guys support! Since allowing me to stay here will definitely portrait the 'Tolerant' behaviour of Wikipedia. But I know now that everyone is watching my activity closely and they are not allowing me to add/remove any information. Also, no one here will support me either to build so called 'Census' since I am threatening their biased POV. If I repeatedly revert three edits, I will be banned by my misdeeds and not by Wikipedia administrators. Now basically I am left with an account which has virtually no use! What a game! I learned a lot from this. I am sure many guys will as well.

Although Wikipedia claims to be free of POV, they select administrators according to the POV and ideology which is best suited for Wikipedia by interviewing them for several weeks. After that Wikipedia refrains from intervening since that job is done by selected administrators. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where this much hypocrisy is entertained because blind minded people. The virtual protection that Wikipedia has is a result of protecting wrong history.

I am from the place which has never invaded a single country/civilisation to exploit their resources or forced to accept certain point of view no matter how back in the history you go. It has always given many gifts to the world which helped humanity. Unfortunately the same place is invaded by some evil forces to exploit the resources (which I think no one will deny in their minds, although they will comment denying it below) and robbed off! The land was also the victim of forced POV for hundreds of years.

But now the time is changing fast. We are rising and it is evident from past few decades that no one will be able to stop the rise! Even though bad things happened to us and are still happening, we are not of the mindset of taking revenge! Instead we would like to remove evil thoughts and not evil people.

I know that you guys are all masters of history and know a lot more stuff than me. Please go through our history without any prejudice and tell us whether we had wished anything wrong for anyone! (You might point to some random incidences but those thoughts were not accepted by society). Instead you will love the fact that many ancient texts makes us realise about the truth of this world.

May be you will neglect what I am saying here because we don't have power yet and you think us as subordinates. But you will listen to us soon! It does not mean by force, it means by attraction and glory!

I did not mean to offend anyone personally here. Instead I was pointing to some views and mentalities (which according to more than half of the population in the world thinks are harmful) which should be removed from this world.

Finally I wish good to all who were arguing with me. especially No Great Shaker who was really annoyed by what I had done here. I did not mean it personally. :-)

I am signing off from here now with a quote since you guys have left me no choice! Lol!!! :-D

- सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः। सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु मा कश्चिद्दुःखभाग् भवेत्।।

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

• 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. 36.77.94.45 (talk) 01:04, 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)

Anti-Semitic vandal

Resolved

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

Resolved, blocked by @Malcolmxl5:, to whom thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, this is the Brescia LTA. See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

More Nazis

Resolved

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

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

Targeted disruptive editing by 2603:8000:E807:D900::/64

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

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

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

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

• 172.250.44.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

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

User:Maximum Justice is a disruption-only account

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

---

See Special:Contributions/Maximum_Justice.

Can someone block them, please?

(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

High possibility of socking but I think it's too early to call. Might be worth keeping a watch though. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that as of right now their contributions have been entirely unhelpful. All three of them, and in reply they've gotten three different talk page messages about it. If they keep up the trolling I would support a block but we should give them a chance to respond first. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Surely they've had a chance to respond if they wanted to. They edited again several hours after the first two messages on their page. Excuse me, @QEDK and Beeblebrox: but I have blocked this troll. Bishonen | tålk 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC).

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

User:Jonah250

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

---

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

@ErnestoCabral2018: is also engaged in the edit warring. Rusted AutoParts 16:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warring, Vandalism and page redirects by user

Resolved

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

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

Hey we don't need to deal with this anymore. Its not a big deal never mind. I take back my edits its not a big deal. I've also changed it back to the way you want it to be, Leechjoel9. AmericanMan18 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked AmericanMan18 as a likely sockpuppet of Hoaeter (as per WP:DUCK). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User 24.38.200.90

Resolved

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

I just left a level 3 warning on the IP's talk page. (And an ANI notice, which Philosophy Junkie failed to do.) Looking at the IP's history, they've been removing this content for a year or so, so if this continues, a block of more than the usual day or two may be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never suggested blocking anyone before, so did not know the procedure. My apologies for that. Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP kept at it and is now blocked for a week. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN

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

---

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

Someone just beat me to it. Connormah (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks to Stephen and thanks to you for quick response in any case. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. An admin blindly editing the main page without any understanding of governance processes probably needs attention. Stephen 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I should have been more familiar with the process. It won't happen again. --rogerd (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have figured out how it is supposed to be done and nominated the RD correctly. Again, apologies. --rogerd (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like a fairly isolated incident, just from a brief look at edit history this appears to be the first time that Rogerd has edited a template transcluding on to main page out of process.( They don't perform a ton of admin actions, but mild inactivity has never been a criminal offense for admins on wikipedia)Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Radu1995, Untamed Romania, and WP:OWN issues

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

I did mention this at WP:FILM (see [79]), so I am hoping other editors with an interest will edit the article in the future. I decided to post here because, for whatever reason, I've taken an interest in this article as well, and I do not want to engage in an edit war with someone who refuses to communicate except via edit summary. Naturally, it would be inappropriate for me to use any administrative tools to sanction this user for continued disruptive editing (i.e., for contravening the MOS), as I am WP:INVOLVED. The last straw for me is this reversion, where the editor reintroduces the poor wording and style (and doesn't even get the hyphenation of the director's name right, which I did subsequently fix) from their preferred version. If anyone can see a solution that would help communicate with this editor, I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I directed them to the article talk page, but the talk page is currently empty, and it would help if you could start yourself, describing the changes you want to make.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

They responded at the talk page, and, as far as I understand, their idea is that since they started from a stub and improve the page, they now may do whatever they want.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter: thanks for your comments. At least they are now responding on their talk page, but I agree with your assertion that there is a WP:IDONTHEAR issue here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Terry Bean

 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 ([80], [81]) 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)

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)

User:TWCZack reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

(Non-administrator comment) Seems a little too quick to bring to ANI. Perhaps tell the user to stop posting on your talk page first? With that said, I'm not sure how they found you; the only article they've edited is Weatherscan. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, I reported him and TWCZane to be sockpuppets, possibly of blocked user Zane Jamarillo. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I posted a warning on his talk page for treating Wikipedia as a social network. He also seems to be operating two accounts simultaneously so I've warned him about that as well while Mvcg66b3r filed a SPI case. He seems too inexperienced (read, young) for this to be intentional sockpuppetry, but we'll see how the CUs view it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Legal Threat by IP

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

A legal threat was made by 70.106.244.186 in an edit summary [82]. 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)

Mcfoureyes

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

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

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
• Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars
• Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose
• Wikipedia:BRD misuse
• Wikipedia:Assume bad faith
• Wikipedia:Assume good wraith
• Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers
• Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram
• Wikipedia:In the apocalypse, there are no rules
• Wikipedia:No angry mastodons just madmen
• Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
• Wikipedia:Rouge admin
• Wikipedia:WikiBible

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

Many of these edits involve adding errors to pages for no apparent reason[83] then quickly undoing them.[84] Previous warning:[85] --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,[86][87] and again on 14:50, 4 May 2021.[88] 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[89] 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.[90], [91] --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)

• Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I've semi'd the article for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC).

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

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)

• 331dot has ECP'd the page. Enforcement actions may be required against Special:Contributions/Bayramoviç, who is making legal threats, attack pages, and general POV pushing. Also against Special:Contributions/KatayHan for the same. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus. There is definitely meat puppetry and probably some socks by the same hand.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Revision deletion per RD2/RD3 should also be considered for some of those comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @331dot: Thanks for block. Please also pull email access, since they've apparently decided to move their harassment to there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Will do. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ProcrastinatingReader.--Visnelma (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Would it be relevant to semi-protect a talk page

As some of you know, the article Turkish War of Independence is today called out as a "Wikipedia scandal" on several Turkish news outlets [92], [93], [94]. 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)

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)

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)

Greek War of Independence

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

I'd recommend blocking Meambokhe. Edit-warring and disruptive on several articles and talk pages today. Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Now we got an extended confirmed user Aybeg doing the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! The information I have added is referenced. I don't think there are any mistakes in my contribution. I'm not one to go to an edit war. I have no intention of that. If anyone thinks otherwise about the topic, they can discuss it among themselves. - Aybeg (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aybeg: if, as you claim, the information is referenced please provide the quotes requested at Talk:Greek War of Independence#Quotes requested. I have looked at the relevant pages of two of the claimed refereces and cannot see how the text is properly referenced, and the third reference is likely to be meaningless since it was published in 1897, a long time before "ethnic cleansing" was ever used. FDW777 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I was confused as well. Found this via AIV and incorrectly ECP'd the page as an intermediate measure against sockpuppetry that didn't happen in this way. I'm out; I hope people keep WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN in mind. The content of the article is probably best discussed on the article's talk page. Strictly separating between behavioral discussion here, and content discussion there, is probably a good idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence

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

---

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

Content issues are not handled here; please visit the article talk page (Talk:Turkish War of Independence) to express any concerns that you have, and also offer independent reliable sources to support your claims and proposed changes. Remember that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, giving due weight to how sources discuss a subject. All sides do not get equal time or equal treatment. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: See #Co-ordinated off-wiki disruption at Turkish War of Independence immediately above, this is part of an off-wiki campaign. FDW777 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User not discussing changes, continuing to make changes

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

In short:

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

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

User:Benjamin2662 NOTHERE

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,[95] 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)

Incivility by User:FDW777

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

---

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

It appears that AE section ended with TrottieTrue is given a logged warning to use only high-quality references for information related to biographies of living persons, and not to edit war when other editors object on BLP grounds. Do you dispute that result? What alternatives do you expect from the editor? Spend time sourcing it themselves? (something you said was too laborious a task to do.) Or just ignore it and let it be? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I haven't disputed that result, as I don't know how to - but it would be my inclination. I don't think I deserve a logged warning, since I had already agreed not to do it again. Users like FDW777 will just bully editors off the site if they are allowed to carry on like this. What do I expect from them?

A) "Spend time sourcing it themselves? (something you said was too laborious a task to do.)" No, but they could add sources for some of the missing references. Adding references to over 1,000 articles on entries in a column is clearly something that will be time-consuming, unless the work is shared by multiple editors. I have actually added references to many articles myself. If, perhaps, there was a list of those articles which were missing the DOBs, other editors could work to rectify that.

B) "Or just ignore it and let it be?" Ideally, yes. The article isn't doing any harm. Or they could come up with a constructive solution to help keep the article live, instead of making thinly veiled threats to have it deleted, or a large chunk of the content removed. It's as if they seem to get pleasure from merely enforcing policy.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Perhaps, like all other articles, it is a work-in-progress. Thanks to you, all the DOBs have been removed from the list, so I hope you're happy, although it renders the article a lot less useful and interesting. It was created by a former Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library. I have the "brass neck" to call out your vindictive behaviour, yes. Referring to an article which a lot of work and effort went into as a "mess" is downright rude. What about List of living former sovereign monarchs? Or List of living cardinals? They also lack inline citations. This is pettiness in the extreme. I've added references to the missing Taylor names just now. I'm surprised you didn't remove the DOBs from the Taylor articles actually, since they were previously unreferenced.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I feel that I have accidentally jumped on a landmine here. After doing a bit of reading, it seems there is an ongoing dispute between FDW and TT, which I have no involvement in beyond making some comments about the MPs DoB issue a couple of months back, and honestly didn't know about until just now. For clarity: although TT and I have been discussing this article on and off for a couple of months, the list in question was put together by me, not by TT, and several of the talkpage comments were (I assume) directed at me.

I had reasonably assumed the data in the list was all uncontroversial and did not need each point individually cited, which has been our general practice for list articles like this for many years. However, I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes uncontroversial material, and given this, I have revised the list to only contain years of birth. I hope this is acceptable to everyone involved. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Badi Bani

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

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

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

• 2600:1700:4241:C100:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

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.[96][97] 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.[98]

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.[99] Another nearby IP doing this stuff was Special:Contributions/23.25.104.33 in 2016.[100][101] 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)

Persistent copyvio from LupEnd007

• LupEnd007 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

An example copyvio problem:

• "an aggressively fast-talking opening track which nonetheless boasts an unexpectedly melodic chorus."[102] – The Upcoming source says "the aggressively fast-talking opening track Heavydirtysoul, which nevertheless boasts a surprisingly melodic chorus."

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

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

Article – pre- => post-LupEnd007

• The Judge (song) – 25.4 => 41.5%
• House of Gold (Twenty One Pilots song) – 13.0 => 56.9%
• Opinion (song) – 9.1 => 46.5%
• Shy Away – 32.0 => 65.4%

A completely different copyvio problem from LupEnd007 is the addition of non-free audio listening examples without "contextual significance" per WP:NFCCP. Every audio example intended for listening should be described in the article to provide context, but LupEnd007 has been uploading examples and adding them to articles without context, usually by placing them without explanatory text in the infobox.[103][104] And according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, each music sample must be limited to 10% of the song duration or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. LupEnd007 has uploaded 15% of the song at File:Notion.ogg and 17% of the song at File:Corona.ogg, and other uploads are also too long.

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

Thanks for bringing this here! I'll just mention I have nothing extra to say here that Binksternet didn't say or I didn't say at Talk:Shy Away Mcguy15 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly recommend making a case request at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. It is a taskforce specifically intended to find and remove copyright violations by someone or group of someones. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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:

• [105]
  • "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."
• [106]
  • "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"
• [107]
  • "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
• [108]
  • "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:

• [109]
  • "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. "
• [110]
  • "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."
• [111]
  • "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:

• in 2018:
  • General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Szlachta
  • also that year, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Szlachta (ping User:Korwinski)
• And more ancient history from 2011:
  • • Civility warning from User:Vecrumba instantly deleted by Exxess as "Deleted meddling" in the next diff. I actually forgot about this but this complain was apparently related to a personal attack against me: "You know what, Konieczny?  The thought of my comments from yesterday being here nauseates me.  Your archive will be the edit history.  Your conception of what nobility is, particularly Polish nobility, is so underdeveloped and ignorant, callow and juvenile, it's laughable trying to have an intelligent discussion with you in regards to its significance" and more
  • "Too ludicrous on such a fundamental, primordial level to even discuss without boggling the mind. DELETE IT ALL, like washing cow crap off one's self." (in edit summary)
  • and "You really do enjoy coming across with an authoritarian tone, don't you?" ... ":You do read, right, or is that demanding too much?"... "You and the little group of editors you canvassed and rallied around yourself"
• Also note that this topic is within the old discretionary sanctions that this editor was informed about all the way back in 2008: [112]
  • And last, a CIV warning from all the way back that year too: [113]

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)

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)

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

Firstly, I left a not 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 ra.co 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 highsnobiety.com BOTTEGA VENETA’S SECRET BERGHAIN SHOW WAS A GLIMPSE AT CLUBBING'S GRIM FUTURE April 18, 2021 /ref ref bz-berlin.de 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 https://www.rtl.de/videos/gaeste-feiern-im-soho-house-mitten-in-der-pandemie-60755f431782501d2a71d7c2.html, 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)

Mikeymikemikey

Mikeymikemikey (talk · contribs) With this edit [[114]] 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.

The discussion had been closed [[115]] Despite this you choose to continue [[116]], refusing to accept policy. You have questioned the use of wp:rs (as a policy) [[117]]. Accuses users (note this is just one example) of stonewalling and wikielayering (for arguing based upon policy) [[118]]. Accusations of being part of a cable [[119]]. 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 account

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

I can't comment on the rest of his edits, but I agree with the changing of "invasion" to "action against" in this edit. The source doesn't say invasion at all, and uses the phrase "military action". — Czello 10:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

after reading your comment I went ahead and linked the main article that details the invasion with multiple sources. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC) -(this is about the first republic part, not operation ALTAY) 11:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheesy McGee

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 moves

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

Sorry, I took WP:BOLD too far and have tried to be helpful when doing edits. I've actually put one request in at WP:RM --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You say that, and then continue months or years down the road. You were warned after an admin warned you here and didn't bother stopping. You created a huge mess including creating weird subpages in mainspace and haven't bothered to clean any of it up. YODADICAE👽 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to try and stop, I'll go to WP:RM; hopefully this doesn't need Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "I'm going to try and stop"? (my emphasis) - either you stop or we make you by way off a block. Which is it going to be? GiantSnowman 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll stop, but I am trying to make good mainspace contributions, even if small. Yes, I fucked up. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Quite brisk at it, between 14:29 and 14:59 they made 62 moves (+62 corresponding talk page moves) approximately a move every 29 seconds.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering, given the talk page full of notices about non-notable subjects, what else should concern us. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I did try and source articles, wrote about things that I thought were notable due to third-party sources. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see I was not the only one bothered by this. I would like to express my support for the move for Volkswagen Golf (sixth generation), otherwise I see no useful moves. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to ask, what assurances will there be that you won't make a massive mess again in the future? Because apparently being asked by myself, Mr.choppers, Serial Number 54129, Gricehead, Amakuru, Paine Ellsworth and Magnolia677 didn't help. I'm glad you admit you screwed up but knowing that you did and continuing to do it until it was brought to ANI is a problem and leads me to believe that a topic/pban is appropriate. YODADICAE👽 15:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chelston-temp-1, what made you think that moving 2017 Las Vegas shooting to 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas would be a good idea? If anything it is known for Mandalay Bay Hotel, the Harvest Festival isn't even in the lead.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Esoterix I had the same question when they moved Trolley Square shooting to 2007 Trolley Square shooting, Salt Lake City and Doping in Russia to Use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes in Russia, among others. I keep ecing here (it took me 14 tries to get my last comment in) but i'm working on putting all the moves in my userspace to show what was moved where more clearly than just the move log) YODADICAE👽 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be topic banned/permabanned, that article move was a bad idea now in hindsight. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that there was a copy/paste move included in the mess of moves covered here. That probably needs sorting out. List of equipment of the Austrian Army →List of military equipment used by the Austrian Army. Can we not just get the whole lot reverted? Gricehead (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

We may as well just revert, this was a STFU of my own making. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggest a topic ban from all page moves, to be lifted only if Chelston-temp-1 demonstrates that they fully understand WP:AT and that they know the difference between an uncontroversial move and one that requires an RM. It seems these were made in good faith, but given that it isn't the first time it's happened, we need to put a measure in place to ensure it doesn't occur again in future. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I will re-read WP:AT, even though I tried with the page-moves, and it didn't work; I don't want a topic ban. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked this user indef. As I said at his talk page, "I would really, really recommend that, if this user requests an unblock, the reviewing admin look at their long history of page move disruption, which continued for several years even after advice/warnings/blocking, and their long history of creating inappropriate pages. At an absolute minimum, I'd recommend a permanent or near-permanent ban from page moves as an unblock condition. Making mistakes because you're new is one thing; making the same mistake over and over after multiple warnings, over the course of several years, especially making mistakes that are going to take several hours of other people's work to clean up, is another. Complete lack of respect for other people's time." The final straw is noticing that they made the exact same apology ("I guess was a little to WP:BOLD, sorry") for the exact same disruption a year ago, April 2020. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. It sounds like the WP:IDHT runs strong there, and your conditions seem sensible.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I found this after seeing his move. The move that really struck me was this move, where Killing of George Floyd was moved to Police shooting of George Floyd. Making similarly disruptive moves repeatedly after being told to stop multiple times is grounds for a ban on any page moves. If the user wishes to be unblocked they can at a minimum be banned from moving any pages, and must use WP:RM if they want a move. While I have no doubt that there are in good faith, they simply fail to grasp how and is moves should be done on Wikipedia.

aeschyIus (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

List of moves

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:

• Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's lightweight double sculls -> Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics/Men's lightweight double sculls
• Department of Defense appointments by Joe Biden -> Department of Defense appointments by the Biden administration
• Political appointments by Joe Biden -> Political appointments by the Biden administration
• 2021 United States inauguration week protests -> 2021 United States Inauguration Week protests
• 2020–21 United States election protests -> 2020–21 United States Presidential election protests -> 2020–21 United States Presidential election protests -> Protests against result of 2020-2021 United States presidential elections
• Smooth Radio -> Smooth Radio (2012) -> Smooth Radio (2014)
• 2019 Dallas courthouse shooting -> 2019 Earle Cabell Federal Building, Dallas courthouse shooting
• St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin -> St Patrick's Cathedral (Dublin)
• List of equipment of the Myanmar Army -> List of equipment used by the Myanmar Army
• Tomoki Suzuki -> Template:Tomoki Suzuki (footballer) -> Tomoki Suzuki (footballer)
• Time in Albania -> Time zones in Albania
• List of twin towns and sister cities in China -> /List of twin towns and sister cities in China -> List of twin towns and sister cities in China
• List of equipment of the Indonesian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Indonesian Army
• List of equipment of the Malaysian Army -> List of military equipment used by Malaysian Army
• List of equipment of the Argentine Army -> List of military equipment used by the Argentine Army
• List of equipment of the Tanzanian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Tanzanian Army
• List of modern equipment of the German Army -> List of modern military equipment used by the German Army
• List of United States Marine Corps individual equipment -> List of individual combat equipment used by the United States Marine Corps
• List of equipment of the National Guard of Ukraine -> List of military equipment used by the National Guard of Ukraine
• Volkswagen Transporter (T4) -> Volkswagen Transporter T4
• Volkswagen Transporter (T5) -> Volkswagen Transporter T5
• Volkswagen Golf Mk6 -> Volkswagen Golf (sixth generation)
• Volkswagen Type 2 (T3) -> Volkswagen Type 2 T3
• List of equipment of the Australian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Australian Army
• List of equipment of the Republic of China Army -> List of military equipment used by the Republic of China Army
• List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina -> List of military equipment used by the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Cebu Monorail Transit System -> Cebu Monorail
• List of equipment of the Albanian Armed Forces -> List of military equipment used by the Albanian Armed Forces
• List of equipment of the Royal Netherlands Army -> -> Wikipedia:Sandbox/List of military equipment used by the Royal Netherlands Army -> List of military equipment used by the Royal Netherlands Army
• List of deaths due to COVID-19 -> List of deaths with COVID-19 as cause
• List of members of the Parliament of Norway, 1945–49 -> List of members of the Parliament of Norway 1945–1949
• William Whitaker (1629–1672) -> William Whitaker (Puritan ejected minister)
• List of equipment of the Egyptian Army -> List of military equipment used by the Egyptian Army
• Canoeing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification -> Canoeing at the 2020 Summer Olympics qualification
• 2017 Las Vegas shooting -> 2017 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, Las Vegas
• Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Men's single sculls -> Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics-men's single sculls
• Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics/Men's single sculls -> Rowing at the 2000 Summer Olympics-men's single sculls
• Effects of Typhoon Bopha in Micronesia and Palau -> Effects of Typhoon Bopha on Micronesia and Palau (GA!)
• List of World War II weapons of Ireland -> List of World War II weapons used in Ireland
• Trolley Square shooting -> 2007 Trolley Square shooting, Salt Lake City
• List of equipment in the Russian Navy -> List of military equipment and vehicles used by the Russian Navy
• Use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes in Russia -> Doping in Russia

YODADICAE👽 15:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and template redirects

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

---

• Jonesey95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute news
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news
• For admins: Template:Cute news and Template talk:Cute news

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

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

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• It's not a good idea for someone to unilaterally decide a consensus is invalid and therefore ignore the close. We have processes for challenging closes. If that were reasonable then what would be the point of discussing anything at all? And then creating similar pages when there's a dispute over the appropriateness of them just results in forked discussions and isn't conducive towards building consensus. I don't think Jonesey needs to go onto Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for throwing his toys out the pram. Hopefully he can give an undertaking to voluntarily desist and let the processes (eg the current DRV) play out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  See my comment below; it seems Ivanvector's timeline/chronology may not be accurate, and thus any intentions cannot be presumed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Initial statement from the accused: The proposer's phrasing "in defiance of the discussion" implies malicious intent and bad faith, of which there is zero evidence. Ivanvector, please retract those words immediately. ProcrastinatingReader also makes invalid assumptions about my reasoning and intent; I was not aware of any previous consensus, having not been notified of it, so there is no way I could have "decide[d] a consensus was invalid". Please look at the explanations and evidence and links to guidelines that I have provided, instead of the invented intentions that exist only in your own minds.
  As I have explained at multiple venues, I was not aware of the previous RFD discussion, which in any event did not cite any guidelines and was full of jokes instead of serious discussion (more explanation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 4#Template:Cute news). AFAIK, I have not created any new redirects, despite guidelines suggesting that they are valid, after being notified of the in-progress RFD discussions.
  The proposer's statement that the templates have zero transclusions is a red herring; every one of these redirects had a transclusion when it was created. I have provided links to reports showing those transclusions at the new RFD discussions: Cute book, Cite jorunal, and Cote web (which contains another bad-faith accusation by the proposer). The reason that there are no transclusions is that the existence of these redirects causes these typos to appear on error reports that gnomes or bots then diligently fix in the background. Between the time that the mistyped templates are added to pages and the time that they are fixed, the pages on which they transcluded are rendered correctly for readers. Redirects from typos, whether they are for templates or not, provide a service to our readers, preventing ugly red text and missing content from being rendered in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  So, what you're saying here is that, if you hadn't created these redirects, the typos would have been fixed through existing processes? Also, if you were not aware of the initial deletion discussion, how did you come across the deleted template less than 24 hours after it was deleted, when all of the extant transclusions of the error had been corrected in the course of the discussion? Also also, I'll retract my comment about malicious intent when you retract your multiple comments about there being no serious arguments in the multiple deletion discussions. From where I sit your actions look purposeful and deliberately defiant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  What I am saying is that the existence of this redirect causes the template to be fixed, because it contains {{R from misspelling}}. Deletion of the redirect makes it less likely to be fixed. I think that editors in these RFD discussions are making an understandable error in assuming that "no current transclusions of a redirect" means that "there are never transclusions of this redirect". The tagging of the redirect with {{R from misspelling}} causes gnomes to attend to any accidental transclusions (see also this daily report), so when one looks at "what links here" on any given day, there will be few or zero current transclusions. I don't know of a way to see a historical view of transclusions over time, but such a view would show this flow.

  I came across a transclusion of this template in the 29 April version of this report, which I check and process daily. As you can see in that link, there was at least one transclusion of {{cute news}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I wonder if Mandarax would be willing to explain how they use reports based on {{R from misspelling}} to fix wikilinks with typos in them, and how often they fix transcluded template redirects that have typos in them as part of that workflow. That might shed some light on the usefulness of these redirects and the misunderstandings multiple editors appear to have around the lack of transclusions of these redirects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I work on WP:Database reports/Linked misspellings, which has enabled me to fix countless links to misspelled article redirects. I haven't been doing anything with transcluded template redirects. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I presumed based on Ivanvector's opening statement that you were aware of the RfD and assumed the given chronology of the creations, as I had no reason to doubt that timeline. But it appears the DRV was created on 4 May and the other redirects on 29 April, 1 May and 2 May respectively, and the recreation of {{cute news}} on the 30th,[120] which was not re-deleted until the 4th. All of them also appear on the daily report you link above.[121] So none were created Since starting that review or before your recreation was redeleted. Apologies, and I will note the same above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose any sanctions; the discussion was a circus even by RfD standards, and it's good that someone had the sense to point it out. {{Cute news}} shouldn't have been recreated, it's true; the other three redirects are perfectly valid, however, and so the ban proposal is a clear overreaction to a very minor issue. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The entire basis of the proposer's statement is contradicted by the chronology, which makes the allegations equally baseless. MichaelMaggs (talk)
• Oppose. I do not understand why Ivanvector escalated the issue in this way; in my experience, they and Jonesey95 are reasonable people dedicated to improving the project. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Additional statement by the accused: I recognize that when I recreated a template that had been deleted via RFD, that was wrong. I should not have done that, and I apologize for it. I did not know or notice that it had been previously deleted. If there was a notice at the top of the page, I must have missed it due to banner blindness. I create and modify a lot of templates, so unless there is something drastically different about the screen, like a different background color, I grow accustomed to the visual pollution that surrounds the editing area. I will try to pay closer attention in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

IP editor disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT

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

---

A number of SPAs and Anon IPs have been trying to insert content sourced to a random Youtube video at Markovian Parallax Denigrate since last year. They have been repeatedly reverted for the non WP:RS and today has begun disrupting Wikipedia at large over the issue. 115.189.91.57 (talk · contribs) (also editing as 122.56.201.177 (talk · contribs)) has been reverted by people apart from just me and the page has been Semi-protected as a result of their POV pushing edits. Under his "122" address, he filed a false 3RR report (complete with unsupported aspersions) against me yesterday [122], and has been posting passive aggressive nonsense at the article talk page both yesterday and after it was protected [123]. He has removed a Shared IP template from the IP's talk page in violation of WP:REMOVED (again with false accusations of vandalism), and begun pure trolling at unrelated talk pages as shown here [124]. Not really sure what to do about this person, other than report their disruption. ♟♙ (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

115.189.88.0/21 has been rangeblocked for a week. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: I commend you for your lightning-fast block of their back up IP, 122.56.203.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Nadans

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

Courtesy note: this user, Me1420 (their contributions), has made repeated disruptive edits to the page Nadan (Nadar subcaste). The user has been warned several times today and has not justified their edits. Not familiar with the subject at all, but user has not provided sources yet seems to be well-versed with WP pages (such as this page). PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. on Nadan (Nadar subcaste). Me1420 go to Talk:Nadan (Nadar subcaste) and explain there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Kelsey.obrien.1048 requires urgent attention

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)