Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Bad content about health effects of food

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)]
  • 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)

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)

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)

"[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)

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

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

• 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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

The kind I buy at the farmer's market probably ultimately descends from the black tea mushroom variant. But it's basically a thoroughly modern fermented tea beverage. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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))

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)

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)

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)

@Kingofaces43: Continuing to hound the editors who "got him banned" would almost certainly be taken as violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the ban (which was meant to stem, not intensify, disruption). I'm wondering if a community indef block isn't called for at this point, especially given how little of his time seems to go into building the encyclopedia (120 mainspace edits in the last year) compared to the drahma he seems to cause. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• 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)
• Support indef block. The case for a CIR indef is already overwhelming, per the OP and Hrodvarsson, and per the previous issue regarding the endless spamming of dubious redirects, which apparently continues via AFC/R (ironically, according to a user who awarded them a redirect barnstar—"a lot of your requests get declined or don't survive AFD"—not even the competence issue that has already led to an indef has improved). Unbelievably, the user has completely failed to even address this AN/I thread, demonstrating that they're unwilling to understand and to be accountable for their disruption. And, that's not even getting into the fact that, as evidenced by Hijiri, the user has been egregiously violating the editing restriction that allowed them to return from their previous indef. I see absolutely no reason we should continue to invest volunteer resources into this straightforward CIR case. Swarm ♠ 22:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose or Partial support. I suppose I will come here to oppose the proposed topic ban of the editor in question, which is me and the topic is "food and health". I don't know how these proceedings work for the most part, so I avoided discussion and have not read the comments until this moment. The reason I avoided reading or commenting is that I partly desired the break from editing, but more because I wanted to avoid conflict and was trying to assume that the issue was going to be resolved in a short amount of time (1-2 days). I am suprised at the number of comments from different parties. I do need to slow down with some edits of the food and health topics, so I would support a one to two week ban on those topics, however it is mostly the intersection of those two topics that brings me into conflicts with other editors. I don't know how a topic ban is administered and enforced or how the scope is defined, whether technically or through agreement. I am starting to work hard towards making constructive edits by restraining myself from some idiosyncracies that are not within the style guidelines, and realizing when creativity isn't appropriate.
  • I may as well address the edits in question.
    • Sugar substitute: All I did was sort the types by heading alphabetically and add the type "sugar alcohols".
    • Category:Health drinks: I am not very good at some categories, but I can see this is not encyclopedic, just something that is vague and could encompass many different marketing claims, such that the category would not withstand the scrutiny of other editors. In my desire to quickly categorize drinks with health claims, I should have looked for a different method than the category system.
    • Kombucha: I tried to work towards WP:NPOV because I saw the article didn't bring up minor beneficial attributes, but rather sought to refute the most implausible health claims without even mentioning "probiotic" or given examples of those health claims in the lede. I came into conflict with other editors and have bad experiences occasionally on some articles so we began to resolve the disagreement through edits rather than on the talk page. I went to the talk page, but was not quite sure what one editor was getting at so I left the article for a while. The conflict was mostly about how to phrase a 2003 review they cited as a recommendation against the drink, as well as using certain language in portraying the tone ("some", "implausible", etc.). I added images of bottled kombucha drinks sold commercially because that is commonly how it is consumed at least where I live in the US, and I would appreciate it if someone could point out the policy on that issue because, e.g. the lemonade article shows a commercial brand's label.
    • Chocolate: The conflict arose because I saw the article either didn't mention or adequately address the compounds "caffeine" and "theobromine". I directly stated that they could be stimulating but User:Zefr came to say that it was an issue of dosage and pointed me to WP:MEDRS on this. I was stubborn on the issue of theobromine poisoning because of what I had heard and a quick Internet search provided, but you can see on Talk:Chocolate that I engaged in discussion. I can see that I needed to be more level-headed when starting to write some of edits on those stimulating compounds, because, as Zefr said, it is a matter of dose and portraying facts about those compounds can yield BIAS if not backed by the relative dose and amounts.
    • Most of all the redirects I made through WP:AFCRD, but I made some that I thought were unambiguous e.g. anti-nutritional and Konbucha
      • Bod (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block. I can't believe somebody who was unblocked on certain conditions six months ago, and who has been diligently violating those conditions ever since, is still editing here. You say you only made "some" redirects, Bodhi Peace? Compare Hijiri's recommendation to Ctrl+F this for "Tag: New redirect". That doesn't look like "some" to me. Also, the condition for your unblock was that you don't create any new redirects. As for the comments above about David Tornheim, yes, the community can certainly ban a user from one, several, or all noticeboards if that user is persistently unhelpful there. If people believe the cap fits David Tornheim, I suggest they open a separate thread about it. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC).

• FYI, searching for mw-new-redirect in the tag filter may help in viewing. Blackmane (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Blackmane: While that is a useful trick, as I told another editor on my talk page, the egregiousness actually comes across more clearly when you search for it the old-fashioned way (yeah, I know tags aren't "old", but if it wasn't for the tags I would have have said Ctrl+F for edit summaries that include "redirect"), since it shows 35 redirects against only four mainspace page creations that aren't redirects. Bodhi doesn't appear to be under a TBAN from writing new articles, and while it would likely not be a valid exception to create useful redirects for variant names of the topics of new articles created, an argument could be made that it should be an exception; the fact that this is not the case is highlighted by the fact that Bodhi hasn't been creating new articles. (Also @Bishonen: While checking this, I noticed that the new redirect tag is automatically placed on the original titles of pages Bodhi moved, which I think probably is a legitimate exception: the actual number is 29, not 35. Still more than "a few", mind you.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I accepted the conditions on March 11 2018 and realized that I had a problem with creating redirects and would stop. I did stop. I didn't create any new redirects without WP:AFCRD for over 5 months. On August 12, I created the first actual real redirect (Red Bluff, Montana) and as you searched for some others that I thought were uncontroversial. The vast majority of redirects were done through WP:AFCRD and I was even awarded a "Redirect Barnstar" for having mastered the art of creating helpful redirects. That issue has not been brought up independently of my conflicts with other editors over the intersection of food and health.

So you decided after five months that you no longer wanted to abide by your TBAN, and in the month thence you have violated it on a daily basis. And The Duke of Nonsense (talk · contribs), a sock of a troll, decided to thank you for doing so. That you would make such an argument in your own defense shows that you are either trying to mislead the community or are simply too dense to be allowed to continue editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have a TBAN, if I understand what that means; I had a redirect ban. I have not violated it daily. It seems you want to play politics and I don't really want to play that game. I realize inherently there will be a political side to wikipedia, but I prefer rather to do stick to editing. I don't know that user (again a political thing) until I saw that they thought they made a mistake on their talk page regarding me. I'm not really even bringing a defense but I have to say something because it was mentioned. It doesn't even have to do with the issue at hand. Bod (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a TBAN from redirects. Yes, that is a "redirect ban" as you put it, but it is still a TBAN. Even so, let's just say it's not. So you don't have a TBAN. You have a redirect ban. And I would argue that this sure looks a whole lot like a redirect, as well as this, this, and this. Yes, "daily" may be a slight exaggeration, but that doesn't mean you have a free pass to ignore editing restrictions. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, after 6 months, I should have officially appealed to have the TBAN from redirects removed. Bod (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Frankly, I would still like to be able to occasionally edit food articles, especially to structure and grammar fix, without introducing a lot of new material. I would accept a time-limited ban on rewriting or adding new information specifically related to the health or nutrition in food-categorized articles. Over that time period I could observe and learn generally how edits are made to those sections. I could also promise to only use the WP:AFCRD mechanism if it is an issue for some editors, which wasn't brought up independently of the current conflict. Finally, I could promise to try to judge and refrain from unorthodox or "confusing" edits as Hrodvarsson brought up on all unrelated articles to the topic-specific ban. But I still would like clarity on the policy of adding images showing commercial products or brand labels to e.g. lemonade. Bod (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"I could also promise to only use the WP:AFCRD mechanism if it is an issue for some editors, which wasn't brought up independently of the current conflict" Facepalm . You already did promise to do that, after you were indefinitely blocked for spamming bad redirects. There has been a formal editing restriction, logged in your block log and at WP:ER/UC the whole time, which required you to do what you're offering to do. And, as evidenced in this thread, you've been repeatedly violating it. And now all you have to say is "I'll do it if it's an issue." Did the indef block not make it clear that "it is an issue"? This is exactly the type of disruptive lack of competence that makes me support a formal indef. Swarm ♠ 19:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Again, for many months I learned to use the process of WP:AFCRD, which can slow you down quite a bit if, for example, you notice a whole bunch of related and interconnected terms that need redirects created for an article you are working on. Obviously I should have gone through the appropriate administrative channels to have the ban lifted. And I still would like policy reference on the use of brand labels and pictures of commercial products on articles, which was part of the aforementioned edits and I have not been referred to any official policy, for example lemonade. Bod (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBan but Oppose Site Bansee belowOppose indef block. As an AFCRD regular, I was very surprised an autoconfirmed account was making that many good AFCRD requests. From what I saw, Bod is trying to abide by terms of their TBan, and occasional redirect creations are probably errors. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you very much, I have been trying to use the WP:AFCRD mechanism in order to make new redirects and to only be constructive. For all my efforts, I was quite pleased to receive an award (a barnstar). And to me, at least, it seems like a lot of the people here just enjoy the process of banning people. Bod (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • No, saying people enjoy banning people is not assuming good faith and the site ban proposers have reasonable arguments for it. I do not believe they are sufficient, though, so I'm opposing. I will also point out that being uncivil on admin boards will hurt your case more than anything else. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you again, I will try to be civil. Bod (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Umm ... who proposed a site ban? I proposed enforcement of Bodhi's already-in-place TBAN. Your comments don't make a whole lot of sense. If someone is subject to an indef block, accepts and unblock condition, and then ignores that condition, it's standard procedure to put them back under the original block, and I can't for the life of me figure out why no admin has done that yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you haven't figured it out, then I will tell you: because Bod has made many constructive edits elsewhere. The indef you are always taking about was six months ago. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

He was subjected to an indefinite block, and then was unblocked on condition that he accept a binding TBAN indefinitely. He has not successfully appealed that TBAN, and is therefore still subject to it, and on his first infraction (now that it has been noticed) the indef block needs to be restored per the conditions of the unblock. You do not have the authority to "oppose indef block" under these circumstances; you are requesting that the indef block to which he is already subject (and no admin has got around to implementing) be lifted, which is a different procedure. As for whether he is allowed violate his editing restriction with impunity because you think he makes constructive edits elsewhere: NO. That wouldn't be fair to the rest of us who make more constructive edits ("more" here describing both the mass of edits and their level of constructiveness) while still abiding by our TBANs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

1990'sguy

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

---

• 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 ([4]), 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)

• 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)

Frankly I am getting a bit of this vibe from both sides of this dispute, what exactly was wrong with this [[5]] it removed a source, but generally the lead should not have sources in it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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).

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)

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)

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

For more context: [6] which also points at another post with diffs (and likely shows my involvement). —PaleoNeonate – 09:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

(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)

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

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)

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)

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.[7] 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)

• 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)

Completely agree. Nice guy, serious blind spot, unable to separate truth from TRUTH. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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))
• 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)

• 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)

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)

The edits clearly show that I was concise (something I try to do on all articles regardless of topic) and used mainstream RSs. Regarding my linking to the Ark Encouter's website, that was before any consensus was reached that we shouldn't normally link to AiG sources -- the Ken Ham article was full of AiG sources, and the vast majority of them were not added by me. I stopped adding AiG sources once the community decided not to use them. Simply because the edits I linked are not full of expressly negative (or positive) comments (seriously, did you really want me to add the "That is ABSOLUTE GAYEST BOAT and I 💯💯💯 LOVE IT" comment and the other Twitter ones to the article?) does not make them "POV/PROMO" -- if we were to boil down the newsworthy info I added into single sentences (which I prefer to do in general), the resulting edits would look like mine. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If you had replied here and said "yes i see how i am editing promotionally - pulling happy facts for AiG/Ham out of refs and ignoring any criticism of them instead of summarizing the sources'', I would have rethought my recommendations here. The "concise facts" you chose to pull out are all promotional and fail NPOV. You have just provided evidence to me and others that you don't have the self-insight to manage your very strong POV here. (and no, i don't expect you or anyone to "quote the tweets". I copied them here because they are funny and god knows we all need some laughs. But summarizing the sources, which all give significant space to the reactions -- is something that you should have done, and did not do.) Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What pains me is editors on an ostensibly objective wiki trying to rub this in readers' faces...

That doesn't contradict anything Guy said, you realize? --Calton | Talk 04:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(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)

• 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)

A misunderstanding
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) @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) @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)

• i shoulda brought diffs above. Here are some

Extended content

I should have brought diffs above. at Is Genesis History? 28 June 2018‎ diff IP 69.194.178.18 removed quotation marks with edit notes Quotation marks were used to mock creation science and creation scientists restored by IanThompson removed by 1990sguy restored by Guy removed by 1990sguy restored by Guy 22 July 2018 "pseudoscience" removed by IP 69.168.164.33 restored by Krelnik removed by IP 69.168.164.33 restored by Mpants at work removed by Science For The Truth restored by Dawn Bard blah blah 1990sguy account not involved 6 September "pseudoscience" removed by IP 107.77.199.156 restored by Mpants at work removed by 1990'sguy restored by Mpants at work then the ground shifted and we moved on to other things at Answers in Genesis 13 July 2017 diff content added by OtisDixon (blocked for socking Jan 2018) about Andrew A. Snelling "recently" getting a permit to take rocks from the Grand Canyon reverted by me as UNDUE restored by 1990sguy pointing to discussions elsewhere reverted by me as UNDUE restored by 1990sguy pointing to discussions elsewhere blah blah we ended up with content simply saying "reationist geologist Andrew A. Snelling starting working with AiG in 2007 as its director of research" 14 Nov 2017 diff by 1990'sguy changed "young Earth creationist science, instead arguing strongly to convert the public to three central points" to "young Earth creationist research, instead focusing on laypeople and teaching them three central points" with edit note better wording reverted by me with edit note was worse wording. it is a ministry that seeks to convert, per source reverted by 1990sguy with edit note he source does not say convert -- it says spreading the message -- and Christians would strongly object to your wording reverted back by me, editing warring. giving notice. Again, PSCI DS are at play here ended up from others' editing at "Answers in Genesis presents evangelicalism as an all-out battle of their biblical worldview against a naturalistic scientific worldview"

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• Oppose any sanctions on 1990 Support 1RR on creationism 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)

Remember, kids: collusion is not a crime!

-EEng

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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

And right now the article on the creationist propaganda film says that creationism is incorrect and that "creation science" is pseudoscience, which is an equivalent level to saying the earth is round. The problem, as always, is the absence of any reality-based reviews of the film. Still no professional movie reviews. Still the only substantive discussion is among evangelicals broadly supportive of at least the idea of YEC, which is a serious problem for NPOV and always has been. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The IGH article had several critical reviews, including from mainstream organizations, such as Biologos (which I originally added) until you removed them. And regardless, the article survived two AfDs, one without any of those movie reviews present. Are you blaming me for the consensus of the WP community? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't pay the innocent. There are zero reviews from film critics. It was kept due to default no-consensus and bait-and-switch tactics, which is what it is, but it is an abject WP:NFILM failure and there is little or no reality-based critique. As far as I can tell not even God Awful Movies has reviewed this film. It gets filed under "meh, more YEC propaganda". Guy (Help!) 19:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Changed my vote slightly, seems that a 1RR might work, as long as it is no editor can be reverted more then once, else the situation where one edd is being ganged up on persists. As there is POV pushing form both sides no remedy should be in place that rewards one side for it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

I did not "copy" the article from CP -- I worked on it over a period of several months on my Wikipedia sandbox. The layout is similar (not surprising, considering it had the same creator), but I wanted to rewrite it here to make sure I was fully complying with every relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

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

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

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)

• Oppose sanctions for the user. However, I support 1RR on the article due to lack of normal consensus building in that article. Primarily in agreement with Joe Roe but also due to the civil and apparently here comments made by 1990'sguy here in this discussion. However, to hedge my comments, I also suggest a Checkuser to "verify" that the IP edits in question (cited above) were not made by 1990'sguy. Endercase (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a checkuser is necessary and my intention was never to suggest socking. I do however urge you to review the examination of the edits (the ones that 1990's guy offered as good edits) that I did above. The PROMO/POV is very clear. And see the collapsed box for their exacerbating of the problems with drive-by creationists. Their clear view that evolution is pseudoscience (!), as they expressed in Conservapedia, bleeds through, even in edits that 1990sguy judges to be neutral. This is the problem that a TBAN (maximally) or 1RR (minimally) would help manage, saving everyone (including 1990sguy) grief. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser preemptively declined: the policy does not allow connecting an account with an IP address. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If necessary to assure others that I did not edit through those IPs, I would support using CheckUser on my account.

But regardless, Jytdog, you're conflating edits that add concise sentences that aren't expressly negative or positive which meet every WP policy and guideline, with somehow inserting my personal views into articles. If I was actually inserting my personal biases into articles through those edits, the logical conclusion would be that I don't have any personal beliefs. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support using CheckUser on my account. Sorry, but local policy forbids this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've replied above. Please continue there. The diffs show that you are inserting your POV through the "concise facts" -- context-free -- that you are pulling out of the sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed per Jytdog. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from creationism per funplussmart. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not saying that I feel funplussmart was also advocating for a Tban from creationism, just that their reasoning that this was a problematic area for the person in question is similar to my own reasoning as to why a Tban may be appropriate. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions see no evidence against 1990'sguy which would indicate any misconduct. In fact he seems to be insightful. Page sanctions are a better option. Raymond3023 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - What is being argued here? Is 1990s guy actually trying to promote the view that earth is flat or YEC is truth or are they just trying to say that one must not berate the people that hold the theories - but rather berate the theories themselves? I support evolution and the fact that YEC and other BS is false - but I also support arguing maturely and respectfully. Please help me decide on this vote - thanks Sdmarathe (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  You don't have to vote, especially if not reading the whole thread. My impression is that the main argument is WP:OWN-style behavior. —PaleoNeonate – 06:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm and promotion (see Jytdog's comments and diffs). —PaleoNeonate – 06:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions on 1990'sguy. Clearly not a one user problem. The absence of consensus gaining in a collegial manner on the article is too apparent to support the restrictions on the subject or the article in question instead. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions I don't see that this has reached the point where sanctions are needed yet. -Obsidi (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions - I didn't see anything egregious in the editing history, at first glance. Indeed, some of the edits improve the piece over tendentious insertions by others. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose editor-level sanctions per Boing! largely. I feel that those proposing a topic ban have failed to make the case that this is a problem of 1990'sguy's own, er, creation. Rather they've made the case that this is a POV dispute with civil yet unacceptable POV pushing on both sides of it. Support article-level 1RR restriction as a discretionary sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions as several of the editors have already expressed above. This is clearly a controversial article. but nothing so far merits a sanction as such. If anything, I would request more admins to watch this page and protect it more often for a cool down and forced discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from creationism broadly construed. As detailed pretty well above, this is at topic that's a serious POV blindspot for this editor and likely to continue to be a timesink for the community. Being as this falls under the pseudoscience DS, any admin can impose sanctions independent of this ANI too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, there is an eye-bleedingly long discussion at Talk:Is_Genesis_History?#"Ken_Ham's_creationist_exhibit". The base content we are talking about there was added in this diff by 1990'sguy, and like many of his edits on creationist subject matter (as I showed above, failed to summarize the source in a neutral way. It name-drops Wheaton College (which for those who don't know, is Christian and generally conservative), leading the reader to think that the movie was well received there, when in fact the source cited is very clear that the film was not well received there. Guy's edit added something to make it more contextual and is the focus of discussion, but even that edit didn't bring in the very very clear context from the source. This POV name-dropping PROMO editing, ignoring what the source actually says, is the far bigger problem with this passage. This is exactly what happens with this relentless yet oh-so-civil POV pushing advocacy editing, that persistently violates NPOV and especially the PSCI portion of it. We waste time dealing with the wrong things. Argh.Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from creationism, broadly construed for "months-long one against many campaign". Son of Kolachi (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a TBAN, I see the odd bit of problematic wobbling away from NPOV but nothing that warrants a sledgehammer solution such as this. A general 1RR restriction on all editors, either specifically for this article, or broadly to the topic of creationism, is warranted however, as per the evidence provided by Jytdog above. Fish+Karate 12:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  A further note that some of the diffs 1990'sguy has provided demonstrate a similar inability of some senior editors/admins with diametrically opposed views to 1990'sguy on creationism to maintain a neutral and non-adversarial approach to editing. Some of those edits are a whisker away from just adding "bullshit" to the end of every sentence. This doesn't have to be a war, it's supposed to be a collaborative effort. We get you think young Earth creationism is a load of pseudoscience rubbish, you don't need to ensure every related article hammers that point home repeatedly. Fish+Karate 10:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support something - I'm conflicted. I feel like enough evidence exists for a tban on creationism and/or something like "religion-related controversy", but I don't know if there's enough evidence here for me to feel comfortable supporting something that broad (and I don't have time to track down all the past diffs). I do think 1990'sguy is a civil POV pusher who will generally take an opportunity to promote creationism or Christianity or to take a swipe at atheism (the whole Category:Persecution by atheists saga is a memorable mess). Maybe 1RR on creationist topics is what's fair for now since what's most at issue in this thread is edit warring over particular topics. That's not to say I oppose something else, but that I don't feel comfortable supporting something else at this time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions apart from the fact that Jytdog and JzG don't like this person's political views, I'm not convinced of anything by this thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not a matter of "liking". Wikipedia is not based on what people "like". Content is based on RS and the policies and guidelines, and the PSCI policy is clear. WP:Civil POV pushing to promote pseudoscience is a problem that we face on many topics in Wikipedia, because of our open nature and the passion of people who embrace these notions, who keep coming and coming and coming. Creationism is one such topic. 1990sguy and Acdixon are unambiguously doing that. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

    Exactly. A !vote like this has no value and I hope the closer will perceive it as such. While I was considering not to vote personally, a comment like this invites me to do so simply because Jytdog's response reminds me of what a good encyclopedia is about and how it's important for it to reflect reality. —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I've held my tongue on this for a number of days, but I feel we need discretionary sanctions on creationism-related articles. That being said, I can't fully wrap my head around most of the comments opposing sanctions on 1990'sguy: MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)'s comment is essentially saying that he's seen this user behave well on other articles (something I trust his judgement on), but the natural answer there is a narrow TBAN (or PAGEBAN); Endercase only commented because of his tendency to show up to noticeboard discussions where his "friends" are commenting and support them in the most superficial, counterproductive manner (not that MPants is the friend I'm talking about here, not 1990'sguy), and I still can't believe he was never sanctioned for completely ignoring the advice of multiple admins and "mentors". Anyway, I support a narrow TBAN or PAGEBAN for 1990'sguy, per MPants, and a broader TBAN for Acdixon, and as close as ANI can get us to long-term resolution for the article in question, perhaps 1RR, but I think ArbCom will need to look at this at some point because ANI can't provide the necessary solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, Endercase has gotten much better about what he says when he shows up at the drama boards, and that's a solution to the problems he was having just as much as the advice we'd been giving him (that he should just not comment on them at all, for the time). In fact, the more I think about it, the more I agree with him. Curiously, your proposal of DS for creationism is right along the lines of Ender's suggestion of a 1RR restriction. I'm honestly thinking that might be a better solution. I learned that 1990'sguy is a decent editor on a creationism topic, and while it was clear where his sympathies laid from the get-go, he also wasn't consistently problematic about it. Some of his actions were poorly considered, but other times, he does a good job. So it may be that the blind spot that effects him is one he is capable of dealing with on all but the bad days, and if so, then I think topic-level or page-level restrictions as has been suggested by you and others would be the best route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I posted the above at the very bottom of the level-1 thread because it was about both 1990'sguy and Acdixon; the Acdixon part doesn't make a lot of sense now that you've moved it.

Anyway, how can you say he's gotten better about what he says on drama boards when the above is the only drama board comment he's made in over 16 months? I'd prefer DS on creationism so an admin could TBAN 1990'sguy (or any other editor) for disruptive edits to that specific page, whereas Ender just opposed sanctions on 1990'sguy outright. (Although I might be misreading this as his showing up to a discussion and taking what he perceives to be the side of his friend when in fact he's showing up to a noticeboard and opposing user-targeted sanctions, which was another pattern I observed last year.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Question: I have a question: Is the problem confined to a single article? (Is Genesis History?) Or is the problem Young Earth creationism in general? If the former, I suggest full-protecting the article, and also disallowing Acdixon (mentioned in the below thread) from making direct edits to the article. If the problem is Young Earth creationism in general, then this solution would not work. Bottom line: Obviously Wikipedia cannot be a platform for (promotion of) scientifically proven gross impossibilities, and we need to find some workable way of preventing this that does not exhaust the community's time and energy. Softlavender (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Various creationism-related articles. There however are various conservative BLPs on which there was no such drama. —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I have constructively (and non-controversially) updated and improved several articles related to YEC, only using RSs (edits I seriously doubt other editors would have done if it hadn't been for me). I had a completely clean record until I violated 3RR trying to revert POV edits like these, which several admins have agreed were over-the-top: [8][9][10][11] I will take extra care not to violate 3RR again. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from creatinism, broadly construed. I've observed similar pattern of POV-based editing two years ago, on Ark Encounter and Answers in Genesis, for example. Not surprised that this ended up here. It's time for the community to take action. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from creationism, broadly construed. Wikipedia is not, and cannot be, a platform for (promotion of) the most impossibly pseudo-scientific imaginings. There are plenty of other platforms for that, as the editor well knows. The community should not have to exhaust its time policing these articles against this kind of anti-factual POV-pushing. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not tried to promote YEC on Wikipedia. Most YECers would cringe at some of my proposals, where I accepted and even proposed wording acknowledging Wikipedia's PSCI policy. On the other hand, intro paragraphs like this,[12] serious talk page proposals like this,[13] and other over-the-top wording like this.[14][15] are unacceptable on this website, as several admins have affirmed on this thread. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per Jytdog and the evidence presented in this AN/I discussion. Wikipedia's integrity is not something to be trifled with by ideological advocates of any ilk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's integrity is not something to be trifled with by ideological advocates of any ilk. Exactly -- that's why we should avoid intro paragraphs like this,[16] serious talk page proposals like this,[17] and other over-the-top wording like this.[18][19] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban - While I didn't feel like piling on initially, the comments by power~enwiki and Jydog, then K.e.coffman's reminder about the time range, convinced me. Although unfortunate, I think that a topic ban would reduce drama while at the same time permit 1990'sguy to keep up their good work in other areas (some US politics BLPs come to mind, for instance). Persisting drama could otherwise eventually lead to stronger sanctions and prevent such opportunity. It's sad because it reminds me of myself when younger (mostly before my Wikipedia days, but I do remember inserting JW antitrinitarian POV in a Catholicism related article around 2005 or so, receiving a "test edit" template then angrily replying that it was not a mistake). I know what it is to believe and to sometimes think the world is against me. Sanctions are of course not about that, it's a question of attitude, tension management, accuracy and other technicalities... —PaleoNeonate – 04:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban – I haven't seen any particularly egregious offenses, and I'm sure the editor has learned their lesson simply from this discussion. All editors are encouraged to attempt to set aside their own biases and edit from a neutral point of view. Some people may have more of an issue with this than others, but if they're truly here to help build an encyclopedia, their contributions are welcome. Bradv 04:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Everyone has an ideology. I don't think Wikipedia benefits from a purge. It's not appropriate to denounce the film as pseudoscientific or whatever in the opening. Give the readers the facts and let them make their own conclusions. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  It's not appropriate to denounce the film as pseudoscientific or whatever in the opening. Please read WP:PSCI and WP:LEAD. —PaleoNeonate – 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose editor level sanctions or full protection I would not mind 1RR on the article, but this looks like a content dispute where many editors are doing a poor job of being neutral, the solution is to use the talk page to gain consensus for changes, not to only ban one side of the dispute. Per PSCI we do need to say creation science is pseudoscientific, but the pro-science side of this dispute has gone overboard, for example, this intro paragraph[20] was over the top and POV, attempts to use the DS to shut down debate[21] are unacceptable and damaging to the proper functioning of the encyclopedia, and this talk proposal was also less than neutral[22]. Ok, 1990sguy has not perfectly adhered to NPOV either, but TBANs must not be used to settle content disputes. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions. 1990sguy should use the discussion here to reflect and improve their editing before sanctions are needed. I think they will. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  I think they will That's possible, thanks for the good intentions. —PaleoNeonate – 22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to one sided sanctions. As Above has shown there are neutrality issues on both sides here, POV pushing all over the place, in both directions with the results being less than neutral. There are ways of addressing these issues withoht going into the heavy handed, over the top comments that have been added to the article. Sanctions towards one side punishes people for pushing "the wrong" POV, not for simply pushing their POV. That sends a bad message to ediors - "as long as you agree with us you can push your POV into the articles." MPJ-DK (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This ANI thread is getting nowhere. Something needs to be done, but no one can agree on what to do. I'm thinking of requesting arbitration to deal with this. funplussmart (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Which I just did. Maybe we'll finally get a solution. funplussmart (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Acdixon

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

---

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

I am collapsing Jytdog's lengthy OP because it has been divided up below by the named party and they replied to each paragraph separately. I'm going to label the sections of the original post "OP". Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This person is an admin, someone we expect to deeply understand the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines and in general to edit and behave in an exemplary way. Indeed, 1990'sguy noted this quality we expect of admins, in the EWN thread that led to his first block this week, writing :Also, as User:Acdixon noted on Talk:Is Genesis History?, the wording being pushed on that article is so absurd that it even astounded him (a seasoned admin). 1990'sguy was justifying his edit warring by citing Acdixon's support on the content. To be clear, Acdixon has not used the bit in this discussion. (but do see below) Just today, they made this argument on talk with respect to the Ark Encounter: My impression of the place is that its focus is on promoting AiG's theories about the flood more so than promoting its ideas about creationism. Having visited for the first time this weekend, I can confirm that many more of its exhibits deal with flood geology and the logistics of life aboard the ark than with creationism. (Although there certainly ARE creationist exhibits, such as the seven days of creation display I added a picture of yesterday.) If the visit changed my mind about the purpose of the ark at all, it would be in that there are several more exhibits promoting evangelical outreach (symbology of Jesus and salvation in the flood narrative, etc.) than I anticipated. So, in my opinion, it is not incorrect to say it is creationist, but it is more correct to say it promotes flood geology, the feasibility of the ark, and/or seeks to evangelize visitors with AiG's understanding of the gospel. It is these observations – and not some nefarious intent to hide the promotion of creationism at the attraction – that motivated my suggestions. That is a jaw dropper, coming from the account of an admin. Arguing for a change based on their personal experience and treating pseudoscience like YEC and flood geology as though it is some sort of valid "theory". This is an admin advocating for pseudoscience in Wikipedia. They then made this edit, with edit note per talk, which misrepresents the status of the consensus at talk, in this section. Again, this is the kind of thing I expect from a newbie advocate, not from someone to whom we have entrusted the bit. Acdixon's participation in these topics has been pretty much exactly the same as 1990sguys (albeit with less edit warring). But cheek by jowl, and same sorts of arguments. supporting drive-by stripping of "pseudoscience" from the article. As one can see if you look at the history of Ark Encounter, Acdixon actually created it in draft space in April 2016 and it was moved to mainspace here in May 2016. Per the editing stats, Acdixon is #1 with 196 edits and 1990sguy is #2 with 124 and K.e.coffman is #3 with 94. The history is difficult to work out Acdixon for some reason deleted the draft page, using the bit per the log the page itself was deleted in 2010 and later in August 2017 at the request of LegacyPac, a history merge was done with the draft page. That is all confusing to me, but it is a use of the bit on a creationist topic. Here are other deletions Acdixon has made using the bit. A bunch of them are creationist related. I don't if they would be viewed as BLP violations by non-INVOLVED admins or not. I can imagine that some of them were drive-by ugliness. But more directly, diffs: here making a very strained argument about how it is OK to use primary sources in Is Genesis History? and similarly here. Here they threw the "censoring" argument as well as playing the "civil" card, which are two favorite tactics of Civil POV-pushers We finally had Talk:Is_Genesis_History?#Rfc which led to the removal of all that in-bubble primary-sourced content. That was a ridiculous amount of work against civil-POV pushing. That is what civil POV-pushing does. Makes small things into time sinks. This (saying skeptics lie when they say tax incentives helped to build the ark) was both terrible and OFFTOPIC, as I pointed out here (This is a place where I have edited away profanity before saving, as I did when I responded then. But reading that sort of stuff makes me burn) as did MPants here. The reply from Acdixon was ground-shifting, which is another typical Civil POV-pushing tactic. Much more recently, in the series of edits that got 1990sguy blocked for edit warring, Acdixon came in hot at the talk page, directly repeating 1990s'sguy's misreading of Guy's edit here as containing "scare quotes" (guy's edit added italics, not quotes) and repeating 1990'sguy's argument that the possessive in English means only ownership. Acdixon acknowledged some of that here, which was great. This is not about admins needing to be perfect and I am not seeking their bit. But as I said to them on their talk page here, an admin should have the wisdom to stay away from topics where they struggle to and perhaps cannot be neutral. As you can see there, Acdixon is not having that. In my view their presence in this topic creates a time sink, and perhaps more importantly, like it or not their pushing against the PSCI policy as hard as they can is going to lead others to feel justified in following that, as 1990'sguy explicitly said at EWN, quoted above. This is good for no one. I am again asking Acdixon to agree to steer clear of creationism, and if they will not, I am asking the community to consider a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC) NB: in this diff, Acdixon "replied within" the post above. In this diff, I restored the section above. In the same diff as I am making this comment, I am adding signatures to the fragments of my message above, that Acdixon is responding to... Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: This person is an admin, someone we expect to deeply understand the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines and in general to edit and behave in an exemplary way. Indeed, 1990'sguy noted this quality we expect of admins, in the EWN thread that led to his first block this week, writing :Also, as User:Acdixon noted on Talk:Is Genesis History?, the wording being pushed on that article is so absurd that it even astounded him (a seasoned admin). 1990'sguy was justifying his edit warring by citing Acdixon's support on the content. To be clear, Acdixon has not used the bit in this discussion. (but do see below)

Just today, they made this argument on talk with respect to the Ark Encounter: My impression of the place is that its focus is on promoting AiG's theories about the flood more so than promoting its ideas about creationism. Having visited for the first time this weekend, I can confirm that many more of its exhibits deal with flood geology and the logistics of life aboard the ark than with creationism. (Although there certainly ARE creationist exhibits, such as the seven days of creation display I added a picture of yesterday.) If the visit changed my mind about the purpose of the ark at all, it would be in that there are several more exhibits promoting evangelical outreach (symbology of Jesus and salvation in the flood narrative, etc.) than I anticipated. So, in my opinion, it is not incorrect to say it is creationist, but it is more correct to say it promotes flood geology, the feasibility of the ark, and/or seeks to evangelize visitors with AiG's understanding of the gospel. It is these observations – and not some nefarious intent to hide the promotion of creationism at the attraction – that motivated my suggestions.

That is a jaw dropper, coming from the account of an admin. Arguing for a change based on their personal experience and treating pseudoscience like YEC and flood geology as though it is some sort of valid "theory". This is an admin advocating for pseudoscience in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It would have been a "jaw dropper" if that was actually what happened, but it is not. I made that comment – which you have incompletely quoted – in response to an accusation of bad faith by another editor, who said an alternative wording I had suggested "attempts to obfuscate the park's purpose". This comment was meant to show that I have no desire to obfuscate anything, and that accusing me of attempting to do so is an accusation of bad faith. When questioned, I explicitly acknowledged that my observations were WP:OR and not a valid basis for changing anything on Wikipedia, and further, that they were not offered for that purpose to begin with. You presumably saw this response, yet you A) brought the issue up here and represented it as being an attempt to do something that I explicitly denied that it was; and B) omitted the first two sentences of the original comment which make it clear why the comment is being made.

As for treating pseudoscience like YEC and flood geology as though it is some sort of valid "theory", I have made no secret of the fact that I personally ascribe to YEC as a strongly held religious belief. Therefore, my TALK PAGE comments will reflect that worldview, inasmuch as I will say things like "regarded as pseudoscience" as opposed to "are pseudoscience", because I do not personally hold them to be pseudoscience. As far as I know, we allow Muslims to suffix the names of their prophets with (PBUH) when discussing those prophets on talk pages or Jews to render "God" as "G-d" when discussing Him on talk pages because of their beliefs about these constructs, but not in the article space. In the same way, I think I am entitled to reference flood geology as a "theory" (instead of some of the less-flattering descriptors used by others) when discussing it on the talk page. All that said, I know what the prevailing view on YEC is, and IN THE ARTICLE SPACE, I have and will abide by wording that reflects that to the degree required by policy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So you really can't see that bringing in your personal experience inappropriate anywhere in WP. Your feelings or beliefs about science, are also not relevant, and even here you appear to be unable to keep them out of the discussion. And as others have noted below, your effort to persuade others to treat pseudoscience as anything other than pseudoscience, is not OK here in Wikipedia. This is a policy for a reason. What you are doing is exactly the same, as what the tin foil people (literally) do at Electromagnetic sensitivity from a policy perspective. It is not OK here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

bringing in your personal experience inappropriate anywhere in WP Really? So someone arguing against including a creationist source in an article because they know all creationists lie because they used to be one and, at that time, they lied and helped others lie, that would be an example of bringing in your personal experience on WP, right? The exact kind of thing you have just told me you find unacceptable. But that's exactly what MPants did here. And not only did you not call him out for it, as you have done to me here, you implicitly endorsed it by citing it in this very ANI as an appropriate response to one of my assertions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That was an immature response. Even if you were exactly right (there's a world of difference between discussing the reliability of a source and proposing article contents), pointing a finger and saying "well he did it, too!" doesn't excuse anything. Hell, my 10-year-old knows better than that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying you did anything wrong. But if Jytdog is going to make the statement that bringing in your personal experience inappropriate anywhere in WP ("anywhere"; no exceptions or qualifiers), then I think it is worth noting that he has been inconsistent in taking that position. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: They then made this edit, with edit note per talk, which misrepresents the status of the consensus at talk, in this section. Again, this is the kind of thing I expect from a newbie advocate, not from someone to whom we have entrusted the bit. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My comment that the edit was "per talk" reflected three editors (myself, 1990'sguy, and Rhododendrites, who I believe has self-identified as non-YEC) who believed the current wording was problematic, to one degree or another, and another (MPants) who indicated an openness to the replacement wording. The replacement wording was not even my suggestion, but that of Rhododendrites. Despite my view (expressed earlier) that "creationist" is not the most correct way to describe the attraction (although certainly not incorrect, as I also acknowledged multiple times), the edit I made included that term because it is supported by reliable sources and the apparent consensus on the talk page. Despite being asked to propose alternatives in light of the disagreement over the current wording, to my knowledge, you proposed none. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I hoped the change – again, proposed by an editor who was not a YEC proponent and which included elements I was not personally in favor of – would be, in the best case, acceptable or, in the worst case, would provide a basis for future attempts at compromise. Instead, you simply reverted back to the existing version and have still proposed no alternative wording that would suit you.

As for this edit representing "advocacy", I have stated multiple times that my preference is that there be no qualifier at all on Ark Encounter, trusting our readers to be able to click through to a full article on the topic if they are unfamiliar. That was the state of the article until JzG's addition of a qualifier on September 6, just a week ago. In the spirit of compromise, I both proposed an alternative wording for the qualifier and supported others' proposed alternatives, even though I still maintain one is not needed. How, exactly, does the return of the article to its state of about a week ago, or the support of an alternative proposed by a non-YEC editor, constitute pro-YEC advocacy? Your refusal to propose any alternative while reverting any attempt to change the current version that I and others have concerns about sounds to me a lot like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: Acdixon's participation in these topics has been pretty much exactly the same as 1990sguys (albeit with less edit warring). But cheek by jowl, and same sorts of arguments. supporting drive-by stripping of "pseudoscience" from the article. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As 19900'sguy and I share a worldview, it should come as little surprise that our arguments sound similar, no? And I have not supported "drive by" removal of the term "pseudoscience". "Drive by" means "without providing rationale or explanation". I have argued that WP:PSCI does not explicitly require that the word "pseudoscience" be used in every instance where a concept that is considered pseudoscientific is mentioned. It is sufficient to describe it in terms that make it clear that it is considered pseudoscience. Attempts to wedge the word in – here and in similar articles – result in sentences that I consider to be unnecessarily awkward, redundant, and "piling on". Editors such as Tornado chaser (here and here), MPants (here), and Boing! said Zebedee (here) have agreed with one or more of those stances recently. Moreover, the closer of the RfC about sources explicitly suggested "there's a strong-consensus to include the point [that creation science is pseudoscience] but the editorial details need to be settled" (emphasis mine). Starting the discussion in question was consistent with that suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

PSCI says: The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included.. Your "argument" reads hard against the literal meaning as well as its spirit. "as such". Again, you very clearly cannot be neutral on this topic, and you should step away from it. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: As one can see if you look at the history of Ark Encounter, Acdixon actually created it in draft space in April 2016 and it was moved to mainspace here in May 2016. Per the editing stats, Acdixon is #1 with 196 edits and 1990sguy is #2 with 124 and K.e.coffman is #3 with 94. The history is difficult to work out.

Acdixon for some reason deleted the draft page, using the bit

per the log the page itself was deleted in 2010 and later in August 2017 at the request of LegacyPac, a history merge was done with the draft page. That is all confusing to me, but it is a use of the bit on a creationist topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

My use of the bit in this case is consistent with my use of it in non-creationist instances. When I'm done with an article in draft space, I delete it. Just housecleaning. I would have just done a move, but if I recall correctly, because of the previous deletion, that wasn't an option. I may be misremembering that. Regardless, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Do you think I misused the bit? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: Here are other deletions Acdixon has made using the bit. A bunch of them are creationist related. I don't if they would be viewed as BLP violations by non-INVOLVED admins or not. I can imagine that some of them were drive-by ugliness. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You may imagine that they were all drive-by ugliness. Nothing that would have improved the encyclopedia by being visible. I invite any interested admin to check them out and verify. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: But more directly, diffs:

• here making a very strained argument about how it is OK to use primary sources in Is Genesis History? and similarly here. Here they threw the "censoring" argument as well as playing the "civil" card, which are two favorite tactics of Civil POV-pushers We finally had Talk:Is_Genesis_History?#Rfc which led to the removal of all that in-bubble primary-sourced content. That was a ridiculous amount of work against civil-POV pushing. That is what civil POV-pushing does. Makes small things into time sinks.Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The "strained argument" was that sources that are pro-YEC could still be considered independent of this film because they are from sources not directly associated with the film's production. While it is true that all of the sources that take positions on YEC (both for and against) were eventually removed as a result of the RfC, my "strained argument" was not without support there, or in the two AfDs related to this article. It's not like I was the only one making/agreeing with it. As for the censoring, the closer of the RfC explicitly agreed with that reasoning, stating "it's but a fact that the reliability/independency of a source is not a binary concept and the validity of a source almost-always depends on the content it is used to source...Thus, I am very inclined to accept Acdixon's argument that the edit(s) which removed entirely non-controversial information about the film under the pretext of the sources being not very reliable/independent, is a dis-service to the reader." So, not a time sink, but a worthwhile discussion of the merits of my position, in which there were opinions on both sides. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: * This (saying skeptics lie when they say tax incentives helped to build the ark) was both terrible and OFFTOPIC, as I pointed out here (This is a place where I have edited away profanity before saving, as I did when I responded then. But reading that sort of stuff makes me burn) as did MPants here. The reply from Acdixon was ground-shifting, which is another typical Civil POV-pushing tactic.Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You are right that it was a bit off topic, but it was offered as a disproof of a rather outrageous claim by MPants ("There's no equivalence between skeptical group and creationist groups. The former tell the truth. The latter lie through their teeth.") To this argument that skeptics "tell the truth", I offered a counterexample about tax incentives that I still believe is a demonstration of dishonesty by groups hostile to AiG. If it is a poor counterexample, so be it, but I'm still not sure anyone wants to seriously defend the proposition that skeptics never lie. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: * Much more recently, in the series of edits that got 1990sguy blocked for edit warring, Acdixon came in hot at the talk page, directly repeating 1990s'sguy's misreading of Guy's edit here as containing "scare quotes" (guy's edit added italics, not quotes) and repeating 1990'sguy's argument that the possessive in English means only ownership. Acdixon acknowledged some of that here, which was great. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As you note, I acknowledged my error about quotes vs. italics. You seem to ascribe the error to my impulsively agreeing with 1990'sguy because we share a worldview, which is an assumption of bad faith. I was sorting through the diffs in an edit war and didn't read carefully enough, so I took 1990'sguy's word for it (as I would have any other editor's) and immediately corrected my mistake. The larger point is that, whether it was quotes or italics, there was no reason to add either, yet MPants argued to keep them just because he didn't think they were misleading and then bizarrely implied that my wanting to remove them was somehow a result of my YEC worldview.[23][24] Rhododendrites eventually removed the italics and, strangely, no one seemed to care. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OP: This is not about admins needing to be perfect and I am not seeking their bit. But as I said to them on their talk page here, an admin should have the wisdom to stay away from topics where they struggle to and perhaps cannot be neutral. As you can see there, Acdixon is not having that. In my view their presence in this topic creates a time sink, and perhaps more importantly, like it or not their pushing against the PSCI policy as hard as they can is going to lead others to feel justified in following that, as 1990'sguy explicitly said at EWN, quoted above. This is good for no one. I am again asking Acdixon to agree to steer clear of creationism, and if they will not, I am asking the community to consider a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have responded inline above, as there are so many points to respond to that I'm not sure {{tq}} would be effective. I think I have adequately defended myself against the accusations above. I look forward to the community's assessment. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow I have read through some of that talk page and it is clear that User:Acdixon is a WP:POV warrior, repeatedly fighting to keep the word "pseudoscience" out of the article and referencing "flood geology" and "the logistics of life aboard the ark' with a straight face, most inappropriate for an admin or in fact any editor. I don't know how useful this person may be elsewhere on the project but totally agree that s/he should commit to avoid any Biblical or religious article (I don't think "creationism" is broad enough) or be topic banned.Smeat75 (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• 1990'sguy is much easier to engage in discourse with than Acdixon. The huge walls of text posted in response to short comments, the constant use of "dirty" debating tactics, the frequent apparent failures to understand simple statements and the way they contradict themselves through the use of double standards all make it extraordinarily difficult to deal with them. I don't know that Acdixon is intentionally POV pushing (I suspect not), but I do know that, at least when it comes to this topic, they are frustrating and apparently incapable of seeing opposing points of view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• WRT the deleted draft Draft:Ark Encounter I see that Acdixon restored all the edits after having first deleted them. Anthony Appleyard later selectively deleted a bunch of minor category-related edits. I also spotchecked some revision deletions and didn't see anything problematic. Disclaimer: I did not check in-depth for INVOLVEDness issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps because our paths have crossed less, I've not come to associate Acdixon with the kind of tenacious creationist civil POV pushing that I associate with 1990'sguy. That doesn't mean it's not necessarily the case, but that I'd want to see a whole lot more evidence if that were proposed. Really, if there's no consensus for sanctions against 1990'sguy above, I would have a hard time seeing this section going anywhere. More to the point, however, I haven't seen any evidence at all of misuse of tools such that Adixon's status as administrator needs to be called into question. If someone with a creationist POV went for RfA these days, it might have a negative effect on the process and result in, at minimum, an assurance that the candidate would not be using tools in related topic areas. I've seen tons of admins make bad decisions when it comes to their editing. "Lead by example" becomes a problem when it's particularly egregious, and I'm just not seeing it. Do I think Acdixon is wrong with some of his edits/suggestions? Of course! But, yeah, I just can't see this going anywhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• I will add that although I am more or less diametrically opposed to the thrust of many of Acdixon's (and 1990'sguy) ideas for this article, I can understand them being a little flumperated (flummoxed + exasperated, coined just now) at some of what they're arguing against. One of the biggest sections on the talk page isn't about pseudoscience, reviews of the film, etc. but the bizarre wording of "Ark Encounter, Ken Ham's creationist exhibit", complete with preposterous italics and imprecise language for a tourist attraction run by a non-profit organization that Ham is associated with. Is it a false statement? Not exactly, but it's so obviously wonky, and BRD did not prevail. It was added just like that and edit warred to reinstate by Jzg, MPants, and Jytdog. When Acdixon wrote at length why it's a goofy phrasing and objected (as did I, though in fewer words), he got ~"TL;DR" responses. And now we're here. So yeah, while I still haven't made up my mind how to articulate my support for the section above, I would oppose and sanction on Acdixon at this time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I never edit warred to reinstate that material. You need to check the history and strike that accusation. I explicitly stated multiple times at talk that I had no strong feelings about the text one way or another, but was merely responding to the vacuous claim that the wording was confusing and inraccurate.
2. I used to be able to read the OP of this subsection. But that is no longer true. Acdixon decided to refactor Jytdog's post to include his own comments in the middle of it, which is confusing and annoying, and which I've warned Acdixon about before. (Obviously, this second point is not directed at you.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It is because of your previous "warning" that I explained why I chose to use this method of replying. In my estimation, trying to respond to the many points raised by Jytdog below the OP would result in a fragmented discussion that would be a bigger mess than what is above. I have used this method of replying in many complicated discussions previously without incident. You are the only one to ever complain about it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of repeatedly adding it, but after JzG added it, it was challenged by 1990'sguy. Then Jytdog, JzG, and you restored it in an edit war with 1990's guy. Yes, 1990'sguy is the only one who violated 3RR and should've stopped at one, just like it should've gone to the talk page as soon as he challenged it per BRD. I'm not accusing you of violating a rule there, but you did jump in to reinstate the newly added text for the fourth time (the other three being by other users). 1990'sguy had obviously given many more reasons than just "it's confusing and inaccurate". I hate that I'm in the position of defending 1990'sguy on this -- I feel like while 1990'sguy has earned some kind of sanction with his editing, but I don't think that gives anyone license to add and then force a goofy edit rather than follow BRD. If it were reverting an obvious POV push by 1990'sguy, or if the initial change had been his rather than him being the one to challenge it, I'd understand, but I'm straining to believe that anyone thought that "Ark Encounter, Ken Ham's creationist exhibit" was/is primo encyclopedia writing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• User:Acdixon please restore the integrity of my original post, as it stood here. I wrote it as a whole, to be read by other people as a whole. It is not OK for you to refactor my post in a way that thwarts my (or anyone else's) effort to communicate with others. And you did that here at ANI. And you are an admin. Again, this is jaw-droppingly inappropriate behavior. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually to heck with it. I fixed it myself. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did it here at ANI. Just like I've done it on every one of my FACs (example) without incident. No one there found it "jaw dropping" or an attempt to thwart their communication with the community. Not every edit I make has some nefarious intent behind it. WP:AGF Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about your intent. I am looking at what you do. You destroyed my original comment. If you want to know why I think you did it, I imagine it is selfishness and thoughtlessness more than anything nefarious. That doesn't make it any better. You step on other people when you do that. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The {{tq}} template exists for a reason. You have seen I and doubtless dozens of other editors use it for precisely the reasons you just claimed. It's time to get a clue and recognize that breaking up other's comments is rude and disrespectful. And I don't believe for one second that I am the only one to ever complain about it. More likely, I'm the only one here or the only one recently to ever complain about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone please remove or hat the verbatim redundancies in this thread? Long-winded ANI threads are hard enough to follow the logic of without the long-windedness being repeated verbatim. I was going to opine on this thread but it really needs to be trimmed first before newcomers can take it all in. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Edited to add: I collapsed the OP myself. I can't think of any other solution to this issue. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, the best solution would have been for Acdixon to not butcher it in the first place, but evidently the user found himself unable to show restraint. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have not been involved in this dispute, and frankly everything above is tl;dr, but I have worked with Acdixon in the past at Creation Museum, and I have always found him to be reasonable and policy-compliant. He is clear about having personal opinions, and I do not share those opinions, but he is not a POV-pusher. I did read the first paragraph of the OP, and it strikes me as a content dispute in which Jytdog disagrees with what Acdixon said – but that does not rise to the level of requiring something to be done at ANI. If someone edits in a tendentious manner, that belongs here, but if someone holds personal opinions that you don't like, just work with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• This should probably be closed; there is clearly going to be no action at this time, and Acdixon has not agreed to step away. So we will keep working. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:IUC by Pahlevun

I'm not sure if it's the right venue but Special:Diff/858154842 is obviously againt WP:IUC (the part "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts"). Also, an WP:SPI would be nice here. Pinging User:Pahlevun. Ladsgroup^overleg 10:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a long-standing conflict between several users in People's Mujahedin of Iran, which was featured at noticeboards a couple iof times. Did anybody look at it in some detail?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The other party, Stefka, was steadily removing a well-sourced content from two articles on a false allegation. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

IP user expressing incivility in almost every post on The Troubles article.

user:131.164.141.250
This Kind of talk can't possibly be of any benefit to our project across the board, let alone on such a controversial article. The above diff is one of the most serious I could find, but most of this IP editor's posts contain varying degrees of hostility. I can't believe that anyone would come here with a good general understanding of Wikipedia's processes and let themselves go so quickly. I'm therefore also recommending a check user. Edaham (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• The editor was warned for this behavior last month,[25] however he still violates WP:NPA.[26] A block would be fine now. Kraose (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• The attack shown was at 20:52, 25 August 2018, before the warning at 23:05, 25 August 2018, and I see no further attacks since the warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• I see. I hope all goes well then. Edaham (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to note. The Troubles and all related articles and anything broadly defined as related to The Troubles, are under 1RR and subject to discretionary sanctions. Canterbury Tail talk 12:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The IP's comments are seriously out of line and should be sanctioned. If they don't alter their behaviour afterwards then they should be blocked outright. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The diffed comment is very nasty, but it was made on Aug 25, and altogether I don't quite understand why Edaham brought this here 8 days after the IP last edited. The horse has bolted, not much point in closing the stable door. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

IP range replacing wikiproject classes with redirect on talk pages, can anyone roll them all back?

It's [27]. Unless I've misunderstood something, this is all vandalism. Certainly removing a merge template a few days in is. Doug Weller talk 05:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the IP editor replaced "stub" with "redirect" on pages that are redirects. I don't see the problem with that. You can use WritKeeper's mass-rollback script to instantly rollback all edits made by one account (or IP address), but I don't think there are any scripts that work on entire IP ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If left empty for redirects, the banner will update automatically--either assessing the page as Redirect-class or as Unknown-class, so the IP could actually be making better edits than he is. --Izno (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I only see productive edits. Which ones are an issue? Even if there are one or two problem edits that does not justify reverting the rest. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Odd, I thought I'd checked. I blame it on lack of sleep and editing right after I got up far too early. However, this removal of an active merge tag was clearly wrong. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Self promotion

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

---

User talk:Maruyuhum page is a problem....looks like every linked page is a user page used for Self promotion. Seems like a whole series of look at us userpages. Notice all this when reverting odd edits.

AshokSaravanan. The film stars Madhuprakash.R and Saranya.M play the lead roles, with Umavathi.A, Mohammed ithrees, Surendharjith, Dhanveerkhan, Shankar.G.K, Saigugan, and Nishanthini in supporting roles. Siva.N composed the film's music and background score, while Anastheen was the cinematographer, Surentharjith & AshokSaravanan was the Dialouge Writers and AshokSaravanan & Anastheen.S was the editors.The film featured an soundtrack Sung by Agathiya.P.The film began production in September 2018 with callsign of Filmcoordinator InamulHassan

--Moxy (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I deleted all of those pages under G11 as obviously promotional. It is clear that someone does not understand how Wikipedia works, and if the film is notable, then perhaps we can offer some assistance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like everything this user has done on Wikipedia is either vandalism or trolling. Has he received a warning? Because it looks like he is headed for a block. Softlavender (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Maruyuhum is not really a "user", it is the name of a movie now being filmed. My theory is that one person created all of these accounts, one for the movie, and one each for everyone involved in the film. If disruption resumes, I will block the accounts. For now, I have deleted the promotional userpages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• These are all  Confirmed to an LTA and now blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Wumbolo

I kindly asked Wumbolo to take a break from nominating articles to AfD, earlier today, but it's just ridicules now that he continues to nominate articles without consulting talk pages or projects. I don't think he is doing correct research, WP:BEFORE etc. First example I will give is Xterm AfD and now AFree86. Both have gone to snow keep. There are other examples today and yesterday in the log of nominating multiple articles regarding older software and OS systems/ programs. This to me just seems an attack on these old articles without due and not to mention adding AfDs to an already expanding log pile. Would like some admins to review the situation please. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. First, it was I who snow-closed Xterm. But, let's take a closer look at the other one. Looking over the references in XFree86, it's really a pretty poor collection of sources. Lots of references, but blogs, interviews, mailing list posts, source code repositories, etc. I can't find a single WP:RS in the lot. The fact that this is heading to another snow keep just says that people aren't paying attention to our sourcing requirements. Or, maybe they're all just doing the WP:IAR thing. In either case, I really can't blame anybody for bringing this to AfD. And, yes, I've used both Xterm and Xfree86. And I know how important they are. But, we're looking for sources, and I'm not seeing them. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't really use Linux anymore, I've kinda migrated to apple macs and Windows 7, X, long ago, but there were a number of books published for Xfree86, Emil Georgescu published a few, there are published notes which can be classed as a cite in notes on the article. But these are old topics, I hate to say it, but this is kind of an archive of old stuff on wikipedia and to just get rid of these articles without correct due diligence doesn't seem right. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion of cURL is similar; those of semi-DABs of equipment and journal are not similar but may outrage inclusionists. There are also a good number of AfDs that look like they will be non-controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair Wumbulo has only made about one AfD since asked to stop. Importantly however we have a problem not just related to AfD's but also to PRODs (and perhaps a redirect and a speedy) dating from about 12 September 2018 10:25 (and some You tube articles before that), starting with this redirect, though may have been issues before that. The PRODs and redirects are perhaps more serious as they may slip scrutiny if not properly on Wikiproject. Following the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Proposed deletion of Xterm notification and deprod I've done a lot of deprods from Wumbulo's activity with a low threshold, not ideal practice but somewhat swamped, mainly because a number are at least possible merge candidates. Very concerned about Wumbolo's views at User_talk:Wumbolo#AfDs with regard to AfDs etc. This is disruptive because its all focused on destruction and defence rather than trying to improve, not good for genuine volunteers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage Wumbolo to enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: if you want to see my PROD log, or more specifically my PRODs that didn't go through, use User:Ritchie333/badspeedies.py (perhaps change it a bit). I don't want to have a Twinkle PROD log so that people can look at blue links that are article re-creations in the future, after new sources will have been published. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you expect a lot of your PRODs to stay blue (or turn blue again), you may want to reconsider your current PRODding. The log is not just a tool for transparancy, it's also useful to keep track of and evaluate your own actions. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't blame him, to be honest. PROD is a waste of time, you can PROD the most obvious piece of crap article in the history of crap articles, and someone will tootle along and remove it again. PROD is pointless. Just AFD them. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

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

---

Neptune's Trident (over 78k edit count) first did this and this to TFA. Then my inquiry was removed without explanation. Not sure what's going on here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, I made some mistakes with edits, I corrected them right away. That's all, my apologies for any confusion. Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Neptune's Trident: How is adding "Dick!" to TFA a "mistake"? Seems like an unlikely sequence of characters to type by accident. The only explanation I can think of is a bungled vandalism revert, but I can find nothing similar in the recent history. And why did you remove my comment from your talk page, if there was a simple explanation? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to know what happened, Neptune's Trident... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That was me joking around out of boredom and I changed it back right away, I've never done that before in all my thousands of edits. I remove most comments from my talk page, since I don't like having them on there. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Neptune's Trident - I appreciate the explanation and your honesty. Please know that vandalism is not acceptable, regardless of your tenure, number of edits, and your intentions upon doing so. I hope that this won't become an issue again :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not naming any names, but somehow, McKinley isn't who the phrase "President Dick! of the United States" brings to my mind, just saying... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 08:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked into this as a checkuser, since it wouldn't be the weirdest thing for someone to take over an account and then say something like this once they had access. There's no reason from a technical standpoint to believe this account is compromised. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people think this account was compromised. He's been intermittently disruptive for years. The last block was for two months, and the next one should probably be indefinite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. This is a longstanding issue, and the next vandalism/disruptive/BLP violation edit should result in indefinite block. Alex Shih (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, he should probably avoid additions to BLPs such as this. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Neptune's Trident makes edits willy-nilly, nary a single edit summary or explanation in sight, rarely if ever communicates with others. This is not a collaborative editor, not suitable for a project that requires collaborative editing. Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Is there any reason why we shouldn't just indef now? GiantSnowman 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Because blocking after certain time has elapsed is looked negatively upon. But on a second thought, I will take the potential fallout and apply an initial 3-month block; otherwise we would be just encouraging disruptive editing, lack of communication and freedom to vandalise at will for someone that certainly should know better. Alex Shih (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support indef - Having over 78k edits doesn't give you the right to vandalise articles - Whether they self revert or not is irrelevant, The fact of the matter is they shouldn't be making these edits in the first place, Sorry but in my eyes we shouldn't tolerate editors like this. –Davey2010^Talk 13:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Note that Neptune's Trident usually removes warnings and most other notices from their talk page immediately, without replying or archiving them. That's their prerogative, of course, but it does tend to obscure the fact that, despite being a prolific editor, they frequently receive complaints about problematic editing. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Neptune's Trident has been blocked for 3 months. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Alex Shih announced that above. Softlavender (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

He is not here to build an encyclopedia

Stefka Bulgaria does not seem to be here for building an encyclopedia. I provide some diffs and leave the judgment to you admins:

1- He removes the contents on the ground that he can't find them in the cited sources, this is while they are indeed supported by the source:

A) Here, he keeps on removing contents. while they are supported by the sources. Again, he removes same content from another article, while the content is clearly seen in the source.

B) Again, the materials he removes here are fully supported by the cited source and I fixed his false removal.

C) In this edit he removes contents regarding bombing of US buildings by MEK, this is while the content is really supported by the source.

2- He writes a misleading edit summary for his edits and dishonestly removes other contents in between (some sort of Gaming):

A) Here, he removes some sourced content from the lead writing in the lead that Aaron Schwartz's source, here labeled as 'PSJLIA', is not reliable. This is while the most of the materials he removes has nothing to do with the Schwartz's source and are supported by the book by Jonathan R. White.

B) In this edit he removes a well sourced sentence, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable". Stefka is clearly GAMING us by removing the 10,000 figure which is supported by other sources.

C) In this edit he removes two sentences each supported by two different sources. In the edit summary Stefka writes ‘Strategic Culture’ is a Fringe source but removes the second sentence cited to another reliable source.

D) Here and here, he pretends to be inserting quotes from a source, but is in fact removing the sourced materials.

3- Miscellaneous:

A) In this edit, he removes a whole section he does not like to see in the article, only because the title of the section is not matching with its content. He could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material.

The above diffs are only a brief overview of his recent edits in MEK and this editing pattern is just repeated in his previous edits. I've already discussed some of the points on the article talk page, although I think this is a behavioral issue and should be addressed by the admins. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka, whether he is doing right edits or not (I don't have a opinion on that), is made in good faith. Saying he is "not here to build an encyclopedia" is really exaggerating. This shouldn't have gone to ANI, you should have waited for his response at the very least. He does a lot of constructive stuff on this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But those diffs speak for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• This repeated filing of complaints towards editors attempting to balance the MEK related articles (which are heavily skewed to the Iranian gvmt POV) - is not reasonable. In regards to the supplied, diffs - 1A - It would seem Stefka removed un-referenced information (as well as info sourced to the Christian Science Monitor) in a BLP article. 1B - is a rather CHERRYPICKED account of the thenation article (including removal this was "one website"). 1C - the first half of the paragraph is sourced to what appears to be a position paper which seems a somewhat dubious source for unattributed use. 2A - this is a student-edited journal that was removed - quite a sketchy source. 2B - [28] seems like a sketchy source, however it says "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - which does not support - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - or rather is a blatant misrepresentation (as a large portion of the fatalities in the conflict were killed by the Iranian government). 2C - The econd sentence is sourced to a state department report - which is sketchy. 2D - seems like an expansion of content based on the source. 3A - perhaps one shouldn't add off-topic content to a section to begin with? Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  And all that being said - that a bit of information passes WP:V ("supported by the source") - does guarantee inclusion - e.g. per WP:NPOV. Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat on talk page

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

---

User Araldico69 has made what could be considered legal threats on Talk:House_of_Este#Hoax, despite being warned on the same talk page. "I have the right to go to my solicitor and start a defamation process in Italy as this is the competent forum. After that the police will find out the identity of this person that is using a highly defamatory term (this has occurred several times for tripadvisors fake reviewers). I am done it now." & "I also informed you that I printed the page and filed in case this topic continues." Greyjoy ^talk 12:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support NLT Block (Non-administrator comment)Araldico69 was already warned on NLT and yet they continued to repeatedly threaten instead of engaging in the Civil discussion.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Greyjoy you did not notify him, Please inform the editor about this thread using {{subst:ANI-notice}} --DBigXrayᗙ 14:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What about this notification, User:DBigXray? -David Biddulph (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry David Biddulph, I missed the note. Struck off the above line. Cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. They can easily get unblocked of course if they agree they won't take legal action or encourage others to. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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

---

At WP:RSN: "Oh you folks are ABSOLUTELY committing libel and accusing me of fraud." By Roccodb (talk · contribs). -- Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really, but this [[29]] is not all that clever, and they do have a general battleground tone.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, A rant though but not a Legal threat yet. usage of the word Libel does not by itself mean a Legal threat. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• The bizarre thing is that that outburst came after we assured him that we did believe what he was saying is true. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there may be an issue here of a SPA promotional account [[30]] all they have done is try and add the video they claim to have produced, and then get rally angry over it. I think they need a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we've already established that on the RSN thread. Probably does need a warning, considering his escalating hostility (which at first might have been justified, but not after two people assured him we believed him but that the sourcing was inadequate). Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I just read the thread, he makes it clear he doesn't intend to take legal action. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In the thread I make it clear in all caps and I will say it again, I AM NOT THREATENING LEGAL ACTION! I really don't know how much clearer I can be. I did provide undeniable proof the one line I added to the Petra page was 100 percent true, factual, and accurate.They added my video to their Facebook page and labeled it their 1st video which is my claim. Link: https://www.facebook.com/Petraband/?fb_dtsg_ag=Adx2d-asRpes7H8iyR32xTxahYDhSzQt7XhpVErFDRxe5Q%3AAdzTxUGCGDdoxn7q4oAVQJytkzfm3XqEXtB7lGJCcC45qw They shared it from my YouTube channel with my statememt on it I produced it and they did not challenge that. Why would they put misinformation on their own page? They wouldn't. The lead singer Greg Volz also shared it to both his Facebook and Fan page and thanked me. I don't know why Softlavender is continuing to complain about me after that but I assure you, this has left a bitter impression of the way you folks do things. Am I passionate? Absolutely because I am not used to anyone challenging my character, especially in the face of evidence otherwise. It should be over and the statement returned. Anything less is wrong! Roccodb (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to add mention of a minor music video for which we have no reliable independent source. The word "first" has been removed from the mention of the music video we do have a reliable independent citation for. I think we can all drop this now. Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

IP using threatening edit summaries

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

---

209.250.178.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been making rather mundane edits with threatening and inappropriate edit summaries. Examples include about extrajudicial execution in Chile this one that seems like a POV edit verging on vandalism plus the edit summary and others. As the Pinochet example wasn't vandalism per say I brought the issue here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the second diff you provided was the wrong link - this is the one I think you meant to link. Agree that it is blatant vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is what I meant to link. Thanks for the catch. Was rushing between meetings. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Nabil Gabol 2

• Nabil Gabol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Saqib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Balochworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked both of these users for perpetuating an edit war on this article, after the page had been protected due to their previous edit warring and one of them had already been blocked for it. Saqib clued me in to this discussion where it seems this issue has already been brought up, and on investigation it appears I've erred, but I'd like some more opinions on what is the best course of action here.

Saqib has been trying to add some allegations of criminal activity on this Pakistani politician's article, which appear on the surface to be reliably sourced (I'm not very familiar with sources from this part of the world so I have not investigated in great depth). This, approximately, is Saqib's proposed edit. Balochworld objects to negative information being added to the BLP, but has been advised by at least one admin besides myself that this material does not qualify for the WP:BLPREMOVE exemption from 3RR.

Unlike last time there has been discussion on the talk page, but I'm concerned that it amounts to Saqib and SheriffIsInTown talking past Balochworld and implementing contested edits before consensus has really been established. However it could also be that Balochworld is filibustering to ensure no negative material is added at all, and the previous discussion does seem to have concluded that they were at fault. I'm leaning towards proposing topic-banning Balochworld from the article, and reducing Saqib's block to time-served, but I don't want to issue a one-sided sanction without some more uninvolved opinions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment We dont add every negative news of BLP's and example is Salman Khan, Google and some reputable news said that he is the worst bollywood actor (according to google search engine) but there is nothing mentioned in that BLP. One user also requested that in talk page, here [31] but senior user declined [32] and i think same applies in this case. User:Saqib contineously adding negative criminal news and resulting in edit war. Observance22 (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)— Observance22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Looks like a content dispute and the blocks are warranted. I don't see ANI as the correct venue for the content dispute itself and suggest reverting back to Black Kite's stable version and holding on to that till the dispute is sorted out. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• All of Balochworld's mainspace edits since 2012 have been to three articles: Nabil Gabol, Gabol, and Allah Bakhsh Gabol. I think it's about time they were encouraged to contribute elsewhere, possibly with a t-ban. Unfortunately, they haven't been warned about ARBIPA DS that I can see, so that may have to wait. I also see that they may have been using sockpuppets. That said; their behavior was not so egregious that Saqib should have been warring with them, and even if it had been, as an experienced editor he should have known to ask for admin attention rather that to continue edit-warring. As such I think both blocks were warranted. Saqib has, at least, admitted error, so I wouldn't be against lifting the block for a persuasive unblock request. Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this fell under ARBIPA since it doesn't seem to concern India, but I alerted both to the ARBBLP discretionary sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the description of the 2013 murder allegations as a BLP violation, since he has not been arrested, tried or convicted. Major Pakistani press coverage of him in recent years does not even mention these five year old unproven allegations of involvement in a murder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I do not think there was any thing wrong in Saqib's edit. It was balanced and NPOV'd and covered all aspects of the allegation, from allegation to investigation to exoneration to rejection of investigation findings by the other party. As long as the content is sticking to the sources, there is nothing wrong in its inclusion and I do not think it is a BLPVIO in anyway. We cannot appease folks by removing information which they do not like. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but I must disagree with you about this matter, SheriffIsInTown. Coverage of a completely unproven allegation of involvement in murder, made five years ago by the father of the victim, without any evidence, and without a trial, let alone a conviction, is a serious BLP violation in my judgment. Removing such content does not "appease" anyone. It is required by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: He was accused of murder, a joint investigation team was formed to investigate the allegations. This was all reported in reliable sources. I thought it was fair to tell the whole story in the article as per the sources instead of just completely removing the mention at all. This was not the only allegation against this individual so I think it is fair to mention the murder allegation in addition to other allegations and let the reader decide for themselves. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, I removed a single sentence which read ""In September 2013, Gabol was named in the murder of Zafar Baloch, leader of Peoples' Aman Committee," and two supporting references. There was nothing there about an investigation or an exoneration. This sentence by itself is most definitely a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A fundamental problem that everyone should have with the section that Saqib added is the section header "Criminal activities". Activities ... meaning Gabol did something ... but everything in the section is accusation and investigations that apparently led to absolutely nothing. That's a falt out BLP violation that should be removed on the spot. Unless you want an article that doubles as a hit piece. Ravensfire (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Cullen328: The only problem I see with Saqib's version is the section heading as pointed out by Ravensfire otherwise I see everything fine. Some of the content was agreed upon by me beforehand and with everything else I am agreeing now. If you disagree then let us discuss every bit and piece of that edit so we can come to a conclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Balochworld is an SPA and they had made very less contributions outside that page. Nabil Gabol was created by them which was filled with POV and puffery languages. Saqib attempted to improve that page which involved removal of praise and introduction of negative information about the individual which was well sourced. Balochworld did not like it and wanted to censor it and was met with resistance by Saqib. Balochworld attacked Saqib personally and Saqib reported them at ANI. Balochworld accused Saqib of having ill-will towards Nabil Gabol and requested involvement of another editor to vet out Saqib's edits. Me being involved in another ANI thread at the time saw Balochworld's request decided to fulfill Balochworld's request and play a role of mediator. My involvement resulted in content going in favor of Balochworld in some aspects and in favor of Saqib in other aspects. Saqib accepted the decision which went against him but Balochworld did not which went against him. The edit referenced above by Ivanvector has parts which were agreed upon by me. I stopped following that page thinking the issue between these two editors was already addressed. They just had to follow the consensus achieved at talk. Considering all this, I would not blame the admin for his actions but I personally think that Saqib's block is a bit harsh as he tried whatever he could to resolve this issue but sometimes tenaciousness of POV pushers can get best of us and we tend to go overboard. Wikipedia is a way better off without editors like Balochworld. They are not here to build encyclopedia but that is not the case with Saqib. Saqib has displayed time and again how valuable he is for the project. Blocking Saqib is the loss of the project not his! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)