Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Yappy2bhere

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

---

I've been here for about 2-3 months now, so admittedly I'm new. Every edit I've made has been paricularly music based given that I am a musician. Every time I make an edit, however, Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs) is quick to revoke my edit and accuse me of "vandalism" despite me citing virtually every source. Like editing incorrect information on both the Static Major and Bad and Boujee pages.

Even though I may or may not have made editing mistakes, this person will also go out of their way to personally attack users for supposedly making mistakes or something, and from what I've seen this person has been reported in the past but still continues to aggravate incidents.

--SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• You need to source your work when making dramatic changes to articles. Claiming different keys is certainly not small. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I apologize for that mistake, but could this user please stop claiming every other edit I (and other users) make is vandalism? It was more than just that one edit. It's seems fairly unproductive if you ask me... --SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I can see some warming template abuse on the part of Yappy2bhere, as they certainly piled them on high within a matter of minutes on the 19th, when they could have simply addressed things with a single message. Regardless, you are technically engaged in an edit war on the page Static Major, with you adding the same information repeatedly. I'd ask that you desist with that behavior. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 15:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say your behavior rises to the level of vandalism, but it's not absurd for Yappy2bhere to think it might be. You should probably read WP:MINOR. Some vandals will mark major edits as minor to hide from scrutiny. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Understable, I apologize and will stop. --SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I'm looking at [this edit, for which OP received a lvl3 warning, and the OP is correct. The source does not say it is in G-flat Major. It doesn't state a key. It shows six flats. That could be either G-flat major, or E-flat minor (ignoring the possibility of other rarely-used church modes). The music starts with an e-flat minor chord, which is highly indicative of a key signature of e-flat minor. Therefore OP corrected the article according to the source. SHUTUPGOODLORD, it would be really helpful if you stated as much in your edit summary. Yappy2bhere, did you check the source before accusing ShutUp of vandalism? For what it's worth, OP's user name (I'm presuming meant to be humorous, but simlarly names accounts are often WP:NOTHERE) and newness to project, doesn't engender confidence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  As a learned musician a quick glance at the score reveals what is obvious; and the OP is indeed right. Now the username might be problematic; but that doesn't excuse the WP:BITE and lack of WP:AGF from somebody who's been here since 2009, apparently. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Don't wiki-moralize. In OP's second edit to the article [1] he deleted the source that contradicted the change he wished to make and replaced it with a "source" that said nothing at all about the key, tagging it as "minor" of course. That wasn't inexperience, that was a bad-faith edit. Still believe the first was a misunderstanding? WP:AGF, but don't ignore bad behavior. No idea why you're obsessed with the username. Let it be. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  I did check the source. It's entitled Migos feat. Lil Uzi Vert \"Bad and Boujee\" Sheet Music in Gb Major - Download & Print - SKU: MN0171443, as you would have discovered had you checked it yourself. You don't have to be a learned musician to notice the "E-flat minor" chord notations on the first page, but unless you're prescient you can't say that the song doesn't start in the minor then shift into the major. The edit was reverted because "as a learned musician" isn't a WP:RS, it's WP:OR. I'm sympathetic, but not swayed. You may "know" that the cited source misinterpreted the key signature, but you still need a source to make the change wiki-credible. (Right, RandomCanadian [2]?) This is Wikipedia. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to claim to be a "learned musician", but I understand the notation that musicnotes.com uses. I have a question. What makes musicnotes.com a reliable source?—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Robert Joffred claims E♭ minor, but also claims to be a musician and know what the Phrygian mode is. Xe does not play Bass, though. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I'm overwhelmed with Robert Joffred's reliability either. Conventional music theory is excellent for analyzing European and European-style symphonies and concertoes and opera, and useful for understanding quite a lot of pop, but it's less ideal for analyzing music from other cultures, particularly something like rap which is richer in its lyrics and rhythms than its melodies and chord structures. I wonder whether the best option might be to remove all claims about which key it's in.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I've done so independently of your comment here; though I guess that won't stop this editor's behaviour elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry by the above

I'm not sure if [3] counts as accusing sockpuppetry, but if it does, then he really needs to work on assuming good faith. Accusing others of sockpuppetry just isn't right. --Cutlass^Ciera 16:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just reading through here, Yappy2bhere seems to be quite combative, BITE-y, and generally just acting rude toward other editors, new or otherwise.

I would encourage them to soften their tone down, AGF, and be civil.

On a less guidelines/policy related note, and more just a recommendation to them: I also noticed they remove content per WP:UNSOURCED, but I could not find any instances of them searching for a source and adding it. "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." — WP:UNSOURCED.

This isn't by any means a requirement, but it's encouraged, and I encourage them to do so. —moonythedwarf 19:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So far as the content dispute is concerned, Yappy2bhere has sound reasoning. Though, it appears that they have a lengthy history of incivility, personal attacks and a general lack of collaborative inclinations. Hopefully, they can be less dismissive and get a grip on themselves, so they don't suffer blocks for their behavior down the line. So far as the main topic of this thread is concerned, I believe it has been addressed. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the matter this thread was started for is otherwise settled. —moonythedwarf 23:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Gravedancing, personal attacks, aspersions, and more

Yappy2bhere has, within the last few days, insinuated RandomCanadian and Cutlass are sockpuppets, gravedanced on half a dozen different editors, insinuated I am hounding them, and has failed to hold a civil conversation since they joined the site, WP:BITEing many new editors (which is what this AN/I thread was originally started for) and failing to behave in a way conductive to a collaborative editing space. This behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and I personally think this editor needs an immediate wake-up call for their conduct. —moonythedwarf 14:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

1. I made no accusation, I asked whether the two accounts represented two users. It's a reasonable question; you for example use more than one account. I assume you're aware that there are both acceptable and unacceptable ways to use multiple accounts; you should assume that I do too.
2. "Gravedancing" does sound awful, but WP:GRAVEDANCING is not a WP policy, it is an essay. In any case the edits you've linked don't resemble any of the Examples of gravedancing given in the essay. Your characterization of them is inaccurate and your accusation unfair.
3. "Hounding" is "joining discussions on multiple pages or topics [or] debates" where I contribute with the "apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress." Yes, you've been hounding me; please stop.
4. I've "failed to hold a civil conversation since [I] joined the site"? Nonsense; obviously something provoked the greeting cards. Certainly you haven't read my entire edit history, so how did you arrive at this sweeping conclusion. Ouija board?
5. Can you produce a list of the "many new editors" I've bitten, and how? Of course not; they don't exist.

Yappy2bhere (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• As if that wasn't enough; now there's this monstrosity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Monstrous" how, exactly? It's a reply to Moony's unfounded accusations. Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Yappy2bhere blocked for (at least 1 month) persistent incivility

Given the persistent history of this editor (as evidenced by the copious amount of warnings they have gotten - dating back to at least 2009); given their WP:ABF accusations; given their refusal to back down; given their apparent WP:HOUNDING of a new editor; and given they're not interested in changing their behaviour; I propose the above remedy as a final wake-up call. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Edited RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn for now. The situation seems to have changed for the better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I do not assume bad faith, but I don't ignore bad faith either.

  For example, on April 22 you made an unsourced change to the key of Bad and Boujee, "improving" the source by removing mention of the key from its original title [4]. Bowdlerizing a cited source is not a good-faith error.

  I reverted the change, but at 2:37 today you restored it with the same "improved" source citation and a belittling edit summary [5]. As support you cited WP:CALC and a new, definitive source which you didn't add to the article. WP:CALC can't support the change--two keys correspond to the key signature. A "learned musician" would know that (note user:78.26's comment above); not a good-faith error.

  Your new "source" doesn't mention the key at all, so that too is an error. user:SHUTUPGOODLORD earlier misrepresented source content in the same way for the same reason, and you were advised of it [6]; not a good-faith error.

  In this one instance you've adulterated a cited source [7], misrepresented the content of a another [8], justified an unsourced change by citing a policy that you knew could not apply [9], and of course added WP:OR into an article despite knowing it was nothing more than that [10]. For what? So you could thumb your nose at another editor ("so in addition to not knowing music theory your research was not extensive enough" [11])?

  Withdraw your WP:NOTVOTE and recuse yourself from this discussion. You've lost your perspective.

  Yappy2bhere (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  No point arguing since you're still quite too combative. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't fiddle the sources. They're all that holds WP together. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support - shorter: This editor's behavior has long since been out-of-line with their personal attacks, but three months is rather extreme for the first measures taken. As a third party, twenty-four hours to one week seems far more appropriate. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 03:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support one-month block: Rather than constructively discuss or apologize for personal attacks, Yappy2bhere seems to be focusing on coming up with witty comebacks for their amateur hour routine - like they have been doing for the past twelve years on their talk page that is stuffed full of people responding to personal attacks. For clarification, Wikipedia:No personal attacks is not an essay. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Also, they appear to be indeed hounding 4TheLuvOfFax now. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdraw: Yappy2bhere has apologized, so I'm withdrawing my vote. We need to talk things out more and keep civil, if not purely kind. Good luck, Yappy2bhere and 4TheLuvOfFax. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - shorter: A one week block seems appropriate to me, as per DarthBotto. If behavior continues, then it can be extended, but 3 months is hasty. —moonythedwarf 13:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Moonythedwarf and DarthBotto: I don't think one week will do anything, especially given the long term nature of this (even this thread has been ongoing for five days, and yet they don't appear to have learned the lesson or heeded any advice). But if you think 3 months is too much, 1 might do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Prodding for uninvolved editors to review the situation. I honestly can't bother to read Yappy2bhere's walls of text anymore, and am going to withdraw from the conversation as I'm otherwise busy at the moment (and shouldn't be on wikipedia  Self-trout). —moonythedwarf 13:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't withdraw before at least illustrating your several accusations with examples, per WP policy. It's only fair. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:PROVOKE#Examples of poking #17: "Dismissing a user's considered thoughts out-of-hand by calling them "a wall of text" (or equivalently: "too long; didn't read")." Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Here you go, an uninvolved editor: I agree with DarthBotto, three months is perhaps a bit long but, based on the behaviour exhibited in the diffs and (dear me, a bit silly) within this very report, anything less than a week would probably be too short. I support a block to stop the user and give thinking time: Yappy2bhere, really, please take on board the issues which have been raised here and modify your style a bit; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I'll miss the refreshments be sorry to go. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you or your fellow editors with that response, user:LindsayH; it wasn't my intent. I do believe you answered honestly and without bias, and that your advice was well-meant and offered solely for my welfare. I simply wanted to acknowledge that, while disappointed that you support a block, I don't doubt that you were trying to be both fair and helpful. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure no offence was intended; certainly none was taken. I agree with Ched, below and on the talk page: The behaviour has been apologised for, and sanctions are less good than self-regulation and productivity. In view of that i have struck my support; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support As one of the involved editors, I support a month long block. --Cutlass^Ciera 16:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Withdraw User has apologized. --Cutlass^Ciera 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Both editors seem to be open to adjusting their approach, and I'd rather see this resolved without trying enforce sanctions on people who are generally here to improve the project. — Ched (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure: Most of the votes for disciplinary action have been voluntarily stricken, consensus appears to have been reached and now there is an understanding with Yappy2bhere. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 06:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this 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 [12], 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.

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" [13]. 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 [14]. 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,[15] 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 [16]. 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 [17]. According to a report from The Times, the US allegedly has a whistleblower already [18], but it's not clear what they know and a bill was introduced last week requiring the administration to declassify their intelligence [19]. CutePeach (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: this is the earlier comment from WAID that you seek [20]. It was mentioned in a conversation I was tagged in [21]. 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)

Indiscriminate removal of deprecated sources

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

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

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

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

If it's so easy to replace the information in the rare cases where it can be replaced, what's the problem? (Also, WP:DEPRECATED isn't even a guideline.) WP:RSP notes, Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. I'd say that the work of careful review has already been done; in any given case of an RT citation, the burden lies on the side of showing that it should be included. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

XOR I think it's more the speed that it's done at as well as the fact a huge chunk of information is sometimes removed.I don't see why it has to be done almost instantly and why it cannot be tagged-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Because we've had hundreds or thousands of citations to a state propaganda organization polluting our encyclopedia? The presumption has to be that (a) the citation needs to go, and (b) any material supported by it is unreliable. (Even in the rare cases where one might guess them to be factually accurate — say, quoting the words of a state official — if all we have is a propaganda outlet, then we have no grounds to include that quotation. NPOV means basing inclusion on representation in reliable sources.) We need more and faster removals of RT, not the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated does not equal "banned" and perhaps the only source that has any type of outright ban on use from the community is Daily Mail with relation to BLP. Deprecated sources should be removed but with care not to disrupt the encyclopedia, and the presumption that material presented only sourced to deprecated sources is tainted and thus must also be removed is a bad fallacy (as proven by OP post). --Masem (t) 19:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

An example where the material could be restored with a better source doesn't prove that material from an absolutely unreliable source should be kept by default. In the first cited example, not all of the removed content was restored. And in the second, a Google News search for Medvedev's quote ("We are categorically against drawing parallels between the Balkan events and the events in the Caucasus") finds no hits, while a DDG search returns only Russia Today and Wikipedia mirrors. So, we have no WP:RS indicating that the exact quote is worthy of inclusion. The disruption to the encyclopedia was the inclusion of propaganda as "sources" in the first place, not its removal. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

A similar discussion was held at WP:RS/N and I don't think we ever got a definitive answer about the immediate removal of deprecated sources from articles that aren't BLPs. I think it would be better if the sources were marked with like Alaexis suggests, giving editors the chance to find and replace the source. I found David Gerard's removal of the information attributed to a deprecated source more disruptive than just the removal of the source. There are now articles out there with gaps and paragraphs that no longer make sense. I think I'd prefer a tag added instead of that situation. Least if a source cannot be found, the information can be removed by someone who is familiar with the topic and can rewrite the article around it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 19:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I was looking just now for examples to discuss specifics, and it appears that David Gerard has taken to replacing RT citations with {{citation needed}} rather than removing the associated text in cases where the article flow would be significantly broken [22][23][24][25]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I should say "has been", rather than "has taken to", since he didn't just start today [26][27][28][29]. Also for Sputnik, e.g., [30]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

At least as I see it the answer we got was that both removing the sourced information plus the text, just replacing the citation with a Cn tag, and doing an in-depth search to try and source at least part of the text where appropriate and up to editorial discretion but that in BLP circumstances there simply is no option and both *must* be removed or properly sourced (admittedly that is kind of a non-answer). I think we should be willing to accept whatever level of work an editor is willing to do that improves the encyclopedia, removing deprecated sources almost always improves wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See the WP:V policy, specifically WP:BURDEN: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. + Some editors object to others' making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. A lot of these articles don't have lots of watchers and are only infrequently materially changed. Content removed may be lost for a long time or permanently. Indiscriminate mass removal of unreliable sources without spending at least 1 min to Google or check nearby sources in the article probably isn't in line with policy. If that is usually done but these were irregular omissions then that's a different thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that the articles not having lots of watchers and being only infrequently materially changed is part of the problem. If they're wallowing in obscurity, then replacing bad citations with {{cn}} tags isn't going to help very much: the content drawn from those bad citations will just sit there, being propagandistic, without anyone coming along to fix it. If more dramatic removals are what it takes to get the pages fixed, then so much the better for dramatic removals. Moreover, we're not just dealing with material that lacks an inline citation to a reliable source; we're facing material based on a manifestly unreliable source. The cost-benefit calculus of removal is different when the source is actively misleading. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

One can go a step further than just tagging by just Googling the fact and seeing if a source pops up, then replacing with a different cite. It takes about a minute for many facts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that, even if sourcing a claim takes "about a minute" (which I consider to be an extremely short estimate), he is removing them far quicker than that. For example, on April 26 we see a whole four diffs in the space of less than one minute. This isn't something that one person can realistically deal with. jp×g 20:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

None of those damaged the articles in question by making their prose disjointed (and the fourth was a swap-with-{{cn}} edit). Also, there are something like 1,500 RT citations yet remaining. That is a problem that no one person can realistically deal with. (At a minute a pop, it would still be 25 hours of work.) Making a dent by cutting redundant citations, removing lengthy quotes from state officials, excising RT from "External links", and swapping out the occasional maybe-salvagable entry with a {{cn}} is a good way to start. And in all that I've seen reading back through Special:Contributions/David_Gerard so far, that pretty much characterizes them. What, exactly, has been broken here? Because I'm not seeing it yet. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia content is supposed to have a reliable source. In my (not inconsiderable) experience, people will demand, with equal coinfidence, that deprecated sources may not be removed until the person removing has found another source (wrong: it's the job of the person including content to source it reliably), that the source should be removed and replaced with {{cn}} (wrong: only the most uncontroversial information may be left unsourced), and that the content must be removed entirely. David has a long history of being anything but indiscriminate in how he handles this choice. Also: RT is 100% unreliable. It's Russian state media and as trustworthy as Pravda ever was. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I recall having read in a page history a dispute between David Gerard and an FA writer over whether it was acceptable to use the Daily Mail to cite "the Daily Mail said this". After a bit of poking, I found it here. For BLPs, I'm inclined to go "yeah, mass-removing is at worst a bit quick and at best necessary", but I can't see that action as being anything but indiscriminate. Vaticidalprophet 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Screw this, this is exactly the wrong time for me to get into conversations on ANI. Please no one ping me here for, like, a month. Vaticidalprophet 21:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, "$UnreliableSource X said Y, source, $UnreliableSource X saying Y" is exactly the kind of shit we should be removing. Reliable, independent, secondary. It's a trifecta, not a "pick one". Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

On top of that, the claim in question was BLP material, even though the article was about a painting. The first line of WP:BLP says that it applies to any Wikipedia page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember the example at Talk:Hugh_Walpole#Removal_of_deprecated_source and history popping up on my watchlist some months ago wrt MoS, I'm not even sure that removal was in line with policy (specifically WP:RSEDITORIAL, if not WP:EW). Other edits remove historical usages of the source or sourcing uncontroversial facts, both explicitly permitted by the RfCs, eg Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case. It's hard to say this is anything but indiscriminate and IMO DG's interpretation of policy/consensus is broader than the actual consensus. This is not necessarily an issue, or at least not necessarily a remediable one, but I think it wouldn't hurt to at least make a token effort to find another source when making removals, even if it slows down DG's rate slightly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Although the majority of edits to remove deprecated sources by this editor are valid, a substantial minority are disruptive and remove pertinent information where a reliable source could be found easily. This results in a substantial amount of damage to the project, which outweighs the benefits of cleaning up the sources in my opinion. This is a long-standing problem (and not the only area of controversy this edit is embroiled in) and furthermore any attempt to challenge these bad edits results in hostile and uncalled for responses by this editor (and a number of allied editors). I feel that sanctions are required. Shritwod (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please stop acting like a stuck record and address the issues. Shritwod (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I literally just did, thanks. But I look forward to why you think my understanding of policy is incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You are using your personal interpretation of policies to justify lazy editing. Yes, these are not reliable sources but in many cases reliable sources exist. You just don't bother to find them. That is vandalism in my opinion, and your continued refusal to alter your behaviour should be sanctioned. Shritwod (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the relevant policy, On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. Moreover, Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. There is no way that DG's actions qualify as vandalism. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Removing improperly sourced material is a legitimate maintenance task. You might wish that the person doing so find a source, but they are not obligated to do so and "lazy editing" is not something any admin is going to sanction for. Your opinion that it is vandalism is not in alignment with well-established site policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

break

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

Obviously DG shouldn't be sanctioned for removing unreliable sources, which is thankless work. But it isn't unreasonable to request at least a token effort be made to find other sources[31] (has journal sources with a 10sec Google search) or at least not remove statements still acceptable per the RfC[32]. Policy is also clear that editors do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity and WP:BURDEN indicates indiscriminate mass-removal is not ideal. If the issue (as claimed above) is that there's so many unreliable sources being used that if DG slowed down then the backlog would never be eliminated, then it needs more editors to help out, not more speed.And yes, I'm aware I'm wasting my time writing this response, as someone will probably tap the Archive button within 12 hours. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Except there's no point in this kind of thing continuing around here on the dramaboard - legitimate issues with their editing can and should be raised on their talk page; where I see only a short discussion has taken place. If the issue is with the objection to the removal of content sourced to poor sources and it not being replaced with better sources, that's one about (legitimate, I'd say) interpretation of policy (seems to be an issue between enforcing WP:V and encouraging editors to apply the WP:FIXIT to problems they encounter) and dramaboard isn't really the best place for that either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a lot of action following my post here (I had to go offline and couldn't follow it). I see that there are other editors who have expressed similar concerns, so I don't think that a closure is justified. I have not accused the editor of vandalism. Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Many editors have express concerns (see DG's talk page) and they have mostly been dismissed in the same way with a failure to engage on the actual points of the dispute. As for "vandalism"... well, that's my subjective point of view. I don't believe that these are all good faith edits though - this editor's over-riding aim seems to be to remove these deprecated sources at any cost, even if that means removing pertinent information from the article. Bear in mind that this editor is also under a topic ban on certain topics and there was a whole bizarre indicent around the Susie Boniface article where this editor again applied a unique interpretation of policy and the privileges of his admin rights. Shritwod (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly undone the close per the discussion below. SkyWarrior 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

While I don't think Mr Gerard's zealous application of WP:V is sanctionable, I do think he could work on his attitude, having had the unpleasant experience of disagreeing with him several times over removal of material in articles on my watchlist because of sourcing concerns. Any suggestion that he apply the policies with a little more care (and deal with the sourcing rather than the content, which is often entirely uncontroversial but, like the proverbial baby, goes out with the bathwater) is met with an accusation that one is a defender of the source being objected to. I appreciate that being questioned is tiresome, but I do think Mr Gerard needs to work on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Witness the above response: "the fans of deprecated sources", "Daily Mail and Sun partisans", "their favourite deprecated sources". This seems to be Mr Gerard's default response, and I don't find that attitude helpful or appropriate, particularly from an admin. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I will note that if the effort spent by everyone above complaining about DG removing deprecated sources was used by those same people to add good sources to the articles in place of the deprecated sources, it would have actually been easier than holding this discussion. --Jayron32 12:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ...and I will note that on several occasions I've done exactly that. It's not the removal of sources that I have a problem with, it's the removal of valid information purely because it is referenced by a deprecated source, to the detriment of the articles affected. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • How would I, as a reader, know that the information is valid? --Jayron32 14:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I did replace a few RT links with RS yesterday actually. But that isn't a good argument anyway. Firstly, because it's like saying when someone WP:MASSCREATEs bad articles other editors shouldn't complain but should just improve the article themselves. Nobody exercising human judgement can compete with the speed of indiscriminate actions (see WP:MEATBOT), and nobody should have to WP:HOUND DG's contribs checking his removals and reinstating the bad removals. Secondly, because in some cases the source is reporting uncontroversial info on a niche issue and so no other sources can be found; WP:DAILYMAIL2 explicitly carved out an exception for this, but DG removes those too and tends to argue against reinstating, often to result in WP:NOCON outcomes with low participation and thus reverting to his newly established "status quo" (not really, but understandably editors don't want to edit war with an admin). This, in effect, nullifies what the actual close says and its underlying consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • When an individual user undertakes a mass action on their own which they may believe they have consensus for and/or policy/guideline fully supports, but without seeking a consensus to take those mass actions, they are still at onus for responsibility for those actions to make sure they meet community standards. DG has well stated that removal of these deprecated sources is in line with WP:V which is true, but as has been pointed out, other consensus and guidelines like DEPRECATED do not support the mass removals in these fashions, and this issue has come up multiple times before. DG nor others have asked the community to set a timeline for removal of deprecated sources, which makes the rush to remove them in mass action unnecessary save for the few cases where they are terribly bad (DM on BLP), and just continuing to point back to WP:V to say that supports completing these actions in haste when others continue to find them disruptive is not helpful.
  • There would be no issue if DG announced at VPP or similar some plan in the future (eg 6 months) of mass pruning deprecated sources and then taking the same types of actions they are doing now (which includes content removal along with sources), sorta like a bot approval process. Now you give editors pre-warning to clear out deprecated sources so that when DG goes through and clears them, the last thing we can call this is "disruption". That clears the issue on the onus related to mass actions (the same problem we had recently with mass-stub creation). Heck, if DG wants to do a more targetted one-deprecated-source-at-a-time, a 1-2 month notice for each would be fair enough assuming we're talking in the ballpark of ~1000 current uses or less. Editors would more likely work collaborative if they weren't responding to an aggressive action to correct matters. --Masem (t) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    Masem, David's project of manually and carefully removing deprecated sources has been underway for at least three years. And for that entire time, he has been harassed by people who don't believe in deprecation, and told, with equal certainty, that he must approach his work in one of a handful of mutually exclusive ways.

    In the end, these are deprecated sources. Wikipedia should not be citing Russia Today. It's a propaganda organ for Putin's oligarchy, used to undermine democracy and further his geopolitical goals. But no maintenance tags ever get fixed, so in the end someone (and it's often, but not always David), does the needful. We should thank him, not constantly hound him. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    • This. --Jayron32 17:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I concur with Guy as well. Maybe rapid-fire removals are less than ideal, but hundreds of citations to a propaganda machine for an authoritarian oligarchy is pretty far from ideal, too. As for the complaints about excessive speed, I've yet to see an example where DG actually made an article harder to read or excised information that would be called vital if properly referenced. For that matter, I will cheerfully dispute the idea that RT is even suitable for official positions of the Russian government. If the only statement of a government's position is in propaganda, then NPOV forbids its inclusion: NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No RS = No coverage. Russia Today was deprecated 11 months ago today. That has been more than long enough for anyone with a serious interest in preserving the text originally sourced to them to find replacements. By now, removing those "citations" is overdue. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    I have seen no editor state they don't believe in deprecation, nor arguing that these sources must be kept for proper sourcing. They all agree that in time we should remove these sources and not doubting their issue of being too close to propaganda or misinformation or whatever you want to catalog them. They state what deprecation means as used on WP as well as in standard computer language - it is a source no longer supported and should be removed in time, but nothing in policy or in any of the deprecation RFCs on these sources set a deadline or a need for timely removal, which is the issue. The concern has always been loss of information without any apparent attempt to seek replacement or leave behind maintenance templates that help editors know what has been taken out to be fixed. Preventing disruption of the work is a policy matter and that's the concern here, and DG's been doing this on their own without checking with the community of how they should be approaching the work while minimizing community disruption. If DG or others wanted these removed in a timely matter, it could have been proposed to the community, set a timetable to give editors a chance to recover what info they can, and then go for it after that timetable is up - that's how you minimize disruption normally for any type of mass edit issue. Its great that DG wants to do this, but all that was needed was to make sure that the process was through a manner agreed to by consensus, otherwise DG's trending on onus territory that they have to be able to stand up to. This is less about the issues of "oh no, we have Daily Fail and RT links that we need to excise" and more about trying to make sure singular editors do not jump to conclusions on their own to do mass edits, create conflicts, and continue on their own believing they are right; we've outlined numerous times in the past for many other types of mass edit systems unrelated to deprecated sourcing that there's certain processes that should be followed to minimize disruption, and DG seems not to want to engage in that at all. --Masem (t) 19:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    This, actually. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    Masem, the issue is that "in time" is always defined as "some time probably at least a week before the heat death of the universe" and in the mean time these same people make pretty much no effort to fix the rpoblem themselves.

    And that is how it always goes. People who don't want (or perhaps can't be arsed) to fix the problem, objecting to the methods of someone who can be arsed. Someone with an extremely long history of valued contributions to the project, so his commitment is in no doubt. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    And I'm saying is that DG could say on VPP/RSN "I planning on sweeping through to remove all Daily Fail and RT links on July 1, 2021. If you want to repair content to use other RSes, you have two months to try to fix them." (though not so tersely), and do nothing else before that day. Boom, deadline set, VPP is considered central enough to alert people to the action, and then when DG goes to do that on July 1, now they can use a sledgehammer rather than a chisel because they have given fair warning. If people can't be arsed to fix the problem in two months after being given that warning, that's their fault now. The problem right now is that no one has given them any warning: being put on the deprecation does not set a deadline because that's not the expectation set by the RFCs or the principle of deprecation. --Masem (t) 20:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    It's true that the deprecation RfC's didn't fix a deadline. But they didn't set a minimum waiting time, either, or specify a venue where a notice should be nailed up before taking action. Without an explicit consensus to that effect, we can't say that the community opinion is against acting sooner rather than later. XOR'easter (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    And regardless, WP:V is completely clear that any statement that lacks a reliable source can be removed on sight. It has some cautions and suggestions about how to go about it (which I feel generally reflect how DG has gone about it regardless), but even then, those are worded as mere cautions and suggestions; and every effort to make them more strict or give them more teeth has failed (often, I should point out, failed attempts to change that have been led by the very people now pushing to sanction DG, so they are well aware that their position has failed to obtain a consensus.) This discussion should be closed because it seems to effectively be a begging-the-question effort to rewrite existing policy by going after individual editors who are editing in compliance with it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    There's nothing careful about the process, in his own talk page he he explains the process as essentially just searching for the deprecated sources and ignoring the top results. This has led to many perfectly valid uses of these sources being removed because this technique does not scale. And it's hardly the case that time is spent on most of these edits - typically not even a minute. This is not editing, this is a human-driven bot that is not in the end adding value, in my opinion. And note that I am not alone in this opinion. Shritwod (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    That doesn't read to me like his explanation of the process. DG points to a search query and notes, about the top 20 or so there have plausibly reasonable cause, and would need very careful attention to be properly replaced. That's not running a search and ignoring the top results; it's exercising exactly the kind of caution that has been asked for here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seeing as this is ANI, I'm wondering what administrative action is being requested here. ANI is where you go when you want an admin to act to resolve your grievance. At this time I don't see anyone even suggesting what they want an admin to do here. It might help anyone making such a proposal to clearly explain what site policies are being violated as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Someone, please close this again. The discussion post-close is unimpeachable evidence that the close was appropriate. Very knowledgeable and experienced editors stand on both sides of a nuanced policy debate. No consensus is even close to emerging on any possible sanction. If ProcrastinatingReader's desired outcome is not sanction but to "request at least a token effort be made" then that request has been clearly stated and we can be done. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    I'm not the thread OP. BTW, the thread hasn't even been open for 24 hours (if you subtract the time it was closed, 4 hours after creation). ANIs usually don't start with proposals of sanctions, as people wait to see where the thread goes. But it does seem like there's a hurry to get this one archived... Aside: I think Masem, above, describes other reasoning issues. So I trust we can now draw a line under the idea that any possible criticism of a subset of DG's editing is equivalent to support for overturning the RfCs and promoting the use of deprecated sources or the spread of Russian propaganda.

    The underlying criticism is that in the pursuit of speed to meet some artificial WP:DEADLINE there are bad edits that (probably) wouldn't have happened if more care was taken. Five separate policies/consensus decisions apply to various sample edits, described above. Most importantly for me is that there's a lot of good, factually accurate content written in disparate topic areas by various editors (many now departed) written over 20 years. Much of this content, if removed, will never be re-added due to that fact. Content such as this event was important in the context of the article and adds value for readers (I've just reinstated it with two journal sources). So I think this is a problem. If the community wanted to authorise a search and destroy mission I'm sure it would've said so. But the close said the opposite, and there is no deadline to get the job done with the least amount of loss and disruption. It might take a bit longer, but a noble goal doesn't seem to have justified high-speed editing at the cost of quality in the past (see WP:MEATBOT). It's also erroneous to think that we're misleading readers if the "Special:LinkSearch displaying 0" part takes longer too. If the aim is content accuracy/reliability even at the lowest time whilst not even make a cursory Google search, one could focus their efforts on statements that sound suspicious, rather than hitting everything going down the list no matter how uncontroversial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    I don't think we can say that content sourced to a state propaganda organ is fine just because it doesn't instantly sound suspicious. Part of misinformation is mixing the deceptive in with the accurate, so that the latter lends credibility to the former. A half-truth can work better than a lie, precisely because it doesn't set off the reader's alarm bells. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, but when that logic (which is sound in theory) is applied to some of the removal diffs above it not only turned out not to be the case (evidenced by other sources), but also just thinking about the statement one wouldn't've expected it to be false. I'm sure many, probably most, of DG's edits remove crappy statements. I'm just saying a lot completely remove relevant, factually accurate, uncontroversial and highly plausible statements. Some such removals also don't recognise the 'uncontroversial content not elsewhere available' exemption of deprecation, from WP:DAILYMAIL2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    If no reliable source exists, then the content is surely WP:UNDUE even if it is uncontroversial. Now, I can think of exceptions in principle to this. For example, we generally like to have the locations of births and deaths filled in, even if RS'es don't make a big deal of them, so including the city where someone died could make sense, and that datum is not likely to be contested. But I've been reviewing many, many DG edits over the past two days and have not found any where I'd say an exemption of that sort would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

    A reasonable argument can certainly be made both ways in this regard. I agree it would be, relatively speaking, rare, as usage of deprecated source is generally prohibited. In at least the specific examples on this point I linked above, I'd personally argue those were uncontroversial, but I suppose reasonable people could take a different interpretation of what the closers were getting at on that point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, there are apt to be differences of opinion. (If there weren't, how dull this project would be!) The preponderance of RT removals I've checked have been about living people, as one would expect for a "news" source, so the "don't use the Daily Mail or anything on its level for BLP's" advice would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    Other than the removal issues and the uncontroversial issues, what exactly is the point of replacing <ref>[deprecated cite]</ref> with {{cn}} anyway? I mean, the sources are deprecated because they make up stuff sometimes, right, not due to some backlinks problem? So surely when WP:DAILYMAIL1 said There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. it meant that editors actually need to review the statement preceding the <ref>, check if it's factually correct, if so replace it with another source to verify the statement, and if not then remove it. But just keeping the content and replacing the ref tag with {{cn}} just moves it from a tracking cat of 1,500 instances into one with 500,000 instances, so at best doesn't seem to improve content for the reader and at worst makes it harder for a volunteer who actually wants to review the content to do so. If that's what the community wanted, it would've authorised a bot to do the job. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Given the number of time the problem has occurred and the failure of this editor to engage I would suggest a moratorium on bulk removal of sources for six months. Part of the problem is the bot-like activity of these mass removals. Shritwod (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the number of times this user, who is doing the correct thing in their removals, has been dragged unfairly and without cause to the drama boreds, there should be a moratorium on complaining about their work for six months, giving them time to do this necessary and thankless job. --Jayron32 14:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh come on. Unfairly? This user was tbanned last time they were here, as I recall. This page is for discussion of chronic, intractable problems, it says so right at the top. Mass removal of deprecated links is absolutely one of those problems. It's not the first time this has come up, everyone reading this knows that. We can tolerate this thread being open for more than a few hours. So let's stop circling wagons. And please may I remind you that no one here is doing any kind of necessary job. We are all enjoying a hobby, or trying to. The issue here is that the way one user is enjoying their hobby is interfering with the way other users enjoy their hobby. I'm sure we can find a middle ground that makes everyone happy. Dividing editors into saints and sinners and claiming a hobby is a job is not helpful. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree with Jayron. Whether you want to call it a "job" or not is besides the point. References to deprecated sources need to go, they damage the encyclopaedia's reputation. David Gerard is doing necessary work. If other think it should be done in a better way, nobody is stopping them. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
        • DG is stopping them, by removing content along with the deprecated link. That's the point of this thread. Whether deprecated links "need to go", and exactly how soon, and exactly how they go, are the issues under discussion here. It's not helpful to act as if there is only one valid position and anyone who disagrees is somehow getting in the way. This is what I meant about dividing us into saints (those who are mass removing deprecated links) and sinners (those who think it should be done a better way). Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
          • What is the minimum time limit for keeping incorrect information at Wikipedia? If something is not correct, but still written there in Wikipedia, how long must we falsely tell readers it is right before we are allowed to remove it?--Jayron32 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • It depends on the content. But we have this tag called citation needed... Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
              • Which David Gerard makes liberal use of in his removals. He also sometimes adds a new source. He also sometimes removes the text entirely, especially when the text is contentious, controversial, or may otherwise be harmful in the context of things like BLPs. --Jayron32 15:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                Sometimes he accidentally comments out half of an article and no one notices for six weeks. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                • I'm sure that, if I carefully combed through every single article space edit you've ever made, I could find one mistake. You could do the same for me as well. Perfection is not required, if it were, none of us would be allowed to be Wikipedia editors. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • Can we start a wall-of-text drama thread about the practice of commenting out whole paragraphs? Because I don't think any good has ever come out of commenting out whole paragraphs. It makes the text harder to read when editing in source mode, it invites much less discussion than just cutting text and announcing it on the talk page, and it invites accidents like that one. Lengthy HTML comments in Wikipedia articles: considered harmful. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                    XOR'easter, I think this is an excellent idea. The wall-of-text drama, that is, not commenting out paragraphs. I looked in on the servers recently and they don't seem busy at all. They need the work. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

          • David Gerard and very few others have removed and replaced thousands of unreliable sources. I can't say I have seen those who "think it should be done a better way" do it. I think it's unreasonable to make these demands on those who are willing to tackle the problem if one isn't prepared to do the work. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • You're still referring to a hobby as "work" and dividing editors into good (those doing "the work") and bad (those who think this problem should be handled in another way). You should respect your colleagues and their differences of opinion. People who disagree with DG's approach do not need to have engaged in DG's approach (what you call "the work") prior to suggesting a different approach. Express your opinion, sure, but don't villainize our colleagues who disagree. People who think DG should be doing something different are not being disruptive or obstructive by voicing their opinion. They're not "making demands". Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
              • So, why then are you trying to get DG to stop doing his hobby? If his hobby is carefully reading articles, finding deprecated sources, removing the links and dealing thoughtfully with each article after removing said links and treating each situation in the way he feels most appropriately meets Wikipedia's standards and policies and guidelines, why have you spent so much energy in this thread trying to make him stop doing that? --Jayron32 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Um, I'm not doing any of that stuff? I haven't even commented in this thread prior to this, and I have no opinion on DG's edits. I have an opinion about attempts to stop discussion of DG's edits. I think our colleagues should be given the space to have that discussion. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                  Levivich, but we already have. Repeatedly. And yet the same people keep looking for other parents to ask. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

              • I'm not villainising, just describing what I am seeing. Of course it's disruptive to repeatedly drag people to AN/I for contributions that are effectively net positive. Time would be better spent by leading by example and removing deprecated in "a better way". Robby.is.on (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                • When one person is removing content and another person wants that person to stop removing the content, leading by example doesn't resolve the dispute. The question under discussion is whether the contributions are net positive. Again, you're welcome to the opinion that they are, but you should be tolerant of our colleagues who hold the opinion that they're not. At best, we'd be open minded, but at least tolerant. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • In any case it is long past clear that no consensus is ever going to emerge to sanction (or even criticize) anyone for this. People have objected before to the removal of depreciated or unreliable sources and none of those objections have ever come anywhere close to obtaining a consensus to even slow the process down or to add even the slightest bit of red tape that might interfere with it - all previous discussions I'm aware of have reached the conclusion that the sort of edits DG is making are an entirely valid and much-needed implementation of the consensus reached in depreciation RFCs, generally with a majority lauding the precise sorts of removals that a few people in this discussion find so objectionable. You're welcome to try and start such discussions again, but unless you have some indicator that things have changed, it seems like a near-certainty that they will go nowhere. As I see it, the work that people like DG is doing in this regard is time-consuming, necessary, and generally thankless maintenance, and while, yes, you're free to personally grumble or feel otherwise, you have to recognize at this point that your position is too much of a minority to make it a constructive use of time to pursue him in ANI; constantly pursuing someone at ANI for an entirely legitimate series of edits that you object to, knowing the community has repeatedly found them to be legitimate, is a waste of everyone's time. This discussion should be closed with prejudice. --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                    Legitimate? I see some of them contradicting several policies and the RfC closes. Now, it may be difficult to discuss the issues because as soon as one questions any edits there's the 'you must be a Daily Mail/RT fanatic and a harasser who is trying to relitigate the RfCs' argument waved around (see above), without any attempt to actually engage on the issues. Thus preventing any serious discussion taking place. It seems somewhat like a cult mentality. But that doesn't mean there are no edits violating any policy or just basic logic. If only we could actually have a discussion on this without appeals to emotion and personalisations of the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

                    You will have to point to which RFC closes you mean; as far as I know, this has come up repeatedly on WP:RSN and WP:RSP, and while a minority has continued to object (usually a minority consisting of people who objected to depreciation in the first place) the consensus has always been to continue such removals. See [33][34] (note that Alaexis, who has been vocal above, tried and failed to get consensus making the removal of deprecation more difficult; no matter how much they may personally object to it, at this point they are well aware that the behavior they are trying to censor DG for is endorsed by the community.) As far as policies go, WP:V seems extremely clear-cut to me; The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If a source is unreliable, that burden is unsatisfied, and... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Alaexis, as I noted above, you previously tried and failed to get the community to agree to restrictions on the removal of depreciated sources here; as you can see in that discussion, while there was disagreement, it is clear that opposition was intense and that your position failed to obtain a consensus. I don't understand why you think you can then turn around and bring DG to ANI for the exact behavior you failed to form a consensus against before - having failed to get consensus to slow the removal of depreciated sources in a more appropriate venue, do you expect a different outcome here? The fact that you dislike those removals and disagree with the fact that WP:V currently allows (and even encourages) them is well-established, but that does not allow you to drag an editor to ANI simply because you dislike their edits. If you believe you can obtain consensus to stop or slow the removal of depreciated sources this time around (which, I assure you, you cannot), start a discussion in the proper place again. But - as I pointed out last time - WP:V is a core policy and its basic principles are not subject to consensus in any case; while there is certainly room to discuss the ideal way to handle such changes and to refine the guidelines for them, ultimately it will always be acceptable to remove things that lack reliable sources, and you will never be able to obtain sanctions against someone for legitimately enforcing that policy. My advice is to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this. You have been hounding DG over these edits by, to my count, around half a year if not more, and have achieved nothing the entire time - certainly nothing comparable to the, broadly, laudable and necessary improvements he has made to our sourcing over that interval. EDIT: I'll also point out that in the middle of a section supposedly devoted to DG, Alaexis dropped a 'suggestion' for a fairly sweeping and still extremely poorly-considered policy change that more or less reflects their failed proposal from the link above. Trying to create new policy by going after individual editors on WP:ANI is entirely inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • First, there are three separate possible concerns raised: 1) the complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search; 2) the removal of uncontroversial usages of content; 3) the replacement of refs with just {{cn}}. It doesn't help to conflate these. Second, if I may ask, how much of the above discussion did you read before commenting? Because there is some discussion on the arguments you've just made, such as the partial quote of WP:BURDEN or the effectiveness of these {{cn}} replacements, and repeating arguments would be detrimental to discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Regarding point (3), it seems like people have disagreed with DG's actions in two opposite ways. On the one hand, the suggestion was made that if the information is not controversial, the citation should be replaced with {{citation needed}} to preserve the useful text. On the other hand, replacing a deprecated source with {{citation needed}} might let it get lost in the noise of all the other {{citation needed}}s that weren't born out of propaganda. I know that one can't please everyone all of the time, but it sounds like here, nobody can please everyone any of the time. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If it's actually uncontroversial, per WP:DAILYMAIL2 it should be kept with {{bsn}}, but most probably aren't eligible. Obviously the ideal standard is to actually review the cites. In 99% of cases the action should be remove the statement or replace the source. If DG couldn't find a source after a quick Google for some reasonable keywords I don't think anyone would whine if he removed the statement entirely. It's not like people are expecting editors to go to a local library and look in some obscure book before they take action. A quick search is not an undue burden. Shifting the maintenance categories to a broader one is just make-work though, like it doesn't even achieve the goal of removing 'half-truths' content. Actually, it's possibly actively harmful because we lose the tracking, the count of cites then becomes meaningless, and others who actually want to review the usages can't. Regardless of whatever solution editors find appropriate, this can't possibly be it, because it doesn't make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
        • For mass removals, it sounds like a special {{bsn}} for deprecated sources (like maybe a {{bsn-dm}} for Daily Mail) might be useful. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

          Levivich, years of experience dealing with predatory journals, fake news sites and the like, indicates that {{bsn}} is functionally equivalent to {{please ignore this tag}}. The only thing that reliably - and in most cases ever - results in better sourcing, is removing the content. And while people constantly insist that the onus is on whoever removes content supported by a bad source, to first try and find a good source for it (something, incidentally, that David routinely does), actual policy does not support that view.

          Content drawn from deprecated sources is presumptively unreliable. If poeople want to go round before David gets to them and replace these deprecated sources with better ones, there is absolutely nothing stopping them. But what heppens is that people who don't accept the concept of deprecation, or don't care enough to fix the problem, devote enormous amounts of energy to creating drama around the few people who can be arsed to fix it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

        • A quick search is not an undue burden. And anyone who wants to retain or restore the content is free to do so (in fact, required to do so); it is not, however, a burden that falls on the person removing the content - an encouragement is not a requirement, whereas removing uncited material is a requirement. They may choose to do such a search but are never required to do so; policy is completely unequivocal on this point, to the point where you weaken your argument every time you express a desire for it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    • First, there are three separate possible concerns raised: 1) the complete removal of factually accurate content, evidently without even a cursory Google search; 2) the removal of uncontroversial usages of content; 3) the replacement of refs with just {{cn}}. The first concern is entirely baseless per WP:V: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. It is completely unacceptable to try and push that responsibility onto the editor challenging or removing the claim. There is no responsibility - none, none whatsoever - to do even the most cursory search before removing a claim that lacks a reliable source. Some editors may choose to do so, but the idea that anyone could be sanctioned by not searching for sources for an unsupported claim added by someone else directly contradicts WP:V and can therefore be dismissed out of hand. "Uncontroversiality" (which is, obviously, subjective) is not a defense; WP:V plainly states that Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. And replacing a source with a CN tag is the recommended solution for editors who choose to be cautious with their removals - ie. it is itself optional - the alternative presented in WP:V is immediate removal of the uncited content: In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. This consider is, again, as opposed to simple immediate removal, which is the default. Nor does it discourage mass-removal at all; the parts you are trying to hang your case on are very cautiously-worded presentations of options, not core, project-central mandates the way the sentences I quoted are. All of these policies are well-established, and are well-known to anyone who has spent any significant time discussing the cleanup of depreciated sources; if you believe you can reach a consensus to change WP:V to reflect your reading, you can try. But as things stand nobody has raised any legitimate concerns or anything remotely resembling misconduct outside of, perhaps, the continued hounding of DG for something that, while many editors plainly disagree with, is clearly and unequivocally supported by policy - something that is nearing the point of requiring a WP:BOOMERANG given that, again, it has been going on for over six months, completely unproductively, without achieving anything at all. I read the discussions above and am aware, yes, that you have an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:V, but the wording is completely clear - at a certain point (certainly, again, six months in), it is necessary to WP:DROPTHESTICK and recognize that you haven't convinced enough people to sanction anyone over that interpretation. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

• It appears that we are at an impasse yet again. Let me put this a different way: several editors on multiple occasions have made complaints to DG about disruptive evidence, but he refuses to acknowledge this or engage with the complaints - instead citing WP:THIS and WP:THAT rather than acknowledging the issue or altering his behaviour. This is not an issue about the reliability of the sources, this is an issue about editor behaviour where I believe that any non-admin user would have been sanctioned. Therefore perhaps this is time to take this to arbitration, however this may result in more severe sanctions on the editor in question (who it should be noted is already under a topic ban). Or does anyone else have another solution to this long-running dispute? Shritwod (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Shritwod, merely saying that something is disruptive doesn't make it so. You do not address the core facts: first, this is a deprecated source, because it is monstrously unreliable; and second, that any attempt to remove deprecated sources, however bad they are, always ends up in a chorus of demands that you must instead do it in one of a handful of different, but mutually contradictory, ways.

  The correct solution is for more people to remove crap sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  The core facts are disruptive editing, the fact that there is an group of editors here with pitchforks is pretty good evidence of disruption. It isn't about reliable sources, but what we do have is an editor spending typically less than one minute on a page removing them. If this was an acceptable way of doing it, why don't we simply create a bot to remove the citations? Shritwod (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  A bot, which cannot understand natural language, cannot identify the text associated with a given source and so cannot be employed to remove it. And I don't see how disruptive editing can be called a core fact of the situation when there has yet to be established a consensus that DG's editing is disruptive. Some think so, some don't. It's possible that a consensus simply will not form on the topic. (More than once, the ambient hostility I have sensed during this discussion has strongly tempted me to abandon it and possibly take a good long wiki-break.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  DG calls the editors raising concerns here "fans of deprecated sources". That's hostility. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't want to say that anyone is blameless, regardless of what position they have taken. But I also don't want to leap to reading anything in the worst way I can, as doing so would make me contribute to the problem (and I know I can be quite nasty when I feel like it). DG wrote, In my experience, the fans of deprecated sources consider any removal "indiscriminate". I do not think that a general summary of one's previous experience, which makes no mention of any particular editor, is hostile. Jaded, perhaps, and maybe even ungenerous, but not confrontational. And I am not sure how else to express what seems to me a valid point. I myself have dealt with fringe science more than with political extremism, but people do complain about "indiscriminate removal" and the like when they don't get their way. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  You're maybe assuming too much good faith. The allegations have been repeated apparently for years now to specific editors (eg), with refusal to substantiate when challenged. They're still continued above (by others) without evidence. Combined with what happened in related discussions, the only reasonable conclusion is that the goal of these attacks (alleging membership of a (possibly non-existent) pro-DM/RT anti-deprecation brigade) is to: a) create an appearance that no problems exist by 'discrediting' those raising them; b) sufficiently derail discussions so that consensus cannot be reached; and/or c) attack editors so they no longer feel able to participate in relevant discussions with their opinions. This is exactly what causes consensus to break down, and it's what has happened here and in all the related discussions I've skimmed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  That diff doesn't show DG making an allegation about a specific editor. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  It shows the refusal to substantiate when challenged. I suppose I could dig out the specific diff, but this example should suffice and can be found with a scroll of the same page: [35][36] Of course, it depends how overt a comment needs to be before it becomes an allegation about a specific editor. For example, if one replies to someone and makes the remark "generally", surely it's made about the editor replied to (otherwise what's the relevance?). I'd say the implication is the same either way; that only editors who like the source could have concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's certainly evidence of incivility. Thank you for finding it.

  I don't agree that criticizing general groups when responding to an individual counts as personal allegation. For example, you earlier referred to editors with a cult mentality but probably weren't saying that's true of the editor above you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Shritwod: The community does not appear to be able to make progress on the issue, as consensus seems to be breaking down. Reading the discussions Aquillion links above, many editors raised concerns and/or found steps to move forward (eg [37][38][39][40]) but most appear to have been forced to withdraw (eg) after the usual reasons. Same stuff above. If we actually look at unique editors across all these discussions it seems probable this approach does not have consensus, and is possibly a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would have no particular objection to creating a modified {{citation needed}} tag that said something like, "The original source for this content has been deprecated". I am not sure how much good it would do (tags can last a long, long time without getting attention), but it might at least alleviate the problem of these instances getting lost amid all the other statements needing citations. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Innican Soufou

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

---

• Innican Soufou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• I've not seen any conduct issues by Innican Soufou on that talk page. I have, however, seen JzG take issue with two words used by IS and use them to go into a rant about his personal opinion unrelated to the topic at hand in the section in which he commented. If anything, I think this just be closed as a premature reporting of no conduct issue whatsoever - and allow the content discussion to continue on the talkpage. Perhaps a warning to JzG to focus on the topic at hand and not allow his personal opinions to go into rants about the events would be merited, as before he commented recently, the discussion was progressing decently, in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think the reporting editor needs to take a breather and try not to let their emotions get the better of them. I don't care to make a big deal of this, but outright lying in an ani report is not very useful, as everyone involved can read what I actually said. God bless. Innican Soufou (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• This does not seem at all "ripe" for ANI. I'd suggest WP:DR of some sort to help resolve the dispute. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The dispute was progressing fine on the talk page, and is continuing to do so - JzG's behavior in the thread, which has contributed nothing other than FORUM-like comments, is the only thing that could derail it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've been disrupted by Guy's repeated non sequiturs, too, suggest a week off. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• He's responding to requests to stop ranting with longer and less helpful rants now, accusing anyone who wants to compromise of bending to the will of a "fantasy world of patriots". One of those seeking compromise is me, a Canadian who doesn't watch TV and doesn't condone rioting, theft or burglary. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• "I'm proposing that we separate the one murder that took place (of the unarmed civilian by police) and the other suicides/medical issues that people who may have been involved in the protests died from, days later." and "Well we do know that only one person died during the protest. That was an unarmed protestor. The rest of the people that passed away did so at a later date by either suicide or natural causes do seem to match JzG's description above. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• I appreciate this is a DS area but is there some evidence of recent disruption I'm missing? I went to the talk page expecting to see long discussions started by the editor in question but all I saw was one silly comment followed by a reply or two in response to stuff Guy and others said. While I mostly agree with Guy's comments, IMO they were more disruptive than Innican Soufou recently. Although I have a tendency to do it myself, I do agree it's not necessary to challenge an editor everytime they say something stupid, especially when realistically no one is going to be influenced or misled by the comment. It would have been better for Guy to either just ignore the comment, or concentrate on the article and policy i.e. say something like "No we continue to follow sources, not editor's personal opinions". While they moved back towards this afterwards, their first reply IMO unnecessarily lead the discussion off-topic into editor's personal opinions, and as always "they/other editor started it" is not an excuse. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to close. There seems to be an increasing tendency to bring people to AN/I for expressing the "wrong opinion" on a talk page. Unless there is a clear breach of policy or terms of service demonstrable using diffs, talk page differences of opinion are not a matter for administrators and there are other avenues for dispute resolution. Close this and Guy deserves a trouting. Fences&Windows 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• People sure do get mad online about politics, huh? jp×g 19:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not so hot at Canadian, Australian, British or New Zealand politics, to be fair to people..."They" started it! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with Uncle G here - those diffs, particularly this one are problematic. This isn't about having "the wrong opinion": describing the killing as a murder, which is a criminal offense, when the authorities are not describing it as such seems like a BLP violation to me. You can't call it a murder without implying that the police officer who fired the shot is guilty of a criminal offense. The comment was made a while ago now, but that kind of stuff on talk pages is not OK. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's only a BLP violation if the target of an accusation has a name, a rough pseudonymous persona or is awaiting a murder trial, none of which apply to federal police, who can only possibly face charges of violating civil rights after killing people. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  InedibleHulk, I'm not sure I understand your comment. The target of the accusation is presumably the officer who fired the fatal shot - that person has a name, although I guess what you're saying is that the name hasn't been released? Nevertheless, I can think of no good reason why someone would be calling it a murder on a talk page if it has not been so described by the authorities - to call a killing or a shooting would be neutral and accurate, but to call it a murder seems obviously to be pushing a particular POV. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  In a way, I agree, calling any generic cop a murderer sounds bad. Calling a soldier named Ashli Babbitt an attempted murderer, attempted murder conspirator, conspiracy theorist, insurgent, rogue, mindless drone, lyncher or bitch who got what she deserved sounds bad. Accusing the President of Treason sounds bad. But that's AP. Innican didn't go "above or beyond" the existing "climate of mud" here. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  InedibleHulk I've just seen this comment. Just to be clear, has anyone referred to Babbitt as a 'bitch who got what she deserved' on a talk page, or are we talking more generally here? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm paraphrasing, but that seems to be the crux of guys like Guy's arguments. She was shot for attempting to lynch/murder/assassinate, and the only cop to fire that day was defending America from an armed terrorist. If you'd like me to change "bitch" to "female terrorist" or "B-word" or something, feel free to do it yourself. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  @InedibleHulk, the point is did JzG use anything even vaguely similar to 'bitch who got what she deserved' on the talk page? If he didn't, then saying he (and 'guys like him' which is kind of a broad brush too) did say that isn't helpful. He may very well think that, and you may know he thinks that, and he may know you know, etc., but if he isn't actually saying things like that, it's not helpful to say he is.

  These articles are tough. I have worked on some of them, and it sometimes does feel very clear that the person arguing to present the content in a different way believes something I find troubling. Accusing one another of it without actual evidence isn't helpful. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Look directly below, for starters, then see "lynch mob". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, exactly. Babbitt was engaged in trying to storm the doors into the speaker's lobby, as part of a mob calling for the execution of the speaker and Vice President as "traitors". She was shot by an armed police officer defending the building and the people in it. To describe this as "murder" of an "unarmed civilian" is at the very least tendentious. Taken as a whole, it is clear to me that Innican Soufou adheres to a conservative media bubble counterfactual, where the mob were a minor counterpoint to the real threat to America - BLM and Antifa - and where Babbitt was the only true victim. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  Is it normal for reporting editors to completely invent things that were never said, cast aspersions about another editor, and outright lie about the person they are reporting? Furthermore, does it usually go unpunished? JzG is straight up lying about me and accusing me of all sorts of things that aren't true and it's extremely toxic and unhelpful. Innican Soufou (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  yes Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  In everyday speech, "murder" and "homicide" and "person killing another person" all are used interchangeably. It is not WP:AGF to assume that the reason they said murder was because they were trying to imply criminality - it's just simply less wordy than "person killing another person" and may have been the first word that came to mind. I don't think you'd find a lawyer who would take a defamation suit over someone saying "murder" as opposed to "killed" - the difference is so subtle and both are used interchangeably in colloquial speech. Maybe that's the implication you (and others here) see into it - but that's because we are an encyclopedia where the minute difference between words matters - and in real life, even politicians get it wrong and say "murder" when it's not criminal in nature sometimes. JzG replied to this thread with even more ABFing, and went into his opinions instead of admitting that his problem is with the choice of words - which is not tendentious or disruptive if the choice of words is an honest mistake. Taken as a whole, it is clear to me that JzG adheres to a specific viewpoint and wants Wikipedia to be used only to further his viewpoint, and tries to derail any discussion by ABFing against anyone who wants us to be neutral instead of his viewpoint. He also goes into talking about BLM and Antifa when Innican Soufou has not brought those organizations up as a whole - more and more assumptions. I don't think it's productive for JzG to continue commenting when the majority of his comments (in this instance and overall) are making massive assumptions and rarely bring any actual discussion value - others are doing just fine discussing with IS and others on the talk page about this, and they will continue to do so (and likely improve the encyclopedia) if JzG doesn't comment further. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  We do not need experts or lawyers, words have definitions

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

  The is clear difference between a criminal act of murder and the lawful defence of the Capital by an armed police officer doing their duty defending the building and the people in it. It is simply absurd to suggest that the terms murder and justifiable homicide can be used interchangeably. This just an example of the kind of arguments that Guy has been correctly challenging in the talk page of the article in question, he has not been ranting, but has trying hard to maintain the articles NPOV. I strongly believe the article in question needs more active oversight by many editors. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 00:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  They can be in colloquial speech - assuming that every single new user who uses the terms incorrectly is here to push a POV is WP:ABF. An appropriate response would've been to say "murder has to be convicted, so the correct term is X". Instead, JzG chose to rant about his personal opinions, which inflamed the situation, and then he brought someone to ANI for violating no rules other than the use of a technically incorrect word that could've been clarified instead of this. He did rant - he not once said what you just said - he instead chose to voice his personal opinion as to the "justification" for the shooting - which while I agree with, is not appropriate for a talk page - where we should be explaining Wikipedia rationale for things, not our personal opinions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: Is there a link somewhere above to justify "JzG chose to rant about his personal opinions"? If not, you need to add the link now, or strike the comment. That needs to occur before continuing with other edits because leaving an WP:ASPERSION on a noticeboard is not acceptable and will lead to sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: does this also include the WP:ASPERSIONS that JzG left about me, or do those not count? Innican Soufou (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not everyone has the time or patience to examine walls of text. I noticed the last comment in this section because it was last, and had the current date. I don't know what comment you are talking about. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, there is no link, because at the time I said that it was his two most recent edits (aside from this report), and they can still be easily found in his contributions or the page history. Here's the links to the two diffs: he rants about the choice of two words, and this didn't add anything to the discussion of value because that's not what was being discussed, and then this - still discussing something other than what the section was about and ending with a snarky "insurrections have consequences" comment. Those are both not only woefully off topic responses, but they are snarky and don't add anything to the discussion other than attempting to prove that he's "right" and the other editor's "wrong" on a choice of words. You may wish to peruse the section on the talkpage in its entirety - the discussion was progressing fine and towards a amicable agreement among editors, until JzG came in and injected his opinion on the one issue that everyone agreed on that was unnecessary, rudely worded/toned, and not helpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: In everyday speech, "murder" and "homicide" and "person killing another person" all are used interchangeably feels very 'citation needed' to me. Murder is a word loaded with shock value and negative connotations. When the Smiths released Meat is Murder, the use of that word was for rhetorical effect, and if politicians misuse it I expect they're doing it for similar reasons. When people use that word, they do it for a reason, I don't accept that people don't know what it actually means. Anyway, even if that were true, the standards we are expected to uphold here are rather higher than 'how people speak colloquially'. Nowhere in our BLP policy does it say 'so long as you won't get sued for defamation, you can say it'. Nowhere does WP:TPG say 'if you'd say it in normal conversation, you're fine to put it on a talk page'. If users start throwing words like that around carelessly in discussions about exceedingly contentious issues, they need to be warned that it's not acceptable. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen Innican Soufou say that they accept that such language is inappropriate - I'd welcome such a statement from them now. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez, in everyday speech, murder means illegal killing. Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. Murder does not mean shooting someone who is charging armed police opfficers as part of a lynch mob. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Oddly enough, the very first word in the first section of that Floyd talk page was "Murder". It was about prejudging a named living person as a murderer. That word was used about two hundred times on that page by a few dozen editors between then and the predetermined verdict, and guess how many of them got blocked or this seriously scolded for it? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  InedibleHulk, oddly enough, the account that started the thread you refer to was CU blocked as a sock within 24 hours of doing so. Now, being a Brit who doesn't follow American current affairs closely, I don't know much about either case, but I believe that in the Floyd case, lots of reliable sources were saying that it was possibly murder, and the police officer in question was charged with, and eventually convicted of, murder. In such circumstances, a discussion about whether we should call it one seems reasonable - although the obvious answer would be 'not until authorities call it that, by way of a conviction, inquest or whatever'. Have any reliable sources talked about the case we're talking about here in such terms? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, because it's not illegal if a federal officer does it, it being most anything a state, county or municipal officer can be charged for doing. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  @JzG: Lynching is murder. You should be more careful with your language. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)  

  Sweet6970 they had a gallows. They were shouting "hang Mike Pence". They were looking for Nancy Pelosi. They had flexicuffs. I don't think any accuracy is sacrificed by describing this as a lynch mob. But the irony is not lost on me: Republicans have spent decades trying to prevent passage of a Federal anti-lynching law. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Lynching, is a deliberate extrajudicial killing by a group, is clearly murder. The slow crushing the life out of George Floyd for 9 1/2 minutes was obviously murder too. Floyd was surrounded and restrained in police custody and was not a threat to anyone. Babbitt was part of a wild angry mob ransacking the inside the United States Of America's seat of democracy, shot once in the shoulder by a Capitol Police officer as she attempted to climb through a shattered window in a barricaded door leading into the Speaker's Lobby, through which elected House Of Representatives members and Capital staff were escaping, being a very likely threat to the lives of United States House of Representatives; rioters had already used lead pipes, chemical irritants, stun guns, sticks, poles and clubs, officers had been warned by the Metropolitan Police that many participants were carrying concealed weapons. Babbits death was nothing like the killing of George Floyd's. Wikipedia does not use colloquial speech loosely, especially in an article about an assault on democracy. Guy should be applauded for defending Wikipedia from a group of POV-pushing editors. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Bodney: I don’t know whether you are including me in the ‘group of POV-pushing editors’. I have not expressed any POV on American politics. I don’t edit American politics. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @JzG:I did not come here to argue about American politics. You have not told me anything I don’t already know. You are not addressing my point. You are complaining that someone has used the word ‘murder’ inappropriately. I am complaining that you have used the expression ‘lynch mob’ inappropriately. So far as I am aware, there has been no verdict saying that the killing of Babbitt was murder. Equally, (as far as I am aware) there has been no verdict saying that everyone who invaded the Capitol was intending to commit murder. So it is as inappropriate to use the ‘lynch’ as it is to use the word ‘murder’. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sweet6970, you challenged my use of the word lynching. I showed that it was justified in the context (a gallows, a mob, calls to hang people based on the mob's prejudices). We're done with this line of argument. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @JzG:No, you didn’t justify it. A lynch mob lynches someone. No-one was lynched, and you cannot know what the intent of the crowd was. So you should be more careful in your use of language. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  A failed lynch mob is still a lynch mob. Thanks for asking, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Sweet6970 this entire sidetrack is why it's not actually helpful for people to insert rhetorical snark remarks intended to make a point and which often generate more heat than light into ANI discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't always mean "illegal killing" in colloquial speech. While that is the primary definition in dictionaries, Oxford lists the first definition only as "The action or an act of killing" followed by a sub-definition of "The action of killing or causing destruction of life, regarded as wicked and morally reprehensible irrespective of its legality". You can see similar secondary definitions in every major English language dictionary. They are not labelled as "archaic" or any other label to suggest that people don't use the word that way in real life. In fact, you can see this in real life just by turning on the news to any time someone is interviewed after a police shooting - the term "murder" is commonly used by the people being interviewed to describe the act - even though there's no way they can know if it was legal or not at that time. Furthermore, "homicide" is listed as a synonym in the OED's thesaurus for that definition. Regardless, a quick check of the OED shows that you're wrong that it's only used for "unlawful" killings. Pinging @Girth Summit: also because as a Brit (as he said below) he may want to see this definition for himself. I understand that on Wikipedia we tread carefully in using "murder" because it usually implies an illegality about it, but it is improper and assuming bad faith to think that every new editor will have that distinction given that it's used commonly enough regardless of legality to be listed in dictionaries as a secondary definition. If you had an issue with saying "murder", you also should've started with that - instead of your snarky opinionated comments regarding "insurrections have consequences". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez, was that last comment directed at me? I have not said anything about 'insurrections have consequences', and while I have expressed opinions here with regard to language and its acceptability, I don't think I have made any snarky comments.

  The 'secondary definition in the dictionary' argument seems exceedingly tenuous. As the definition you have quoted makes clear, even when it is not intended to imply technical illegality, it always implies that the killing is "wicked or morally reprehensible". In the context of that talk page discussion, its use was at the very least obvious and inflammatory POV pushing, and it's not acceptable. I'm not saying that the user needs to be blocked or TBanned for that single instance, but they need to be made aware that they need to be much more careful in how they use language. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, no, I just pinged you in the middle of the discussion then went back to talking about JzG without making that clear. Sorry. And no, it's not "obvious" POV pushing - that's a massive assumption of bad faith. Assuming good faith would mean calmly explaining why the term "murder" is not accurate or should not be used - not what JzG did which is inflame the situation more. I'm also not saying that anyone needs a block or a topic ban, but I think that talk page (and likely the topic as a whole) would benefit from JzG taking a step back and being a little more calm in his editing so he stays on topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez thanks for clarifying, no problem. However, I'm afraid that I strongly disagree with you, both in your interpretation of what is, and is not, POV pushing, and in your assertion that I am assuming bad faith. I genuinely put a lot of store in AGF, and signed up to WP:OFWV years ago. I've tried hard, squinting at it through the old rose-tinted spectacles, but I cannot see the use of that word in that context as anything but POV-pushing. I have invited Innican Soufou to make a statement to the effect that they understand that the word is inappropriate, but they have so far not made any comment on the matter. Perhaps they will do so now, in light of this discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's why I brought up the use in colloquial speech, with dictionaries to back it up, that it isn't always illegal killing. Assuming good faith here would be that this user may come from a location where homicide and murder are both used to describe killings regardless of legality. By calling it "POV-pushing" you are assuming the user is intentionally using an incorrect word to push their POV - when there's a perfectly logical explanation for why they may have felt that "murder" was an acceptable word to use. Regardless, I think the bigger issue here is that instead of JzG explaining why he took issue with that word, he went on a rant that inflamed the situation and didn't explain why on Wikipedia "murder" is used carefully and only when it meets the legal definition of murder. That's all that needed to be done - but instead he posted two ranting comments, and then went straight to ANI - not acceptable behavior and to me that shows that he may need to take a step back from this topic area as the discussion was proceeding fine without him (and has been since he last commented). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez, we will have to agree to differ on that I'm afraid. I can't accept your argument about colloquial speech: while I accept that the intent may not have been to imply illegality, I can't see any reading where it does not imply the worst kind of impropriety on behalf of the officer who fired the shot, and I do interpret that as inflammatory POV-pushing. By extension, I also reject your conclusion that JzG is the bigger problem here. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• So this no longer appears to have anything to do with me anymore and has devolved into talking about George Floyd, BLM, Antifa, and the Smiths. Can we close this so the virtue signaling can move elsewhere? Innican Soufou (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Innican Soufou, I for one would appreciate an indication from you that you accept that your comments discussed above were inappropriate, and an undertaking not to say anything like that again. This is not a trivial matter, and your flippant comment does not give me confidence that you've understood that. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree with this. While one use of the word "murder" in what is technically an "incorrect" meaning (i.e. to replace killing in general rather than an illegal one) could potentially be excused as being unaware, it's disruptive and not appropriate for someone to not correct that behavior when informed of it. Yes, it is still about you Innican Soufou, and I tried to stick up for you by saying it could've been a legitimate mistake based on a different use of the word in your life - but you're making me feel like me sticking up for you was a mistake and that maybe you are only here to disrupt with this continued.. well disruption. If you (IS) want to be able to continue discussing topics like this, you need to accept that while the way JzG responded to you wasn't perfect, and wasn't clear, you also made a mistake in calling something a "murder" when it's technically not. note: I've also made quite a few MOS:LISTGAP corrections to make the bullets/spacing not wonky -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  And I would agree with this. On contentious talk pages it is just not helpful to throw the term murder around until/unless there's been a conviction. Period. —valereee (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

@Sweet6970, lol, okeydoke, restored. Please, all, make sure to carefully examine the sidetrack resulting from the rhetorical remark. I wonder if I should set it off in bold so no one misses it? And, yes, I'm being a bit snarky here. I'd collapse this as not important for anyone else to bother with, but...well...—valereee (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Whilst lynching is murder, a lynch mob (the specific term Guy used) is not necessarily. Otherwise the discussion would've been quite a good example of how assuming bad faith via dictionary definitions can lead to absurd outcomes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I am equally a bit unhappy with the movement of my comment, before the concealment. While i used the definition of lynching as a clear starting point, I was in fact replying more to User:Berchanhimez's comment at 13:52, 30 April 2021 which now comes after my comment, regards whether the use of the term 'murder' was at all remotely appropriate in this particular case. I was responding in what was then the existing flow of the conversation, however i do not think I can move it back as other editors involved in the conversation seem happy and i can see the new flow works for them. Oh well. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why do you feel the need to call out this editor on only having 49 edits? Do you really have to passive aggressively insult someone and basically say "their opinion isn't valid because they don't have many edits"? Questionable reasoning for an AN/I thread when you could've just cited WP:BLPCRIME which pretty much says we can't say a living person is a murderer until they have actually been convicted of a murder. It is bizarre to me that not a single admin has acknowledged with these two very clear issues (aside from vague ideas of the BLP implications). It's not OK to call someone a murderer until they have been convicted of a crime; doesn't matter if the victim is George Floyd or Ashli Babbit. Calling the killing a "murder" is therefore also a BLPcrime vio as it implies the killer is a murderer. It's also not OK to bring someone to AN/I when your only justification for doing so is "they don't have enough edits and shouldn't be in American politics". If OP wasn't an admeme this would've boomeranged pretty fast but instead the admemes here are throwing on the kiddie gloves and spending all your time debating American politics when the fact is that our opinions on whether Babbit or Floyd was murdered doesn't matter; only whether a court has convicted the living people in question of murder do we call those killings "murder". That goes for both sides; Bodney's opinion on whether "The slow crushing the life out of George Floyd for 9 1/2 minutes was obviously murder too." is irrelevant and so is their opinion on whether "Floyd was surrounded and restrained in police custody and was not a threat to anyone." Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

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

T-Ban Proposal

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

---

• Innican Soufou has described the death of Ashli Babbitt as murder. Multiple editors (including myself) have expressed concern over their use of that word, and Soufou has been invited multiple times to address those concerns. I was hoping that they would express some understanding that the use of such language was inappropriate and confirm that they would avoid it in future, but so far their only response has been to been to deride the concerns as 'virtue signalling'. An editor willing to use such language, and to ignore (or even mock) legitimate concerns over it, should not be editing articles in the post-1992 American Politics topic area. I propose that they be indefinitely topic banned, appealable after six months of collegiate editing elsewhere. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Many called Brian Sicknick's death a murder, too, or every protestor present's purpose attempted murder. It's a shame the word has been tossed around so loosely in many, many talk pages and articles since 2012, but getting away with it has become the norm. And, to reiterate, no known victim is targeted or affected by these words from mid-March. Whoever he is, he's the safest person in the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support, we have wp:blp for a reason, calling her killing a murder is a direct statement that the cop who shot here was a murderer (and thus broke the law). If they had done this once or twice well I see no issue with that, we all make mistakes. This is about wp:nowhere and wp:rightgreatwrongs to try and use Wikipedia to push a wp:pov narrative at variance with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  According to the two diffs offered above, he did do it twice. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support more because of my general belief that contentious articles are a terrible place for most new editors to try to learn to edit, although the virtue signalling comment kind of sewed it up for me. Innican Soufou, that is exactly the kind of comment that contentious articles don't need, and especially not from newer editors whose imperfect understanding of Wikipedia is something experienced editors already need to spend time and patience on. At contentious articles that combination is a major timewaster. Tempers are often frayed already. Go edit some noncontentious articles, where the experienced editors have time and patience to spare to help you learn the ropes. —valereee (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I do think JzG needs to take a step back from their own POV-pushing. If someone were to gather the diffs, I think it's quite likely there'd be a warning in that direction for AP2. —valereee (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

After a deeper look at the talk page, I've changed my mind. IS's contributions were no worse than everyone else's comments on that page, including JzG. I will go in as an admin and see if I can help. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as a draconian measure to suppress minority views. I'm a bit shocked that this is even here at ANI, and more so that someone has proposed a Tban. Looking at the discussion, the editor simply !voted in a discussion and was prodded from there. The mentioning of 49 edits in the original report seems more akin to poisoning the well than providing useful information. Sorry Guy, but I think you are very mistaken about this one. As Beeblebrox said above, this just needs to go to dispute resolution and everyone needs to calm down a bit. There is no one "Wikipedia approved" view on this topic, lets be a bit more tolerant, even when we find a viewpoint abhorrent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I'm shocked that you're shocked. I'm shocked that you would defend an unsupported assertion that a serving police officer has murdered someone as a simple 'minority view'. Regardless, it's not the the one-off use of the word which convinces me that a TBan is necessary, it's more the repeated refusal to engage with concerns over it, and the outright contempt expressed above for the editors raising those concerns. This is not the collegiate editing style called for in that topic area. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is the kind of problem I'm talking about. You are overstating what I said. I am seeing a problem, wikiwide, where we slam the door instantly on people who have far right viewpoints, even if their behavior has not risen to the level of disruption. I completely disagree with their viewpoints, but I support allowing minority viewpoints to be expressed. In this case, he might have gone over the line, but to impose a tban only serves to overpunish, and encourage sockpuppetry. This isn't a solution, it is an overreaction and it would be foolish. The editor was poked a bit, keep in mind. The solution is to warn the editor and monitor, get them up to speed on what is expected. As JzG stated, they only have 49 edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, I'm all for allowing minority viewpoints to be expressed, but I draw the line at making assertions to the effect that living public servants have committed serious criminal offenses, refusing to address concerns about such comments, and insulting people who raise those concerns. In my mind, this isn't about whether they are far right or not, this is about basic principals like civil discourse and responding appropriately to legitimate concerns, which are all the more important in contentious topic areas. I'll add that while I don't mind you disagreeing with me, and am happy to consider your viewpoint, I don't appreciate your use of the word 'foolish'. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'm shocked that GS hasn't seen American current events articles this year commonly calling cops murderers, and more shocked that DB takes that as a far-right view. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  InedibleHulk, I don't really keep abreast of American current affairs - I only know what Radio 4 tells me on my commute, and they're pretty careful with how they use that word. When I see an assertion on Wikipedia to the effect that a living person has committed what a serious criminal offence, I expect to see a citation to a reliable source supporting that assertion. If the source isn't there, I usually remove the assertion and perform a revision deletion. My impression was that we were supposed to be more strict with that sort if thing in contentious areas, not less strict. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Fair and plausible, I guess. No insult intended. But yeah, BLM, Antifa and Biden's reform legislation "lean left" down south. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is way over the top. A warning on more careful use of language would be appropriate – also for JzG. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not at this point - not enough disruption (yet) to warrant a topic ban, too little evidence has been presented. Let this be a warning - Innican Soufou is allowed to have the opinion that Babbitt was murdered, but on Wikipedia, we can't state as a fact that Babbitt was murdered, since the officer wasn't even charged with a crime, much less convicted. The virtue signalling comment is also unhelpful, and further refusal to address concerns may lead to a topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 11:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This proposal is laughable. Selective outrage got the better of many editors. I am amazed that this has not been closed already. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't discuss your actual reasoning, but does make three more-heat-than-light remarks. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose If one very poor comment made over a month ago is the worst that Innican Soufou has done - and it appears that this is the case - then there isn't enough disruption to warrant a topic ban. - Bilby (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per Starship.paint. (I wish I hadn't watched the footage of Ashli Babbitt being shot, but can't remove it from my inner cinema anymore. I, too, have strong feelings about which individuals and organizations share responsibility for misleading her to the fatal point of being shot, but shouldn't be expressing these feelings on Wikipedia, where we must always follow reliable sources, no matter what we feel, personally). Many of us occasionally argue with hyperbole or even falsehoods in the heat of a debate, and it's good to be reminded and asked to stop in these cases, but this sanction is premature, and it does feel one-sided, after having read the entire discussion. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian, mostly along the lines of Dennis. Also I agree that colloquially murder and killing can be synonymous, and the same argument was made by many editors in last year's "Killing of George Floyd" move, so trying to definitively attribute intent seems unfair, especially since in one of the two diffs they used "killing". I also don't think the editor can be criticised for their non-participation, in part due to the WP:NOTCOMPULSORY argument, but also since the above discussion cannot reasonably be said to be a fair trial. In their shoes I'd probably not participate either, and would probably reconsider whether this is a hobby I want to develop. However, will add that AP2 has enough inflammatory content on talk pages and people should take more care not to unnecessarily rouse FORUM-y arguments. Still, the editor should've been given an opportunity to amend "murder" -> "killing" via a polite talk page note, but afaics this didn't happen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Socking on Radha Sterling

CatJon1 has personally attacked editors [41] and made disruptive edits to Radha Stirling. They have already been dragged to SPI. --Firestar464 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

[42] Further WP:ASPERSIONS. Firestar464 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Came here from SPI. I don't think CatJon is related to the group filed there; I do however think that they're linked to Tradeze1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also noting that everyone involved is now well past 3RR. Blablubbs|talk 07:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed here. --Firestar464 (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an IP on the talk page which seems to be saying stuff very similar to CatJon. I think this may have simply been a mistake rather than attempt to hide their identity but who knows. Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have opened a SPI for User:Tradeze1, User:CatJon1, and User:212.63.119.106. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Ricco Baroni

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

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

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

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

Draft:Deelee Dube and User_talk:Dangelvoice

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

There was a discussion at the Teahouse about a week ago about how to try to deal with this editor. The discussion was inconclusive, but some of us thought that this editor is using a stupid mobile app that either doesn't support a user talk page or makes it difficult for an editor to find their talk page. Since all efforts to communicate have failed and the editor is continuing to edit-war, I think that a block for 36 or so hours is unfortunately in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Robert_McClenon. I think they have some ability to see communications as they react to changes (the IP saying don't edit), but I'm not positive. StarM 18:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

They can see our communications to them, but they don't or won't communicate back to us or engage in dialog. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

They did briefly respond to Star Mississippi and to me about a week ago. It didn't really help. And edit-warring is not allowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel that a short attention-grabbing block would be in order if a user isn't willing to properly engage with the many editors trying to help them write this clearly autobiographical article. They still haven't made a Conflict of Interest declaration on their userpage, and this overtly promotional article (of a probably notable person) is fast becoming a time-sink. I suggest we give them 24 hours from the start of this thread to begin engaging with us before an initial and temporary 36 hour editing block is given. Should they edit the article and continue edit warring over content or add more copyright violation content from what I presume is their own website before engaging, then the block should be applied sooner. My view is that if numerous attempts have been made to get this person to engage with us and accept our guidance, but have so clearly failed, then they will have put themselves in a position whereby they have forfeited their right to edit an article about themselves or anyone else. If that turns out to be the case, then that means an indefinite editing block would then be appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Star Mississippi. I too am involved here, I think. I'm in two minds: the repeated additions of copyvio material cannot be allowed to continue (I'll remove some more in a moment), and nor can the edit-warring; but I'm reluctant to recommend or endorse a block of an editor who is apparently oblivious to our attempts to communicate. However, sooner or later this will have moved into WP:ENGAGE territory; a brief partial block might then be a good interim measure. For what it's worth, unlike Star Mississippi I'm not convinced that this person is notable – she has sung with a saxophonist of fairly questionable notability and won an award in a competition that isn't even mentioned in our page on the New Jersey Performing Arts Center. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh interesting. I think we should have an article on the Sarah Vaughan competition, but that could also be my performing arts bias. It's the only thing that might bring her to WP:Notable, the rest is a lot of fluff. The Teahouse conversation made me realize that we need a better means of conveying WP:THREE for new editors. There are major COI issues here, of course, but I think she's trying to edit in good faith and it isn't necessarily clear to new editors that overkill doesn't bring them closer to notability. I'm unfortunately not sure what the answer is here. StarM 00:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, I've (sort of) answered the first bit of this on your talk-page. Dangelvoice, please know and take note that if you again add to Wikipedia content copied from non-free external web sources, your account is likely to be prevented from making further edits without further warning ... so please don't! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dangelvoice: I will just clarify what User:Justlettersandnumbers has said, by telling you that their instruction includes copy/pasting words that you have written yourself on your own website or elsewhere unless you add a certain type of Creative Commons licence which explicitly releases it for anyone to use, even commercially. You may know that you have written stuff yourself, but unless it's properly licenced we don't allow you to paste in your words on Wikipedia. Just reword whatever you want to say, but make sure you avoid close WP:PARAPHRASING. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sidian Jones and promotional / COI editing

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

• I warned him about his COI
• he admitted his COI, and made a personal attack: "yes I am John Pope's grandson. Yes I recognize the potential conflict of interest." "User CorbieVreccan blatantly lying and distorting facts on this page"
• I reminded him that Bishonen had answered his points the last time this came up, and reminded him that he has admitted COI
• He seems to have stated an intent to ignore his COI and keep editing: "I will continue to pursue the issue until the facts are stated instead of these dramatizations."

• He is now back to editing the article:[43], [44]

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

Sidianmsjones appears to be a borderline single-purpose account, with little to be said beyond his work and the legacy of his ancestor. He has absolutely no business creating or editing articles pertaining to himself or Rolling Thunder. I propose that he either desists now or else face an indefinite block. He appears to be knowledgeable in other areas, so his expertise could be useful - so long as he not utilize it for self-promotion. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 02:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have partially blocked Sidianmsjones from editing Rolling Thunder (person) indefinitely; they may still suggest changes on the talkpage. If the ducks return, the article should be protected as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• And having looked a little further, I'm not entirely convinced that they're actually notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Rolling Thunder was definitely notable in the '70s. Now... hard to say. There were fairly recent, serious criminal charges on another of his sons or grandsons (link on talk), so he was in the news a bit over that. His name was still well-known in the hippie subculture in the '80s, I guess, but as that population ages and dies, probably less so. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I have found the partial block tool to usually do the trick with the SPAs. Hopefully that will also be the case here. Just noting for the record that this user's response to the block notice is a vow to continue his quest to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: "I'm not going to stop pursuing this page until it is truthful." Hmmmm. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I just returned to address this. We can't have an editor who promises to disrupt the project; I now support a community ban. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Community Ban - In over 13 years on the 'pedia, this user's every edit has been either directly or indirectly promotional and COI. Classic WP:SPA. User responded to COI warnings with insistence that, yes they have COI, but WP policies shouldn't apply to them: "renounce your bias, allow me to do my work here". Then when blocked from fave article, he announced his intent to further disrupt:[45] Classic case of WP:NOTHERE. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A Difficult User I am Concerned About

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

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

ZaniGiovanni, you are a user whose entire edit history [46] is seemingly composed of only two things: 1) removing Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia, and adding Armenian names to villages in Azerbaijan. 2) engaging in lengthy arguments with other users over trivial matters where you continuously resort to personal attacks, which even got you banned for a week at one point [47]. During the entire span of the time you have been editing, you have established a pattern of deleting information rather than adding it. You seem to have no issues with leaving Azerbaijani translations of village names when a highly experienced user reverts your edits [48] [49] [50] [51], however, you seem to apply a completely different standard to more regular users like me.

During the full span of time I have interacted with you, I have offered to you on multiple occasions to resolve our disagreements via Talk and compormise [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. I have invited you to discuss things on your talk page to settle things in a civil manner. Not only have you ignored this offer multiple times, but you have seemingly made no effort to come to a compromise either, engaging in overzealous deletion of material WP:ZEAL, all the while sending me threats of you "reporting" me [58] [59] on the ground that you personally suspect me of sockpuppetry (although you've yet to provide any proof of that).

You have tried to implicate me in some sort of a scheme involving a banned user CuriousGolden on the talk page of another user [60] without having ever approached me with your concerns, and without having ever even spoken to me previously on any talk page about anything.

You have used a highly condescending, commanding tone during every interaction I have had with you. You have accused me of "edit-warring" and of "disruptive behavior" even though I have been open to talk with you and to compromise with you. You have used phrases like "Last warning, ..." [61] and "bogus POV information" [62] and "You will be notified if an investigation is opened on you" and "I would've already opened an investigation on you" [63] in reference to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar accusations by other user were addressed to me in this same noticeboard 1, which I already replied. There is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation about you 2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I've closed the SPI and deferred it to the CU OTRS queue since there is apparently off-wiki evidence involved. From what I can see on-wiki my take is that yes, these two users know each other and share a POV, but there isn't sufficient evidence to indicate that Golden is sitting behind Creffel's keyboard. Since Creffel joined before Golden's block and the explanation that they watchlisted the pages in anticipation of a coordinated raid is at least somewhat credible (and would indicate an independent reason for reinstatement), I don't feel comfortable actioning the socking side of this based on the on-wiki evidence alone. Blablubbs|talk 11:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the further information. Where exactly to reinstate the off wiki connection, and his mentions of reddit posts abt CuriousGolden / supposed raids? I'm still new to opening reports on wiki, apologies for too many questions. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Answered here. Blablubbs|talk 12:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

For editors or admins reading this, here is my side of the story. The block Creffel is talking about regarding me is when I just joined wikipedia and wasn't aware of all the rules, and I don't have problem with that block looking back. What is also true tho, a block almost two months ago has no relation to this case, and I fully acknowledge my wrong doing back then. The only relation it has to the case is that it involved a now banned editor, CuriousGolden.

In regards to Creffel's accusations about Azeri translations in Armenian villages. First of all, when I see credible reasons that translations should remain, e.g. properly sourced information, notability, etc., I don't edit further, and with Sotk as an example, they fail to mention that said criteria was provided 1, 2. Logically then, I left the page untouched, not because "I have different standards to regular users".

In the span of 24 hours, Creffel has been edit-warring with me on several occasions 3, 4, 5, 6, reverting my good faith edits. Btw, all of these edits are the banned editor's additions to the articles, CuriousGolden. I restored stable versions on these articles, because All of them contain bogus POV sentence like "Azerbaijani village" referring to an Armenian village and territory (and yes it is POV to refer to foreign territory village as Azerbaijani when it's not).

And many other abandoned villages like this with the same sentence, all added by CuriousGolden 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. In my edits I even mention, if editors like Creffel wish to add about former population of these villages, they should add them in appropriate section of the article, I have no problem with that 1, 2, 3, 4.

What Creffel does then, is he restores ALL the edits with blatant POV in the lead of the articles, and they don't want to restore info only about translation and population, granted that it's properly sourced. The reason I'm telling this is that after Creffel for the 2nd or 3rd time, restored one of the village's edits as a "compromise", he claimed that "I have kept the rest of the information, which is properly cited and factually correct" 12. Upon looking at the source in details, which was about the former population of the village, it was an extremely biased non reliable website, added again by CuriousGolden, titled "Sacral foci of the Gihi gorge (river) basin or unfoundedness of the fictitious "sacred geography of Armenia"" 13, 14. And this was the website used by CuriousGolden as a basis to add his POV sentence and about former population of the village, I don't know how it even qualifies as WP:VERIFY source to begin with. This was also the edit that according to Creffel was "properly cited and factually correct".

I think that this case opened against me is unfounded and quite frankly it seems like a deflecting moment from Creffel. The only criticism I see is that I could've been more timid with my tone in later edits, but I never insulted them, and you have to also understand that the user was changing and edit-warring, restoring edits with clear POV in it, even tho I gave him the compromise numerous times saying "Restore properly sourced info about population all you want, I have no problem with it". I mentioned Creffel on the talk of a more experienced editor, so to get a better understanding of how to move forward (I'm very new to opening reports) with this situation 15. And also the reason I informed them that there was already a discussion going on, when he left this same essay on my talk page 16. I also replied to their previous messages on my talk page 17, and I also warned them about disruptive editing, since they restored a blatant POV with a propaganda source 18.

Thank you for reading patiently. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yea, except virtually everything above is distortion at best or outright false at worst. I tried to get the user to discuss things with me and all I got was threats and insults. Now that I have shared his actions on the administrator's board, user suddenly decides now is the right time to start discussing edits? Wow.

User filed some shabby "sockpuppeting" complaint against me after threatening me multiple times. Amusingly, the user decided to do so only after I informed him of my intention to share his behavior with the administration board. User tried to prove I am a sockpuppet by citing how my account and this other account both contain the same word, "skepticism". Yea okay.

That sockpuppeting thing fell flat on its back, now he is here writing, well, whatever all of that is supposed to be.

My personal opinion is that this has become a matter of personal ego for the user in question rather than a genuine concern. - Creffel (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a drama show. Nothing I said is a "distortion" or "outright false at worst". Nobody insulted you and you failed to prove otherwise, avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. And yes this is a warning, you will be reported. And I have every right to do so if you continue with these ridiculous bogus smears. I already discussed with you and told you that you literally restored a propaganda source edit claiming it was "properly cited".

I had sockpuppeting suspicions hence the reason I filed the investigation, and it was done before your report here. I was told that users should act BOLD on wikipedia, and at the time I thought it was best to open the investigation.

Please stay on the topic we discuss, and address my points. All I see is WP:OTHER, and unfounded smears from you.

Wikipedia isn't a place for "egos" and when you open a case, expect people to reply to that case. You seem to have run out of arguments, and started to accuse and smear me all of the sudden. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You have consistently engaged in POV edits, edit warring, vandalism, and you have also casted WP:ASPERSIONS and you have attempted to smear me. I don't appreciate you getting so aggressive of all sudden when I point out your wrongdoings. I believe you should have better morals than that, and it seems to me like frankly you no longer know what to say. I believe you should engage in productive discussions instead of trying to smear me and make bogus POV edits. I am warning you right now that if you don't cease your edit warring, then I will begin reporting you to admins individually.

Please engage in productive discussion, discuss my points, and don't try to attack me personally. Thank you. - Creffel (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Now this is a deflection if I've ever seen one. I don't think you are here to engage in a productive conversation, and I struggle to assume good faith in any of your recent two replies. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop with the empty smears. I am assuming good faith for you, but if you cannot assume good faith for me then this is not my fault. You need to stop engaging in edit warring and please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and stay on topic. I would also like you to stop your borderline vandalist edits on pages about Azerbaijani villages. - Creffel (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

So instead of properly answering to my sourced comprehensive reply to this same exact accusation from you, you repeat what you said initially, which I already addressed? As I said, It's impossible to assume good faith in your recent replies, given your continued behavior even after being warned. Also, most of my edits are done to Armenian pages, adding another lie with smears again. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You addressed virtually none of my original concerns and instead, you tried to deflect responsibility away from your behavior. I have been trying to assume good faith in your replies all along, but frankly, every single message you have ever sent me has been loaded with threats. Also, you should not try to "warn" me since you are not an admin, I don't understand your attempts to "warn" me. Most of your edits were in villages that used to have an Azerbaijani population, whereby you tried to remove most, if not all information that would suggest the presence of Azerbaijanis in these villages. Whenever I confronted you on this, you engaged in edit-wars with me, threatened to investigate me for sockpuppetry, and refused to discuss things on your talk page, and now you are engaging in an edit war here as well. You have a proven record of arguing with others users constantly, and you also have a record of being banned for personal insults. You only agreed to begin discussing edits with me after I posted my concerns on the administrator's noticeboard. I don't think you are here to build a Wikipedia, since all you seem to do is: 1) remove Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia, and add Armenian names to villages in Azerbaijan. 2) engage in lengthy arguments with other users over trivial matters. I welcome Admins to please investigate this case. Thank you. - Creffel (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I addressed all the points regarding the recent edit-wars you yourself engaged in, and even showed you that you restored a propaganda source under the pretext of "properly cited information". As I said in my initial reply, if you read it, I have no problem with addition of former population if they a)are properly cited, b)are notable enough and done to their respective section (e.g. history or demographic section). I told this mutliple times to you but you either restored all the pages with 3 of them, inculding the POV bogus sentence reffering to the villages as "Azerbaijani" when they were not, or you kept the propaganda source called "Sacral foci of the Gihi gorge (river) basin or unfoundedness of the fictitious "sacred geography of Armenia"". If you read my reply you would know this, and as I said that source isn't nowhere reliable or WP:VERIFY to have as an evidence of anything. You continue to bring up unrelated block of mine 2nd time now, which is also a bannable offense, and to which I already replied. I addressed everything related to the case, and when I say "warning" it is warning to get reported for your continual behavior, which I also mentioned. I discussed your revision and I showed you where exactly by linking it, it is still visible on my talk page. I have nothing to add here, you have created an idea about me in your head and you continue with harassment and smears. Admins should decide what to do next. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"I addressed all the points regarding the recent edit-wars you yourself engaged in" - The ones you started and the ones you refused to resolve via talk and compromise.

"I told this multiple times to you but you either restored all the pages with 3 of them" - You deleted big chunks of information including Azerbaijani translations which was entirely unnecessary. The burden of proof is on you as the editor who removed information to demonstrate that the information is not appropriate, which you failed to do. This is a breach of WP:BURDEN.

"I said that source isn't nowhere reliable or WP:VERIFY to have as an evidence of anything" - You refused to talk with me about it on your talk page all the while threatening me with sockpuppetry investigation. I had to report your behavior to Administrators' Noticeboard to get you to actually explain your reasoning in detail, which you wouldn't seem to do otherwise.

"You continue to bring up an unrelated block of mine 2nd time now, which is also a bannable offense" - No it is not, it a demonstration of continuous disruptive behavior, whereby you chose to engage in endless arguments with other users and resort to personal insults rather than solve things through Talk and compromise.

"you have created an idea about me in your head" - Please don't use personal arguments on Wikipedia based on unfounded assumptions. I have extensively detailed your pattern of behavior based on your edit history and on your actions. You tried to implicate me in "sockpuppeting" by claiming that both my account and CuriousGolden's account have the word "skeptical" in them, is this really worth it?

"Admins should decide what to do next." I fully agree with you, because your edit history, your history of confrontation rather than disucssion, and your refusal to use Talk and compromise are indicative that you are WP:NOTHERE to build a Wikipedia. - Creffel (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Same talking points, and same “accusations” that already been replied to with backed sources multiple times. Indeed, the only solution here is further action by admins. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @ZaniGiovanni: you need to take a long hard look at yourself. I looked at all the diffs, I looked at all the links, etc etc etc. By definition, you are the one edit warring. On every single diff which you provided, you made more reverts than Creffel. You are not supposed to make more than three reverts to a page, but making three on every single page is just as bad and also considered edit warring and will get you blocked. Creffel did two reverts on each of the pages, which some editors would also call edit warring, but it's far more acceptable than what you're doing. versacespaceleave a message! 21:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I did those edits restoring the stable version before the POV sentence addition by a blocked editor, and in some cases, with propaganda source(s). I apologize to the admins for breaking the 3 revert rule which I forgot at the time, as I'm very new to wiki. From herein, I will report if I see vandalism done to the pages, and if users don't stop editing it back. For the record, as I said earlier, I don't mind information about former population/name to be added to their respective sections, if they are properly cited and notable enough, which I had experience in Sotk, 2 village. I also think that Creffel, with all the deflecting, harassing and smearing without properly addressing any of my points, should also receive necessary actions from admins. --ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You also need to stop calling edits that aren't vandalism, vandalism. Vandalism is editing a page with the bold intention of ruining it. Adding the population of a place is not vandalism, even if the information added is incorrect. versacespaceleave a message! 21:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
      • All of the pages had "Azerbaijani village" added in the lead by a blocked editor 3, 4, 5, 6, meanwhile all of these villages are/were Armenian. And there are even more edits like those ones, done again by the same editor, which are still unchanged 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. I think it's safe to say it was vandalism, when even other info in some of the village(s) like abt former population, was deliberately chosen from a POV propaganda website as a "source" with matching title. But as I said, the info that is correct and properly cited, I have no problem having on those pages. I simply reverted to the stable versions of the articles before the POV additions were made. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
        • @ZaniGiovanni: how in tarnation is it a "POV" edit to think that a city belongs to Armenia? And how is it vandalism? versacespaceleave a message! 22:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
          • How adding "Azerbaijani village" in the lead of the article, regarding different country's territory isn't a POV push? Are you aware of the situation in Caucasus with Armenia and Azerbaijan? I'm sure adding "Armenian city" in the lead of Shushi would be fine then, cause by your logic, it then says "Shusha district of Azerbaijan". Thank god he didn't delete the part about Armenia I guess. That was just unnecessary addition by the user, and given their editing history, a clear POV push and vandalism. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
            • @ZaniGiovanni: at this point, you are just not listening. Even if the information added is incorrect, it is not vandalism if the editor genuinely believes their insertion is true. versacespaceleave a message! 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
              • I don't know why you assume that the editor in question, CuriousGolden "genuinely believes their insertion is true". They edited almost exclusively on Armenia/Azerbaijan articles, and I struggle to conclude that they "genuinely believed" multiple established abandoned villages in Armenia are "Azerbaijani villages", given their experience as an editor and their history of edits. I'm listening to your arguments very clear. More probable explanation is a blatant vandalism and POV push attempt from them, since they probably thought these kind of pages go unnoticed usually. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Please read WP:VD to see what vandalism is. It is pretty much an attempt to destroy a wiki page by blanking it or adding nonsense or obscenity. Content disagreements are certainly not vandalism. Grandmaster 16:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose", Project's purpose WP:5P2 "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Pretty sure, adding "Azerbaijani village" in the lead of several abandoned Armenian villages constitutes as vandalism and a blatant POV push. Not sure why an editor with your experience thinks those were "certainly not vandalisms", when clearly the now blocked editor indeed was knowledgable enough about the places given their edit history and topics, and still added those POV sentences, and in some cases, they included propaganda websites with matching titles as "sources". Before linking anything, please consider looking at your links in more detail. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • You have already been explained by other users too what is and what is not vandalism. Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I repeat once again that those edits were not vandalism, and most probably were made in good faith, unless you can prove the opposite. And the fact that someone was banned does not mean that their edits can be undone, regardless of their merit. What is the point in repeatedly bringing up the fact that someone was banned (and not for those edits, but for a totally unrelated offense)? It cannot be a justification for anything. Grandmaster 18:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

                    @ZaniGiovanni: what you just described is not vandalism. versacespaceleave a message! 18:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

                    • @Grandmaster: First of all, I don't appreciate your tone here. The blocked editor had a clear POV as shown by the SPI investigation, and very similar if not worse POV was demonstrated by them in these abandoned Armenian villages. You changed your reply moments ago, probably understanding that what you said was just outright false 1. My mere mention that the editor was blocked, and mind you as I said they showed very similar POV which they also showed in those villages, seems to bother you very much for some reason. The investigation showed similar pattern to what they did in those villages hence my mention of it, nothing more. It seems that you just don't like any mention of the block, regardless if it’s related or not. The edits were certainly not done in good faith given that the user was editing heavy in Armenia/Azerbaijan villages and was knowledgeable enough, and the fact that they still added the POV sentences in the articles and in some cases also added propaganda "sources" clearly shows their extreme POV and bias at the very least. I'm not gonna argue with you that besides a clear POV, it also demonstrates vandalism. And I'm going to assume good faith and trust your experience as an editor judging what is vandalism. But whether a certain blocked user, who had a clear POV and demonstrated it blatantly multiple times (including in the cases discussed here), and whether they also did vandalism or not, shouldn't be the focus here regardless. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• My only interaction with ZaniGiovanni was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azizkend - I don't particularly mind the deletion, but I did try to save the article by adding sources, especially one from the Azeri government encyclopaedia, which ZaniGiovanni quickly reverted on the grounds it was "unreliable", and then unilaterally re-added a hoax tag to the article while the article was at AfD. I think the behaviour there and listed above is relatively clear, and at the least would support a topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed, if not more. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't the only interaction that you had with me since I already explained my decision to you, that you failed to mention for some reason 1. Quote:

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

  Quote:

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

  So me following wiki rules and adding the hoax tag back until the discussion is over (and the village got deleted), which editors were told to in the disclaimer of the article "Do not remove hoax tag until the discussion of deletion is over", and your conclusion after all the talks in admin noticeboard with me and not replying to my last message there too, was to suddenly come here when there is an ongoing case regarding me, and suggest a "topic ban" on me? Jesus christ. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  My discussion with you on this notice board was directly related to that AfD, and it's pretty clear what you're trying to do with your edits and your attempts to ban users who disagree with your interpretation of events. SportingFlyer T·C 00:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  I can't "ban" users I'm not an admin. I can warn them of possible reports from me, if they continue edit-warring and restoring edits containing blatant POV push, which they did in several occasions. And as I said, your continual sudden "arrival" in discussions involving me is rather alarming, given that you keep casting aspersions, and mentioning a deleted article multiple times now in different talks including me, as some sort of argument. To which I replied previously. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Creffel: I'm writing this here rather than above since I feel it might get lose above even if I ping you. But there is no requirement that an editor needs to be an admin to warn another editor. Indeed that is fundamentally against how Wikipedia operates. It's generally less effective when an editor in dispute with the other edit warns them, but that applies to admins an non admins alike and a proper warning from any editor even one the editor is in dispute with is another to inform the editor of our policies and guidelines and the possibility of blocks. Therefore the editor may be blocked if their editing is indeed sufficient against our policies and guidelines to justify a block. To be clear I make no comment on whether the warnings are justified or good warnings, I haven't looked at them. I'm simply pointing out that your comment above 'you should not try to "warn" me since you are not an admin' makes no sense since it's not how we operate here. User:ZaniGiovanni warning you is also sufficient to establish they are aware of our policies and guidelines so they can also be blocked if they demonstrated the same behaviour they warned you about, and it justifies a block. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nil Einne Oh okay, fair enough. I had no idea. Just felt that the warnings the user made sounded more like a "stop questioning me" type of deal rather than "please remember the rules" type. Regardless, thank you for letting me know, you learn something every day I guess. - Creffel (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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 ([64] [65] [66]) some completely bizarre retargeting of redirects ([67]), Hijacking templates to add weird and useless functionality ([68] [69]) mucking around in other people's pages and archives for no real reason other than to use whatever templates they've just created ([70] [71] [72] [73]) and converting dab pages into plain redirects ([74]). 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 ([75] [76]) 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)

User AFGFactChecker once more engaged in edit warring and general disruptiveness

• AFGFactChecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ahmad Zahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abdul Zahir (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zahira Zahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I have not done anything except trying to make sure the page adheres to the previous consensus that was reached on the talk page history which was to leave out mention of ethnicity because of a dispute over sources. Please see the full talk page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFGFactChecker (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

AFGFactChecker - is already blocked from two different articles about people called Zahir for edit warring; looking at the history of that page, they are obviously edit warring again there, and I don't believe that another partial block is going to be effective, they may just move onto edit warring at another article about someone else called Zahir - I'm therefore applying a one-week site-wide block. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: We edit conflicted; I was about to ask if it's time to move on to a site block. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

After looking over the issue, I agree that this is the appropriate course of action. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Mention of "legal channels"

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

Because the comment was made 3-1/2 weeks ago and the editor has been inactive for over a week, my inclination is to wait for clarification rather than blocking immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's indeed ambiguous, my impression is that they mean they'll write/publish about it by other means than Wikipedia. —PaleoNeonate – 08:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I've removed this[77] 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 ([78]) 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)

User:Hilldoug750057 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Personal attacks; accusations of stalking. [79] [80] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Another expletive-laden attack (see [81]). He needs to be banned from editing his own talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Repeated POV editing on German right-wing parties

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

No, you're barking up the right tree. Thank you for reporting, DoubleGrazing. Dynamic IP blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC).

There's a saying for that, "Ein blindes Huhn findet auch mal ein Korn". :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

They are back again as 79.25.92.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Ashleyyoursmile! 10:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, and I have semi-protected the two articles that didn't have pending changes enabled, since this appears to be a long-term issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s an LTA using Telecom Italia IPs geolocating to Brescia, Italy, or nearby. Targets BLPs too. BMK has the details. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been following this LTA pretty closely: see here, and had discussions with Malcolmx15 and @Acroterion: about them - they've been very helpful about blocking and some range blocks. I've started an LTA page but will have to work on it tomorrow or afterwards. I'm of the opinion that despite the large number of IPs used, this is probably one person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's almost certainly one person inhabiting a broad Telecom Italia range. I've placed a few narrow rangeblocks in the past. I haven't found a broad range that wouldn't shut down most of northern Italy. This has been going on for a couple of years. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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[82] 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.[83] 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 [84]. 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)

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

• 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)

• 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: [85][86] 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)

• 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. [87][88] 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Patriotic Alternative

There has been repeated vandalism and original research on the Patriotic Alternative article added by IPs and newly created accounts. PA is a white nationalist group and they have advertised Wikipedia on the social media platforms telling people to edit it. Last week their deputy leader was arrested. Firstly this IP [89] and on another [90] is adding original research to the article not cited in the sources trying to remove the fact the deputy was arrested but adding it was only her partner, and another new created accounts such as [91] are adding original research. What can be done here? Should I reqest to lock the article temporal? I think there is a case of meat-puppetry. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

AlexBRN POV Pushing and Obstructive Editing

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.[92] 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.[93] 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[94] 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[95] 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.[96]. 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)

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)

Vandalism by 5.197.251.151

5.197.251.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The IP is active since a few days. Some of the edits are pure vamdalism ([97] [98],), some are highly questionable ([99], [100]). Most of their edits have been reverted by various users. They have zero edits on any talk pages, but they come back to restore their edits to the articles, including vandalism ([101], [102]). I reported them to AIV yesterday morning, but nothing happened, this is why I am here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure it's vandalism and not just an alternate name? See our article on Quba or [103]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Guba is not a valid transliteration in any case. Kuba could have been one, but Azerbaijani is written using Latin alphabet, and in this alphabet, it is Quba. Anyway, by now all edits of this IP have been reverted, by multiple users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

And even if we assume this is not vandalism, replacing Quba with Guba is still not an acceptable edit, and edit-0warring over it is a clear policy violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Long term vandalism, possible WP:BLP issues at Peter Jordan (actor)

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

Portuguese, actually. Seems to be related to a Brazilian YouTube channel "Ei Nerd" whose creator shares the same name. No idea if there's more to it than that. Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We'll see if they give up after, though I'm not especially hopeful—longer protection might be reasonable, given not a single edit since Nov 2020 has been constructive. — The Earwig (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW, it is all juvenile silliness; do not see anything worthy of revdel. — The Earwig (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, The Earwig, for the assistance, and for correcting my late night sloppiness on foreign languages. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent promotional disruption at Zamora (pianist)

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

Some relevant diffs: 18 April, an IP adds a verbatim copy of alejandrozamora to the article. 19 April, another IP restores the material – see the edit summary whch indicates collaboration with Zamora himself or his marketing staff. 20 April, yet another IP restores the text, with another interesting edit summary. 27 April, I make some major edits to the article, involving the removal of a lot of promotional text and external links. On 28 April, the account Johnjmuller is created and reverts my edits. After this, there are discussions between Johnjmuller, myself, and C.Fred, at User_talk:C.Fred#Zamora_(Pianist), at Talk:Zamora_(pianist), and to some extent at User talk:Johnjmuller.

The walls of text are a bit overwhelming, but the heart of the matter is that Johnjmuller would like the article Zamora (pianist) to include all the text and claims at http://www.alejandrozamora.com , and is bludgeoning the discussions. It is also clear that Johnjmuller has a close connection to the article's topic, since discussions here have led to immediate changes of external websites – not only alejandrozamora.com but also Zamora's profile at airplaydirect.com.

The AfD mentioned by the OP above is from 2010, and there is another AfD from 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Zamora, with the identical kind of disruption. --bonadea contributions talk 14:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys!

Thanks for letting know about this in my talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 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)

User:Zack439

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.

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)

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 ([104]). In actuality, the attribution instructions at WP:CWW only require an appropriate edit summary at the destination page, which I included ([105]); I additionally followed the suggested practice of leaving an appropriate edit summary at the source page ([106]). 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 ([107]). His response was to strike the single word "effectively" and replace it with "apparently" ([108]), 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 ([109]). 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)

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)

⑥GirthSummit, 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)

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 ([110][111][112][113]) had !voted keep in a prior, clearly related MfD ([114][115][116][117])? -- 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)

@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)

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)

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)