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

The entire thrust of their editing about food. They do OKish if it is just about food (e.g. this editto Ketchup or but when it comes to health effects they go off the rails, especially if it is about "functional foods" or "superfoods" or any of that crap that the internet is full of.

If you look at this person's talk page you will see warning after warning for bad editing about alt-health foods. (they just delete stuff, so you have to look at the history).

I tried to have a discussion with them -- see here -- and they wrote But the short of it is that I am not employed or receiving compensation from any company involved in the space... but as of yet it remains an interest and a hobby of trying exotic foods with purported health claims. I am also potentially seeking to create new products out of so-called beneficial ingredients and so to get to the bottom of any health claims and to understand why marketing is or is not false. I suppose some of my recent edits were a bit of a statement made against any existing conservative bias I see in the article. I feel that it can be explained how things are marketed without selling it on wikipedia. I may have to take my edits elsewhere on the web, but now with your latest revert I feel you lost some critically useful information: that superfoods often pick out omega 3, antioxidants, etc. The "economics" section is a mess and moreover, with the discussion of the marketing of bananas, I see that may be outside the narrow scope of a "superfood" article and more towards the marketing of "health foods". I come to the article to understand why the superfood label is used and what it means and the article is lacking examples.

I replied: I think it is great that you are trying to understand the market for "superfoods" on a very practical level and want to share your learning in WP as you go. I do this sort of thing all the time, as well. There is just a very fine between describing accepted knowledge about the market and how people have been addressing and growing the market, and replicating the hype within that market..... you are crossing over into the latter a bit much

They have continued unabated. Some sample diffs:

• edit to Sugar substitute
• creating Category:Health drinks defined as "Drinks that promote health". Dogshit health food marketing.
• 1st set of edits to Kombucha; toning down dangers, emphasizing potential benefits. Adding unsourced/badly souced content.
• 2nd set of edits to Kombucha, more aggressively citing putative health benefits using bad sources
• 3rd set of edits to Kombucha, adding a bunch of brand spam via images.
• 1st set of edits to Chocolate with badly sourced health content
• 2nd set of edits to Chocolate, as before but now just blowing off sources altogether
• 3rd to Chocolate (see bottom-most, same as before)
• 4th to Chocolate, better in parts but still bringing in primary sources and unsourced
• 5th and 6th to Chocolate, still with the unsourced content.

There is too much work to do here in WP, to be cleaning up after somebody who is this aggressive and who ignores MEDRS so persistently and willfully, and even when they do pay it some mind, skews the content in a marketing way.

Please topic ban this person from editing about food and health. (I don't know how to tailor it more narrowly). I thought about doing this more narrowly to just health (so they could still do edits like the potato one) but I don't want to waste people's time further or get into the boundary issues of "nutrients". So let's be done with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Bodhi Peace seems particularly vulnerable to accepting spam, marketing or personal experience as the basis for changing content on several food and health articles, and has often cited healthline.com as a source (it is a multiauthor, non-expert blog, remote from WP:MEDRS). This talk edit is an example of where a childhood observation led to several reverts and source checks. Each of the user's edits has to be monitored for fact and quality of source, often resulting in reversion or rewrites, and finding a quality source. Rarely does the interaction feel collaborative and productive. I support the topic ban. --Zefr (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A ban from "Health and nutrition, broadly construed", perhaps? It seems such a thing is needed, since they've proven unable to take polite advice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am just passing by this thread, being completely unfamiliar with the situation; however, I do want to interject here on a minor issue, since I have witnessed this become a rather contentious ambiguity in at least one prior topic ban of a user. Namely, it may be important to explicate whether "health and nutrition" here is restricted to human health and nutrition or includes the much broader interpretation of animals (organisms?) more generally. This seems mainly limited to human matters, but it may be best to clarify that now before it serves as a potential problem in the future.

For the record, I maintain no position on the topic ban or this issue, since I am not involved in this issue and have not evaluated it whatsoever. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 05:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic ban is necessary, and I am not convinced of that yet because parts of the edits seem okay, perhaps constraining it to adding primary sources and information based on primary sources to medical articles would be adequate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's that "parts of the edits seem okay" which makes it such a time-sink for other editors to fix, as teasing out source misrepresentations takes a lot of time. The fact there is no proper engagement on the Talk page makes it worse. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this ban, with some appropriate time limit, as I too have had to waste time reviewing and fixing this editor's work in this area. They mean well, but have simply not grasped the requirements for writing about health and nutrition related matters in an encyclopedic manner, and certainly not in accord with WP:MEDRS. (The ban should include animal related matters as well, having had to fix some material on dogs and chocolate.) However, I think they are capable of learning, given some time. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for at least some months, this is into WP:CIR territory given the number of warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see no attempt by the proposer to engage the editor and explain at the talk page of the three articles Sugar substitute, Kombucha and Chocolate why these edits are so problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]
  • Err, of those articles I've looked just at Kombucha and there has been a fairly obvious attempt[1] at engagement. [Response to amended comment by David Tornheim – and what on earth would the identity of the OP have to do with the merits of the proposal to topic-ban Bohdi Peace? That should be decided on the evidence ... Unless this is a way of continuing a long-standing grudge you have against the OP, which would be unhelpful to everybody else here.] Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); amended 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first edit of the long list:

edit to Sugar substitute

This edit adds substantially new content to a high-profile article which has not been removed or even challenged at the article. If it is so problematic that it is the first on the list as justification for topic-banning, then why has the content not been removed and discussed on the talk page of the article before coming here? If the content cannot be contested, this suggests a reason to not topic-ban the editor. I went to Kombucha and Chocolate and saw the OP did not try to raise objections at the article before coming here to raise them. (I had not noticed that other editors have raised objections about the edits at Kombucha and Chocolate. On that I stand corrected.) The lists of warnings on Bodhi Peace's talk page are indeed concerning, particularly the responses here. Ultimately, because of the diff provided at Sugar substitute, my feeling is that we need to work with the editor first in correcting issues. A request that the editor "slow down" before adding new content might be in order as well. But topic-banning seems extreme without first working with the editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As everybody else is saying, they don't engage on Talk. In your haste to disagree with Jytdog you are enabling a problem editor IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"[T]hey don't engage on Talk." That's clearly not true, as you well know, because Bodhi Peace responded directly to concerns you and another editor raised in this discussion at Kombucha. Bodhi Peace even conceded to a requested change with "I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit." diff That seems pretty reasonable.

Additionally, Bodhi Peace responded at the talk page of Chocolate here. After being accused of using blogs, Bodhi Peace replied, "All that information on chocolate poisoning in pets was copy/pasted, cut, summarized, etc. from theobromine poisoning." diff

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They respond but they don't "engage" - the edit then continuing on. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And at Talk:Chocolate#Theobromine poisoning. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Off topic question Am I the only one who just drinks Kombucha because I think it's delicious and doesn't care about the supposed health benefits? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: Do you mean actual kombucha or black-tea mushroom? (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the plain old undiluted tea-mushroom kind of kombucha is quite delicious, although I'm doubtful of the health claims and don't have it much since it's hard to make... Never had kelp tea; didn't know it was a thing until seeing it here :P —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldenshimmer: The word kombucha (Wikipedia's style guidelines favour the more modern spelling konbucha) literally means "kelp tea" in Japanese; it's a mystery why the unrelated fungal growth in black tea (which the Chinese and Japanese call "red tea") is referred to misleadingly with the Japanese word for kelp tea, but the difference is distinct enough that I suspect I probably could have gotten away with editing the "kombucha" article while subject to a "Japanese culture" TBAN. Anyway, for those of us with a loose familiarity with Japanese tea traditions, who first heard about so-called "kombucha" as a result of Wikipedia disputes (I guess the fad hadn't caught on in Ireland before I left?), the distinction is somewhat amusing. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Huh! Cool, never knew all that before. I was aware that "kombu" is something seaweedy, and "cha" means tea, but hadn't made the connection (don't think I would even have thought of "kombucha" as being a Japanese-derived word, since I learned it as an English word before I learned its Japanese constituent of "cha"...) ^~^ —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have experience with this editor on Ted Kaczynski. Some of their edits are useful but it is time consuming to review and fix the not-so-useful contributions. Edits such as this, changing the parameter "days between" (something I challenged but was reverted) to "time between" in order to give data such as "~1 year" and "~1 1/2 years" alongside data such as "2 years 317 days" and "6 years 123 days", just confuse me. None of their edits individually are that bad but it is a persistent pattern where they will need to be reviewed and retouched. To my knowledge, they have not added any referenced material to the article so it is particularly frustrating when you are having to review copyediting. There also are edits such as this, which was explicitly argued against shortly before on the talk page, with no response on the talk page or rationale for addition. In my opinion, they either edit on a whim without much care to the result or Guy's assessment is accurate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was aware of their editing on other topics like Kaczysnki but had not looked at them. I was hoping they were better. Apparently not. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef block User was subject to an indef block six months ago, then a few days later accepted a conditional unblock.[2][3] In the subsequent months, they have violated their unblock condition 35 times (Ctrl+F this for "Tag: New redirect"). It's also unfortunate to see David Tornheim still advocating for NOTHERE editors; I would suggest also TBANning David from AN/ANI/AE discussions in which he is not involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (Edited 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Can we TBAN someone from administrative pages though? From my understanding TBANing was about articles not Wikipedia processes. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely been done. Banning someone from a prescribed DR process is really a no-go, so my initial wording was problematic (I've now fixed it); DT's involvement in ANI threads over the last eighteen months or so (going back, as far as I know, to his highly questionable actions here, which resulted in this mess -- someone who proposed mandatory mentoring as preferable to an indef block, and volunteered himself as the mentor, should never be allowed get away with saying please continue this discussion elsewhere... thanks... when a third party asks them to rein their mentee in, and I think NeilN would have been within his rights to immediately place the indef-block that had not been imposed previously on the sole condition that DT do the mentoring and EC listen to it) has been to undermine the process as revenge for his having been TBANned from GMOs and almost immediately blocked for ignoring said TBAN. Actually, his suddenly showing back up on ANI now comes across as a bit HOUNDish given his history with Jytdog (which, for the sake of full disclosure, I found out about by Ctrl+Fing Jytdog's name on the DT TBAN entry, and noticed him quasi-GRAVEDANCing on Jytdog for having been TBANned by ArbCom from the same topic area the previous year; I actually didn't know Jtydog was subject to a TBAN when I started typing this, else I probably wouldn't have brought up DT's own TBAN from the same topic area). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A one-way interaction ban might be the way to go with respect to David's hounding problems. I haven't bothered opening a case at AE for David's recent topic ban violations (most other people that did have to deal with his issues in the past can easily ignore him now due to his topic ban), but this seems to be a bit of a loose end from the GMO stuff. I don't think this is the best venue for that avenue though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been proposed, I also support an indefinite block. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef block. I would have been more prone to a health content topic ban, but the problems Hijiri 88 brought up compound the issue. This editor was already on a short rope. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Contributions/Mozart834428196

This user has been making edits relating to the Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk, which is either a hoax or something made up. The user made an article about the subject, but it was deleted. Next he redirected the page to Psychedelic folk and made an edit to the page [4]. He has also been inserting related material into other articles [5]. While it appears that many of this user's other edits may be constructive, this behavior needs to be looked into. funplussmart (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved and renamed this thread to try to get more attention to this user. funplussmart (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk is indeed an internet hoax. The question remains as to whether this editor knowingly inserted it as a hoax at Wikipedia, or whether they saw it on the internet and believed it. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If this isn't hoaxing then there are definite competence issues. Lots of unsourced edits, most of which get speedily reverted. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the RfD discussion and apparently it is a made up genre related to the signer Emily Bindiger. I also tagged the redirect for G3 sppedy deletion, which according to several RfD participants is what should've happened in the first place. funplussmart (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Lillyput4455 (talk · contribs) a couple of times on their talk page to avoid adding OR and poorly sourced material to Pakistan related BLPs but despite the warnings, the user continuously adding OR and poorly sourced material to numerous BLPs.

For instance, @GSS: removed OR (added by Lillyput4455) from Mizna Waqas bio on 2 September. Lillyput4455 re-added it saying sources are not required [6].

I also removed the OR (added by Lillyput4455) from Madiha Imam bio on 2 September [7], Lillyput4455 readded it a few days later [8]. The next day I removed it again [9] but Lillyput4455 re-added it again [10]. I removed it again yesterday [11] and cautioned the user User_talk:Lillyput4455#September_2018_2 but today Lillyput4455 reinserted the same OR.

Similarly I removed the OR (added by the same user) from Hiba Bukhari [12]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [13].

I removed the OR (added by the same user) from Rabab Hashim bio yesterday [14]. Lillyput4455 re-added it today [15].

I removed OR from Anum Fayyaz bio yesterday [16] and Lillyput4455 re-added it today [17]. I removed poorly sourced and OR from Sonia Mishal bio yesterday [18]. Lillyput4455 re-added it [19].

And earlier today I removed OR from Maham Amir bio [20]. Lillyput4455 re-added it a while ago [21].

Other than all these, Lillyput4455 has a deep relation with disruptive sockfarms and I suspect Lillyput4455 could be sock of Pakistanpedia and therefore suggest behavioral investigation should be carried out. Lillyput4455 and socks of Pakistanpedia contribute to same type of articles (Pakistani drama actors and TV series). They create articles in same style (add OR and use unreliable sources to support claims) and upload free-use images on Wikipedia with same descriptions. They both use mobile device, often sign their comments in same way (no time and date stamp) and both blank their user talk pages to remove warning messages by the bots.

When I nominated for deletion a BLP (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizna Waqas). User:RidaJunejo (a sock of Pakistanpedia) voted keep, saying the subject played prominent role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz. Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz was created by Lillyput4455 and have no WP:N.

Lillyput4455 came as possible sock in recent SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pakistanpedia/Archive#02_September_2018_2). He also came as possible sock in recent SPI on Wikimedia Commons (commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lillyput4456). --Saqib (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock and this is not your job Saqib (talk) to determine who is sock or who is master user. I added reliable sources to Madiha Imam from Dawn and The News International but instead you called it poorly sourced. You don't want users like us to here. I will always continue my editing regarding actresses and surely with reliable sources. I hope you get that.

Lillyput4455 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As one can clearly, you're adding OR and when you cite sources, they're mostly unreliable sources. And yes, you do sometime cite reliable sources to give the perception that everything is sourced via a RS but source does not support what is contained in the Wikipedia articles which means you're just dodging people. And currently you're edit warring on Madiha Imam. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I found Lillyput to be unrelated to Pakistanpedia. ANI is not the place to determine behaviorally whether the user is a sock despite the technical evidence to the contrary. This has already been hashed out at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saqib is continuing to make the same accusations against Lilliput of sockpuppetry of Pakistanpedia when checkuser has already said there is no link and admins have found no compelling evidence and so this amounts to hounding together with closely following his every edit and nominating his articles for AFD while lecturing him on his talkpage, I believe Saqib should be warned of his stalking. However, Lilliput has used some unreliable sources as well as reliable sources so I suggest he rereads WP:Reliable sources and when he uses websites rather than press, book, or magazines he should check whether the websites are reliable by asking at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Also I don't think Lilliput is a UPE as he has added content to TV articles such as "this series received very bad ratings", "was criticised" etc which a paid editor would not add, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: OK I was expecting this from you. For your kind information, I'm a Pakistani and I contribute to Pakistani related BLPs. I was not hounding or stalking Lillyput4455.These noted BLPs are are in my watchlist and this user has been adding OR and poorly sourced material to BLPs, repeatedly and therefore I think this report is justified and was long overdue. --Saqib (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: WP:HOUNDING states: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Lorstaking (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to the repeated sockpuppet allegations Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: How repeated? This is just the second time. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Also, you mentioned it at afd discussion Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started to look at the edits of the user, and already the first one which I have chosen randomly looks troublesome to me: This edit introduces info which is not sourced (not in an added source, not in the one which was in that paragraph). Will choose now a couple of more edits. (No idea on whether this is a sock).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, adding unsourced text. I mean, it is quite possibly that it could be sourced, but this has not been done.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And adding completely unsourced info.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All three diffs are from the last two days. I do not have time now for further research, but at the very least, this topic should be closed with a strong warning to the user concerning WP:V and WP:OR. It looks like they still have difficulties applying these policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this thread, Lillyput4455 still edit warring on Madiha Imam to add OR and citing unreliable sources. I can see WP:IDHT. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 24h--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I'm fine with a warning for now. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The block must have expired, and I guess there is nothing else to do here for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Lillyput4455's behaviour is still disruptive. For instance, On 7 September, I added ref improve tags to two poorly sourced pages ([22] and [23]). Lillyput4455 yesterday removed the tags from both pages ([24] and [25]). I re-added the tag earlier today [26] however xe removed it again [27] saying the sources are reliable - when the issue is different. --Saqib (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is slowly moving to a content dispute. They obviously believe the sourcing is sufficient, and sources are reliable. The article talk page is the best place to start sorting out this disagreement.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: It appears Lillyput4455 is not going to stop adding OR to BLPs anytime soon. The user created Faysal Manzoor Khan and added OR. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • • Well the article is at AFD and Lilliput has not readded the original research so now he's got it and this should be closed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Lillyput4455 not to add OR a while ago - [28] but he's still trying to add OR. For instance, he just added something which is not in the cited source. --Saqib (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lillyput4455 continue adding unreliable sources to the said BLP. I'm going to stop reverting him because of 3RR. @Ymblanter: --Saqib (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That ref looks to be a mistake rather than deliberate as the names of the directors are very similar, and its not an unreliable source. I've also just advised him about OResearch so this should be enough if he follows the advice, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now xe removed the AfD notice. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've replaced it, he's obviously upset at the AFD so is acting in haste and allowance should be made for that Atlantic306 (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious why you defending him. Lillyput4455 has again removed the AfD notice [29] and continue adding OR [30] despite a warning on his talk page. Clear WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND mentality. --Saqib (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ive readded it and explained to him about it as he thought the wording in the notice meant it was kept so it was a mistake by him not deliberate. He's also agreed not to add original research. One of the reasons Im defending him is because you have upset him with erroneous repeated sockpuppet allegations which is why he does not take much notice of your edits and warnings, hopefully he will follow the advice Ive given him, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see xe re-added the OR even after you left a message on their talk page and xe agreed not to add OR. --Saqib (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, they are close to the second block. Waiting until they start editing again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: WP:IDHT. [31] and [32]. --Saqib (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the user Mainbody warnings regarding editing the Councils_of_Carthage page. He continually removes the primary source material which can be found in first source documents and insisted on using a some source 1300 years later who provides an opinion which is not supported in by the first source. This second hand source may be mistaken as to which council debated the matter in question. All the Canons published by the council of 419 can be found on line and no source supports Mainbody assertion The complete canons of the council can be found here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm I have directed Mainbody to these but he insists on removing edits citing from primary sources perhaps for partisan reasons. I had provided a friendly correction but his response was "yawn". DeusImperator (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:NPA, which makes clear that describing a content dispute as 'vandalism' is unacceptable, and then read WP:RS, and WP:OR. We do not use material dating from A.D. 419 (even in translation) as sources of fact. We cite historians and other scholars for that. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP's analysis. Mainbody's edits are good faith and in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, such as the part of WP:RS that says to prefer secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the actual primary source documents which support the edit. I have read through the canon in which the secondary source cites and it has nothing to do with what is alleged by the secondary source. The secondary source is not credible. Someone might act in good faith and yet be wrong. DeusImperator (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Document cited in footnote #8 does not even match the date of the council. It speaks of a council held in 417 or 418 but even that is incorrect. DeusImperator (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion is a screed, and is a polemical work and not a work of history, and relies on works such as the Foxe Book of Martyrs. I had my suspicions when I read "nisi forte romanam sedem appellaverit " which I have not seen in any of document and appears to be from a historically unknown council of Millevitane which has no source prior to 1500. But post 1500 there are several reference to it. Which call into credibility of the source. (editing: the council of Millevitane may actually refer to the Council of Milevi held in Algeria not Carthage and dealt with the plagian heresy) DeusImperator (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI does not settle content disputes. 86.148.84.151 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majik Ninja Entertainment as "redirect". On the face of it, given there were no !votes other than "merge" and "redirect", this sounds like a pretty obvious decision.

Since then, I have had a couple of complaints on my talk page that Magik Ninja Entertainment is notable and I've made the wrong decision. I've attempted to explain that I have no real opinion if we should have an article on this or not, and simply closed the AfD against the arguments I was presented with. However, I have noticed that John from Idegon has had a bit of a chequered history on the article, including what appears to be violating WP:3RR on 27 August, and before that, Jim1138 has had a go at edit-warring too. The article has since been semi-protected by Ponyo, bringing the disruption to the close. Since then, I see a semi-protected edit request was filed on the talk page; to which John From Idegon gave them a well-reasoned response.

So, my questions to the peanut gallery are the following:

• Did I close the AfD correctly? If not, why not?
• If I didn't, should I start a deletion review, or simply re-open the AfD to allow further consensus?
• Have John from Idegon and Jim1138 been disruptive, or simply following best practice?
• Are the new users complaining on my talk disruptive, or do they have a valid point? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you closed the AFD correctly. I don't think John from Idegon violated 3RR, the edits were removing swathes of unsourced content added repeatedly by an IP which was almost certainly evading a block (as a sock of Demolytionman420). So no, not disruptive. The new users complaining on your talk page are perfectly free to create a draft article and try and improve it so it would meet our notability criteria. You could, as a helpful step, draftify the old article for them. Fish+Karate 10:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances, I would do just that; however given the above discussion, I am concerned that the draft would be set upon by the editors I mentioned above as "against policy", "out of process", "aiding and abetting socks" or some similar rationale. Hence why I wanted to come here first and get a consensus on what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a draft article is neither against policy nor is it out of process, so go for it. Fish+Karate 11:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think draftification is the answer here. The material prior to the redirect was sourced almost exclusively to faygoluvers.com, a website that would best be described as a Juggalo fansite. A better question would be, how did Froggyfixit, a brand new editor whose entire edit history concerns this article, find his way to the talk page of a redirect for his first edit, and figure out how to post a protected edit request? I doubt this is further block evasion, as Froggy writes in more or less standard English and the blocked editors linguistic style was more urban vernacular. But it certainly does seem to be WP:MEAT or possibly WP:UPE. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a trick question. There's never any correct way to close an AfD. EEng 22:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a trap! Blackmane (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems correct to me. They can write a new and better draft if they care deeply. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Tom O'Carroll, identified in his article as a "pro-paedophile advocate", is being disruptively edited by Anotherultimatename. This user has several times added mention of a paper by the subject of the article ("Childhood 'Innocence' is not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex"). See here, here, and here. The addition is opposed both by me (I've removed it several times now) and by ScrapIronIV, who removed it here as "promotional", which arguably it is.

I have tried to indicate to Anotherultimatename that edit warring to add potentially controversial content on a paedophilia-related article, content that is supported by no one other than him, is a really, really terrible idea. I have politely suggested that he should just drop the issue and move on. The user won't seem to get the point, however, and is still adding the content, most recently here. Could admins please step in and put a stop to this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to block, but he's only done one edit on the article today and has filed a request at third opinion to try and resolve the dispute, so I'm going to give him a final warning instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion request is disingenuous. It is for disputes between two editors; in this case, it is two editors versus one other editor. The user just needs to walk away from this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It appears that Anotherultimatename is new, has never been informed of our policy on edit warring, and is trying to use the talk page, but FreeKnowledgeCreator has rather quickly taken this to ANI. This doesn't appear to be an obvious case of editing against consensus, as the talk page discussion is just a back-and forth between 2 users, (ScrapIronIV made a single revert with no discussion on the talk page[33], so I can't see how a 3O request is bad faith). The edit warring does need to stop, but an edit warring block for a new user who has not been informed of WP:EW would be a case of WP:BITE Tornado chaser (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new user, and I believe I know who it is, but checkuser evidence would be stale at this point. I have not filed an SPI report for that reason. There is consensus to keep this non-notable article from the article. Scr★pIron^IV 15:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the article in question that this editor wishes to include is a clear violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT in that it promotes inappropriate adult-child relationships, and actually claims that "...child adult sexual relations are not intrinsically harmful and may be beneficial." This advocates "inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children)" - which is explicitly prohibited. Scr★pIron^IV 16:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of WP:CHILDPROTECT does not support ScrapIronIV's interpretation. The relevant sentence in full is: 'Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked or banned indefinitely'. This would support the blocking of O'Carroll himself were he to become an editor, as he has identified himself as a pedophile, but in no way would it support the exclusion of material about one of O'Carroll's publications. The fact that the views expressed in this publication involve support for almost universally condemned adult-child relationships is no reason to exclude it, as mentioning someone's views is totally different from advocating them oneself. Anotherultimatename (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment that he filed the Third Opinion request after his second request to the dispute resolution noticeboard was declined. The first request was declined due to inadequate discussion and inadequate notice to the other editors. The second request was declined both because the notice was still not properly provided and because, in the talk page discussion, the other editor said that they had nothing further to say. If they have nothing further to say at the talk page, they are not likely to have anything further to say at DRN. It appears that this editor is forum shopping, looking for as many ways to continue discussion or to insert the material as possible. I recommended and will still recommend a Request for Comments. I will also say, as I have said in other disputes, that if saying something twice isn't persuasive, there is no reason to think that saying it five times will be. Use a Request for Comments and be done with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Getting to the actual content of the edit, the article cited (pdf easily locatable on the internet), is indeed a pro-pedophilia journal article appearing in a juried academic journal published by Springer. So that is all true. What remains is a content fight, two against one. I have no strong opinion about whether such content should be included or not; my inclination is to say it should but I wouldn't touch this BLP with a twenty foot pole myself. Bottom line: maybe a slow motion edit war, but nothing "promotional" or with culpable intent, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, there should not be a subsection in the piece on the journal article, but it should be listed as "Works" or under "Further Reading." Not sure the bio should even exist at WP, but that's an AfD question. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for deletion, we'll see what the community says at AfD. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Anotherultimatename is a single-issue account focused on the Tom O'Carroll article to the exclusion of everything else, it is quite plausible that it is a sock. That is one reason I did not bother to notify Anotherultimatename on his talk page about the rules on edit warring. Perhaps I should have done so anyway. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherultimatename has only made 22 edits, so it's a bit early to start calling them an SPA, it is entirely possible that this is just the first topic they plan to edit, you don't need to edit multiple topics in your first 30 edits to be acting in good faith. We must not assume new users are socks and block them for violating policies they were never informed of, if anyone has clear evidence of socking, block the sock(s), but don't assume bad faith like this.

I have now informed Anotherultimatename of the edit warring policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't simply assume new users are socks, but neither should we be blind to things that might suggest that new users are socks. Anotherultimatename was aware of the Dispute resolution noticeboard, so clearly he already knew something about Wikipedia despite the small number of edits associated with the account. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in." is simply not acceptable editing behaviour.

This is yet another example of Jytdog as Saviour of Wikipedia against all other editors. This week he's taken against Yakult. I don't know if you can even buy this in the US, but it's huge in Europe and massive in its original Japan. But Jytdog wants rid of it.

That much is reasonable. But the edit warring and attacks on other editors since are not. This is typical Jytdog and it needs to stop. [34] [35] User_talk:Jytdog#Incivility. In particular, and classic Jytdog, they fall back on MEDRS as an excuse to impose whatever they want (and it's always their subjective WP:OR opinion, not anything sourced) against any source of consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Umm... How are these diffs[36] [37] personal attacks? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're edit-warring and attacks on other editors (and their opinions, which we respect, per consensus). Jytdog has a substantial track record of both this, and of hiding behind MEDRS on utterly irelevant topics (metallurgy?) because he's an unassailable editor "defending" WP against fake medical claims. Yet he's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley I suggest you retract your personal comments about Jytdog, otherwise you look a little hypocritical. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the statement, "He's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot."? Can I use a large <font> tag to make the point? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the statement I am referring to, but it would think it unwise to use the font tag. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jytdog was being less than civil, I'll give you that, but you appear to be assuming bad faith and making personal attacks. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 23:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the latest installment of a long series of behaviour, wherein only Jytdog is a good enough editor to save Wikipedia from the barbarian horde. See User talk:Cullen328#AfD thing. He abuses other editors at an AfD, claims that no-one either will, or is fit to, "save" an article, goes for a fair bit of WP:REICHSTAG about how terrible this "spam" article is and how it must be speedied (but just take a look at the size of Yakult as a company and product). Then when other editors do start to show an interest in working on it, they're abused, reverted, berated at their own talk: pages and templated like a newbie. Such that then only Jytdog gets to edit the article (lesser editors will just be reverted on sight) and then finally there's a victory parade and round of applause from his fans, because only Jytdog was able to save Gotham. No. This is a collegiate project, and Jytdog needs to learn how to work with others. And that starts by leaving out the scatological abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree The incivility from this editor should be obvious from the long list of complaints on his talk page. He had been warned to stop swearing and promised not to continue, yet it continues unabated. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy is all sweaty and exercised, but scurrying to that page to edit badly and leaving such silly notes on the talk page don't help create high quality content. It was rather just WP:POINTY (perfectly so - actually restoring bad and badly sourced, policy-violating content, to make a point).

Ever since that reprap thing Andy has let themselves get all worked up over me periodically, as they acknowledged here (and as anyone can see in that thread).

I'd like folks to consider a one-way IBAN, as mentioned the last time Andy was blocked for their pursuit of me. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jytdog is occasionally over-enthusiastic but he works hard to improve the encyclopedia and is almost always correct. Anyone who works to reduce the promotion of dubious products (or the promotion of products with dubious claims) gets attacked by the promoters and their enablers, as seen here. Of course Yakult won't be deleted and of course those (like me) who point that out won't help to clean up the article. No one is without sin. I support a one-way interaction ban to prevent Andy Dingley from pursuing Jytdog. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I was venting, and shouldn't have, as i noted here. I shouldn't have written that. fwiw, and it may cause yet more trouble, i have struck it Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The point here is that it is not an excuse for you to behave like this, and then strike it, as if that excuses it. You do this all the time. Your wolf-call has worn thin. You are perpetually abusive to other editors, and then you excuse this by reverting later. No. This has to stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry but where is the justification in such hostile behavior and antagonistic retoric by Jytdog? Are we saying that "working hard" means that an editor don't have to be civil? Then I would like to know what level of editing can excuse such a behavior? How is it this behavior acceptable from anyone? be it an IP or a 15 year veteran? Oh and an "IBAN" for reporting bad behavior?  MPJ-DK  00:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I also have concerns about Jytdog regarding WP:civility and WP:AGF, that are completely unrelated to Andy dingly's issues, and can provide diffs if needed, but this kind of standing by personal attacks[38] makes andy's complaint look hypocritical, it seems we have 2 uncivil editors making incivility accusations against eachother. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally agree that it is on both sides, whatever happens should not just be a one sided thing.  MPJ-DK  01:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Drop this and move on I happen to be one of the editors subjected to Jytdog's profane tirade, which he wisely struck out. I list over 110 articles on my userpage where I have saved articles at AfD by expanding and improving them. In this case, I provided four sources indicating that the topic is notable but had neither the time nor the interest to improve this article. I am not required to improve every single article that I recommend keeping at AfD. On the other hand, Jytdog does excellent work in the field of quackery and pseudoscience. Jytdog, please re-read the ArbCom admonitions from 2015, and realize that this type of outburst can lose you allies. Please do a better job of controlling yourself going forward. Andy Dingley, you also ought to control yourself better because your complaint here looks more vindictive than well reasoned. And yes, Yakult is sold in the United States too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am curious as to why repeated incivility is tolerated? Would my edit history also allow me to be uncivil? And "striking it" does not make it go away, a change in behavior makes it go away.  MPJ-DK  01:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is superficially a great question. But investigating actual issues shows that describing content (not contributors) as bad-word is often due to an underlying problem related to promotional content with extravagant and undue claims, with very polite enablers who work hard to make sure the underlying problem remains. It would be great if Jytdog were like Mother Theresa, but such a person would probably not want to battle promotional content with extravagant and undue claims. Wikipedia needs such editors more than it needs superficial civility. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So again, what is the criteria one has to meet where outright hostility is okay? I see too many excuses made for "hard working editors" all of the time here. Would you accept such a behavior from a rookie editor? How about from a vet who should know better by now.  MPJ-DK  02:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support one-way IBan of Andy Dingley towards Jytdog. His stalking, policing, and hounding of Jytdog has got to stop. It has exhausted the community's time, patience, and good-faith. Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So do you support Jytdog's comments at the AfD? Why? Because that is what this ANI filing is about. Your appearance here is unsurprising (Jytdog has many supporters, I expect the others will show up soon), but do you have anything relevant to add to this? Andy Dingley (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my mind this is about your longterm policing and hounding of Jytdog for the past 2.5 years, some of which is detailed in the bulleted list towards the bottom of this thread from March 2017: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley. You got a pass that time because the opening of the thread did not make the case, and it was only spelled out at the bottom of the thread. Since you are still obviously watching Jytdog to find any infraction you can report him for, and since the community has wasted too much time on your vindictive hounding of him, it's time that this were stopped. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You got a pass that time – would that be the ANI posting where Jytdog conflated me with a claimed paid editor, then had to come back and edit his first posting, then strike it altogether? Again, classic Jytdog behaviour - make some sweeping accusation, then if it's challenged, withdraw it and pretend it never happened. No. He needs to stop doing that. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No this detailed and cited pattern of targeting and stalking: [39]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The profanity itself can be only said to be mild incivility, being as they are not directed at people but content; the comments about other editors not helping the article are not ideal but hardly call for sanctions IMO (especially considering he's given an apology and struck it out). Meanwhile, "Yet he's the biggest bully and fraud of the lot." are undeniable strong personal attacks by Andy Dingley. And Andy seems to think that calling content WP:SYNTH- "This source does not mention Yakult. The content doesn't mention Yakult. Content here is OFFTOPIC and only here by some WP:SYN stretching" - are attacks, so is leaving a reasonably valid {{uw-nor1}} warning, apparently because "and their opinions, which we respect, per consensus"?? Apparently people can't argue against someone else's opinion on content without that being an attack? I don't know enough of the history between Andy and Jytdog to support the IBan above, however if anyone should be sanctioned it definitely should be Andy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough of the history between Andy and Jytdog to support the IBan above, however if anyone should be sanctioned it definitely should be Andy.

Well, thankyou for that argument from complete ignorance.

This is about Jytdog's behaviour at Yakult and its AfD. If you want to defrock me, then start another thread. Don't miss out Jytdog filing false SPIs against me, or me being blocked by one of his supporter admins for pointing out at ANEW that his 4RR was blockable, even on the regulars. Jytdog's history is not a glorious one, and I've had to receive plenty of it myself. He is a bully. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know that if WP:BOOMERANG applies it will be applied, and attempts to deflect attention from your behavior won't wash. Pointing to your own block suggests the motivation is more related to retribution than improving the encyclopedia. Just drop it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" Pointing to your own block" – you'll find that was Jytdog. Best ask him why he thought it was relevant to bring it up here. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figure you're experienced enough to know about WP:BOOMERANG. My comments were solely focused on Jytdog's comments and your comments here (which are inexcusable irregardless of any history). And indeed, I've looked into the history more (searching the WP:ANI archives) and that strengthens the case that there's no real substance behind your aspersions and that per Johnuniq you appear to be bringing this for retribution. Since Dingley has continued to attack Jytdog I suggest an admin to impose a block, and I now support a one way WP:IBAN based on looking more at the history of interactions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree I attended the AfD and found Jytdog's ranting about dogshit to be unacceptably unpleasant. The AfD should not have been started in the first place as there was a clear failure to consider alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE. The behaviour reminded me of TenPoundHammer who would likewise start impetuous AfDs and make foul-mouthed rants there. They were banned from deletion activity as a result. As Jytdog has previously been warned by arbcom, a similar sanction would be appropriate. Andy should be commended for his bravery and willingness to confront this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Your repeated attempts to smear any "deletionist" editor you don't like by associating them with the one you managed to get TBANned, while said one TBANned editor has been carefully abiding by said TBAN (clean block log since 2012, unlike yourself) and apparently done nothing to merit your GRAVEDANCE-style celebration of their ban, is highly disruptive, and will no doubt lead to your being TBANned yourself sooner rather than later. The last time you did this (or, rather, the last time I caught you doing this) it involved bringing up a string of RFAs that had ended in September 2009; it's like you're trying to bait the community into trying to do something about you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree Yes, Jytdog's comments are unacceptably unpleasant, and Jytdog should attempt to be more civil. (I've been annoyed by comments made to me in the past.) On the other hand, Jytdog is an important defender of Wikipedia articles against an unrelenting flood of attempts to add material claiming medical benefits for food products for which there is simply no reliable evidence, and there are too few such defenders. I too get exasperated by these additions in the articles I watch, so I sympathize with those whose patience wears thin, even though they are wrong to allow this to spill over into rudeness. Sanctioning Jytdog would just encourage those who keep trying to add unacceptable material. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Jytdog got a bit intemperate out of frustration (I think misguided in this case - there was no way Yakult was ever going to be deleted, and that's all an AFD is there to decide). But that can happen to the best of our contributors who can be passionate about keeping Wikipedia in the right direction. The offending comment has been struck with a recognition that it was inappropriate, and I see no need for any sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Dingley needs to get over himself. Yes, the Yakult article was an advertising brochure. Still is, to a lesser degree. Yes, Jytdog was right to point it out. No, I don't think describing bad content as "dogshit" is necessarily an attack on specific people. Maybe if people weren't so quick to defend and excuse dubious quackery in articles people wouldn't get so worn down and frustrated by it. Reyk _YO! 09:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it is wise for Andy Dingley to focus on civility issues. I am more concerned about why an article like Yakult would be nominated for speedy deletion in the first place and AfD subsequently, and why people continues to template regulars in the heat of a dispute. Jytdog should know better; if there are evidence to suggest these two concerns are part of a pattern, then that should be the main focus. Other than that, I don't see anything else to be done here, as the offending comment has been struck and reflected as inappropriate. Alex Shih (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Per my !vote in the AFD, I agree with you in principle, but the comment four comments up from your own is fairly strong evidence that "consensus to delete" is the only way to fix some articles, even on notable topics, since anytime an editor who has been marked as "a deletionist" attempts to implement any of the alternatives to deletion with or without an AFD they can apparently be subjected to a barrage of "inclusionist" disruptive edit-warring and restoration of the counter-policy content in question. I didn't bother you about the mess at Talk:Mottainai because I was pretty sure you were busy with ArbCom stuff, or the similar mess at Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture because at the time I had no idea who you were and, while that was mostly an "October 2014 to May 2015" affair, you were largely inactive between August 2013 and June 2017, but neither of those are applicable at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. Let's focus on the quality of Jytdog's edits, people, not the the occasional rants in edit summaries or talk discussion profanity which are as common as what one might hear in boardrooms or the Oval Office of the White House. He is a valuable tireless defender of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, invests effort in quality content and sources more than nearly all medical/food editors, and is a highly respected editor of a wide diversity of articles. Ignore the occasional discussion noise, and appreciate the unselfish extent and quality of editing on the encyclopedia project. While I feel Yakult should be retained as an article, the content as it exists now is sufficient (although it is so thin in content, reasons to consider deletion are justified), and Jytdog's edits were appropriate based on WP:NPOV and WP:V. --Zefr (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. Jytdog uses a lot of colourful language, but it's always (in my experience) about content not editors. He's struck the problematic comment at the RfC, and has apologised for venting. Andy Dingley, on the other hand, has called him a bully and a fraud in this thread, a personal attack that he has refused to strike when called to, even threatening to make it large font to emphasise the point. That seems out of line to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've given Jytdog advice about this kind of thing many times, and it's long since gotten to where he has made it clear to me that he is sick and tired of hearing it from me, and for that matter, I'm sick and tired of telling it to him. There is no question that he is a very smart and productive member of the community, a net positive albeit not a pure positive. And I do think that Andy Dingley and Jytdog just need to steer clear of each other. I saw the AfD comments, and I think that they are childish, and that it's unfortunate that Wikipedia has gotten to the point where that sort of thing can be defended. We should not be editing in an environment where that sort of thing is tolerated. I wish that Jytdog would get into the habit of taking a breath before hitting the save button, but I doubt that he will. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I still need to clean up my own act. I am not there yet (you however have no idea how many times I do not-save comments and tone them down before I save them: i am failing too often, still).
  • That said, about the "avoiding each other" thing. What he did at Yakult is the same thing he did the times I described here, as Softlavender recalled above. Describing this as a two way issue distorts reality. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I appreciate it, genuinely, and I wish you well in all of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So just what was my heinous crime at Yakult? And why did it deserve a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This edit from Jytdog completely removed the fact Yakult has 14g of sugar for every 100g. The "citation needed" tag could have been easily resolved. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Somehow I find it slightly related that Jytdog was complaining about issues in food/health articles in ANI (permalink) and this happens too. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 14:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One-way IBAN proposed

• Fghsfijgig (talk · contribs)

Plot sections are a magnet for this sort of junk editing by youthful contributors, but there are limits, methinks. Persistent addition of unsourced content and original research, without regard to numerous warnings, or apparent interest in guidelines. See edit history and deleted warnings. Originally I reported this at AiV, and was directed here. JNW (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a Bambifan101 sock? Blackmane (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user for one week for persistent addition of unreferenced content and original research. Any admin is welcome to extend or remove the block without my prior approval; just let me know on my user talk page what you did and why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AN3

• The House of Fine Art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Accesscrawl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NitinMlk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can any uninvolved admin have a look at Talk:The House of Fine Art & User talk:Accesscrawl#Vandalistic edit?. The page creator twice restored all of the removed user-generated/redundant sources without any explanation, although I've explained each of my edits clearly. And now they are not responding at the article's talk page in spite of my repeated requests at their talk page. I just want explanation from them for their unexplained disruptive edits, so that I can continue the cleanup of the article. BTW, I don't know about the correct forum for this sort of request, so my apologies in advance. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a 3RR violation by either party. There's a valid question about quality of sources, and the community sanctions at WP:GS/Crypto might apply. Still, the currently open AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/The House of Fine Art might be a good place to discuss the quality of sources. In my opinion there isn't a need for admin intervention. NitinMlk should stop using the term vandalism to refer to edits by Accesscrawl. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first time they restoted the unser-generated/redundant sources, along with reverting my valid formatting of the citations, I thought it was a good-faith mistake, as I mentioned in my relevant edit summary. But even after clearly explaining them regarding my edits & providing links to the detailed article's talk page explanations, they again reverted my all edits without explaination, which looked vandalistic in nature to me at that moment, although I guess those edits were unconstructive or desruptive in nature. Anyway, I just want them to disucss their issues at the talk page, if they have any. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Accesscrawl: Do you have a good explanation for this? It looks like you're reverting good faith improvements to an article, which are thoroughly explained on the talk page, without providing any reason. This is a common ownership behavior, and I note that you are the article's creator. WP:BRD is not a reason to revert, it's a basic dispute resolution measure, and it is impossible when the only discussion you're willing to engage in is saying "BRD" and making personal attacks, as you did at User talk:NitinMlk#Hounding. Provide an actual reason for your reverts, or stop reverting. Swarm ♠ 18:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think either editor is behaving well here. One is not engaging in the discussion aspect of bold, revert, discuss, and the other is being borderline hostile, throwing around terms like vandalism when they're not appropriate. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to EdJohnston, where I explained regarding the points made by you. I don't known why you termed me as "borderline hostile", when I was the one who patiently waited for around four hours for their reply after they reverted me for the second time, and when they still didn't respond I just logged out without editing the relevant article. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: NitinMlk filed a vexatious SPI (naming Accesscrawl as a suspected sock of obviously unrelated persons) where he is harassing him by falsely alleging him of "paid editing",[53] and now he is apparently badgering an AfD[54] that is completely outside his interests and he is doing it only for reducing the amount of notability of the subject because Accresscrawl created that article. His talk page messages reads like he is engaging in deliberate nitpicking than building a quality article.[55] Now that is clearly WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Nitinmlk is not even able to understand what constitutes a "vandalism"[56] even after already being told about "WP:NOTVAND".[57] This misuse of ANI after filing a malformed report on ANEW should be as well noted.[58] Now after being warned by EdJohnston above, he is still referring Accesscrawl's edits as "vandalistic".[59] GenuineArt (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is wrong on so many levels. Did you even read the SPI or the closing comments of the admin who stated: This does not exclude the possibility of meatpuppetry and/or collusion of wiki, as it definitely made a convincing case to check. Also, please read my above reply again. I am not calling their edits as vandalism – I just explained my reaction at that point of time. BTW, I guess this is the first article of them which I've ever edited. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not "reducing the amount of notability of the subject" – I've just removed the blogs & websites which were just copy-pastes of the original cited reliable sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPI was frivolous and vexatious. It failed to support your claims. You used SPI for harassing other editors when you made false allegations of paid editing. Apparently you have failed to address that concern. Make it clear now if you really have any evidence that any of those editors including accesscrawl are engaging in paid editing or you were only using these false allegations to belittle them. As for your "reaction", one would find it very hard to believe that an editor editing for 3 years is still not capable of defining what is a vandalism. Can you also justify that why you didn't notified Accesscrawl of ANI or ANEW report? GenuineArt (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GenuineArt, you are diverting the issue in entirely different direction. Anyaway, as far as paid editing is concerned, multiple editors have questioned them, e.g. see here, although my comment at the SPI was regarding the other user, and it was made in a particular context. In fact, they are very eager to get new page reviewer rights, although that request was declined around four days ago. And as I speak, the other user against whom I filed the SPI is demanding the same rights.

Now speaking about Accesscrawl, they have uploaded an Iranian architect's high resolution pic, and marked it as their own work, although that was taken by the architect's personal photographer (as clear from the Exif data & architect's official website details), and it still have a pending ORTS. They've also been involved in the page move request of the Rajneesh, which was apparently available as a paid job at the Upword – see User talk:Accesscrawl/Archives/Archive 1#COI_editing. They also created an articles about an obscure German filmaker, an American architect, an Indian ad films director, etc. And now they have created an article about this British gallery.

Our other interactions are limited to two AfDs, which were noticed by me at the WP:DELSORT/INDIA page, as it is under my watchlist. In fact, it was during one of those AfD's that I noticed the odd editing pattern of the two accounts, and filed an SPI for the same. Other than these three-four interactions, I've been editing in different areas, and will continue to do so. Whole purpose of my these efforts were to save the project from corp spamming.

Finally, I've no issues regarding their or anyone else creations unless the subjects are non-notable, and I end up noticing an AfD for the same. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting NPR is irrelevant. Access crawl seems to have withdrawn the NPR request than making continuous requests like other user. The incidents you have mentioned dont really approve your allegations. You seem to have adopted a pattern of searching edits of accesscrawl while not bringing anything that would undoubtedly approve any of the allegations that you have been making until now. I really doubt if such approach is not really going to bring anything productive because it will only create more problems. I would instead recommend you to avoid confronting Accesscrawl unless you see any actual unambiguous issues. He created The House of Fine Art and we see that the AfD would result in Keep. You can well avoid the article or simply tone down the rhetoic. We can be assured that the article is in good hands since enough experienced editors like Ritchie333, Sam Sailor have been working on the article. GenuineArt (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding not notifying them, these are my first ever edits at the ANI, so that was a genuine mistake. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) (edit conflict) There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the above, if we're assuming good faith. They presented substantial evidence, and the responding admin said they "made a convincing case". So, I'm not not buying the "frivolous and vexatious" angle. Likewise, the "badgering" at AfD was a straightforward, policy-based refutation of one of the "keep" votes. Likewise, the edits to the article in question are clearly explained and reasonably justified. Another admin above says what you describe as "nitpicking" is actually "a valid question about quality of sources". So, at face value, and even beneath the surface, there's nothing wrong with NitinMlk's actions on their own, and yet you're still assuming bad faith. The only actual offense I'm seeing is them mislabeling "disruptive editing" as "vandalism", which also draws attention to to the edits they're referring to, which appear to be a significantly larger offense. So, this can just as easily be interpreted as AC grudging over the SPI. @GenuineArt and Accesscrawl: Please provide your evidence to substantiate the claims of NitinMlk's bad faith motivations, such as "harassment" or "hounding". We need to hear where this is coming from. Please understand that accusations of bad faith require evidence. Continued violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA without supplying evidence may lead to blocks. Make the case for your accusations, here and now, or quit making them. Swarm ♠ 21:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Nitinmlk has a solid argument against the existence of the article or the content then it must be easy to ping the involved editors and highlight the concern. But going around, reporting in admin noticeboards over revert is not exactly encouraged by WP:DR for resolving the content dispute. Nitinmlk falsely accused 4 editors of paid editing on SPI and is still rigid about these claims per his post above. Are you saying that he is correct with pushing his false allegations? At best this is a content dispute that needed a posting at WP:3O than ANEW or ANI. Ultimately much of the dispute will be resolved once the AfD has been closed. GenuineArt (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far the AfD is concerned, if the page creator hadn't halted my edits, I would've already explained that the subject is non-notable. It has hardly four-five lines of independent, encyclopedic coverage. And now you are doing the same. The rest of your comment is mere repetition of the same points, which I've already answered. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good case for WP:3O like I said. Like EdJohnston said, you can still address the sources on the on-going AfD since that is most likely to work most if you want the participants to vote in your favor. GenuineArt (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wanted to clean up the messy sourcing of a mainspace article. But if the page creator or you won't let me do that, then I will produce my analysis of the sources at the AfD itself. BTW, for 3O, I guess there should be some discussion and subsequent differences, but they aren't responding at all. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page history includes edit where AC has disputed the removal of sources. It is enough for requesting input from WP:30. You can also notify any of the associated Wikiprojects for helping with the content. GenuineArt (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are talking about their sole edit at the talk page, regarding which I've explained the same thing to them multiple times already, and they have not responded, as I've clearly explained everything at the talk page. BTW, right from yesterday, I can see a pattern of delaying tactics here, as they are sure that the article will be kept if they can stop me editing the page for next few days. So I guess I will discuss the sources at the AfD itself. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can still take advantage of WP:3O or ping any other editors involved. GenuineArt (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly amazed regarding your interest in the closure of the above AfD. Anyway, I don't believe in taking advantages. So I will give my analysis at the AfD itself within a day or two, as my today's time has already been wasted by you. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if you have any other concern, then please tell me now, as I will log out after a short while. And I don't want to waste my next day here as well. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As expected by me, they don't have any concern. So I am logging out for today. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) None of this answers to my request for evidence behind the allegations of harassment. Also, the claims that NitinMlk should have pursued dispute resolution continue to ignore the fact that there was no disputation provided by AC, beyond the allegation of HOUNDING. Still waiting on that evidence or a specific reason for the reverts. Swarm ♠ 23:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone digs deeper they would find it obvious that NitinMlk's edits are problematic, and that is why I reverted them at first place. There was "disputation provided" on talk page, that the sources are fine for the purpose they are being currently used which is mostly for proving the notability and the prevalence of HOFA.[60] Which policy/guideline supports that you can carry out blanket removal of sources only because a user suspect them to be "user-generated/repeated ones" or one that is "written by a person with no credentials" even if published by a WP:RS? Removal of sources like this[61][62] was also invalid. We are not writing anything controversial or anything exceptional because even if NitinMlk believes the sources are questionable then he should state the reason because as of now the content is "neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Another obvious example would be his removal of Reuters with a misleading edit summary[63] cannot be justified and he never made any mention of Reuters on the talk page[64] contrary to his claims that he discussed every source. There was not any dispute offered that if any of the sources are making misleading claims or the source is being misrepresented or we have to find better sources for the information in question since some subjects do require special category of sources. None of those criteria apply here. Has NitinMlk ever edited this subject before? I don't think if we can see any other reason that why NitinMlk edited the article and AfD except that I am the creator of the article. Not to mention his frequent false accusations of paid editing. He thinks that the article will be deleted but I am stopping him from making efforts, which is frankly absurd because his edits can be reinstated by anyone but no one seems to have shown interest regardless of these filings. AfD is the place where he can state all his reasons without waiting for anyone though I don't think he is able to change the growing consensus to keep the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources does not translate to the article being deleted. Sources are not used in articles to "prove notability". Removing sources does not change a subject's notability. So, your claim that he's removing sources to get the article deleted doesn't make sense. Even if that's what he was trying to do, he'd be wasting his time, because the presence of sources in an article does not correlate with notability at all. But, again, you'd have to have evidence of bad faith to argue that point, otherwise you're just casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Now, if you have no evidence of this, but you still feel the removal of allegedly-unreliable (per WP:UGC) or "redundant" sources is "problematic", then communicate your reasonings in your edit summaries and on the talk page. That's a content dispute. If you're going to dispute content, you have to communicate what exactly you're disputing and why. Failure to do so is disruptive editing. If you think his explanations aren't sufficient, or if certain aspects of his edits are wrong, then that's still a content dispute. AN/I is not the place to argue the merits of disputed edits, that place would be on the talk page, where there is still no content dispute being discussed because you have not yet provided any specific objections there. If you'd like to make specific objections to his edits, that's great, please take it directly to the talk page, and do not ever revert good faith edits without providing specific objections going forward, don't make personal attacks, assume good faith, focus on content issues, avoid personal commentary entirely, and pursue dispute resolution, and admins can stay out of it. Cool? Swarm ♠ 04:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• since Accesscrawl is pressing their case here I will say that their edits to The House of Fine Art are poor quality and promotional (and included stripping the orphan tag twice, without fixing the problem as far as I can see) and that NitinMlk's edits were very good.

Accesscrawl's behavior has also been completely reproachable here, as well, not dealing at all with the poor quality of their own edits and personalizing the dispute.

I will also say that I find Accesscrawl's responses to people at the now-archived COI editing section to be unconvincing.

NitinMlk's behavior with regard to Accesscrawl has not been appropriate, as Swarm has already noted. It is important that we manage promotional and conflicted editing but the way you are going about it is wrong and harms everybody. We can talk about how to better handle this at your talk page. But please stop approaching it as you have been doing. Your behavior here has made this more difficult to manage, which is counter-productive for everyone.

GenuineArt's behavior here has been very reproachable, as they have not dealt at all with the quality of the edits, are acting in WP:GANG fashion simply "supporting" Accesscrawl, who has done little to nothing that is supportable here.

GenuineArt i suggest you step away from this, as you are not helping and are harming yourself.

Accesscrawl. I will ask you here, to please disclose any connection you have to subjects about which you have edited, including HOFA and its owners and any PR agency they have. Your editing and behavior is exactly the same as what we see from freelance editors in Wikipedia . Please be aware that there is a place for conflicted and paid editing but you must disclose and you should follow the prior review process, which I can explain to you. But first things first -- namely, disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has been continually removing this image from the article on the National Museum of Brazil fire, using edit summaries such as "irrelevant photo". I've just restored it again (and in the process seem to have violated WP:3RR - apologies, but apparently I was off by one in counting my reverts this morning.) Other people, too, have restored the image. The removal has been going on at a low level for the past few days, but has really ramped up today.

I've advised the IP user to engage on the article's talkpage, but he/she refuses to do so. Next step appears to be a block to spark at least some kind of response. Given the fact that the IP is extremely dynamic I don't see it helping that much, but it would be at least a start.

I'm not entirely against removal of the picture, but I'd like to hear more reasons beyond "irrelevant photo", which is incorrect.

Any of y'all mind taking a look? I've let myself get too close to the issue and would like another pair of eyes or two on it before acting - also I'm planning on leaving the house in a few minutes and won't be able to get to any actions until this evening at the earliest. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a warning. I'm not watching the page, so if my further involvement is required, please ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The IP has moved to a new address. I'll continue to keep an eye on things and slap a block on if they do it again, with a further link to the talkpage. I'm loath to shut IPs out from the article, but that may end up being the only option. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they moved from 2804:7f2:2785:1261:544:312f:3f53:1b26 to 2804:7f2:2785:1261:ed48:63fe:3699:f602, which are both on the same 2804:7f2:2785:1261/64 network. My (limited) understanding of commercial IPv6 address allocation is that it's common to allocate a whole /64 to a single residential customer, so it's likely these are both the same residence. I've never done it, but I understand there's a way to block an IP range like this, yes? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to do it, I believe, but I haven't the foggiest how, either. Regardless, the article's quiet for the moment, so hopefully the issue's taken care of for now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. An IP from the same range has just deleted the image again. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rangeblock would have been 2804:742:2785:1261::/64, but this one's in a slightly different range, so I've just semi-protected the article instead. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, I'll keep an eye on things for a while...hopefully this will do the trick. I'm sorry it came to a ban on IPs editing the article, but that may have been the best we could do for now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12.53.95.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Somebody please block User:12.53.95.234. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Their only contribution has been a rambling diatribe which they've resubmitted four times in quick succession. I was going to block them myself, but their comments at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Christian Catholic Ku Klux Klan Bible Prophecy Revelation 19 The 3rd Woe The 7th Trumpet The 5th Horseman make me involved, so I'd rather somebody else do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great if the IP could get a non-templating warning explaining them what the problem is. If they continue resubmitting after the warning a block will be in order for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A personalized warning? You're not supposed to rant on Wikipedia (unless you're at ANI where it's required)? I deleted the pages created by the IP. If they persist in their obvious disruption, they should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do about this, an editor using the IP range 172.76.*.* has repeatedly deleted comments on Talk:Bird's_Opening and I'm sure they are well aware of the policy on WP:TALK by now... which is also just plain common sense and good manners. I can only assume they are trolling. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say for the current intensity of these edits imposing a range block or page protection would be an overkill, so for the time being just reverting bad edits should work.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP lookup shows that the parent range is 172.76.0.0/14 (I saw an edit made by 172.79.217.155 here on Talk:Bird's Opening which confirms this). As Ymblanter stated above, this is much-too-wide of a range to justify imposing a range block on, and I also agree that protecting the talk page is overkill - especially given the rate of edits occurring there right now (some edits on June 18-19, then two edits on September 7, one edit on September 9). Unless circumstances change or the rate of disruption from this IP range dramatically increases, reverting the problematic edits is the logical thing to do in this case right now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Theboo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• People's Alliance of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been brought to COIN several times:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 128#People's Alliance of New Brunswick
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 129#People's Alliance of New Brunswick
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#People's Alliance of New Brunswick

Evidence is pretty strong for a COI. He has already been blocked once for COI and paid editing. He has also been accused of outing. And now he's back, editing the same article. Maybe time for a longer block or some other sanction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the traces of possible outing. Kendall-K1, you should report all attempts of outing to the Oversight team so it can be suppressed. I went ahead and took care of all of that for you :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After making exactly 10 edits and achieving auto-confirmed status, User:Mayimbú decided to add Zoë Quinn's original name to her article (which has been discussed on the talk page several times and prohibited as a form of harassment against Quinn). (Quinn's article is semi-protected.) As if that wasn't suspicious enough, the 10 previous edits that Mayimbú made were mostly trivial maintenance tasks that only experienced editors would know about, such as adding thumbtime parameters to video transclusions and replacing dead links with archived links. In other words, exactly the sort of simple, non-controversial edits an experienced editor would make if they were just trying to get a sock-puppet account auto-confirmed, but didn't want to exert much thought or effort. And as icing on the cake, one of their first 10 edits was to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Kaldari (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be nice if an admin could delete the edit to Zoë Quinn. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done that bit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Im the author of the edit in question. I had originally planned to make an edit request on the Talk Page but it was also locked. I was not familiar with the rule that stated it was prohibited posting her original name when i made the edit (I've only read that it cannot be put as "Birth Name" so i put it as "former name", as indicated not only in the Boston Globe source, but also in the Washington Post and Medium source (where it was stated that she used that name during the legal proceedings and changed it legally to Zoe in August 25). So don't get the wrong idea, I started in wikipedia as an user in Commons in February 2017, I did the editing without any bad intentions. If I had known that rule before, I wouldn't have made it. PS: Another thing i did in the edit was changing the {{cite news}} that cited a Tweet for the more convenient {{cite tweet}} and fixing the "Heart Machine" citation. --Mayimbú (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mayimbú. No worries, and thank you for adding to this discussion and for explaining your thoughts behind this matter. We always try to assume good faith by default here and I appreciate you for understanding. On articles that are the subject of a contentious topic or have been the center of contentious editing in the past, you'll see a notification of this on the article's talk page (specifically, what to look for is the notice about the Arbitration Committee and the authorization of uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions). When you see this notice, you'll just need to be extra careful and make sure that any edits you plan to make to these pages aren't or weren't the subject of discussion that came to a consensus in opposition to having the particular change applied. You've only made a handful of edits to the project, and we fully expect new and unestablished editors to make these kinds of mistakes. Worry not; it's a normal part of learning and it's okay to make honest mistakes here. Just take the feedback you receive to heart, learn from those mistakes, and apply them going forward :-). If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend that you go through and complete Wikipedia's new user tutorial. It will provide you with many helpful walkthroughs, guides, interactive lessons, and other information that will be helpful to you. Most users who take this advice and do so tell me later that it was significantly helpful :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

An IP range has edited 11 footballer pages, on 8 Sep 2018, to alter several scores of caps/goals per page. What footballer source, for Nepal players such as famous Rohit Chand (see: fix diff), gives the year totals of caps/goals, so I can check for deliberate hack numbers in the infoboxes? No hurry; pages just altered yesterday, and I've reverted some. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid77 - The IP addresses you listed here come back to the same ISP (a mobile network) and geo-location, and are ASN sub-ranges of the parent range 114.120.0.0/13 (which is massive). I'm not sure of a source on the top of my head that you can easily use to check to verify the information changed - maybe ESPN, TheScore, NBC Sports, or other sources like this? Another editor will hopefully be able to answer that question. Unfortunately, if things get out of control regarding the addition of unreferenced content like this and from this range, the best we can do is look into and block each /16 range involved until we get a better idea of a possible sub-range we can safely block that would put a stop to it and without causing any collateral damage. If the edits have stopped since yesterday (it looks like they have), I'd just locate a source that either confirms or refutes what was changed and revert the ones that don't add up. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 1990'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1990sguy is a creationist who wrote the Conservapedia article on this creationist film ([65]), and then brought it to Wikipedia. From the very beginning her has tried to WP:OWN the article. Numerous editors, including me, have worked on toning it down and adding a reality-based perspective but 1990'sguy has engaged in a months-long one against many campaign to skew it towards the favourable perspective provided by evangelical Christian sources. This has now resulted in two blocks for edit warring, in rapid succession.

I know that Trump-loving creationists are not a popular class on Wikipedia, I think people have cut him a lot of slack for that reason, but the WP:OWN is a time sink and I think we need to ask him to step away from this article. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a few comments from me, not sure if a topic ban is needed yet. The original version was very one-sided, with the only criticism echoed in the article being from someone who apparently said "the narrative that accompanied the rich display of God’s amazing creation fell far short of reflecting what we actually find revealed in nature." There was nothing about rejection from scientific commentators at all. On the other hand, it looks to me as if some have gone too far the other way and have been going over the top to stress the view that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is false - yes, the evidence overwhelmingly shows it to be false, but the article about the film should not be a platform for arguing against YEC (and even stating in Wikipedia's voice that it is "incorrect" - which I removed, though I wouldn't be surprised to see that reverted). So, even though I am fully on the side of the scientific evidence and I reject YEC, I can understand 1990'sguy's frustration too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I am getting a bit of this vibe from both sides of this dispute, what exactly was wrong with this [[66]] it removed a source, but generally the lead should not have sources in it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is no lead in that article, it's all one section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, that edit wasn't performed by 1990'sguy but by 1991'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a nsmutte sock. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It was originally, but was then redone twice by 1990'sguy after it was reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which has been a concern of mine: everytime a driveby edit occurs a new drama ensues. About the sources, the issue is that the content is not in the article's body, so WP:PSCI-complying material, that still needs sources to avoid WP:SYNTH, is currently where the WP:LEAD would normally be (which is currently not an article summary). —PaleoNeonate – 09:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For more context: [67] which also points at another post with diffs (and likely shows my involvement). —PaleoNeonate – 09:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee and PaleoNeonate, one of the problems with this article in particular, is that there is a dearth of mainstream sources about it as a documentary at all, as was pointed out in both the the 2nd AfD (Not just no full-length reviews, no reviews at all. The sources that do discuss it fail the independence test as laid out in NMOVIE: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic (which by definition excludes creationist groups).) as well as the 1st AfD. We don't even have pseudoscience-debunking blogs of reasonable quality debunking the propaganda; that is the extent to which the mainstream has simply ignored it. Literally the only mainstream newspaper that paid attention to the subject matter -- the reason why the film exists --, was this snarky passing mention in the Orlando Sentinel (the writer/producer/director's hometown) which said: "Just a guess, the twist is going to be that the movie answers its own question with a resounding 'NO!'". This is why the page should not exist at all here. Given that it does, we are doing what we can to comply with PSCI. It is a difficult situation.

By the way, 1990'sguy has said here on WP that that they edit Conservapedia (originally here, as well as for example in this thread on their talk page).

Here is the article on "Is Genesis History?" at Conservapedia which includes: Through these interviews, Tackett shows that an overwhelming amount of evidence for a young Earth exists, as well as against the pseudoscientific theory of evolution. (sic), which has been there since the page was created in March 2017. Per its history, 1990'sguy has made every edit there but three, and two of those are bots.

1990'sguy created the page here in August 2017 (without that line) and per its editing stats, they are the biggest contributor here too, with almost twice the next person's (me). The WP:OWN is clear, and it is obvious that the goal is to use the WP article about this propaganda film here in Wikipedia as creationist propaganda, pushing the P&G here as hard as they can and even going beyond them in that effort. Yes, the immune system of the community rejects this sort of behavior and content.Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see the problem if there's no RS coverage of this. And yes, I'd seen the Conservapedia article - it's pretty much as I expect from that project. I would not object to a topic ban, but I'd also want to see the other side not trying to shovel in too much "It's all wrong" stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Extreme animosity to YEC"? Well, I suppose, in the same way that we have extreme animosity towards ideologically motivated bullshit, but this is not just YEC, it is "creation science", a pseudoscience created by creationists specifically to get creationism taught in science class in violation of the US constitution. So animosity is very much justified. The movie promotes a deliberate fraud. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I hear that Boing. I don't think naming creationism as pseudoscience is too much.

By the way, the Christian Post ref cited in the first paragraph now is useful, as it is a secondary source for criticism of the content of the film by Biologos (christians who accept evolution and write about the issue). 1990sguy himself included a primary source blog posting from Biologos criticizing the content of the film when the page was created. That was later cleared out as part of removing blog posts. The secondary-sourced content there now, does the same thing that he himself did, but now with better sourcing (not great, as Christian Post is still in the Christian bubble and we lack anything like the NYT or other high quality mainstream sourcing about the content of the film.) That makes his 2 recent reverts all the worse. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, calling it pseudoscience is fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: The previous version had "pseudoscience", "incorrect", "rejected by the scientific community", plus other statements of rejection - all within the first two sentences. That was over the top. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are entirely different points. "Pseudoscience" describes the manner in which the arguments are made, "incorrect" describes the truth-value of the statements, and "rejected by the scientific community" describes the reception of the ideas by the relevant epistemic community. They are not synonymous. Might there be easier ways or more textually beautiful ways to describe such things? Perhaps! But wholesale removal of content that is not otherwise present (e.g. identification of a claim that is incorrect as being incorrect) seems like it is opposed to best practices according to how we should assert facts. This is not a "shoveling" of "it's all wrong". It's a single word that indicates the truth-value of the statements. jps (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered the user on the Ark Encounter article where the user edit-warred to remove RS content which said in Wiki voice that the Ark Encounter theme park promoted pseudoscientific theories.[68] I stopped editing the page soon thereafter, but I see now that the current version of the article includes the WP:WEASEL language that the theme park has been "criticized" for promoting pseudoscience. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have had dealings with this editor in this article and at one other. 1990'sguy seems willing to listen to views that are different than their own, even diametrically opposed views, and is someone willing to "bury the hatchet" and work with an editor they have vociferously disagreed with in the recent past in order to find a solution to a shared problem. 1990'sguy is also reasonably intelligent and well-educated. I really don't mind editing alongside them, or even arguing with them.

With that being said, I can't actually argue against the charges in the OP. 1990'sguy certainly does seem to want to WP:OWN this page, similar to the way they are the de-facto owner of the Conservapedia page. Their positions on various discussions seem to alternate between being based on due consideration and reason, and based on their admitted POV. Their behavior, while usually quite good, occasionally descends into stubborn edit warring, such as is currently the case.

At the end of my deliberations, I think a "creationism" topic ban would not be a bad idea. 1990'sguy has the ability to be a useful contributor. They have the skills and -apparently- the desire to improve this project. But their own POV seems to trip them up, resulting in out-of-character edit warring and a certain inconsistency to their arguments as they move back and forth between conviction-driven argumentation and reason-driven argumentation. I think they would do quite well on articles that are not about creationism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments. (1) I don't think WP:OWN is a big issue here. Edit warring and civil POV-pushing, sure, but I don't think anyone would look at that article and say "oh, a creationist clearly owns this page." (2) Yes, echoing Jytdog, the problem is that this page shouldn't exist. It's an article about a movie that has received no real reviews in mainstream sources, and coverage comes almost entirely from sources that cover it because it's a creationist documentary. (2a) This most recent edit war was to remove sources about creation science being pseudoscientific. In 1990'sguy's defense, they are kind of awkward there. That's because that sort of thing should come from coverage of the film -- and would exist if the film received any real coverage. It's only due to the convergence of WP:PSCI and a non-notable film article that we have the odd situation of being obliged to characterize something in a way sources about it do not, and so are compelled to cite sources per policy-based best practices even though they're unrelated to the underlying subject. (3) 1990'sguy does well when it comes to keeping his cool on talk pages, I think, and I appreciate that. He is also willing to engage with people he disagrees with at length. However, I do have serious concerns about his ability to abide by NPOV and RS. A topic ban on this article would be more or less pointless, as the edits he wars over almost never stick. The issue is the less well attended discussions/articles elsewhere. That he entered into a debate arguing in defense of WorldNetDaily (WND) as a good source is something that should be a red flag for editing any controversial topic. Likewise comparing creationism and the "theory of evolution"... and a variety of other sourcing/POV issues that run into trouble with our policies. Though I won't link to offwiki sources now, the account he links to on Conservapedia frequently adds "examples of bias in Wikipedia", such as that we treat InfoWars as a terrible source, or that our articles on murder, homicide, and genocide do not include content about abortion... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About WND, I was defending it specifically as an acceptable source to use as a movie review, considering that it's has a relatively large readership. I would never support citing it on WP other than to cite the website's own opinion on an issue.

About the "theory of evolution" quote, I know that "theory" in scientific jargon has a different meaning than the regular vernacular definition.

About Conservapedia, I rarely edit things related to the topics you mentioned -- I mainly do politics, like here. But that's irrelevant, since I keep my work on both sites separate -- I take extra care that my POV on CP (everyone has a POV) doesn't creep into WP. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed There is so much work to do building and maintaining good content. Dealing with 1990sguy trying to capitalize on every drive-by creationist deletions or additions to promote the validity of creationism is a complete waste of time. We all have better things to do with our time (including 1990s guy). Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (nuance Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
• Support 1RR on creationism topic area. I just took a look at the whole situation. From my observation, it seems that 1990'sguy is usually pretty good at keeping a NPOV and has certainly been a very constructive editor even in this topic area. However, his occasional edit warring in this area where he has bias is indeed a big problem. I don't think a topic ban would be necessary, but I do think 1RR on creationism for him would be appropriate in this situation. I don't want him to be forbidden from editing in this area completely, but we do need him to discuss the issues when he does get stubborn. funplussmart (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made many constructive, non-controversial edits on YEC topics: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,22,23,24,25 -- this is a selection of all the non-controversial edits I've done -- I could have linked more. In short, I have made many non-controversial content edits on YEC articles, added reliable sources, and expanded them. I assure you that nobody would have made these edits or updated those articles had it not been for me.

Mind you, my views on political topics are just as strong, if not even stronger, than my views on religious/scientific topics such as YEC -- but nobody's complained about my edits on the literal-thousands of political articles I've edited. I take NPOV very seriously on all articles, and it truly pains me to see and intro paragraph like this stay and even be defended despite its WP:COATRACK violation (and also to see a more mild version, which still calls YEC "pseudoscience" and explains its broad rejection, criticized as somehow being "YEC propaganda"). It also really pains me to see the Ark Encounter labeled and defended as "Ken Ham's creationist exhibit" when it's actually a theme park (with exhibits, not an exhibit of itself) owned by Answers in Genesis, which is a 501(c)(3) with a board of directors, etc. Imagine if I used similar wording to describe an atheist person or an animal rights activist. I have supported wordings on WP that most YECers would cringe at, and I have done my best to keep an NPOV in my YEC editing.

For whatever reason, multiple editors are talking about me on Conservapedia. While I don't deny editing on the site, I don't bring it up here unless provoked -- and I take care to keep my work on both sites separate. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those diffs:

diff, adding In December 2016, for the holiday season, AiG lit the Ark with rainbow colors, the purpose being to "reclaim the symbol from the gay rights movement" and remind viewers of the Covenant (biblical)#Noahic covenant. (USA today ref) Of course you neglected to include the reaction of LGBQT people who were cited in the article, including ""The rainbow is a symbol of love, acceptance, unity and inclusion, said Chris Hartman, director of the Kentucky Fairness Campaign. "None of which Mr. Ham or his operation embrace or embody," Hartman said. Hartman admired the look of the lights, though. "It makes the ark look incredibly gay," Hartman said."

diff just as the above, again just more PROMO, again neglecting more reactions: "“I didn’t realize Noah was so progressive,” while another called it an “awesome pride float.”" and also from here: "That is ABSOLUTE GAYEST BOAT and I 💯💯💯 LOVE IT. "

More seriously, here you talked about Nye visiting, but nothing of what he said, which was “I wanted to see how successful this thing is, or could be, and I wanted to see how children are reacting to it,” Nye said Sunday. His takeaway? The kids are being “brainwashed.” “This could be just a charming piece of Americana, just something — I recently used an app called Roadtrippers that takes you to odd or unusual places…but this is much more serious than that,” Nye said. “This guy promotes so very strongly that climate change is not a serious problem, that humans are not causing it, that some deity will see to it that everything is ok.”" Nothing of that. Just PR for Ham.

This one, yet more PR name-dropping, about Jimmy Carter dropping by. With a bareURL. Nothing from the source about Carter being reality-based and not a creationist. Just the PR.

You actually posted this, where you use a spam link. And talk about what AiG is "currently" doing. Not good.

oh look. Another instance of the Nye visit, added to the Ken Ham article this time. Again, nothing of Nye's reaction.

here adding NOTNEWS content about filing a lawsuit.

here wrong content about what happened with the lawsuit and here yet more. Which I fixed.

So yeah, there were some bad, POV/PROMO edits there. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's edits like this (just now) that pain me -- always an urge to have to rub it in the readers' faces -- something I've never considered doing here. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impugning the motives of others is very much not in the spirit of WP:NPA. You are claiming that I have an urge to do something which I manifestly do not have. You then go on to imply that you are better than me because you've "never considered" such a thing yourself. This is evidence, I would say, that you are better suited to a collaboration where people agree with your point of view so that you don't have to go around claiming that they have motives that they do not have. jps (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does look like a poor edit, adding nothing but redundancy (there is no such thing as "correct beliefs that contradict scientific facts", so no need to add "incorrect" when we already say "contradict scientific facts"). Tornado chaser (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are such things. For example, someone may correctly believe that another person is out to get them, but that belief may be contradicted by the scientific fact that no one knows with certainty the thoughts of another. jps (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a difference between unverified and contradicted, contradicted means you have strong evidence that it is false, not just that you can't prove it true. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. When you cannot verify something is true this is evidence that it is false. One can argue over whether such evidence is "strong" or not, but that's always case-by-case. In many scenarios, this is all that is possible to do. jps (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about what "pains" you. It seems that what "pains" you is identifying YEC as factually incorrect and "creation science" as pseudoscience. That is exactly the problem: YEC is factually incorrect and "creation science" is pseudoscience. The fact that the reality about your beliefs causes you pain is a full and complete explanation of the observed facts, and a compelling reason for you to take a step back. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Off-wiki, I'm surrounded by people who strongly disagree with me on political/religious/scientific topics, and who don't mind talking/debating them. I hope you're not suggesting that I live in a bubble, because closer to the opposite is true for me. What pains me is editors on an ostensibly objective wiki trying to rub this in readers' faces even if doing so violates other policies such as COATRACK, RGW, or UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think how someone edits on an intentionally partisan wiki (conservapedia) should make a difference in how we treat them on wikipedia, we should just judge them by their wikipedia edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1RR on creationism Honestly, this user's behavior on CP shouldn't matter here, and he does seem to be relatively good at keeping things NPOV here. Even in this topic area, he seems to be making non-disruptive edits, so probably just a 1RR in this area is needed and not a full topic ban. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarifying re: Conservapedia in light of comments above. To be clear, I have no objections to someone writing on both Conservapedia and Wikipedia, and even writing in significantly different ways on both sites. I understand that when you (or anyone) write about a subject on both sites, it will be different, and I don't hold it against 1990'sguy that his CP version of the IGH article is significantly more sympathetic in tone and content than ours. Furthermore, I appreciate that when he created the article here he did not simply copy the content/tone but worked to make it more compliant with Wikipedia policy. The reason I brought up Conservapedia above wasn't to comment on his article work there, but specifically about edits on Conservapedia about Wikipedia, where he has commented about disputes over NPOV, RS, etc. here as they pertain to subjects like InfoWars, abortion, creationism, conservative politicians, etc., indicating a non-trivial misunderstanding of or disagreement with wikipolicy and/or how we apply it. When you say something like "Even edits that do not appear to criticize creationism and falsely portray evolution as scientific fact are removed," or that there is a "cabal of left-wing administrators whose goal it is to paint [Alex Jones] as an illegitimate crackpot", that suggests to me an approach to Wikipedia based on a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipolicy. It's not about Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia, it's just about Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes the side of mainstream science, and there is overwhelming consensus that our RS policy means we treat Jones as, in so many words, an illegitimate crackpot. There is, of course, room for disagreement and dissent, and I wouldn't say all of the issues of bias you mention on CP (I haven't actually gone through them all, but have looked at those pages in the past) are baseless or skewed. We get things wrong sometimes. It happens. Like when IGH was kept at AfD (brb writing on RationalWiki about a right-wing cabal on Wikipedia [kidding]). In short: editing Conservapedia is not a problem. Being a creationist is not a problem. Editing creationist topics on Wikipedia without starting with the knowledge that NPOV/RS/FRINGE mean defaulting to mainstream scienc and understanding that InfoWars, etc. are not even close to reliable. I haven't actually proposed/supported a topic ban, fwiw, and would want to do additional digging (on WP, not CP, of course) before !voting. I'm more inclined to support the 1RR before jumping to a tban at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I did not write any of the stuff about InfoWars or Alex Jones. That was added by another (apparently single-purpose) user. They only added it to the main article, so I moved it to the sub-article -- maintenance work, nothing more. I don't even use the word "cabal", including when referring to Wikipedia. Please don't attribute things to me that I did not write. I am agnostic towards Wikipedia's treatment of Jones (mainly because I don't really care), and I've actually cited his article as an example for what Wikipedia should do for YEC-related topics (I think on the Ken Ham talk page). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1990'sguy: Ah! Very sorry about that. Just going to err on the side of striking the whole thing. First time I think I've brought CP, et al. edits into an on-wiki discussion. I was uneasy about it from the start, and now regret it. Let that be a lesson to me, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• i shoulda brought diffs above. Here are some

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're accusing me of being IP 69.168.164.33 or another IP, I'm not. I have never socked. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If I thought you were socking i would have brought an SPI. This is to support my !vote above. That is the second time in this discussion that you have taken stabs at the motivations of others (the first was here, noted here. Unwise. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give any context to those diffs, and you included an edit war that I wasn't involved in at all (but it included the IP). Not unreasonable for me to assume that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The series without you is to show the editing like yours that we have to put up with on this topic. Which reminds me that i have to tweak my vote. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is not a feature film. It purports to portray reality as per the theory. So, all the heavy dose of criticism describing it as unreality is warranted, even three negatives in the lead sentence. (Even for feature films that portray science or history etc., we do include criticisms regarding their correctness. It should be more so here.) All this is content debate. But coming back to the topic, I wouldn't support any sanctions for 1990'sguy, based on just this one incident. They are normally level-headed and I believe they can correct themselves. But, if a repeat of this kind of behaviour occurs at any other creationism article, I would support a t-ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean the first "AN incident"? This report was made because it's a recurrent issue. —PaleoNeonate – 05:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sanctions on 1990'sguy individually. I was one of the first editors other than 1990'sguy to come across Is Genesis History?, when I came across it on new page patrol last August. I made a few edits to counter what I thought was an unduly accepting POV towards the film's claims, and had some discussions about it with 1990'sguy. I found him to be receptive to other editor's opinions and committed to NPOV and consensus-building, despite his evident strong, non-mainstream views on the topic The problematic behaviour around this article didn't start with him, they began with the very contentious first AfD, which brought the article to the attention of several editors who very strongly opposed any coverage of the film that wasn't expressly negative. Since then there has been edit warring on both sides, with 1990'sguy more likely to fall afoul of 3RR simply because he was in the minority, not because he was the only one at fault. The locus of this dispute is a particular article, not a particular editor, and something like a 1RR restriction or full protection on Is Genesis History? would be a more effective and fairer remedy than singling out 1990'sguy for a topic ban.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Roe (talk • contribs)
• Oppose any sanctions on anybody. It appears that multiple parties have edit warred and sometimes the edit war was completely unnecessary. 1990'sguy appears to have engaged in productive discussion like some other editors however the recent activity and engagement in talk page concludes that some people should really take a break from this subject. I support 1RR or full protection on the article as more effective solution per above. Kraose (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any sanctions As I said 1990 is not alone in this on the article ion my opinion. I also agree that there has also been a degree of tag teaming over there. There are POV pushers on both sides, so no one sided bans.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tag teaming implies collusion. Who is colluding, and where? For context, quackery shills also accuse reality-based editors of "tag-teaming" over articles on things like homeopathy. I am not exactly overjoyed by the use of this term absent actual evidence of collusion. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a degree of tag teaming" or to put it another way, there is agreement among certain eds (look at the talk page) that the article will reflect a certain POV. Thus there is a form of tag teaming, they have all agreed on what the article should say they they will make sure it does.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an accusation of tag teaming and POV is fair. I just see a number of editors trying to make the article reflect the consensus of academic opinion (which is what NPOV requires). I do think there has perhaps been a bit of excessive zeal from time to time in attempting that, but that's something that can be worked out on the talk page (as is actually happening). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you call tag teaming is simply policy-based consensus forming. —PaleoNeonate – 13:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on flat earth typically attract large numbers of editors keen to reflect the consensus view that the earth is not flat. Some of us think this is a feature rather than a bug. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the editors on that page don't try to rub the truth in readers' faces. I believe the Earth is round, but I would get annoyed if I read an article that goes overboard trying to prove it's round when it's intended to describe the flat Earth view. Words like "incorrect" don't help me understand the view, even if I solidly come to that conclusion afterward. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support T-Ban I think the closest you'll find to any tag-teaming is a preponderance of editors who follow WP:FRINGE/N and the pseudoscience wikiproject. Which is not the same thing as a tag-team. But an editor who creates an article copied from Conservapedia and then displays WP:OWN tendencies is not here to build an encyclopedia so I'd suggest they look for other, non-creationism related ways, to contribute. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions As noted, Is Genesis History? is a little known and little trafficked article. It should be no surprise that the article creator is a frequent contributor, including the addition of several pieces of information that paint the film in a critical light but were since wiped out by an RfC outcome that forbade the use of the sources upon which those additions were based. That he has been, at times, overzealous in reversions is attested to by a recent 3RR block, but I think Joe Roe's contention above that he is more likely to fall afoul of 3RR simply because he was in the minority, not because he was the only one at fault at least deserves consideration, as does Boing's contention that some of the edits 1990'sguy has reverted appear to Boing! (an editor who, I believe, has a diametrically opposed worldview) to be piling on above and beyond what is necessary to comply with WP:PSCI. Whether or not you agree with Boing!, I think that shows that 1990'sguy's intentions were defensible without resorting to POV arguments, even if his execution has sometimes been less-than-ideal. I have found him to be more than willing to discuss his ideas and work toward compromise on talk pages. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that he reverts every change. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or any (legitimate) reversion of a drive-by edit. —PaleoNeonate – 16:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many users and IPs who have made edits like that, on the several YEC-related articles I watch, and the vast majority of the time, I've ignored it. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]